Jihadin wrote: Medical Malpractice Insurance I believe is why it takes three to four months. Final authority rest with the "CEO" of the hospital to admit the surgeon name for coverage. I do belive....and I'm not throwing him under the bus that D-USA might have better overview on this. I left the medical field a long time ago
It's more than that. The Medical Staff Office actually vets the MD with background checks... validating DEA licenses (ordering narcs).
Training... No Hospital System is the same. Not to mention the EMR system.
So we (and the doc) had to call all around to other hospitals to find some place/doc that would accept her. Which meant that he would have zero responsibility or ability to care for the patient anymore.
Also gonna need some clarification on that. A doctor is free of responsibility if they don't have admitting privileges?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Admitting privileges are a big deal especially for smaller rural hospitals that don't have the capabilities to treat every patient that walks into the ER or comes out from surgery or goes to the clinic.
I'm aware.So how does legislative requirements for very specific procedures help that?
Dr. Smith performed a bowel resection (abortion, extraction, whatever) on Jane Doe. Jane has complications that require advanced teeatment at a larger facility.
Dr Smith has admitting privileges at Bob Hope Hospital. He calls the admissions people (or the floor/unit perhaps) and say "I need to admit Jane for complications of (whatever). I want her to see the doc on that dloor that can treat her. Give her medication A, B, amd C if she needs it." Dr Smith may possibly be able to help the doc that is treating her (as a consultant, depending on the hospital policies, etc).
Or else.....
Dr Smith calls Jerry Garcia Hospital where he has no privileges. He has to speak to their admissions team (usually a special 800#). "I have Jane who is having complications from (whatever). I need to find a doc that will accept her as a patient." The admission person says "OK, I have to see what doc is around and if they are willing to accept Jane. Let me make some phone calls and call you back."
30 minutes later admissions calls back "Ok, Dr Bob might accept her, please call Dr Bob with relavent patient info to see if he will accept." (Nobody at that hospital may accept her...that is their choice)
Dr Smith calls Dr Bob and Dr Bob accepts.
Dr Smith has transferred care to Dr Bob and no longer has ability to consult, order, or care for that patient (so he isn't responsible for what goes on in that hospital after Dr Bob gets her...obviously he is reaponsible for what happened prior to admission).
Prestor Jon wrote: There's already some variance between states and I don't think many of any states would outlaw it completely.
There are six states with laws already on the books that go into effect if Roe v Wade is overturned. Virginia, Utah, Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, and Illinois have laws that would outright ban all abortion should that occur. 28 states total have trigger laws in effect that would ban most abortion procedures/make them even more impossible to obtain. This is ignoring that many states, particularly in the South and Midwest, have effectively regulated abortion service providers to near non-existence anyway.
I'm actually shocked that Illinois and Ohio has that...
Keep in mind, regarding the admitting privileges, is that here in Texas, nearly every other hospital has the words Baylor or Methodist or Presbyterian, etc., in the name. In theory, yes, requiring admitting privileges is a good idea. In actual practice, it was a backdoor way of outlawing abortion, because of the hospital setup here in Texas.
So we (and the doc) had to call all around to other hospitals to find some place/doc that would accept her. Which meant that he would have zero responsibility or ability to care for the patient anymore.
Also gonna need some clarification on that. A doctor is free of responsibility if they don't have admitting privileges?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Admitting privileges are a big deal especially for smaller rural hospitals that don't have the capabilities to treat every patient that walks into the ER or comes out from surgery or goes to the clinic.
I'm aware.So how does legislative requirements for very specific procedures help that?
Dr. Smith performed a bowel resection (abortion, extraction, whatever) on Jane Doe. Jane has complications that require advanced teeatment at a larger facility.
Dr Smith has admitting privileges at Bob Hope Hospital. He calls the admissions people (or the floor/unit perhaps) and say "I need to admit Jane for complications of (whatever). I want her to see the doc on that dloor that can treat her. Give her medication A, B, amd C if she needs it." Dr Smith may possibly be able to help the doc that is treating her (as a consultant, depending on the hospital policies, etc).
Or else.....
Dr Smith calls Jerry Garcia Hospital where he has no privileges. He has to speak to their admissions team (usually a special 800#). "I have Jane who is having complications from (whatever). I need to find a doc that will accept her as a patient." The admission person says "OK, I have to see what doc is around and if they are willing to accept Jane. Let me make some phone calls and call you back."
30 minutes later admissions calls back "Ok, Dr Bob might accept her, please call Dr Bob with relavent patient info to see if he will accept." (Nobody at that hospital may accept her...that is their choice)
Dr Smith calls Dr Bob and Dr Bob accepts.
Dr Smith has transferred care to Dr Bob and no longer has ability to consult, order, or care for that patient (so he isn't responsible for what goes on in that hospital after Dr Bob gets her...obviously he is reaponsible for what happened prior to admission).
*This*
Often times, the clockis your worst enemy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Keep in mind, regarding the admitting privileges, is that here in Texas, nearly every other hospital has the words Baylor or Methodist or Presbyterian, etc., in the name. In theory, yes, requiring admitting privileges is a good idea. In actual practice, it was a backdoor way of outlawing abortion, because of the hospital setup here in Texas.
Those institutions wouldn't turn down treating a patient post-abortion.
Jihadin wrote: Medical Malpractice Insurance I believe is why it takes three to four months. Final authority rest with the "CEO" of the hospital to admit the surgeon name for coverage. I do belive....and I'm not throwing him under the bus that D-USA might have better overview on this. I left the medical field a long time ago
No problem.
Basically, hospitals have zero responsibility or requirements to let any particular physician treat anybody in their facility. The decision to grand privileges basically comes down to "will you make us money". While faith-based hospitals might actually care about what kind of work the actual physician does, most hospitals just see physicians as revenue creators. They don't give privileges to them out of the kindness of their hearts, they give privileges to them because if they admit a patient to their facility, they can then turn around and bill the patient. And that is pretty much it.
The majority of credentialing (the process of granting privileges) are all related to that. Gotta make sure that you can successfully bill insurance and other payment sources.
Verifying education and licensing? Without it they can't bill because they were not legally able to order treatments.
Verifying board certification and specialties? Some insurance companies require that specialists are the ones ordering things, or they will not pay for them.
Verifying history and previous practice? Need to make sure that they don't have a history of malpractice (paying money to settle is expensive and hurts hospital profits). Also need to see if their previous hospital has had any problems with their admissions not meeting InterQual (and other) criteria because those hurt your performance scores and hinder reimbursement.
Verify impact on PR? A doctor is not worth having if bad PR causes a drop in admissions.
There are also often other requirements: like having to take turns to take call, accept new patients to their private practice if it is their turn on the list, perform a certain amount of pro-bono work, etc.
But mostly it boils down to someone deciding "are they worth the risk and will they make us money".
So we (and the doc) had to call all around to other hospitals to find some place/doc that would accept her. Which meant that he would have zero responsibility or ability to care for the patient anymore.
Also gonna need some clarification on that. A doctor is free of responsibility if they don't have admitting privileges?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Admitting privileges are a big deal especially for smaller rural hospitals that don't have the capabilities to treat every patient that walks into the ER or comes out from surgery or goes to the clinic.
I'm aware.So how does legislative requirements for very specific procedures help that?
Dr. Smith performed a bowel resection (abortion, extraction, whatever) on Jane Doe. Jane has complications that require advanced teeatment at a larger facility.
Dr Smith has admitting privileges at Bob Hope Hospital. He calls the admissions people (or the floor/unit perhaps) and say "I need to admit Jane for complications of (whatever). I want her to see the doc on that dloor that can treat her. Give her medication A, B, amd C if she needs it." Dr Smith may possibly be able to help the doc that is treating her (as a consultant, depending on the hospital policies, etc).
Or else.....
Dr Smith calls Jerry Garcia Hospital where he has no privileges. He has to speak to their admissions team (usually a special 800#). "I have Jane who is having complications from (whatever). I need to find a doc that will accept her as a patient." The admission person says "OK, I have to see what doc is around and if they are willing to accept Jane. Let me make some phone calls and call you back."
30 minutes later admissions calls back "Ok, Dr Bob might accept her, please call Dr Bob with relavent patient info to see if he will accept." (Nobody at that hospital may accept her...that is their choice)
Dr Smith calls Dr Bob and Dr Bob accepts.
Dr Smith has transferred care to Dr Bob and no longer has ability to consult, order, or care for that patient (so he isn't responsible for what goes on in that hospital after Dr Bob gets her...obviously he is reaponsible for what happened prior to admission).
To be fair, most facilities that don't have privileges would the patient the same way that any other medical clinic without an admitting physician would treat them: Stabilize, call 911, ambulance to the nearest ER.
If someone walks into a physicians office with a heart attack, they won't play phone tag with various hospitals to get someone to accept the patient. They call 911 and take them to the most appropriate hospital.
Dr. Smith performed a bowel resection (abortion, extraction, whatever) on Jane Doe. Jane has complications that require advanced teeatment at a larger facility.
Dr Smith has admitting privileges at Bob Hope Hospital. He calls the admissions people (or the floor/unit perhaps) and say "I need to admit Jane for complications of (whatever). I want her to see the doc on that dloor that can treat her. Give her medication A, B, amd C if she needs it." Dr Smith may possibly be able to help the doc that is treating her (as a consultant, depending on the hospital policies, etc).
Or else.....
Dr Smith calls Jerry Garcia Hospital where he has no privileges. He has to speak to their admissions team (usually a special 800#). "I have Jane who is having complications from (whatever). I need to find a doc that will accept her as a patient." The admission person says "OK, I have to see what doc is around and if they are willing to accept Jane. Let me make some phone calls and call you back."
30 minutes later admissions calls back "Ok, Dr Bob might accept her, please call Dr Bob with relavent patient info to see if he will accept." (Nobody at that hospital may accept her...that is their choice)
Dr Smith calls Dr Bob and Dr Bob accepts.
Dr Smith has transferred care to Dr Bob and no longer has ability to consult, order, or care for that patient (so he isn't responsible for what goes on in that hospital after Dr Bob gets her...obviously he is responsible for what happened prior to admission).
If anything, I find it pretty interesting how things are handled where you live (judging by your ID tag) and where I live in NY. I'm hardly an expert but an attending in a rural area without access to advanced technology that they deem necessary would have no problem transferring out to another doc,legally speaking. I do believe were talking ED right? Cuz if were talking general private practice I'll have to bow out as it's very convoluted to me between CMS medicare/caid insurance etc.
But the conversation was never about bowel surgeries, or breast augmentations, or kidney transplants. It was about a very specific procedure. Abortion. And why that specific procedure should need admitting privileges, legally mandated, when other, more dangerous procedures, don't.
In the poll of 957 likely voters, Cruz received support from 40 percent of likely Republican voters, Trump got 30 percent, and Kasich trailed with 21 percent support. Sanders held a 49-45 lead over Clinton among likely Democratic voters.
The poll was conducted March 24 to 28 with 957 likely voters in the April 5 primary and a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. The GOP sample included 471 likely voters and a margin of error of 5.8 points. The Democratic sample included 405 voters and a margin of error of 6.3 points.
This was taken after Trump's attack on Heidi Cruz... so, that supports the idea that it hurt Trump.
A few months back we had a shoulder scope (completely outpatient procedure...people go home that same day) came out to me on the floor. Doc thought he needed just a couple hours watching and then send him home (due to pain).
Guy developed flash pulmonary edema.
Our doc still had to call to the facility where we normally ship people and get a doc to accept him....while we stabilized and intubated him.
Granted...our clinics and outpatient surgery area is all connected to our hospital...so we don't need to call 911 to have emergency care.
However...if an unattached outpatient service center had a doc with admitting privileges, it can save a great deal of time and potential for miscommunication.
d-usa wrote: Nuclear warming is the worst global warming. I hate nuclear. We don't need more countries getting nuclear weapons. We can't afford to protect these countries. They need to get nuclear weapons. Japan and South Korea need nuclear weapons. They need nuclear weapons. If more countries had nuclear weapons to protect themselves we would be better. More countries having nuclear weapons are a bad thing. Nuclear weapons are the biggest threat. It's time to let more countries have nuclear weapons.
d-usa wrote: Nuclear warming is the worst global warming. I hate nuclear. We don't need more countries getting nuclear weapons. We can't afford to protect these countries. They need to get nuclear weapons. Japan and South Korea need nuclear weapons. They need nuclear weapons. If more countries had nuclear weapons to protect themselves we would be better. More countries having nuclear weapons are a bad thing. Nuclear weapons are the biggest threat. It's time to let more countries have nuclear weapons.
Our Republican Primary frontrunner...
I am curious though what any of these rallies are like. I feel I should be there myself to judge. In a couple cases I heard the protestors of Trump were pretty brutal. If he truly is that bad i'll see for myself and I'll see him against his opponents at their rallies to compare.
Also maybe I'm crazy but I think I understand what Trump is trying to say. Just along the lines of we need nuclear weapons if our opponents have them but if our opponents get rid of their weapons we should too. At least I think that's what he's going for. I don't think he understands the wording though.
I'm actually shocked that Illinois and Ohio has that...
Illinois politics are dominated by the more conservative areas of the State because people living in the Chicago area tend to be far more concerned with Chicago city politics. In fact it's a running joke for a lot of people in the Chicago metro that the rest of Illinois doesn't exist.
Not exactly something you'd want on a potential Presidential candidate...
Nor is continually repeating the notion that carpet bombing would be an effective tactic in a hypothetical conflict with ISIS, while clearly demonstrating that you don't know what carpet bombing actually is.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Keep in mind, regarding the admitting privileges, is that here in Texas, nearly every other hospital has the words Baylor or Methodist or Presbyterian, etc., in the name. In theory, yes, requiring admitting privileges is a good idea. In actual practice, it was a backdoor way of outlawing abortion, because of the hospital setup here in Texas.
Those institutions wouldn't turn down treating a patient post-abortion.
No. The point you clearly missed is that those institutions can refuse to grant admitting privileges in the first place.
I was using some examples of surgeries from our rural hospital setting to illustrate how provilege is a good thing for the patient that has complications.
There are a number of life threatening complications that can happen with even "routine" or "simple" outpatient procedures that involve little or no anesthesia.
Again....
It isn't the hospital that has performed a "controversial" procedure like an abortion. It was the doctor that is admitting the patient.
So if people are trying to say that Bob Hope Hospital performs abortions....then are patently false and lieing.
Dr Smith may perform abortions in his clinic setting or facility...but all Dr Smith can do at Bob Hope Hospital is admit people that have complications from a procedure that has already been performed..
Seriously...privilege is a good thing to have and I wish more docs had it.
Our general surgeon has it at a larger hospital and one call to tell them "I am admitting this patient" has saved sooooooo much time in a potentially emergent situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So....apparently...
" Moments ago the Mississippi Senate voted 31-17 along party lines to approve a sweeping bill that legalizes anti-LGBT discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. The bill’s chief Senate sponsor, Sen. Jenifer Branning [photo], faced some tough questioning, most of all from black Democrats, but the haters once again simply outnumbered the good guys."
A Canadian friend of mine was at a loss as to how this would happen.
I had to explain:
1) southern state
2) former slave state
3) bigotry and racism prevalent until 60's civil rights movement (still thinly veiled)
4) states like this seem to always be looking for an "other" to make their miserable lives a little tolerable
Of all the threats to global security and peace, the most dangerous is the proliferation and potential use of nuclear weapons. That’s why, seven years ago in Prague, I committed the United States to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and to seeking a world without them. This vision builds on the policies of presidents before me, Democrat and Republican, including Ronald Reagan, who said “we seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”
Thursday in Washington, I’ll welcome more than 50 world leaders to our fourth Nuclear Security Summit to advance a central pillar of our Prague Agenda: preventing terrorists from obtaining and using a nuclear weapon. We’ll review our progress, such as successfully ridding more than a dozen countries of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Nations, including the United States, will make new commitments, and we’ll continue strengthening the international treaties and institutions that underpin nuclear security.
Given the continued threat posed by organizations such as the terrorist group we call ISIL, or ISIS, we’ll also join allies and partners in reviewing our counterterrorism efforts, to prevent the world’s most dangerous networks from obtaining the world’s most dangerous weapons.
Beyond preventing nuclear terrorism, we’ve made important progress toward the broader vision I outlined in Prague.
Obviously more than what is above, I just don't want to C+P and entire article when you can just go to the site and read it
Verviedi wrote: He said that all abortions should be illegal, and women who have them should be punished, if I recall correctly.
No he was asked 'If abortions were illegal do you think women who have them should be punished?'. Then the media just conveniently edited out the question and only published his response.
Verviedi wrote: He said that all abortions should be illegal, and women who have them should be punished, if I recall correctly.
No he was asked 'If abortions were illegal do you think women who have them should be punished?'. Then the media just conveniently edited out the question and only published his response.
Huh. Didn't know that. Apologies for providing incorrect information.
Verviedi wrote: He said that all abortions should be illegal, and women who have them should be punished, if I recall correctly.
No he was asked 'If abortions were illegal do you think women who have them should be punished?'. Then the media just conveniently edited out the question and only published his response.
Verviedi wrote: He said that all abortions should be illegal, and women who have them should be punished, if I recall correctly.
No he was asked 'If abortions were illegal do you think women who have them should be punished?'. Then the media just conveniently edited out the question and only published his response.
So his response still isn't vile? Good to know
He was asked if something was illegal should the violator be punished, he said yes. The POTUS takes an oath swearing them to uphold the law.
Verviedi wrote: He said that all abortions should be illegal, and women who have them should be punished, if I recall correctly.
No he was asked 'If abortions were illegal do you think women who have them should be punished?'. Then the media just conveniently edited out the question and only published his response.
So his response still isn't vile? Good to know
He was asked if something was illegal should the violator be punished, he said yes. The POTUS takes an oath swearing them to uphold the law.
Verviedi wrote: He said that all abortions should be illegal, and women who have them should be punished, if I recall correctly.
No he was asked 'If abortions were illegal do you think women who have them should be punished?'. Then the media just conveniently edited out the question and only published his response.
So his response still isn't vile? Good to know
He was asked if something was illegal should the violator be punished, he said yes. The POTUS takes an oath swearing them to uphold the law.
So is this the end game of the ProLife movement?
If abortion is ever banned, what should the punishment be for a woman who has one? "I don't know," isn't an answer for this question. If you propose to punish people for having abortions, it's only fair to let everyone know what the
punishment is.
Fines, imprisonment, death, what are we taking about here?
Verviedi wrote: He said that all abortions should be illegal, and women who have them should be punished, if I recall correctly.
No he was asked 'If abortions were illegal do you think women who have them should be punished?'. Then the media just conveniently edited out the question and only published his response.
So his response still isn't vile? Good to know
He was asked if something was illegal should the violator be punished, he said yes. The POTUS takes an oath swearing them to uphold the law.
So is this the end game of the ProLife movement?
If abortion is ever banned, what should the punishment be for a woman who has one? "I don't know," isn't an answer for this question. If you propose to punish people for having abortions, it's only fair to let everyone know what the
punishment is.
Fines, imprisonment, death, what are we taking about here?
Incidentally, I've never met a ProLifer who will answer this question with anything other than "the woman should not be punished". I'm genuinely curious about what "punishment advocates" think.
If they let their base know what the punishment they were proposing was, it is likely that either
A) The punishment is "light" and they lose their absurd Religious Right lunatic base.
B) The punishment is "harsh" and they lose their less extreme base. This being the Republican Party, they will go with option B in all likelihood.
By not specifying the punishment they plan to institute for women breaking their abortion laws, they leave both bases satisfied.
What was the punishment before? When they were illegal? I thought just the providers were punished, based on dim recollections of old-timey docu-dramas.
feeder wrote: What was the punishment before? When they were illegal? I thought just the providers were punished, based on dim recollections of old-timey docu-dramas.
There really weren't any for women that played out. I don't know what was on the books but I think this is getting into another issue; how the hell do you even enforce it?
Usually the doctors were the ones people went after because they were the ones you could gather evidence against (and we approached abortion a lot like prostitution in terms of policing). Punishments ranged by states, but could be as sever as murder. Functionally, punishing women seems something that can't be practically done in this scenario. How can you know know a woman is pregnant before she starts showing/says so? How can you know she had an abortion, and not a miscarriage? Unless she says she had an abortion, she could just keep her mouth shut and you'd probably never be able to know without some draconian invasive law that violates other basic constitutional and legal protections. I'd actually put abortion in the category of gay sex. Making it illegal is putting up a law that cant really be enforced. We certainly weren't having much luck before Roe v Wade.
Making abortion illegal won't make it go away, just drive it underground (where there will be 0 standards for patient safety or health I'd add). There's really nothing to be gained by making abortion illegal (pragmatically).
jasper76 wrote: So, no-one here's a politician. No-one here has to worry about what their voters think.
Let's hear it.
i don't think there should be any punishment, because I think abortion should be legal and am saddened and horrified that the various backdoor attempts to chip away at it over the last decade have been relatively successful.
It is now completely legal to start up the church of Huitzilopochtli, designate some sacred warriors, and capture people to cut out their beating hearts and consume them in cannibalistic rituals.
jasper76 wrote: So, no-one here's a politician. No-one here has to worry about what their voters think.
Let's hear it.
i don't think there should be any punishment, because I think abortion should be legal and am saddened and horrified that the various backdoor attempts to chip away at it over the last decade have been relatively successful.
Same.
Now I'm not a fan of the practice, and would much prefer a large contraception and education push, but I believe the choice should be there.
Verviedi wrote: He said that all abortions should be illegal, and women who have them should be punished, if I recall correctly.
No he was asked 'If abortions were illegal do you think women who have them should be punished?'. Then the media just conveniently edited out the question and only published his response.
So his response still isn't vile? Good to know
He was asked if something was illegal should the violator be punished, he said yes. The POTUS takes an oath swearing them to uphold the law.
So is this the end game of the ProLife movement?
If abortion is ever banned, what should the punishment be for a woman who has one? "I don't know," isn't an answer for this question. If you propose to punish people for having abortions, it's only fair to let everyone know what the
punishment is.
Fines, imprisonment, death, what are we taking about here?
“Once again Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention,” Cruz said in a statement.
“On the important issue of the sanctity of life, what’s far too often neglected is that being pro-life is not simply about the unborn child; it’s also about the mother — and creating a culture that respects her and embraces life.
"Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world,” he added.
It is now completely legal to start up the church of Huitzilopochtli, designate some sacred warriors, and capture people to cut out their beating hearts and consume them in cannibalistic rituals.
Yeah. I just saw that in thread and all I got is "ohh Jesus why" and "has no one learned anything from Grame of Throne? Cause Game of Thrones covered how this tends to go."?
Mississippi must want to give Florida a run for the next "craziest state" election.
As you might also have noticed, I've been catching up on Game of tThrones
Now I'm not a fan of the practice, and would much prefer a large contraception and education push, but I believe the choice should be there.
It's funny, because if we assume women chiefly pursue abortion to avoid unwanted motherhood (which I've recently learned is a big assumption*), then couldn't we take it as a given that there'd be less abortion with greater access to contraceptives and effective sex ed? Now who is it that's always preaching abstinence only education -- oh right. The folks who just got a law in the state legislature that they can form their own police force.
Jesus Christ it's going to be one of those days...
*Read Dangerous Pregnancies by Leslie Reagan. The book is about German Measles/Rubella, and how the outbreak in 1964 played out in the growing abortion debate of the 60s.
With that Church police law, I get that the idea is to basically say "if someone comes into your church service shooting up the place, it's OK to shoot back," but I think they could have done a better job.
And am I the only one mentally replaying Monty Python's Church Police sketch?
Kilkrazy wrote: You can do that anyway, thanks to self defence and 'stand your ground' laws.
And if churches are exempt from those laws (I think some do exempt churches, and some states don't allow firearms near churches I think...), we hardly need a law authorizing 'Chruch security teams' to fix that. We certainly don't need ambiguous laws that authorize 'church security teams' that gives them some disturbing leeway in what they can and can't do.
It's a little doom and gloom I guess, and the law hasn't passed, but it's not a very encouraging development XD
The media and the Washington chattering class are very focused on the prospect of a "brokered" Republican convention – despite the fact that, as former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour has pointed out, there are no "brokers" in smoke-filled back rooms anymore. Seriously: Who do people think the brokers are – Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney? Maybe a bunch of cigar-chomping scotch-drinking fat-cat lobbyists? Things don't work that way anymore, and they haven't for years. Voters wouldn't stand for it.
"Our nominee is going to be picked by the voters in the primaries and the caucuses," Barbour told MSNBC's Chris Matthews in January. "And if nobody gets a majority, those people selected by them are going to work that out."
The people who will work it out, as Barbour puts it, are the delegates to the Republican National Convention. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus isn't going to work it out, and unlike the Democrats, the GOP doesn't have unbound superdelegates who can fix any "mistakes" the primary voters make.
This spring, in states and localities all over the nation, delegates to the convention are being selected. Primaries and caucuses may decide the number of delegates each candidate receives, but the actual names of the delegates are yet to be determined. In fact, we won't know for a few more months exactly who is going to the convention. We can make some guesses, though, because in the past many of the attendees are people who tend to run for delegate every four years. They're regulars.
Over the last few election cycles, it didn't matter too much who the individual delegates were, since their candidate had won a majority of pledged delegates so everything was pretty much decided in advance.
But this time may be different. Already, there's been a tremendous amount of speculation regarding the role of the convention's Rules Committee: How many candidates will be allowed to appear on the first ballot? Will delegates be able to switch candidates after the first ballot? Can they retroactively change some states from winner-take-all to proportional? Bottom line: Can they change the rules to keep Donald Trump off the ticket?
Questions like those are the talk of the town right now in Washington. Everyone has an opinion, and it seems everyone is suddenly an expert on arcane Republican convention rules. "Republican convention rules" is getting searched on Google 100 times more in mid-March than it was in mid-January.
With all this in mind I consulted with an actual authority on these matters: Sean Spicer, the RNC's spokesman and chief strategist.
Here's what I learned: Spicer says that while the media is focused on the convention nominating a candidate for president, its real function is to pass the rules which provide the mechanism for the party to exist for four more years. "It's like going to a [Parent-Teacher Association] meeting and thinking that the primary business of the PTA is to elect a PTA president," he says.
There's also this: The GOP's convention rules are based on a modified version of the same rules used to run the House of Representatives. (In fact, traditionally the speaker of the House runs the convention, as will be the case this year.) Just as in every new session of the House, the first order of business at a GOP convention, after the call to order, is to pass a rules package. Spicer compared it to a condo board or neighborhood association meeting, where people need to know the process and how the meeting will run before they start voting on new business.
Most people think that the last convention's rules are the default – that the 2012 rules are in effect until the 2016 committee changes them – but that is not the case.The Rules Committee doesn't get to pick and choose from among the previous rules; it has to come up with a complete package from scratch every four years. "The 115th Congress cannot operate until it first passes a rules package, and we're the same way," Spicer says. Each convention passes its own new set of rules, and they can be similar to prior ones – or they can be vastly different. It depends on what the delegates want.
In terms of how much the rules can differ from year to year: "The Romney delegates wrote rules to ensure a Romney nomination; the McCain delegates wrote rules for a McCain nomination. Those rules were written by delegates whose candidates are not on the ballot this time," Spicer says. Contrary to popular belief, the 2016 rules don't exist yet – and won't until a new set is passed by the 2016 delegates. Those who talk about "changing the rules" don't really understand the process, he says. It's a blank slate: There are no rules to change yet.
That is why the remaining Republican campaigns are working hard to make sure that people friendly to their candidates are being selected as delegates, no matter who won the state. The RNC chairman selects the chair of the Rules Committee, but the rest of the committee is comprised of delegates from all 50 states and the territories, one man and one woman from each. Those delegates can write whatever rules they'd like.
"The thing so interesting about this year's process," says Spicer, "is that for the first time in 40 years, people are paying attention. And it's not because the process has changed, because it hasn't. We're not doing anything different."
One final thought: In addition to writing the rules, the delegates will also be writing the party platform and voting on it. And while we've seen platform fights in the past – mostly on hot-button social issues – this year, the Platform Committee will likely be negotiating on a wider range of issues such as immigration, free trade and foreign policy. If Donald Trump becomes the nominee, will the Republican Party platform really call for building a wall with Mexico, imposing a 35 percent tax on goods made by companies that have left the United States and temporarily banning all Muslims?
Stay tuned.
So, for 2016, the RNC convention rules doesn't exist yet. So, all this hemming/hawwing over convention rules is nothing more than vaporware.
Hence, why Kasich is still "running"...
Hence, why Rubio is "suspended", but keeping his delegate wins...
Oh. Oh my. Has anyone notified the Church of Satan yet? I await what will, undoubtedly, be a most glorious response from them.
I'm looking at the bill... and, this has *got* to be an early April's Fools Joke*.
Put your big girl panties back on. Its just a measure to provide protection to church security teams in case they have to defend themselves. It ranks them the same as the PoPo in terms of legal defenses.
Most large churches have security teams, often made up of police.
But I would look forward to a nice Church of the Eagle Warrior having a spat with the local Mexican Catholic Church. Battle of Otumba II, this time its personal!
The media and the Washington chattering class are very focused on the prospect of a "brokered" Republican convention – despite the fact that, as former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour has pointed out, there are no "brokers" in smoke-filled back rooms anymore. Seriously: Who do people think the brokers are – Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney? Maybe a bunch of cigar-chomping scotch-drinking fat-cat lobbyists? Things don't work that way anymore, and they haven't for years. Voters wouldn't stand for it.
"Our nominee is going to be picked by the voters in the primaries and the caucuses," Barbour told MSNBC's Chris Matthews in January. "And if nobody gets a majority, those people selected by them are going to work that out."
The people who will work it out, as Barbour puts it, are the delegates to the Republican National Convention. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus isn't going to work it out, and unlike the Democrats, the GOP doesn't have unbound superdelegates who can fix any "mistakes" the primary voters make.
This spring, in states and localities all over the nation, delegates to the convention are being selected. Primaries and caucuses may decide the number of delegates each candidate receives, but the actual names of the delegates are yet to be determined. In fact, we won't know for a few more months exactly who is going to the convention. We can make some guesses, though, because in the past many of the attendees are people who tend to run for delegate every four years. They're regulars.
Over the last few election cycles, it didn't matter too much who the individual delegates were, since their candidate had won a majority of pledged delegates so everything was pretty much decided in advance.
But this time may be different. Already, there's been a tremendous amount of speculation regarding the role of the convention's Rules Committee: How many candidates will be allowed to appear on the first ballot? Will delegates be able to switch candidates after the first ballot? Can they retroactively change some states from winner-take-all to proportional? Bottom line: Can they change the rules to keep Donald Trump off the ticket?
Questions like those are the talk of the town right now in Washington. Everyone has an opinion, and it seems everyone is suddenly an expert on arcane Republican convention rules. "Republican convention rules" is getting searched on Google 100 times more in mid-March than it was in mid-January.
With all this in mind I consulted with an actual authority on these matters: Sean Spicer, the RNC's spokesman and chief strategist.
Here's what I learned: Spicer says that while the media is focused on the convention nominating a candidate for president, its real function is to pass the rules which provide the mechanism for the party to exist for four more years. "It's like going to a [Parent-Teacher Association] meeting and thinking that the primary business of the PTA is to elect a PTA president," he says.
There's also this: The GOP's convention rules are based on a modified version of the same rules used to run the House of Representatives. (In fact, traditionally the speaker of the House runs the convention, as will be the case this year.) Just as in every new session of the House, the first order of business at a GOP convention, after the call to order, is to pass a rules package. Spicer compared it to a condo board or neighborhood association meeting, where people need to know the process and how the meeting will run before they start voting on new business.
Most people think that the last convention's rules are the default – that the 2012 rules are in effect until the 2016 committee changes them – but that is not the case.The Rules Committee doesn't get to pick and choose from among the previous rules; it has to come up with a complete package from scratch every four years. "The 115th Congress cannot operate until it first passes a rules package, and we're the same way," Spicer says. Each convention passes its own new set of rules, and they can be similar to prior ones – or they can be vastly different. It depends on what the delegates want.
In terms of how much the rules can differ from year to year: "The Romney delegates wrote rules to ensure a Romney nomination; the McCain delegates wrote rules for a McCain nomination. Those rules were written by delegates whose candidates are not on the ballot this time," Spicer says. Contrary to popular belief, the 2016 rules don't exist yet – and won't until a new set is passed by the 2016 delegates. Those who talk about "changing the rules" don't really understand the process, he says. It's a blank slate: There are no rules to change yet.
That is why the remaining Republican campaigns are working hard to make sure that people friendly to their candidates are being selected as delegates, no matter who won the state. The RNC chairman selects the chair of the Rules Committee, but the rest of the committee is comprised of delegates from all 50 states and the territories, one man and one woman from each. Those delegates can write whatever rules they'd like.
"The thing so interesting about this year's process," says Spicer, "is that for the first time in 40 years, people are paying attention. And it's not because the process has changed, because it hasn't. We're not doing anything different."
One final thought: In addition to writing the rules, the delegates will also be writing the party platform and voting on it. And while we've seen platform fights in the past – mostly on hot-button social issues – this year, the Platform Committee will likely be negotiating on a wider range of issues such as immigration, free trade and foreign policy. If Donald Trump becomes the nominee, will the Republican Party platform really call for building a wall with Mexico, imposing a 35 percent tax on goods made by companies that have left the United States and temporarily banning all Muslims?
Stay tuned.
So, for 2016, the RNC convention rules doesn't exist yet. So, all this hemming/hawwing over convention rules is nothing more than vaporware.
Hence, why Kasich is still "running"...
Hence, why Rubio is "suspended", but keeping his delegate wins...
As far as I've been led to understand, it's within the RNC's power to make a rule saying "Donald Trump cannot be the Republican nominee.". Is that your understanding as well, or do I have the wrong end of the stick on this?
The media and the Washington chattering class are very focused on the prospect of a "brokered" Republican convention – despite the fact that, as former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour has pointed out, there are no "brokers" in smoke-filled back rooms anymore. Seriously: Who do people think the brokers are – Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney? Maybe a bunch of cigar-chomping scotch-drinking fat-cat lobbyists? Things don't work that way anymore, and they haven't for years. Voters wouldn't stand for it.
"Our nominee is going to be picked by the voters in the primaries and the caucuses," Barbour told MSNBC's Chris Matthews in January. "And if nobody gets a majority, those people selected by them are going to work that out."
The people who will work it out, as Barbour puts it, are the delegates to the Republican National Convention. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus isn't going to work it out, and unlike the Democrats, the GOP doesn't have unbound superdelegates who can fix any "mistakes" the primary voters make.
This spring, in states and localities all over the nation, delegates to the convention are being selected. Primaries and caucuses may decide the number of delegates each candidate receives, but the actual names of the delegates are yet to be determined. In fact, we won't know for a few more months exactly who is going to the convention. We can make some guesses, though, because in the past many of the attendees are people who tend to run for delegate every four years. They're regulars.
Over the last few election cycles, it didn't matter too much who the individual delegates were, since their candidate had won a majority of pledged delegates so everything was pretty much decided in advance.
But this time may be different. Already, there's been a tremendous amount of speculation regarding the role of the convention's Rules Committee: How many candidates will be allowed to appear on the first ballot? Will delegates be able to switch candidates after the first ballot? Can they retroactively change some states from winner-take-all to proportional? Bottom line: Can they change the rules to keep Donald Trump off the ticket?
Questions like those are the talk of the town right now in Washington. Everyone has an opinion, and it seems everyone is suddenly an expert on arcane Republican convention rules. "Republican convention rules" is getting searched on Google 100 times more in mid-March than it was in mid-January.
With all this in mind I consulted with an actual authority on these matters: Sean Spicer, the RNC's spokesman and chief strategist.
Here's what I learned: Spicer says that while the media is focused on the convention nominating a candidate for president, its real function is to pass the rules which provide the mechanism for the party to exist for four more years. "It's like going to a [Parent-Teacher Association] meeting and thinking that the primary business of the PTA is to elect a PTA president," he says.
There's also this: The GOP's convention rules are based on a modified version of the same rules used to run the House of Representatives. (In fact, traditionally the speaker of the House runs the convention, as will be the case this year.) Just as in every new session of the House, the first order of business at a GOP convention, after the call to order, is to pass a rules package. Spicer compared it to a condo board or neighborhood association meeting, where people need to know the process and how the meeting will run before they start voting on new business.
Most people think that the last convention's rules are the default – that the 2012 rules are in effect until the 2016 committee changes them – but that is not the case.The Rules Committee doesn't get to pick and choose from among the previous rules; it has to come up with a complete package from scratch every four years. "The 115th Congress cannot operate until it first passes a rules package, and we're the same way," Spicer says. Each convention passes its own new set of rules, and they can be similar to prior ones – or they can be vastly different. It depends on what the delegates want.
In terms of how much the rules can differ from year to year: "The Romney delegates wrote rules to ensure a Romney nomination; the McCain delegates wrote rules for a McCain nomination. Those rules were written by delegates whose candidates are not on the ballot this time," Spicer says. Contrary to popular belief, the 2016 rules don't exist yet – and won't until a new set is passed by the 2016 delegates. Those who talk about "changing the rules" don't really understand the process, he says. It's a blank slate: There are no rules to change yet.
That is why the remaining Republican campaigns are working hard to make sure that people friendly to their candidates are being selected as delegates, no matter who won the state. The RNC chairman selects the chair of the Rules Committee, but the rest of the committee is comprised of delegates from all 50 states and the territories, one man and one woman from each. Those delegates can write whatever rules they'd like.
"The thing so interesting about this year's process," says Spicer, "is that for the first time in 40 years, people are paying attention. And it's not because the process has changed, because it hasn't. We're not doing anything different."
One final thought: In addition to writing the rules, the delegates will also be writing the party platform and voting on it. And while we've seen platform fights in the past – mostly on hot-button social issues – this year, the Platform Committee will likely be negotiating on a wider range of issues such as immigration, free trade and foreign policy. If Donald Trump becomes the nominee, will the Republican Party platform really call for building a wall with Mexico, imposing a 35 percent tax on goods made by companies that have left the United States and temporarily banning all Muslims?
Stay tuned.
So, for 2016, the RNC convention rules doesn't exist yet. So, all this hemming/hawwing over convention rules is nothing more than vaporware.
Hence, why Kasich is still "running"...
Hence, why Rubio is "suspended", but keeping his delegate wins...
As far as I've been led to understand, it's within the RNC's power to make a rule saying "Donald Trump cannot be the Republican nominee.". Is that your understanding as well, or do I have the wrong end of the stick on this?
I guess theoretically, they could. But, they won't.
I just find it interesting that "there are no rules" now... and yet, Kasich/Cruz/Trump are pushing old rules from previous conventions...
Sounds like it's all about gaming the system. The candidates push for rules that favor them, while at the same time trying to get their supporters to be the delegates, regardless of who actually won the state.
The media and the Washington chattering class are very focused on the prospect of a "brokered" Republican convention – despite the fact that, as former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour has pointed out, there are no "brokers" in smoke-filled back rooms anymore. Seriously: Who do people think the brokers are – Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney? Maybe a bunch of cigar-chomping scotch-drinking fat-cat lobbyists? Things don't work that way anymore, and they haven't for years. Voters wouldn't stand for it.
"Our nominee is going to be picked by the voters in the primaries and the caucuses," Barbour told MSNBC's Chris Matthews in January. "And if nobody gets a majority, those people selected by them are going to work that out."
The people who will work it out, as Barbour puts it, are the delegates to the Republican National Convention. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus isn't going to work it out, and unlike the Democrats, the GOP doesn't have unbound superdelegates who can fix any "mistakes" the primary voters make.
This spring, in states and localities all over the nation, delegates to the convention are being selected. Primaries and caucuses may decide the number of delegates each candidate receives, but the actual names of the delegates are yet to be determined. In fact, we won't know for a few more months exactly who is going to the convention. We can make some guesses, though, because in the past many of the attendees are people who tend to run for delegate every four years. They're regulars.
Over the last few election cycles, it didn't matter too much who the individual delegates were, since their candidate had won a majority of pledged delegates so everything was pretty much decided in advance.
But this time may be different. Already, there's been a tremendous amount of speculation regarding the role of the convention's Rules Committee: How many candidates will be allowed to appear on the first ballot? Will delegates be able to switch candidates after the first ballot? Can they retroactively change some states from winner-take-all to proportional? Bottom line: Can they change the rules to keep Donald Trump off the ticket?
Questions like those are the talk of the town right now in Washington. Everyone has an opinion, and it seems everyone is suddenly an expert on arcane Republican convention rules. "Republican convention rules" is getting searched on Google 100 times more in mid-March than it was in mid-January.
With all this in mind I consulted with an actual authority on these matters: Sean Spicer, the RNC's spokesman and chief strategist.
Here's what I learned: Spicer says that while the media is focused on the convention nominating a candidate for president, its real function is to pass the rules which provide the mechanism for the party to exist for four more years. "It's like going to a [Parent-Teacher Association] meeting and thinking that the primary business of the PTA is to elect a PTA president," he says.
There's also this: The GOP's convention rules are based on a modified version of the same rules used to run the House of Representatives. (In fact, traditionally the speaker of the House runs the convention, as will be the case this year.) Just as in every new session of the House, the first order of business at a GOP convention, after the call to order, is to pass a rules package. Spicer compared it to a condo board or neighborhood association meeting, where people need to know the process and how the meeting will run before they start voting on new business.
Most people think that the last convention's rules are the default – that the 2012 rules are in effect until the 2016 committee changes them – but that is not the case.The Rules Committee doesn't get to pick and choose from among the previous rules; it has to come up with a complete package from scratch every four years. "The 115th Congress cannot operate until it first passes a rules package, and we're the same way," Spicer says. Each convention passes its own new set of rules, and they can be similar to prior ones – or they can be vastly different. It depends on what the delegates want.
In terms of how much the rules can differ from year to year: "The Romney delegates wrote rules to ensure a Romney nomination; the McCain delegates wrote rules for a McCain nomination. Those rules were written by delegates whose candidates are not on the ballot this time," Spicer says. Contrary to popular belief, the 2016 rules don't exist yet – and won't until a new set is passed by the 2016 delegates. Those who talk about "changing the rules" don't really understand the process, he says. It's a blank slate: There are no rules to change yet.
That is why the remaining Republican campaigns are working hard to make sure that people friendly to their candidates are being selected as delegates, no matter who won the state. The RNC chairman selects the chair of the Rules Committee, but the rest of the committee is comprised of delegates from all 50 states and the territories, one man and one woman from each. Those delegates can write whatever rules they'd like.
"The thing so interesting about this year's process," says Spicer, "is that for the first time in 40 years, people are paying attention. And it's not because the process has changed, because it hasn't. We're not doing anything different."
One final thought: In addition to writing the rules, the delegates will also be writing the party platform and voting on it. And while we've seen platform fights in the past – mostly on hot-button social issues – this year, the Platform Committee will likely be negotiating on a wider range of issues such as immigration, free trade and foreign policy. If Donald Trump becomes the nominee, will the Republican Party platform really call for building a wall with Mexico, imposing a 35 percent tax on goods made by companies that have left the United States and temporarily banning all Muslims?
Stay tuned.
So, for 2016, the RNC convention rules doesn't exist yet. So, all this hemming/hawwing over convention rules is nothing more than vaporware.
Hence, why Kasich is still "running"...
Hence, why Rubio is "suspended", but keeping his delegate wins...
As far as I've been led to understand, it's within the RNC's power to make a rule saying "Donald Trump cannot be the Republican nominee.". Is that your understanding as well, or do I have the wrong end of the stick on this?
I guess theoretically, they could. But, they won't.
I just find it interesting that "there are no rules" now... and yet, Kasich/Cruz/Trump are pushing old rules from previous conventions...
I don't think they would either, but since Trump isn't running on a Republican platform, I wouldn't blame them if they did. I'd be like, "Take your followers and go start your own party, dude" if I was a True Believer in traditional GOP positions.
Yeah, I think previous composition rules required Trump to field at least a core of Republicans troops, but with these new vague allies rules, it looks like he just loaded up on cultists. Need to get a new edition or errata quick.
jmurph wrote: Yeah, I think previous composition rules required Trump to field at least a core of Republicans troops, but with these new vague allies rules, it looks like he just loaded up on cultists. Need to get a new edition or errata quick.
jasper76 wrote: So, no-one here's a politician. No-one here has to worry about what their voters think.
Let's hear it.
For the record I think abortions should be illegal after the 2nd trimester, unless doctors state its a matter of life and death for the mother. I'm tempted to want to ban them after the first trimester but definitely after the second. Late term abortion is murder in my opinion.
Other than that, have at. Kill as many fetuses as you want.
But education and abstinence/contraception are clearly choice number one.
I think we as a society should all agree that swearing an oath is BS these days and if we need someone to be held to their word then a financial surety is the way to go.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
KK I am going to go over the Oath of Enlistment. The Officer will come in on your left my right and stand behind the podium. He is going to call you to "At Ease". Applicants, You, are in the position of "Attention". The officer...I think its Commander Smith is going to give you a pep talk and all that. I do want to point out that 90% of Americans cannot make it to where you are now because they are unwilling. The remainder 10% who do process through 9% of them will fail the physical and background checks. Welcome to the One Percenters. You heard me,. Only one percent of the US population can make it to where you are. Congrats.
So you more likely going to hear from him again. Alright He going to call you to attention. Ask you to raise your right arm and Administer the Oath of Enlistment. Trust me he is not going to recite the entire Oath in one shot and have you repeat it back at him. Not going to happen. He will pause after each phrase and you repeat it back to him.
So "I (State your Name), do solemnly Swear or Affirm.
First do not be nervous. We had one individual who was nervous enough to say out loud "State Your Name" instead of his actual name. So please...say your name. First, last or entirely. Say it...not "State Your Name"...your name out loud.
Okay...now you see Swear and Affirm. Its up to you which one you want to say. Example.
I, Bullet Catcher, do solemnly Swear
or
I, Lead Allergy, do solemnly Affirm
You have a choice of two words. Pick one not both please. Entirely up to you
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,
according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So help me God."
KK see that last sentence. Its entirely up to you if you want to say it or not. No one going to force you, there will be no reprecussion, there will be no negative actions on you if you don't say it.
I'm a follower of Bacchus. Yes you heard me. I worship the Roman God of Wine and Sex. Since I have no problem with God or anything I will go ahead and say. I don't care. Everyone understand? Good.
Good Luck People and stay mentally tough.
The Only Oath I ever took Seriously. The next is my Creed
Jihadin wrote: KK see that last sentence. Its entirely up to you if you want to say it or not. No one going to force you, there will be no reprecussion, there will be no negative actions on you if you don't say it.
I'm a follower of Bacchus. Yes you heard me. I worship the Roman God of Wine and Sex. Since I have no problem with God or anything I will go ahead and say. I don't care. Everyone understand? Good.
Good Luck People and stay mentally tough.
The Only Oath I ever took Seriously. The next is my Creed
The 2 or 3 times I took The Oath, the briefer always said that you had to say the last line... It was the last word specifically that was optional.
Its change. Being the "So help me." still rang with "So help me God" in a Spiritual sense. So they gave a choice to the applicants on the last sentence as a whole.
Traditio wrote: Contrary to the general mindset of the modern liberal, I agree with Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. in thinking that temperance (i.e., that virtue whereby the desires for food, drink and sex are moderated by right reason) is a virtue, whereas the opposite is a vice. I further agree with these venerable men in asserting that any act which is opposed to a virtue is itself an act of vice (though not necessarily an act which proceeds from vice) and constitutes a moral offense.
And in another thread I just made fun of someone for posting attitudes from another decade. Here we have someone posting from another millenia.
The people dakka can find can truly amazing, sometimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: For some reason, a democrat version of Chris Christie is scarier to me than a republican version.
Because he's stand a hope in hell of actually getting elected? A populist Democrat could sail through the primary and be a strong general election candidate. A populist Republican will do as well in a Republican primary as Christie did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: You know, since this is a politics thread and all, I have a topic of political discussion, something that perplexes me:
Why is it that every time there is a school shooting, Obama gets on tv and whines and complains about guns...
...
...
But no matter how many people get murdered and raped by Muslims, he nonetheless sees no problem with letting in Muslim refugees?
While I can’t read Obama’s mind, I’m going to make two guesses as to what might influence Obama’s thinking.
It’s highly likely that Obama knows how numbers work, and probably has a strong understanding of which numbers are bigger than others. In the last decade an average of 10 Americans died each year in terror attacks. Over the same period an average of more than 6,000 Americans were killed in homicides using guns.
Obama might even have advanced object recognition and differentiation skills. He is probably capable of knowing the difference between an inanimate object and a human being. If he’s really advanced, he might even know that human beings are actually very complex, and not able to be defined by anything as crude as a religion, even if it’s a religion that everyone is really scared about right now.
Hillary Clinton blew up at an activist who asked the former Secretary of State to pledge to turn down money from the fossil fuel industry.
“Regarding climate change, can we have your word that you’ll reject fossil fuel money in the future for your campaign?” The activist asked.
“I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” Clinton retorted. “I am so sick, I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it.”
owever, nearly all of the lobbyists hired by the Clinton campaign bundle campaign contributions that come from the fossil fuel industry, as noted by the Huffington Post. Greenpeace estimates that the Clinton campaign has bundled over $1.2 million with help from industry-affiliated lobbyists.
urthermore, fossil fuel interests have donated about $3.25 million to the Priorities USA Action PAC, which supports Hillary Clinton. All told, Greenpeace estimates the total contributions from fossil fuel interests at $4.5 million.
Dreadwinter wrote: Nah man, that is just what the liberal media wants you to think. It is all her fault. She shouldn't have pressed charges like a citizen of this country has the right to do.
Once again... she doesn't press charges. She makes a complaint, police and prosecution judge the merit and substance of that complaint, and decide to press charges. So the effort to blame her for the charge on him is doubly crazy, because it's not even her decision.
Dreadwinter wrote: Nah man, that is just what the liberal media wants you to think. It is all her fault. She shouldn't have pressed charges like a citizen of this country has the right to do.
Once again... she doesn't press charges. She makes a complaint, police and prosecution judge the merit and substance of that complaint, and decide to press charges. So the effort to blame her for the charge on him is doubly crazy, because it's not even her decision.
whembly wrote: IE, most Orthopedics MDs *have* admitting privileges and most of their procedures are largely done in ambulatory setting. In fact, *having* admitting privileges in whichever discipline is common.
Common, sure, but not required by law.
If this was about requiring greater health standards, then the law that was passed would have required admitting privileges in any place undertaking reasonably complex or problematic procedure. Any dentist that used a general would certainly have been required. And yet the scope of the bill never even considered that. And the reason why is very obvious.
Yes, thankyou, I know he was being sarcastic about Tradito's very silly argument. My point was that he wasn't mocking Traditio enough, because he still accepted the silliest part of Traditio's argument.
Read my post again. It'll become clear to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SickSix wrote: He was asked if something was illegal should the violator be punished, he said yes. The POTUS takes an oath swearing them to uphold the law.
That actually makes his answer worse, it becomes ill-informed in addition to being callous. Because you can make an act illegal without everyone involved being criminalised. There are laws in lots of placed that make prostitution illegal, but only for the pimp and the john, not the prostitute herself. In many cases the seller of drugs is committing an illegal act, while the buyer is facing a misdemeanour at worst.
And I don’t believe there is a single pro-life group that is chasing laws that would punish the woman who receives the abortion.
Trump was oblivious to all that, because he is oblivious to very large parts of American politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: So Sanders needs 57% of delegates left to overtake Clinton.
I am curious to see if amyone has broke the % down by state.
In order to get Sanders the delegates needed to catch up they had to get really funky. Like 'something incredible has to happen in the campaign and even then this is still unlikely' kind of territory. For instance, 538 thinks a Sanders win will probably need him winning NY by +4, even though he trails there by margins in excess of 20 points.
Something major could happen to make Sanders run at the presidency possible, but we're at the point where something major would have to happen to make a Sanders win possible. We're talking Clinton gets outed as a robot under the control of the deep ones kind of scandal, and even then it'd be touch and go.
More than 80% of oil and gas money goes to Republicans. This is part of a continuing trend starting in the early 80s when the parties first started to split on climate change.
Trying to tarnish Clinton on this issue, when the Republicans continue to exist is just beyond weird.
Oh. Oh my. Has anyone notified the Church of Satan yet? I await what will, undoubtedly, be a most glorious response from them.
I'm looking at the bill... and, this has *got* to be an early April's Fools Joke*.
Put your big girl panties back on. Its just a measure to provide protection to church security teams in case they have to defend themselves. It ranks them the same as the PoPo in terms of legal defenses.
Most large churches have security teams, often made up of police.
But I would look forward to a nice Church of the Eagle Warrior having a spat with the local Mexican Catholic Church.
Battle of Otumba II, this time its personal!
I'm sure the mosque security teams will be greatly appreciative.
Especially next time those -- armed -- protesters turn up outside to yell at them.
Yes, thankyou, I know he was being sarcastic about Tradito's very silly argument. My point was that he wasn't mocking Traditio enough, because he still accepted the silliest part of Traditio's argument.
Read my post again. It'll become clear to you.
Yeah, I have brought up that she doesn't have a whole lot of say in this. I even posted a fun anecdote about somebody I worked with going through it and how said person couldn't drop charges because the DA decided to go through with it anyways.
I feel like I have made it clear that I do not accept any part of his silly argument in the slightest, based on my responses to him.
More than 80% of oil and gas money goes to Republicans. This is part of a continuing trend starting in the early 80s when the parties first started to split on climate change.
Trying to tarnish Clinton on this issue, when the Republicans continue to exist is just beyond weird.
Unfortunately she is not running against republicans at the moment, so that is pretty much irrelevant.
Oh. Oh my. Has anyone notified the Church of Satan yet? I await what will, undoubtedly, be a most glorious response from them.
I'm looking at the bill... and, this has *got* to be an early April's Fools Joke*.
Put your big girl panties back on. Its just a measure to provide protection to church security teams in case they have to defend themselves. It ranks them the same as the PoPo in terms of legal defenses.
Most large churches have security teams, often made up of police.
But I would look forward to a nice Church of the Eagle Warrior having a spat with the local Mexican Catholic Church.
Battle of Otumba II, this time its personal!
I'm sure the mosque security teams will be greatly appreciative.
Especially next time those -- armed -- protesters turn up outside to yell at them.
They should appreciate it. This gives them the same rights as police officers in being able to defend themselves.
Easy E wrote: Naw, later that activist will be found dead of a suicide... Vince Foster style.
Wow. fething wow.
I know politics start to get really gakky about now, but fething wow.
Just to be clear. This was a very black humored joke. I do not expect that too happen and I don't think Mrs. Clinton had anything to do with Mr. Foster's unfortunate suicide.
If you expand out to all energy she's even higher.
And if anyone think that means the comments attempting to make Clinton somehow working for oil or energy just has no fething context for any of this.
I´m not entirely sure what you are trying to claim here, but yes, politicians usually favor the people/companies that give them money, not a controversial statement exactly
I was looking into Trump's foreign policy stuff. And a lot of it is garbage.
But there's a pretty strong theme in his policy that he feels like America should not be subsidizing world defense budgets through massively disproportionate overspending, that any nation the US is providing security for should be paying for it.
I can't say I can find too much to fault in his logic. The US overspends hugely on it's military and the money being spent there could easily provide for things like free healthcare and free teritary education for all americans. Why should they continue to do so?
I dunno. If I was American that would make sense to me. I realise it might be destabilizing in the short term, but surely a new normal would emerge where the world was not so dramatically unipolar?
It's funny that there's not even really much debate about that it seems in mainstream politics in the US - the rest seem to be content to feed the military industrial beast.
I mean, Trump is an awful, awful man. But I found that interesting to consider.
The TL/DR here is that the majority of Americans think Trump is awful. He's got a following among a section of Republican voters, though. However none of the mainsteram candidates is popular and Trump represents the top of a very shallow pool of talent.
The TL/DR here is that the current situation in US politics is the result of 40 years of decline and hurt to the formerly prosperous working classes, now extending to the middle classes. Bruce Springsteen's album The River is used to illustrate the point.
Da Boss wrote: I was looking into Trump's foreign policy stuff. And a lot of it is garbage.
But there's a pretty strong theme in his policy that he feels like America should not be subsidizing world defense budgets through massively disproportionate overspending, that any nation the US is providing security for should be paying for it.
I can't say I can find too much to fault in his logic. The US overspends hugely on it's military and the money being spent there could easily provide for things like free healthcare and free teritary education for all americans. Why should they continue to do so?
I dunno. If I was American that would make sense to me. I realise it might be destabilizing in the short term, but surely a new normal would emerge where the world was not so dramatically unipolar?
It's funny that there's not even really much debate about that it seems in mainstream politics in the US - the rest seem to be content to feed the military industrial beast.
I mean, Trump is an awful, awful man. But I found that interesting to consider.
The problem is then the US moves from international bully to out and out racketeering.
I can't say I can find too much to fault in his logic. The US overspends hugely on it's military and the money being spent there could easily provide for things like free healthcare and free teritary education for all americans. Why should they continue to do so?
Free education and healthcare don't exist in the US for ideological reasons. Those same ideological reasons involve throwing money at the military.
I can't say I can find too much to fault in his logic. The US overspends hugely on it's military and the money being spent there could easily provide for things like free healthcare and free teritary education for all americans. Why should they continue to do so?
Free education and healthcare don't exist in the US for ideological reasons. Those same ideological reasons involve throwing money at the military.
*rolls eyes* Sure, if I said taxpayer funded free healthcare and education would you find that more acceptable than taxpayer funded dramatic military overspend?
We already spend billions of borrowed dollars every month. If we're spending more on defense than we need to spend then we should simply spend less. It's not like we have to spend trillions of dollars a year we could and should spend less. If there is money in the budget we can cut we should cut it not find something else to spend it on.
Prestor Jon wrote: We already spend billions of borrowed dollars every month. If we're spending more on defense than we need to spend then we should simply spend less. It's not like we have to spend trillions of dollars a year we could and should spend less. If there is money in the budget we can cut we should cut it not find something else to spend it on.
We could also stop giving so much aid to other countries too.
Cut all the little stuff you want...You're still spinning your wheels and not getting anywhere reducing the debt or more importantly decrease spending.
Until you accept major reductions in:
Social Security
Medicare & Medicaid
Military
Spending.
And.
Debt.
Will.
Not.
Decrease.
Don't want to cut those three? Need to get elected do you? Then how about the next three big expenses:
Interest on Debt
Veterans Benefits
Agriculture
OK, once you get the Agriculture maybe we can start cutting and still get reelected. That's $135 Billion dollars. Let's cut it all (Monsanto and/or AIG will shoot you dead, but the VP and Congress show some backbone in this hypothetical)
So.
What.
We've still spent $3.65 TRILLION dollars.
Cut something because it's not needed. Don't cut because you think it's "saving money" because, well, that isn't happening until you cut into the "third rail of politics" which no politician is going to do.
Consul Scipio wrote: Cut all the little stuff you want...You're still spinning your wheels and not getting anywhere reducing the debt or more importantly decrease spending.
Until you accept major reductions in:
Social Security
Medicare & Medicaid
Military
Spending.
And.
Debt.
Will.
Not.
Decrease.
Don't want to cut those three? Need to get elected do you? Then how about the next three big expenses:
Interest on Debt
Veterans Benefits
Agriculture
OK, once you get the Agriculture maybe we can start cutting and still get reelected. That's $135 Billion dollars. Let's cut it all (Monsanto and/or AIG will shoot you dead, but the VP and Congress show some backbone in this hypothetical)
So.
What.
We've still spent $3.65 TRILLION dollars.
Cut something because it's not needed. Don't cut because you think it's "saving money" because, well, that isn't happening until you cut into the "third rail of politics" which no politician is going to do.
Your post seems to assume that both are mutually exclusive options.
Especially ones that are functioning 1st world nations that don't need it. *cough*Israel*unconvincingcough*
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly, any real attempt at cutting the dept in a significant manner, would have to be a combination of raising certain taxes (on those who can afford to have their taxes raised), removing loopholes, cutting incentives, and budget cuts.
Also, Consul, why SS, it's a tiny percentage of our budget?
Also, Consul, why SS, it's a tiny percentage of our budget?
Edit: that is to say, discretionary spending.
Also... isn't SS pretty much "self funding"?? By that I mean, it's one of the few categories of spending in which we know exactly which taxes go into it: the employment/social security taxes.
And honestly, I would start with "close the tax loopholes" before adding in new taxes on the wealthy. Once the major corporations like Nike, Walmart, GM, Ford, Whirlpool, etc. start paying actual taxes, I would think a lot more stuff could be funded.
Also, Consul, why SS, it's a tiny percentage of our budget?
Edit: that is to say, discretionary spending.
Also... isn't SS pretty much "self funding"?? By that I mean, it's one of the few categories of spending in which we know exactly which taxes go into it: the employment/social security taxes.
And honestly, I would start with "close the tax loopholes" before adding in new taxes on the wealthy. Once the major corporations like Nike, Walmart, GM, Ford, Whirlpool, etc. start paying actual taxes, I would think a lot more stuff could be funded.
In reality, a lot of this would effectively be the same thing.
The ultra wealthy typically do not derive their income from a paycheck or a salary, but essentially from investments of various sorts that most people could never afford to play in and that normally is the realm of large organizations (and that is not taxed at the same levels that income from something like a Salary is).
Also, Consul, why SS, it's a tiny percentage of our budget?
Edit: that is to say, discretionary spending.
Also... isn't SS pretty much "self funding"?? By that I mean, it's one of the few categories of spending in which we know exactly which taxes go into it: the employment/social security taxes.
No. We don't.
The reason why is that all tax revenues go into the General Fund. That is, our SS tax doesn't go into a "special SS account" that is earmarked directly back to SS payments.
It all goes into one giant Piggy Bank™.
Hence why I'm convinced that it won't be there when I retired.
And honestly, I would start with "close the tax loopholes" before adding in new taxes on the wealthy. Once the major corporations like Nike, Walmart, GM, Ford, Whirlpool, etc. start paying actual taxes, I would think a lot more stuff could be funded.
That's all good and dandy... just acknowledge that those corporations don't actually pay those taxes in a vacuum. Tax costs are filtered down to the consumers... and when you look at it from beginning-to-end, it's the consumer that's pays for that tax.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: In reality, a lot of this would effectively be the same thing.
The ultra wealthy typically do not derive their income from a paycheck or a salary, but essentially from investments of various sorts that most people could never afford to play in and that normally is the realm of large organizations (and that is not taxed at the same levels that income from something like a Salary is).
If you want the ultra wealthy to pay *something*...
Tax their wealth/assets.
And/or re-classify what exactly is "income" to capture those scenarios...
Consul Scipio wrote: Cut all the little stuff you want...You're still spinning your wheels and not getting anywhere reducing the debt or more importantly decrease spending.
Until you accept major reductions in:
Social Security
Social Security is paid for with FICA and SECA taxes, not general revenue taxes. It is not part of the budget. Even were we to eliminate SS, it would have no effect on the debt or deficits.
A good way to improve everything is to grow the economy. Tax receipts go up and welfare demands go down, leading to a reduction in budget deficit, and the proportion of national debt to GDP is reduced.
Consul Scipio wrote: Cut all the little stuff you want...You're still spinning your wheels and not getting anywhere reducing the debt or more importantly decrease spending.
Until you accept major reductions in:
Social Security
Social Security is paid for with FICA and SECA taxes, not general revenue taxes. It is not part of the budget. Even were we to eliminate SS, it would have no effect on the debt or deficits.
SS is a direct transfer of wealth. The money that is deducted from our paychecks for SS goes directly to the people currently collecting SS. As the number of people qualifying for and collecting SS increases and the number of people paying into SS decreases the govt still has to meet its obligations to pay SS to the people who qualify for it. The govt makes up the shortfall by borrowing money. It's also why there's a constant political battle over retirement age, means testing for SS, etc.
Entitlement spending eats up the lions share of the federal budget. SS isn't a big factor in the rapidly growing national debt but it does contribute.
No, it does not. The shortfall was planned for back in 1983 when SS money was used to purchase Treasury notes. Those notes and the interest on them are what is currently keeping SS afloat out to 2040-something. Social Security is not a budget item. There is no borrowing.
No, it does not. The shortfall was planned for back in 1983 when SS money was used to purchase Treasury notes. Those notes and the interest on them are what is currently keeping SS afloat out to 2040-something. Social Security is not a budget item. There is no borrowing.
We're paying the interest on the Treaury notes with borrowed money. We don't collect enough taxes to cover all of our spending which includes paying out interest. The fact that we have to buy T notes because the amount of SS collected is less than what is paid out is just proof of its insolvency. The federal govt is spending extra money paying interest into SS because there isn't enough money generated by SS collections to meet obligations.
Also, Consul, why SS, it's a tiny percentage of our budget?
Edit: that is to say, discretionary spending.
Also... isn't SS pretty much "self funding"?? By that I mean, it's one of the few categories of spending in which we know exactly which taxes go into it: the employment/social security taxes.
No. We don't.
The reason why is that all tax revenues go into the General Fund. That is, our SS tax doesn't go into a "special SS account" that is earmarked directly back to SS payments.
It all goes into one giant Piggy Bank™.
Hence why I'm convinced that it won't be there when I retired.
And honestly, I would start with "close the tax loopholes" before adding in new taxes on the wealthy. Once the major corporations like Nike, Walmart, GM, Ford, Whirlpool, etc. start paying actual taxes, I would think a lot more stuff could be funded.
That's all good and dandy... just acknowledge that those corporations don't actually pay those taxes in a vacuum. Tax costs are filtered down to the consumers... and when you look at it from beginning-to-end, it's the consumer that's pays for that tax.
Hrm, yes and no. Depends on the elasticity of the product or service in question and the profit margins on which the organization operates. If the market will not bear price increases, that tax increase is going to come out of the profit margins of the company, not the consumer's pockets. Likewise, if the product or service is extremely high volume, price increases are likely to be negligible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: In reality, a lot of this would effectively be the same thing.
The ultra wealthy typically do not derive their income from a paycheck or a salary, but essentially from investments of various sorts that most people could never afford to play in and that normally is the realm of large organizations (and that is not taxed at the same levels that income from something like a Salary is).
If you want the ultra wealthy to pay *something*...
Tax their wealth/assets.
And/or re-classify what exactly is "income" to capture those scenarios...
Indeed, things like capital gains need some re-assessment. Estate taxes above a certain level as well as a few other things could also do with some looking at.
I don't, personally, think we should raise the corporate tax rate, in fact we may want to look at lowering it, as that may actually boost the economy. What we need to look at it closing a metric feth-ton of loopholes, and really punishing tax dodgers, so they won't do it again.
Personal income on the other hand should have it's rates increase at higher income levels (and possibly lowered on the lower levels) to become more parabolic. We should also look into classifications, to make sure that income, beyond what us niw legally defined as income, gets caught. And possibly even look at taxing holdings once they get to a certain level, although I'm still iffy there.
Removing the upper limit in income taxable by SS would also help shore up any costs there, also separating it from the other bureaucracies might be good, to cut down on costs.
We would have to freeze federal spending at its current level and increase federal income tax to bring in another $500 billion just to avoid adding to the federal debt that is currently over $18 trillion. To make a significant reduction in the debt, that is rapidly eclipsing out GDP we have to make real spending cuts and maintain that reduced budget for years. It's not a problem that can be solved through taxation alone.
skyth wrote: Spending cuts would tank the economy though...
Depends on what gets cut and by how much. We've piled up 18 trillion in debt and we're spending 3.7trillion annually (with annual increases) and the economy is growing at a very sluggish rate, we're aren't generating a lot of jobs, labor participation is still less than 2/3rds, wages aren't rising and interest rates are still extremely low. Simply raising taxes isn't going to kickstart prosperity either.
If we want to grow the economy we have to take actions that will benefit the majority of people, likely at the expense of the minority. Something the nation needs to recognize and accept is that if money can be funneled to the top, it will be. For evidence, look at every government in human history. This is why the idea of trickle down falls flat. Ultimately, we need to take action to protect corporations from themselves via tragedy of the commons. Each corporation wants to maximize profits, so they do that be stripping it from the little guy (the details are debatable, but its undeniable this happens across the board when we look at wealth/income distribution). However, when every corporation does this, the population does not have as much money to spend. Since we have a consumer-based economy, this slows it overall. The end result, ironically, is less profits for the same corporations and more difficulty for everyone else. Obviously this is one of multiple major issues that needs to be addressed but I think it would have the single biggest impact on the economy as a whole.
To put it in simple terms; the US has a consumer-based economy yet has been consistently taking actions which do not benefit the consumer. This leads directly to the economic situation we have now.
If you wanted to maximize personal revenue, while limiting personal risk, you wouldn't have married or had kids.
Ain't that the truth.
Addendum: Don't be stupid with credit. Easier said then done though...
I got out of chapter 13 bankruptcy last year.
Dave Ramsey has a great program "Financial Peace".
It takes work, discipline and dedication...but totally doable and once you find that you can live without credit cards and credit (in general)....it is very liberating!
Surprisingly, the whembly household would fare best under Ted Cruz's plan and be okay on Trump's plan as well. Hillary's plan would largely be unchanged, and I'd get boned under Sander's plan.
I did mine a a couple months ago, but haven't actually filed yet. I'm in the same boat on the various tax plans. Of course, I would be interested to know how much I would end up saving under Sanders, given that I am diabetic so I do have a decent amount of healthcare costs.
If you wanted to maximize personal revenue, while limiting personal risk, you wouldn't have married or had kids.
Ain't that the truth.
Addendum: Don't be stupid with credit. Easier said then done though...
I got out of chapter 13 bankruptcy last year.
Dave Ramsey has a great program "Financial Peace".
It takes work, discipline and dedication...but totally doable and once you find that you can live without credit cards and credit (in general)....it is very liberating!
Paid off all my CC debt on my first deployment. Everything Debit now with me. I even don't have a PIN# to withdraw. I agree 110%
(I can't actually vote but you guys have the best and funnest elections ever. It's like the Olympics, the World Cup and some other sportsball event all rolled into one but not boring and actually meaningful!)
NinthMusketeer wrote: If we want to grow the economy we have to take actions that will benefit the majority of people, likely at the expense of the minority. Something the nation needs to recognize and accept is that if money can be funneled to the top, it will be. For evidence, look at every government in human history. This is why the idea of trickle down falls flat. Ultimately, we need to take action to protect corporations from themselves via tragedy of the commons. Each corporation wants to maximize profits, so they do that be stripping it from the little guy (the details are debatable, but its undeniable this happens across the board when we look at wealth/income distribution). However, when every corporation does this, the population does not have as much money to spend. Since we have a consumer-based economy, this slows it overall. The end result, ironically, is less profits for the same corporations and more difficulty for everyone else. Obviously this is one of multiple major issues that needs to be addressed but I think it would have the single biggest impact on the economy as a whole.
To put it in simple terms; the US has a consumer-based economy yet has been consistently taking actions which do not benefit the consumer. This leads directly to the economic situation we have now.
This is a problem with capitalism as such. Jacques Maritain is particularly good on this point. See, e.g., Integral Humanism.
I forget the exact locus, but basically what he says is that capitalism subverts the natural ordering of money and entrepreneurship .
Whereas, in point of fact, money is supposed to be the fuel for a corporation, the goal of which should be to produce goods and services which are needed by the people that it serves...
...
...in a capitalist society, goods and services become the fuel for a corporation, the goal of which becomes the production of money.
There is something intrinsically perverse about capitalism. Consider, e.g., obsolescence. Because the goal of capitalist entrepreneurs is the production of money, and not the fulfillment of human need, the way to maximize profits is to produce a product which will last for a little while, and then need to be replaced.
Consider how this plays out in everything from cars to i-phones.
If, on the other hand, corporations had a spirit of stewardship, as opposed to greedy avarice, what they would be doing is producing goods and services which best suit human need, maintain the environment, etc. This would involve the opposite of obsolescence, which, of course, would decrease profits.
In a capitalist society, this is unthinkable.
Again, consider how a common objection to the minimum wage is that McDonalds would replace workers with robots...
...
..so lets get this straight. People don't actually need to be working at McDonalds. This work could be replaced by robots with absolutely no impact on the production of goods and services...
...
...but this is a thing which people want to avoid simply because of the contingencies of the capitalist system of economics?
Consider how perverse that is.
In an ideal economic system, there would be a fair and just distribution of goods and services. Servile human labor, obsolescence, etc. would be absolutely minimized whenever possible, so as to leave more people time for "higher" human activities like the arts, the sciences, philosophy, theology, the worship of God, etc.
Not so in a capitalist society. We have to make as much stuff as possible and distribute it to as many people as possible. But eventually, everyone's going to have one. So we have to make sure that it breaks so that we can make sure more people get them. For as high a price as they're willing to pay.
I don't think I need to explain why this is just self-destructive and bizarre.
Of course, communism is no better, given its inherent atheistic materialism and its utter abnegation of the intrinsic dignity of individual human persons.
What you refer to above is Obsolescence (or built-in obsolescence).
You're right. My bad.
Do you have any thoughts about the rest of what I wrote, word choice mistakes aside?
Well it's kind of an age-old conundrum. Partly, you could argue that the continued replacement of *stuff* brings us ever better *stuff* (consider how in not much more than 100 years, the telephone has gone from a rarity to ubiquitous and now virtually a computer in everyone's pocket - in the UK & US at least), but certainly, companies rarely have a 'corporate pride' in their products once they reach a certain size, unlike say an artist or craftsman. I'm not sure that taking everything back to artisan production would be a good thing for society though.
Traditio wrote: Because the goal of capitalist entrepreneurs is the production of money, and not the fulfillment of human need, the way to maximize profits is to produce a product which will last for a little while, and then need to be replaced.
Even if that isn't a "human need" it is certainly a human want. Most people want a surplus of things which enable them to fulfill their needs.
The thing about obsolescence is that it was a natural progression from artisan production to industrial manufacturing. At a certain point, it's cheaper to replace something than to repair it. At that point, obsolescence becomes the standard,
Sometimes they difference between need and want is opalescent. Do I need another pair of hive tyrant wings from that bits seller on eBay to pimp my Night Lords' knight Titan? Yes, yes I do.
dogma wrote:Even if that isn't a "human need" it is certainly a human want. Most people want a surplus of things which enable them to fulfill their needs.
I don't think that you're following me.
The teleology (the goal) of businesses should be the succoring or fulfillment of human need or lack. If a company is in the business of selling sofas, their goal should be to make sure that they get good sofas to the people who want them. Where does profit come in? Profit should only come in: 1. to pay the individuals in the corporation enough to have a reasonable standard of living and 2. to make sure that the company can keep making good sofas.
Profit should be the fuel for the business machine, sofas the product.
In point of fact, that's not how companies operate.
Sofas are only the fuel, and profit is the real "product."
dogma wrote:Even if that isn't a "human need" it is certainly a human want. Most people want a surplus of things which enable them to fulfill their needs.
I don't think that you're following me.
The teleology (the goal) of businesses should be the succoring or fulfillment of human need or lack. If a company is in the business of selling sofas, their goal should be to make sure that they get good sofas to the people who want them. Where does profit come in? Profit should only come in: 1. to pay the individuals in the corporation enough to have a reasonable standard of living and 2. to make sure that the company can keep making good sofas.
Profit should be the fuel for the business machine, sofas the product.
In point of fact, that's not how companies operate.
Sofas are only the fuel, and profit is the real "product."
Consider, e.g., how GW operates.
You say what the goals of companies *SHOULD* be, but you are assuming that we all agree that these *SHOULD* be their goals. What if (to pluck something from mid-air) I say that the goal of a company should be to provide maximum employment in a particular locale? Our differing goals might well now be in conflict. I'm not sure where you are taking the authoritative *should* from when it comes to defining the role of business in society.
richred_uk wrote:You say what the goals of companies *SHOULD* be, but you are assuming that we all agree that these *SHOULD* be their goals. What if (to pluck something from mid-air) I say that the goal of a company should be to provide maximum employment in a particular locale? Our differing goals might well now be in conflict. I'm not sure where you are taking the authoritative *should* from when it comes to defining the role of business in society.
I would answer that your putative goal doesn't make any sense. Servile labor isn't a bonum honestum (a good-in-itself).
If more people can enjoy sofas with fewer people actually having to make them (presupposing that those fewer people are no more burdened thereby), that's even better.
richred_uk wrote:You say what the goals of companies *SHOULD* be, but you are assuming that we all agree that these *SHOULD* be their goals. What if (to pluck something from mid-air) I say that the goal of a company should be to provide maximum employment in a particular locale? Our differing goals might well now be in conflict. I'm not sure where you are taking the authoritative *should* from when it comes to defining the role of business in society.
I would answer that your putative goal doesn't make any sense. Servile labor isn't a bonum honestum (a good-in-itself).
If more people can enjoy sofas with fewer people actually having to make them (presupposing that those fewer people are no more burdened thereby), that's even better.
Then you are wanting to set your thought experiments in a utopia where those without employment are not harmed by it. You are running a thought experiment in an unrealistic universe and starting out by defining a set of rules that conform to your personal prejudices. As such, it is very difficult , nigh on impossible to discuss with you - if you want to discuss real wold application of political ideas I'm happy to join in, but philosophy experiments in Traditio's unbelievable mental construct universe holds no interest for me.
richred_uk wrote:Then you are wanting to set your thought experiments in a utopia where those without employment are not harmed by it. You are running a thought experiment in an unrealistic universe and starting out by defining a set of rules that conform to your personal prejudices. As such, it is very difficult , nigh on impossible to discuss with you - if you want to discuss real wold application of political ideas I'm happy to join in, but philosophy experiments in Traditio's unbelievable mental construct universe holds no interest for me.
Then, in point of fact, I'll answer you that the maximization of employment also is not an actual business goal. In point of fact, corporations love to minimize their labor force whenever it's profitable to do so. Less employees often means more money.
I'm sure you're aware of Wal-Mart.
Why do you think Americans take so few vacations? Part of it, I bet, is because of the lack of worker redundancy to compensate for it.
At any rate:
Economic activity is defined as the production and distribution of goods and services. All material goods exist in order to succor human needs. As such, the economy exists for man, and not the other way around.
The problem with capitalism is that it perverts, undermines and rejects this basic truth. [This is a point, mind you, which, I believe, the holy father has been making repeatedly throughout his tenure as supreme pontiff, no?. Before him, again, Jacques Maritain makes this point repeatedly.]
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd like to note further, RichRed_UK, that the notion that you reject as utopian and unrealistic actually is neither utopian nor unrealistic:
What's so unrealistic about the notion of a universal minimum income?
Very Brief as I have to go to bed imminently to be ready to push numbers around and reject basic truths in the morning
What you are coming up with is "Capitalism Bad". Something that has been come up with by many people on both the left and right over many years.
Here's the problem - accepting the premise that Capitalism comes up with situations that are not perfect, what can you suggest that has a chance of working any better?
Oh and you are still taking as gospel that your interpretation of business goals are correct and immutable. There are many corporations that don't have maximisation of profits as their raison d'etre and your thesis doesn't allow for that.
richred_uk wrote: Very Brief as I have to go to bed imminently to be ready to push numbers around and reject basic truths in the morning
What you are coming up with is "Capitalism Bad". Something that has been come up with by many people on both the left and right over many years.
Here's the problem - accepting the premise that Capitalism comes up with situations that are not perfect, what can you suggest that has a chance of working any better?
Oh and you are still taking as gospel that your interpretation of business goals are correct and immutable. There are many corporations that don't have maximisation of profits as their raison d'etre and your thesis doesn't allow for that.
The popes have offered alternatives repeatedly. Consider Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII.
I have especially in mind the words of Pope Francis from Evangelii Gaudium:
"Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills... A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which has taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits."
dogma wrote:Even if that isn't a "human need" it is certainly a human want. Most people want a surplus of things which enable them to fulfill their needs.
I don't think that you're following me.
The teleology (the goal) of businesses should be the succoring or fulfillment of human need or lack. If a company is in the business of selling sofas, their goal should be to make sure that they get good sofas to the people who want them. Where does profit come in? Profit should only come in: 1. to pay the individuals in the corporation enough to have a reasonable standard of living and 2. to make sure that the company can keep making good sofas.
Profit should be the fuel for the business machine, sofas the product.
In point of fact, that's not how companies operate.
Sofas are only the fuel, and profit is the real "product."
Consider, e.g., how GW operates.
You do realize that profit is the amount of money remaining after goods or services are purchased and the cost of providing those goods and services is deducted right? Wages are part of the cost of labor they are factored into the price that is charged. Nobody pays wages out of profit.
Sofas are the product sold by sofa manufacturers. Sofa making companies exist to make sofas that people want that are available for a price that people can afford. That's capitalism; the exchange of goods and services for money. If the manufacturer makes sofas that nobody wants and/or charges prices that inhibit many or any sofas from selling then the company goes out of business, employs no one and makes no profit. Profit is the result of selling sofas, there would be no profit if the company didn't meet peoples' sofa needs and desires at an affordable price.
The primary problem with a guaranteed minimum income is that it artificially inflates the cost of labor which increases prices and makes it harder for lesser skilled or educated people to get jobs and incentivizes automation.
Prestor Jon wrote:You do realize that profit is the amount of money remaining after goods or services are purchased and the cost of providing those goods and services is deducted right? Wages are part of the cost of labor they are factored into the price that is charged. Nobody pays wages out of profit.
Fair point.
Sofas are the product sold by sofa manufacturers. Sofa making companies exist to make sofas that people want that are available for a price that people can afford. That's capitalism; the exchange of goods and services for money. If the manufacturer makes sofas that nobody wants and/or charges prices that inhibit many or any sofas from selling then the company goes out of business, employs no one and makes no profit. Profit is the result of selling sofas, there would be no profit if the company didn't meet peoples' sofa needs and desires at an affordable price.
I don't disagree with any of this, but I don't think it contradicts my points.
The primary problem with a guaranteed minimum income is that it artificially inflates the cost of labor which increases prices and makes it harder for lesser skilled or educated people to get jobs and incentivizes automation.
I think you may be working with an errant conception of what a gauranteed minimum income is. That's where the government makes sure that everyone gets at least x amount of dollars per year. Let's say that the GMI is $12,000 per year. The government sends out checks to anyone making less than that to make sure that they have at least that much every year. This is presumably compensated for by taxing the higher bracket income earners. But it has nothing to do with the cost of labor.
You do realize that profit is the amount of money remaining after goods or services are purchased and the cost of providing those goods and services is deducted right? Wages are part of the cost of labor they are factored into the price that is charged. Nobody pays wages out of profit.
Actually, they do.... This is because there's Net Profit, and Gross Profit.
Long story short he is still behind, but the delegate allocation still isn't done. To me this is a good example of how convoluted the caucus process can be and why every state should be a primary, not a caucus. Vote, leave, count. It really shouldn't be this difficult people.
Easy E wrote: Just to be clear. This was a very black humored joke. I do not expect that too happen and I don't think Mrs. Clinton had anything to do with Mr. Foster's unfortunate suicide.
I know you were joking, but there's jokes and there's jokes, you know. I apologise if I read it more harshly than I should, but in the context of people honestly continuing with that story and many others, I think my reading was fair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ulgurstasta wrote: Thats my understanding of how the democratic primaries work yes, The fact that she tries to blame Sanders for this seems to prove that.
Well, no race is over until its over, but Sanders best chance at the nomination at this point is probably Clinton's spontaneous combustion. And I don't mean that in a figurative sense, a campaign meltdown, I mean Clinton actually just :poof: up in flames.
Sanders attempts to play underhand politics on half truths at this stage is basically working for the Republicans at this stage.
I´m not entirely sure what you are trying to claim here, but yes, politicians usually favor the people/companies that give them money, not a controversial statement exactly
Less than half of 1% of Clinton's funds comes from the energy sector. The claim that they've bought her influence is very, very stupid indeed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Honestly, any real attempt at cutting the dept in a significant manner, would have to be a combination of raising certain taxes (on those who can afford to have their taxes raised), removing loopholes, cutting incentives, and budget cuts.
The primary driver of debt reduction will come from growth. Both population growth and productivity. Over the Clinton years there was an expansion in total debt of almost 2 trillion, but given the economic growth during that period debt per GDP actually dropped about 15%.
This seems like a nitpick but the reality is that if you can move to a budget position which is break even, or even just close to break even, then the debt to GDP will steadily reduce as long as growth continues.
This should inform people as to how little actually has to be done to bring the US to a long term sustainable position. The talk about slashing welfare and all that just makes no sense, it isn’t necessary given the current budget position. It’s favoured for entirely ideological reasons.
Really, very minor cuts to the major programs in addition to very minor tax increases (which would be more than achieved simply by taxing CG and dividends as income) would bring the budget on track. This doesn’t happen for lots of reasons, of course, but it is important to realise how little actually has to be done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Social Security is paid for with FICA and SECA taxes, not general revenue taxes. It is not part of the budget. Even were we to eliminate SS, it would have no effect on the debt or deficits.
Not quite. Because SS is a defined benefits scheme, the amount paid out each year is not directly tied to the amount received. The difference between revenues taken in and amounts paid out is an impact on the government bottom line.
The issue that's been watched and waited for for a long time now is the baby boomer demographic bulge combined with increasing life expectancy past retirement. This has meant that the SS scheme, its revenues and expenditures, that once used to bring in more than it paid out, is now looking at a being a deficit program for some decades to come.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: If you want the ultra wealthy to pay *something*...
Tax their wealth/assets.
Taxes on wealth are much easier to avoid, and much more economically problematic than taxes on income. They produce all sorts of distorting effects, where people put money in bad and non-productive kinds of investments simply to hide the wealth.
And/or re-classify what exactly is "income" to capture those scenarios...
The answer is to stop classifying seperately. Treat all income as equal. The current system says if you earn a paycheck they'll take anywhere up to 39.6% in income tax. That's at the very high end, but even the median income earner will be losing 25% of every new dollar he earns.
On the other hand if you make capital gains tax revenue that'll be taxed at 15%.
Two people, one earns a salary of $50,000, while the other makes $50k in realised capital gains during the year, and the former is taxed more. That should piss people off before they realise that capital gains income is more likely to $500k, and taxed at a lower rate than the guy on $50k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: We're paying the interest on the Treaury notes with borrowed money. We don't collect enough taxes to cover all of our spending which includes paying out interest. The fact that we have to buy T notes because the amount of SS collected is less than what is paid out is just proof of its insolvency. The federal govt is spending extra money paying interest into SS because there isn't enough money generated by SS collections to meet obligations.
You are right that SS pays out more than it takes in and so is now a drain on the government budget, but describing the position as insolvency is kind of silly. You can't split out one part of government and call it insolvent based on its revenues and expenditures. In that sense defense is insolvent - it brings in almost nothing and pays out a couple of trillion.
SS needs to be understood as it is - a government program that funds retirement, mostly funded through specific taxes, but with the remainder made up out of general revenue.
Henry wrote:You were doing alright until you used atheistic as a pejorative.
Seriously, screw you.
I was using "atheistic" as a bare descriptive. In point of fact, communism, as formulated by Marx and Engels, and expressed, say, in Soviet or Chinese communism, is avowedly and dogmatically atheistic. Communism isn't simply an economic system. It's loaded up with all kinds of philosophical underpinnings. Among these are:
Prestor Jon wrote: Depends on what gets cut and by how much. We've piled up 18 trillion in debt and we're spending 3.7trillion annually (with annual increases)
18 trillion is a junk number, it includes about 5 trillion in debt that government owes to itself. The real figure is about 13.5 trillion. Still high, of course, but part thinking about this in real terms is focusing on the numbers that really matter.
Simply raising taxes isn't going to kickstart prosperity either.
Trying to tie spending and taxing programs to future economic growth has produced a lot of nonsense thinking. Outside of acute collapses in aggregate demand like 2008 that you and most of the rest of the world are slowly walking out of, there's no real argument for government spending to prop up demand. And despite years of effort and countless theories being written, re-written and recycled, there is basically no real world evidence that tax cuts, either individual, corporate or CG, do anything to drive GDP growth (outside of tax havens, but that's not applicable to major economies).
Strip all that away and the reality becomes very simple. Money that you spend is money that has to be raised in taxes, there's no magical 'growth' argument that can be used to justify excessive spending or excessive tax cuts. There's some wiggle room because long term growth of around 3 or 4% over the long term means you can run small deficits without impacting debt to GDP, but that's it, outside of that you just need to make sure everything spent is covered with tax revenues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: Do you have any thoughts about the rest of what I wrote, word choice mistakes aside?
Its not wrong, but it's also nothing new. Because people are self-interested, any system will produce situations in which utility maximising individuals will operate in ways that are perverse from a society wide utility point of view.
There's not really anything that can done about this, no system can overcome self-interest, outside of combining every human brain into a single, collective conscious. Which is probably not going to happen any time soon.
The teleology (the goal) of businesses should be the succoring or fulfillment of human need or lack.
"Should" is not "is" or "could", pretending otherwise is foolish because human beings will always attempt to maximize the benefits for the things they care about.
sebster wrote:Its not wrong, but it's also nothing new. Because people are self-interested, any system will produce situations in which utility maximising individuals will operate in ways that are perverse from a society wide utility point of view.
There's not really anything that can done about this, no system can overcome self-interest, outside of combining every human brain into a single, collective conscious. Which is probably not going to happen any time soon.
I think you underestimate the power of the State. I quote Judge Dredd from America:
"Justice has a price. The price is freedom."
There is such a thing as economic justice. The State should either teach businesses their place, in order that they might learn and accept it joyfully, or else, the State should put them in their place.
For starters:
I propose life imprisonment and massive fines for anyone guilty of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant.
Failure to pay taxes on business income? Life imprisonment and confiscation of all property.
Seeking tax shelters in the cayman islands? Life imprisonment and confiscation of all property.
Outsourcing to the third world and not obeying US labor laws with respect to the outsourced labor? Life imprisonment and confiscation of all property.
Shutting down and liquidating your business or otherwise leaving the country to evade economic laws? Confiscation of all property. You leave naked and penniless.
And iso-cubes.
The State should build iso-cubes specifically for those capitalists who dare to violate economic justice.
I think you underestimate the power of satire i.e. your quoting of Judge Dredd as if it were not.
Propose all you want. Earlier you proposed the deportation of all Muslims from the US. Please propose some more so people can quit taking your posts seriously.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I think you underestimate the power of satire i.e. your quoting of Judge Dredd as if it were not.
Propose all you want. Earlier you proposed the exportation of all Muslims from the US. Please propose some more so people can quit taking your posts seriously.
Do you have a compelling argument against enacting harsh laws against capitalists who violate economic justice? Do you have a compelling argument against exporting all Muslims?
I could, with but little effort, show you the great danger of Islam and the great harm that can be enacted by underhanded capitalists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I am, I'm just way better at philosophy than you are.
I only wish that this were true, dogma! May your facility and education in philosophy far exceed mine, as also your humility and virtue.
"Should" is not "is" or "could", pretending otherwise is foolish because human beings will always attempt to maximize the benefits for the things they care about.
1. "Ought" implies "can." If capitalists should have a spirit of stewardship in their business dealings, then they can do it. If the people should have such an economic system which works for the benefit of men, and not the other way around, then the people most certainly could have such a thing (so long as they are not economically dependent on someone else). If the State ought to enact certain forms of legislation, then they most certainly could.
Ultimately, your objection throws doubt on the notion of law and order at all: "Should not commit murder" is not "does not" or "could stop them from doing it." Pretending otherwise is foolish...
Gordon Shumway wrote: I think you underestimate the power of satire i.e. your quoting of Judge Dredd as if it were not.
Propose all you want. Earlier you proposed the exportation of all Muslims from the US. Please propose some more so people can quit taking your posts seriously.
Do you have a compelling argument against enacting harsh laws against capitalists who violate economic justice? Do you have a compelling argument against exporting all Muslims?
I could, with but little effort, show you the great danger of Islam and the great harm that can be enacted by underhanded capitalists.
The US Constitution Amendment 8. The US Constitution Amendment 1.
Aww, go ahead and put a little effort into it. I'm sure it will be terribly enlightening and not at all trolling.
Gordon Shumway wrote:The US Constitution Amendment 8.
Your citing amendment 8 begs the question. I'll simply answer that what I've proposed isn't excessive, cruel or unusual.
The US Constitution Amendment 1.
Perhaps the 1st amendment should be amended.
Not all religions are created equal. Some are actually subversive to the State. Cases in point?
Here's a non-controversial example: scientology.
Do you have an argument to the contrary?
Aww, go ahead and put a little effort into it. I'm sure it will be terribly enlightening and not at all trolling.
Islam:
How do you want to look at it? Do you want to look at their beliefs? Their history? The man that they venerate as the very messenger of God and as the chief and prime exemplar of human conduct? Or do you want to consider them solely empirically as a current/modern national/global threat?
Life imprisonment for knowingly hiring an illegal alien doesn't strike you as excessive?
Go ahead and try to amend the first amendment, but I doubt you will get very far.
As to my tone of condescension: considering your silly hashtags of
"#BuildThatWall
#RepelTheMuslimInvasion
#StopIslam"
on page 368 I doubt what I said will be all that frowned upon. Of course, if I truly offended you, I apologize. Would you apologize to me if I were to tell you I am a Muslim and a proud American?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Life imprisonment for knowingly hiring an illegal alien doesn't strike you as excessive?
No.
Think about everything entailed by hiring an illegal alien. Why did he hire that illegal alien? How has that affected the body politic? What kind of person/character does it express on the part of the person doing the hiring?
Would you apologize to me if I were to tell you I am a Muslim and a proud American?
Absolutely not. Even if you were a muslim (and so offended by my postings in this thread) or black (and so offended by my comments in another thread to the effect that I like Johnny Rebel), nothing that I've said is personal or intended to disparage any individual person.
And see, this is where Muslim doctrines as dangerous come into play.
From what I understand, it's perfectly permissible in Islam for a muslim to lie to a non-muslim in order to promote Islam, or else, to preserve himself.
I have absolutely no reason to trust a muslim when that muslim is permitted by his religion to lie to me.
Note, of course, that this isn't personal.
Even if you were a Muslim, you might be completely truthful when you say that you are a proud American (and so imply that you prefer American law to Shariah law).
Nonetheless, as a Muslim (if you are a Muslim), I have no reason to think that you are being truthful.
If x believes that it's OK to lie, then x is not trustworthy. The very basis of trust is that I can expect that x will be truthful. If Muslims believe the tenets of their faith, they have to believe that it's OK to lie, at least in some circumstances.
Do you trust people who think it's OK to lie to you?
Answer me that, motyak.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And while we are at it, Motyak:
After you are done reviewing the wikipedia article, I fully expect a retraction and apology on your part.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Furthermore, in protest, Motyak, I quote at length the words of St. Thomas Aquinas.
You want to accuse me of being rude? Then let's see you accuse the angelic doctor himself:
"On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly" (Summa Contra Gentiles I.6.4).
You think that what I've said is rude?
You think that what St. Thomas says is rude?
Ban me if you want.
But first, why don't you show me your credentials and your exceedingly great education.
sebster wrote:Its not wrong, but it's also nothing new. Because people are self-interested, any system will produce situations in which utility maximising individuals will operate in ways that are perverse from a society wide utility point of view.
There's not really anything that can done about this, no system can overcome self-interest, outside of combining every human brain into a single, collective conscious. Which is probably not going to happen any time soon.
I think you underestimate the power of the State.
I think you fail to understand the limitations of the state and the limitations inherent in any economic system. You have confused the government’s potential for absolute power in specific instances with absolute power.
That is to say, just because government has absolute power to make something illegal with punishment up to an including death, doesn’t mean government has the power to actually stop that thing happening, or to control the consequences of that new law.
I quote Judge Dredd from America:
Please don’t.
Anyway, everything you wrote after the Dredd quote was very silly. Shocking, I know, that an absurdist comic would produce political thought that is not particularly well grounded in the real world, but there it is.
In case I actually need to explain this to you, it’s a total nonsense to claim you desire economic justice, and then argue that a bunch of white collar crimes should receive life prison sentences. Economic justice won’t be achieved by ignoring judicial justice.
You may possibly have an interesting point of view, but until you drag it back to reality then your posts will just be more internet crazy noise.
sebster wrote:I think you fail to understand the limitations of the state and the limitations inherent in any economic system. You have confused the government’s potential for absolute power in specific instances with absolute power.
That is to say, just because government has absolute power to make something illegal with punishment up to an including death, doesn’t mean government has the power to actually stop that thing happening, or to control the consequences of that new law.
No, that's very true.
That said, I think that this line of objection casts doubt on absolutely any law whatsoever. You see pro-abortionists making the same kinds of claim:
"If the State makes abortion illegal, then women will move their activities to illegal back alley abortions, and that would be even more dangerous to the women than what happens now."
But you don't see this argument being raised about any number of other laws.
"If the State makes murder illegal, then murderers..."
Yes, it's true that the capacity of the State to enforce the law is limited. This in and of itself doesn't imply that the State: 1. shouldn't try and 2. can't change things for the better by so doing.
Please don’t.
Anyway, everything you wrote after the Dredd quote was very silly. Shocking, I know, that an absurdist comic would produce political thought that is not particularly well grounded in the real world, but there it is.
For what it's worth, I could be citing actual "authorities" on political philosophy. I could cite Plato, or Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas. To a lesser extent, I could cite other people.
I just like quoting Judge Dredd because the lines are often just so incredibly good.
"Justice has a price. The price is freedom."
In point of fact, the line is just true. Justice and freedom (understood in the libertarian sense of "do whatever I want") are absolutely opposed.
If there is a strong obligation of justice for a business owner to do x, y and z, then he does not have the ethical freedom, nor should he have the legal freedom, to do otherwise.
In case I actually need to explain this to you, it’s a total nonsense to claim you desire economic justice, and then argue that a bunch of white collar crimes should receive life prison sentences. Economic justice won’t be achieved by ignoring judicial justice.
My answer must be that you are simply underestimating the gravity of certain forms of white collar crime. How long can I get put away if I steal a car?
Traditio wrote: Do you have a compelling argument against enacting harsh laws against capitalists who violate economic justice?
Okay, you also have little to no knowledge of what economic justice is, and means. It’s not a codified set of laws that a person can clearly be in adherence or breach of. At it’s most coherent it’s the notion that economics shouldn’t just value utilitarian values but notions of equality and fairness as well.
It never gets used in a judicial/punitive sense, because that’s just a total nonsense. It’s used in policy discussion, on whether a policy might produce not just stability and growth, but also protect/enhance fairness/equality.
I’m getting the impression you’ve heard the term somewhere, and are now using it because it sounds like it might just relate to an idea you have in your head, which is this very mixed up kind of notion about capitalists are bad because bad things have happened to working class people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: It's a well known Muslim practice. See here:
If x believes that it's OK to lie, then x is not trustworthy. The very basis of trust is that I can expect that x will be truthful. If Muslims believe the tenets of their faith, they have to believe that it's OK to lie, at least in some circumstances.
And if you honestly believe that diverse cultures and entire peoples can be defined by a line of text in a book, even a central book, then you understand nothing about how people actually work.
Go out and meet people. Learn. The world is so much more complex than you will ever know from just reading about 'clobber verses' on the internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: Yes, it's true that the capacity of the State to enforce the law is limited. This in and of itself doesn't imply that the State: 1. shouldn't try and 2. can't change things for the better by so doing.
No, but it applies a very obvious test that a law shouldn’t merely sound authoritative, it should actually be useful in affecting real world behaviour. That you’ve ended up in a corner where you’re arguing against such a test should tell you how badly you’ve thought through your position, and how badly you’ve reacted to the obvious criticisms of it.
For what it's worth, I could be citing actual "authorities" on political philosophy. I could cite Plato, or Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas. To a lesser extent, I could cite other people.
Please don’t. I joked a few pages ago about you arguing from another millennia, it wasn’t an invitation to double down on that nonsense.
If there is a strong obligation of justice for a business owner to do x, y and z, then he does not have the ethical freedom, nor should he have the legal freedom, to do otherwise.
We differentiate ethics from law because we recognise the limitations of the state in actually enforcing positive behaviour. Well, we do, you don’t.
My answer must be that you are simply underestimating the gravity of certain forms of white collar crime. How long can I get put away if I steal a car?
No, I haven’t underestimated them. I never mentioned scale, you just made that up to argue against it. It’s absurd because you are applying life prison sentences to a property crime and calling it ‘justice’.
You do realize that profit is the amount of money remaining after goods or services are purchased and the cost of providing those goods and services is deducted right? Wages are part of the cost of labor they are factored into the price that is charged. Nobody pays wages out of profit.
Actually, they do.... This is because there's Net Profit, and Gross Profit.
Gross profit = revenue - cost of goods sold. The cost of goods sold when dealing with goods manufactured by the company ( such as sofas) includes labor. That's what I wanted taught in my Econ class back in Colette and I've yet to find a source that contradicts that definition.
The primary problem with a guaranteed minimum income is that it artificially inflates the cost of labor which increases prices and makes it harder for lesser skilled or educated people to get jobs and incentivizes automation.
I think you may be working with an errant conception of what a gauranteed minimum income is. That's where the government makes sure that everyone gets at least x amount of dollars per year. Let's say that the GMI is $12,000 per year. The government sends out checks to anyone making less than that to make sure that they have at least that much every year. This is presumably compensated for by taxing the higher bracket income earners. But it has nothing to do with the cost of labor.
It absolutely affects the price of labor. If the federal govt guarantees everyone, regardless of their employment status, a minimum income then businesses must pay more than that minimum to get workers to take a job. Why would you work for X amount of money if the govt will pay you the same amount of money if you don't work? That type of program creates an artificial salary floor set by govt policy not by the market value of labor so it increases the cost of labor.
$12k is a very low minimum income, very people could afford housing, utilities and food for only $1k/month. It would need to be at least $24k a year. We already have govt programs that provide benefits/assistance for housing, food and income that can reach combined totals greater than $24k annually. The govt could restructure those various programs into one streamlined program that issues a single monthly payment instead of separate payments for housing assistance, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, disability, etc but let's not pretend that those programs don't already exist.
If x believes that it's OK to lie, then x is not trustworthy. The very basis of trust is that I can expect that x will be truthful. If Muslims believe the tenets of their faith, they have to believe that it's OK to lie, at least in some circumstances.
Do you trust people who think it's OK to lie to you?
You seem to be misconstruing taqqiya by ignoring its context. In Islam it's ok for devout Muslims to pretend to be non Muslims to avoid persecution by a hostile state or authority. It's no different than Christians hiding their Christianity and worshiping in secret in countries that ban religion or require everyone to practice an official state religion. Such people exist in numerous nations and regions right now. Hiding personal religious beliefs for the sake of self preservation doesn't preclude someone from being honest in any or all other circumstances. I dont see why you would believe that it does or how you could not see that using such faulty logic to make a derogatory generalization about a group of people would be considered an unkind act.
That said, I think that this line of objection casts doubt on absolutely any law whatsoever. You see pro-abortionists making the same kinds of claim:
"If the State makes abortion illegal, then women will move their activities to illegal back alley abortions, and that would be even more dangerous to the women than what happens now."
But you don't see this argument being raised about any number of other laws.
"If the State makes murder illegal, then murderers..."
Because murders stopped entirely when murder was made illegal?
I'm so glad to find out that making something illegal completely and utterly stops it. There's now no rape, murder, theft or crime in general!
Traditio wrote: I could cite Plato, or Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas. To a lesser extent, I could cite other people.
What about when Aristotle disagrees with your views on homosexuality?
Because he was pretty cool with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: State confiscation of property, draconian laws, dislike of communism, and a deep hatred of a perceived foreign enemy. Yup, sounds like fascism to me.
Don't forget those damn homosexuals and their homosexual agenda!
To cite Plato or Socrates is basically an appeal to authority. What matters is if their argument on the specific issue makes sense. It's easily possible for the same person to hold a sensible view on Issue A and a ridiculous view on Issue B.
Trump, of course, is intellectually capable of holding sensible and ridiculous views on the same issue simultaneously.
Even if I may disagree sometimes with Traditio, I feel I have to defend his ideas:
"State confiscation of property, draconian laws, dislike of communism, and a deep hatred of a perceived foreign enemy. Yup, sounds like fascism to me. "
Draconian laws should be quiered by every citizen in the world. I don't get why one would want to be lazy with a thief.
Law is Freedom.
Draconian laws and laws enforcers make freedom last longer, everywhere and for everyone.
If you don't respect the law, you should be CERTAIN to be punish, not just think "oh, maybe I will have to paye 250$ and be free to do it again".
This is not fascim, this is freedom.
Foreign ennemy is true and real: in a world with so many countries and limited ressources, every state is a competitor.
Then there is the cultural difference, then the immigration etc...
We don't live in Heaven, we live amongst other individual people and countries, who are envious of our achievement (speaking for The West).
Every illegal immigrant / alien is: an American who loose his job,
another reason for the firms to lower the wages,
it weakens the identity of the Nation.
How can one be for ILLEGAL immigration ? There is a LEGAL way to come to a country, it should be the only way people come to a country.
Communism has proven its flaws, everyone should hate it.
About islam, don't forget the quran has been written directly under the dictation of god: it is not a book speaking about miracles or how you should behave.
It is the PAROLE OF GOD himself.
If you believe in god, you follow his leads. It is timeless, it transcends space and times
Murder hasn't disappeared, but, and you can't say otherwise, there are less murders than if it were legal.
Even if the State hasn't enough power to erase an illegal thing, it has the power to make it almost irevelant.
Particulary now, with all the technology
So... the calm before the storm... Wisconsin's Primary is tomorrow.
Simply stated, if Trump loses to Cruz, his chance to get to 1237 delegates on the first ballot would be almost impossible (provided Cruz doesn't flame out).
For the Democrat side, looks like Sanders is going to win... if he curb-stomp Clinton... look for some panicky reactions.
godardc wrote: Even if I may disagree sometimes with Traditio, I feel I have to defend his ideas:
"State confiscation of property, draconian laws, dislike of communism, and a deep hatred of a perceived foreign enemy. Yup, sounds like fascism to me. "
Draconian laws should be quiered by every citizen in the world. I don't get why one would want to be lazy with a thief.
Law is Freedom.
Draconian laws and laws enforcers make freedom last longer, everywhere and for everyone.
If you don't respect the law, you should be CERTAIN to be punish, not just think "oh, maybe I will have to paye 250$ and be free to do it again".
This is not fascim, this is freedom.
Draconian by definition means "excessively harsh and severe". I don't think anyone would argue in favour of excessive punishments, because it is by definition more than one feels is appropriate. Life imprisonment for anything but capital offenses is silly; it doesn't protect anyone and it gives up on even trying to reform people entirely. A state that just throws its hands in the air is abdicating its responsibility to protect its citizens.
Foreign ennemy is true and real: in a world with so many countries and limited ressources, every state is a competitor.
Then there is the cultural difference, then the immigration etc...
We don't live in Heaven, we live amongst other individual people and countries, who are envious of our achievement (speaking for The West).
Every illegal immigrant / alien is: an American who loose his job,
another reason for the firms to lower the wages,
it weakens the identity of the Nation.
How can one be for ILLEGAL immigration ? There is a LEGAL way to come to a country, it should be the only way people come to a country.
You've jumped off the far end of Realism. Every illegal immigrant isn't an American who loses his job. There is not going to be enough Americans willing to do the back-breaking job in agriculture that is performed by illegal immigrants, for example. You're also assuming that every single illegal alien gets a job, which is so blatantly silly that I'm amazed you'd make the argument. I also can't see anyone anywhere in this thread being in favour of illegal immigration, so that's a strawman.
"Weakening the identity of the Nation" is actually another cornerstone Fascist argument (one that Fascism shares with nationalist conservatism), so I'm not sure how that's going to argue against the described society being Fascist.
If you honestly believe that the reason people don't like the West is because they're jealous of us I don't really know what you say. It's totally not the bombing, economic exploitation or 200+ years of imperialism screwing over large parts of the world, no, it's JEALOUSY. Totally.
I guess we should just let them jealously drown in the Aegean though.
Da Boss wrote: *rolls eyes* Sure, if I said taxpayer funded free healthcare and education would you find that more acceptable than taxpayer funded dramatic military overspend?
Yes. His earlier hesitancy about getting involved again in the ME was attractive as well. He has since changed a few times. It depends what time of day it is.
whembly wrote: So... the calm before the storm... Wisconsin's Primary is tomorrow.
Simply stated, if Trump loses to Cruz, his chance to get to 1237 delegates on the first ballot would be almost impossible (provided Cruz doesn't flame out).
For the Democrat side, looks like Sanders is going to win... if he curb-stomp Clinton... look for some panicky reactions.
This is what this thread should be about! What the heck happened to it?
I can't help but think Sanders is trying to win states to make a point while Hilary is trying to win delegates to actually be President.
whembly wrote: So... the calm before the storm... Wisconsin's Primary is tomorrow.
Simply stated, if Trump loses to Cruz, his chance to get to 1237 delegates on the first ballot would be almost impossible (provided Cruz doesn't flame out).
For the Democrat side, looks like Sanders is going to win... if he curb-stomp Clinton... look for some panicky reactions.
This is what this thread should be about! What the heck happened to it?
Is it To-MAY-toes? Or To-MAH-toes?
That's my read anyways... time to guide this behemoth back to your daily politics!
I can't help but think Sanders is trying to win states to make a point while Hilary is trying to win delegates to actually be President.
Well... he's pulling Clinton hardto the left lately. So that's working...
Also, he's trying to rehabilitate "Socialisms". So... there is that.
Why do you feel that Sanders doesn't really want to be POTUS?
Is there something he has done/not done that has led you to this conclusion.
I feel he genuinely wants it...as it accomolishes at least two things: sticks it to the establishment and promotes his (and his supporters) ideas of equality and fairness in the economy.
Donald Trump—the personification of and punishment for everything terrible America has ever done—tweeted a thing earlier today, as is his wont. The candidate’s Twitter thing for this morning was a fan-created video called “Trump Effect.” Adorned by Trump with the caption “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!,” the video kicks off with some crowd-pleasing casual misogyny and then pivots into an almost coherent assemblage of blurry video clips and stock footage, with voiceover by Martin Sheen.
Presumably unbeknown to Trump—and to many of the followers who have retweeted the video more than 10,000 times—Sheen’s narration is lifted from the sci-fi video game series Mass Effect, in which the West Wing veteran voices a crypto-genocidal character called The Illusive Man. A shadowy, powerful figure who first appears in Mass Effect 2, The Illusive Man scorns alien races and seeks your character’s help to make humanity the supreme force in the Milky Way. That’s right: Out of all the game characters an amateur video editor could possibly reference, this Trump fan chose to highlight the words of an angry old white dude who practices racism on a galactic scale. It’s just another one of those crazy coincidences that give people the wrong idea about our soon-to-be 45th President Of The United States!
By this afternoon, YouTube had pulled “Trump Effect” because of a copyright claim filed by EA, the current publisher of Mass Effect. As this article was being published, though, the video could still be viewed in Trump’s tweet. In case it disappears altogether, we’ve embedded a copy above, so future historians can consider this pop-cultural Freudian slip and memorialize it as the moment when some people connected the dots and began to suspect that this Trump character might be sort of a crummy fellow.
Also, I'm pretty sure the video was created as a parody, something that seemed to escape Mr. Trump.
If you recall when he first entered the race he stated that his primary goal was to pull the party to the left and he was in it to win so that he could do that. I don;t have the exact quote handy from the statement, but that was the gist i took from it. Therefore, it is open to interpretation.
The job of President is just a means to an end for him and if he can achieve his ends a different way, he would. I completely agree with his desire to "stick it to the establishment and promote his ideas".
TheMeanDM wrote: Why do you feel that Sanders doesn't really want to be POTUS?
Is there something he has done/not done that has led you to this conclusion.
I feel he genuinely wants it...as it accomolishes at least two things: sticks it to the establishment and promotes his (and his supporters) ideas of equality and fairness in the economy.
I think that, like Easy E pointed out, he wanted to pull the party/populace further left of where it is now.
I don't think that he quite felt he would do THIS good (or at least, as good as he has done so far), and because he is now in the position he's in, it is part "mission accomplished" and part, "well, we're this far, let's see how far the rabbit hole goes"
But at the same time, I think he does want the job because there is a certain part of me that says that while he has done quite a bit of good as a sitting Senator from Vermont, that's only one vote, from one state. Ive seen a number of youtube videos lately, mostly pointing out the flip-flopping of the other candidates, and the juxtapose those with clips of him from the 80s and 90s saying the same exact stuff as he is saying right now.
Donald Trump—the personification of and punishment for everything terrible America has ever done—tweeted a thing earlier today, as is his wont. The candidate’s Twitter thing for this morning was a fan-created video called “Trump Effect.” Adorned by Trump with the caption “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!,” the video kicks off with some crowd-pleasing casual misogyny and then pivots into an almost coherent assemblage of blurry video clips and stock footage, with voiceover by Martin Sheen.
Presumably unbeknown to Trump—and to many of the followers who have retweeted the video more than 10,000 times—Sheen’s narration is lifted from the sci-fi video game series Mass Effect, in which the West Wing veteran voices a crypto-genocidal character called The Illusive Man. A shadowy, powerful figure who first appears in Mass Effect 2, The Illusive Man scorns alien races and seeks your character’s help to make humanity the supreme force in the Milky Way. That’s right: Out of all the game characters an amateur video editor could possibly reference, this Trump fan chose to highlight the words of an angry old white dude who practices racism on a galactic scale. It’s just another one of those crazy coincidences that give people the wrong idea about our soon-to-be 45th President Of The United States!
By this afternoon, YouTube had pulled “Trump Effect” because of a copyright claim filed by EA, the current publisher of Mass Effect. As this article was being published, though, the video could still be viewed in Trump’s tweet. In case it disappears altogether, we’ve embedded a copy above, so future historians can consider this pop-cultural Freudian slip and memorialize it as the moment when some people connected the dots and began to suspect that this Trump character might be sort of a crummy fellow.
Also, I'm pretty sure the video was created as a parody, something that seemed to escape Mr. Trump.
Best thing EA has ever done lol.
I got maybe 10 seconds in and cringed into another state of existence. Woke up naked on my driveway and hour later....so thanks for that.
Sinful Hero wrote: Sorry if I'm a little late with this, but Washington had 101 delegates up for grabs for Democrats correct? Why did Sanders only get 25 and Clinton 9?
I think that was an early count, before voting counts had been finalised. Final count according to wiki is 74 to 27 in pledged delegates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Why do you feel that Sanders doesn't really want to be POTUS?
I'm not sure if anyone thinks he doesn't want to be President, it's more that he was never very likely to be President, and while he's done much better than almost everyone expected, his odds of being the Democratic nominee are still extremely slim.
And so once we establish that reality, the question becomes what Sanders is trying to accomplish. The simple answer is that he’s trying to raise the profile of important issues, income equality, affordable health and college. But then we look at behaviour lately, where he’s focussed more on attacking Clinton, and its clear he’s moved away from that early, positive, issue based stuff, probably because he now really believes he needs to win, or at least continue to threaten to win in order to gain… something. All I can see him achieving with this new strategy is helping the Republicans with their muckraking work.
And so once we establish that reality, the question becomes what Sanders is trying to accomplish. The simple answer is that he’s trying to raise the profile of important issues, income equality, affordable health and college. But then we look at behaviour lately, where he’s focussed more on attacking Clinton, and its clear he’s moved away from that early, positive, issue based stuff, probably because he now really believes he needs to win, or at least continue to threaten to win in order to gain… something. All I can see him achieving with this new strategy is helping the Republicans with their muckraking work.
Has he really started to attack Clinton? I have been out of the loop on this the last week but from what I have seen he has been very careful to NOT attack Clinton openly. Clintons staff have done their to best to paint him as the "white old mansplainer" (see the whole twitter thing about "berniesplaning") so I would be surprised if he went on the offensive, as that would open him up to that big time.
ulgurstasta wrote: Has he really started to attack Clinton? I have been out of the loop on this the last week but from what I have seen he has been very careful to NOT attack Clinton openly. Clintons staff have done their to best to paint him as the "white old mansplainer" (see the whole twitter thing about "berniesplaning") so I would be surprised if he went on the offensive, as that would open him up to that big time.
He's attacking her directly on receiving funds from the energy industry. Trying to paint her as bought and paid for by fossil fuels. Its a really silly line of attack, because less than half of 1% of her funds have come from the energy sector, and maybe two weeks ago people were trying to paint Clinton as bad because she was going to destroy coal mining.
But more than that, it's really silly because Sanders chances of winning are extremely slim. He's already established that his brand of populist left wing politics has a strong appeal, so from here he'd be much better off leaving this campaign with lots of goodwill, with a base from which he can play a role in reshaping the Democratic party. If instead he starts doing the Republican's work for them, he's going to burn a lot of bridges.
ulgurstasta wrote: Has he really started to attack Clinton? I have been out of the loop on this the last week but from what I have seen he has been very careful to NOT attack Clinton openly. Clintons staff have done their to best to paint him as the "white old mansplainer" (see the whole twitter thing about "berniesplaning") so I would be surprised if he went on the offensive, as that would open him up to that big time.
He's attacking her directly on receiving funds from the energy industry. Trying to paint her as bought and paid for by fossil fuels. Its a really silly line of attack, because less than half of 1% of her funds have come from the energy sector, and maybe two weeks ago people were trying to paint Clinton as bad because she was going to destroy coal mining.
But more than that, it's really silly because Sanders chances of winning are extremely slim. He's already established that his brand of populist left wing politics has a strong appeal, so from here he'd be much better off leaving this campaign with lots of goodwill, with a base from which he can play a role in reshaping the Democratic party. If instead he starts doing the Republican's work for them, he's going to burn a lot of bridges.
The democratic party being bought by corporate interest is neither silly or a non-problem, it´s actually one of the problem Sanders wants to highlight with his campaign. With that in mind it makes entirely sense to attack Hillary over it.
ulgurstasta wrote: Has he really started to attack Clinton? I have been out of the loop on this the last week but from what I have seen he has been very careful to NOT attack Clinton openly. Clintons staff have done their to best to paint him as the "white old mansplainer" (see the whole twitter thing about "berniesplaning") so I would be surprised if he went on the offensive, as that would open him up to that big time.
He's attacking her directly on receiving funds from the energy industry. Trying to paint her as bought and paid for by fossil fuels. Its a really silly line of attack, because less than half of 1% of her funds have come from the energy sector, and maybe two weeks ago people were trying to paint Clinton as bad because she was going to destroy coal mining.
But more than that, it's really silly because Sanders chances of winning are extremely slim. He's already established that his brand of populist left wing politics has a strong appeal, so from here he'd be much better off leaving this campaign with lots of goodwill, with a base from which he can play a role in reshaping the Democratic party. If instead he starts doing the Republican's work for them, he's going to burn a lot of bridges.
You say that, but Reddit is eating that stuff (the energy links) up. (not that they needed an excuse to dislike Hillary anyway)
ulgurstasta wrote: The democratic party being bought by corporate interest is neither silly or a non-problem, it´s actually one of the problem Sanders wants to highlight with his campaign. With that in mind it makes entirely sense to attack Hillary over it.
Sure, that's a perfectly good issue. And moving forward it'd make sense for Sanders to build an ethic, even a pledge within the party, that candidates will not take money from certain kinds of donors, or even from corporate interests at all. Wouldn't that be something.
But here, right now, attacking Clinton because half of 1% of her funds have come from the energy sector is beyond stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote: You say that, but Reddit is eating that stuff (the energy links) up. (not that they needed an excuse to dislike Hillary anyway)
Reddit has been eating up anti-Clinton stuff since Sanders starting running. So has much of the rest of the leftwing internet. What's interesting is how much time they've spent bashing Clinton instead of supporting Sanders, even while Sanders was running a very positive campaign.
That's why Sanders has to be careful, and why it's so disappointing he's increasingly failing to do that. If he leads the far left well enough he can position it in a place where it might be mobilized and demanding of the Democrats, so the potential votes drag the party towards the left. Instead he's setting it up for them to simply wander back off in to political irrelevance once Sanders finishes his quixotic run, and that will the Democrats more or less back to where they started, a centrist party with a bunch of single issue special interests.
ulgurstasta wrote: The democratic party being bought by corporate interest is neither silly or a non-problem, it´s actually one of the problem Sanders wants to highlight with his campaign. With that in mind it makes entirely sense to attack Hillary over it.
Sure, that's a perfectly good issue. And moving forward it'd make sense for Sanders to build an ethic, even a pledge within the party, that candidates will not take money from certain kinds of donors, or even from corporate interests at all. Wouldn't that be something.
But here, right now, attacking Clinton because half of 1% of her funds have come from the energy sector is beyond stupid.
I disagree. You have to remember it´s not just Clinton, many of the super-PACs that have pledged to her have also taken money from the energy sector(among other sectors). I wouldn´t also be surprised if the Clinton foundation has gotten some money from the energy sector also over the years. And even if it was just 1%, the energy sector didn´t give her that 1% out of the goodness of their hearts
That's why Sanders has to be careful, and why it's so disappointing he's increasingly failing to do that. If he leads the far left well enough he can position it in a place where it might be mobilized and demanding of the Democrats, so the potential votes drag the party towards the left. Instead he's setting it up for them to simply wander back off in to political irrelevance once Sanders finishes his quixotic run, and that will the Democrats more or less back to where they started, a centrist party with a bunch of single issue special interests.
This is an excellent point, and I agree. However, it will be very hard when the media WANTS to make it a horse-race. That's where the ratings are at! Therefore, any step to differentiate yourself from Clinton will be spun as an "attack", especially when some of Sanders core beliefs are very different from Clinton's. If tries to highlight those, it will be seen as an attack and any praise/positives will be cut from the sound bites.
In order to maintain his movements momentum, he needs to keep them relevant. However, he also needs to pivot to creating an actual movement and ground game for post-election grass roots mobilization. I haven;t heard much about the second point. Since I want his ideas to stay in mainstream US politics after this election, I truly hope he can pivot and build that movement and not just be a Ron Paul of the left.
It was also thanks to some information he had gathered that Trump was able to do something that no other Republican has done before: take on Fox News. An odd bit of coincidence had given him a card to play against Fox founder Roger Ailes. In 2014, I published a biography of Ailes, which upset the famously paranoid executive. Several months before it landed in stores, Ailes fired his longtime PR adviser Brian Lewis, accusing him of being a source. During Lewis’s severance negotiations, Lewis hired Judd Burstein, a powerhouse litigator, and claimed he had “bombs” that would destroy Ailes and Fox News. That’s when Trump got involved.
“When Roger was having problems, he didn’t call 97 people, he called me,” Trump said. Burstein, it turned out, had worked for Trump briefly in the ’90s, and Ailes asked Trump to mediate. Trump ran the negotiations out of his office at Trump Tower. “Roger had lawyers, very expensive lawyers, and they couldn’t do anything. I solved the problem.” Fox paid Lewis millions to go away quietly, and Trump, I’m told, learned everything Lewis had planned to leak. If Ailes ever truly went to war against Trump, Trump would have the arsenal to launch a retaliatory strike.
sebster wrote: That's why Sanders has to be careful, and why it's so disappointing he's increasingly failing to do that. If he leads the far left well enough he can position it in a place where it might be mobilized and demanding of the Democrats, so the potential votes drag the party towards the left. Instead he's setting it up for them to simply wander back off in to political irrelevance once Sanders finishes his quixotic run, and that will the Democrats more or less back to where they started, a centrist party with a bunch of single issue special interests.
The Democratic Party wants nothing at all to do with leftism, however. They do not want to give Sanders the nomination and have no interest in listening to him. In order for the Democratic Party to move leftwards, much of it would have to be ousted somehow.
The left is far better served as a replacement for the Democratic Party than as its flunky.
sebster wrote: That's why Sanders has to be careful, and why it's so disappointing he's increasingly failing to do that. If he leads the far left well enough he can position it in a place where it might be mobilized and demanding of the Democrats, so the potential votes drag the party towards the left. Instead he's setting it up for them to simply wander back off in to political irrelevance once Sanders finishes his quixotic run, and that will the Democrats more or less back to where they started, a centrist party with a bunch of single issue special interests.
The Democratic Party wants nothing at all to do with leftism, however. They do not want to give Sanders the nomination and have no interest in listening to him. In order for the Democratic Party to move leftwards, much of it would have to be ousted somehow.
The left is far better served as a replacement for the Democratic Party than as its flunky.
I disagree with this premise...
Both parties are being pulled by their extremes. The Democrats are becoming more leftist... and the Republicans are more conservative over the years.
Here's the House's divide 2-years ago:
Spoiler:
Another interesting charts... "Feeling Thermometers on the 2015 'Cooperative Congressional Elections' Study":
I'm always amused when people complain about Democrats being super liberal...They don't realize that the Dems are moderates and makes me wonder how they would react to an actual Liberal.
skyth wrote: I'm always amused when people complain about Democrats being super liberal...They don't realize that the Dems are moderates and makes me wonder how they would react to an actual Liberal.
skyth wrote: I'm always amused when people complain about Democrats being super liberal...They don't realize that the Dems are moderates and makes me wonder how they would react to an actual Liberal.
Considering an "actual Liberal" is a Libertarian.... probably pretty favorably? It's one of the huge problem I have with US politics. People seem to think that terms can mean whatever they heck they want them to. The reality is far from that. Every term used in a political context has a specific meaning, but places such as the news media (Fox, MSNBC, etc) tend to try and dumb things down to a point where terms get taken out of context, or blatantly misused.
Libertarians want little to no government oversight, little to no taxes, "private business" handles everything. That's pretty much John Locke in a nutshell. As in, John Locke's premise is that all men are entitled to 3 things, Life, Liberty, and Property (which he defined slightly broader than we do today).
In political science terms, that's about as close to a Classical Liberal as one can be.
And I don't care what the term used to mean. I care about what it means now. Language changes as do definitions. This is not a problem. It is simply how language evolves.
All Libertatian means is they want to be as selfish as possible and have the ability to screw over people they don't like. That is the anti-thesis of the current meaning of the word 'liberal'.
Libertarian belifs do tend to be socially liberal, but economically conservative. A libertarian doesn't really fit either the liberal or conservative moniker. At least actual libertarian, not the mainline R calling themselves libertarian, like you usually get.
sebster wrote: He's attacking her directly on receiving funds from the energy industry. Trying to paint her as bought and paid for by fossil fuels. Its a really silly line of attack, because less than half of 1% of her funds have come from the energy sector, and maybe two weeks ago people were trying to paint Clinton as bad because she was going to destroy coal mining.
But more than that, it's really silly because Sanders chances of winning are extremely slim. He's already established that his brand of populist left wing politics has a strong appeal, so from here he'd be much better off leaving this campaign with lots of goodwill, with a base from which he can play a role in reshaping the Democratic party. If instead he starts doing the Republican's work for them, he's going to burn a lot of bridges.
No idea if it's intentional, but previewing this attack helps desensitize the voters to it when the Republicans try to pull it out in the general election.
Kilkrazy wrote: What on Earth do all those charts mean? What are the axes, and what do they purport to measure?
The Liberal v. Conservative chart?
It's based on the DW-NOMINATE (<-- see wiki) dataset:
"NOMINATE (an acronym for Nominal Three-Step Estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior.[1][2] As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE)"
Liberalism is very well defined, we don't have to reinvent the word to make it fit some agenda.
I wonder if "liberalism" is being confused with "progressivism".
I'd guess it's more being confused with classical liberalism, as seen in phrases like "liberal democracy."
It's the idea that there are inherent laws and rights that are supreme against even the will of sovereign. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and so on.
Libertarianism adds the idea that the right to property should be inviolate, which is a problem because while life, liberty, and happiness exist outside of society, property is most definitely a social construct.
I wonder if "liberalism" is being confused with "progressivism".
Usually when you see people saying things like "stoopid libtards" or "dumb-ass libs" and the like... yeah, they are.
@Polonius... I mentioned Locke's three inherent rights earlier, and based on his writings, "property" isn't just the socially constructed cabin with an acre of land to farm and the tables and chairs inside of it... For Locke, property also includes your work. Basically, if you were a rope maker (a fairly common profession during his day) but you didn't own Acme Rope Co. you were in essence selling the "property" of your labor and produced goods and being paid a wage.
Where things get muddied of course is that there are Classical Liberals (who think all people are equal, despite society's acting otherwise, and despise government intervention in that regard), and Progressive Liberals (who believe that people are inequal due to society's past, and think the playing field should be leveled some)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: And I don't care what the term used to mean. I care about what it means now. Language changes as do definitions. This is not a problem. It is simply how language evolves.
This isn't a matter of language evolving... Political scientists still use these terms as defined and intended in their field. It's only out among the ill-informed that the definition gets perverted into something else.
skyth wrote: And I don't care what the term used to mean. I care about what it means now. Language changes as do definitions. This is not a problem. It is simply how language evolves.
This isn't a matter of language evolving... Political scientists still use these terms as defined and intended in their field. It's only out among the ill-informed that the definition gets perverted into something else.
eh... sort of. Political theorists might use the term in abstract works, or when looking at very high level theories, but political scientists that work in actual terms wouldn't outside of the stuffiest academic writings.
So while, yes, a tract on the progress of individual rights in Western history uses "liberal" in a specific way, the fact that in practice even the party that best exemplifies those ideals has a different term shows that the term has shifted in meaning.
Yeah, it seems pretty standard to differentiate classical liberalism from modern liberalism.
The whole libertarian thing is really interesting when viewed on spectrum as it seems to reach towards anarchism. But then you also have the left leaning anarchism, which doesn't get along well at all with right leaning anarchism. Just like left leaning statists and right leaning statists don't seem to get along so well.
Regardless, most people seem to have vague political notions related more to feelings and background than any coherent political philosophy. Often the more militant, the less rational. Rather than being a discussion of alternative solutions to problem identification and solving, political debate becomes and attack on identity and vilification of the others (stupid libruls v. heartless cons, for example). Which is great for the political class, as it makes manipulation easier and accountability harder. Just tell the fans why our team is better and blame everything on those other rascals.
eh... sort of. Political theorists might use the term in abstract works, or when looking at very high level theories, but political scientists that work in actual terms wouldn't outside of the stuffiest academic writings.
As a political scientist who does actual work in politics I can vouch for the truth of this statement.
Both parties are being pulled by their extremes. The Democrats are becoming more leftist... and the Republicans are more conservative over the years.
Several of the charts from the website you linked to indicate that the GOP is being pulled to the right more quickly than the Democrats are being pulled to the left. Granted, all the graphs on that website are so poorly presented that little information can be gleaned from them.
Ustrello wrote: Looks like the zodiac killer is slated to win Wisconsin, and most likely leading to a brokered convention.
Heh... in the early going Mr. Zodiac is kicking arse.
It'll be fun watching the republican party tear itself apart
Just you wait till you see the Democrat's side... Sanders is whooping Clinton in WI!
I voted and donated for berine but I doubt he will win, but 66 percent of bernie supporters said they will vote for hillary. On the flip side 25 percent of republicans won't vote for zodiac or the misogynist hair piece, and the hair piece supporters most likely wont vote for cruz if he gets chosen to be the front runner. My guess is no matter who they chose the republicans have lost the presidential, and are losing support via the supreme court nonsense for the senate (we are seeing people breaking line here in IL with kirk saying he will meet with the pick)
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democratic Party wants nothing at all to do with leftism, however.
The Democratic Party is not a permanent, never changing thing. Remember it was once the home of good old boy southern racism. But another part of the party, New England progressives, pulled it somewhere new, and now it's the home of special interest minorities. More recently, Reagan dragged the Republican party in to movement conservatism.
I think the mechanism you don't understand is that moving a political party doesn't rely on getting elites to change their policy goals, a political party moves when old elites are replaced with new ones who have new policy goals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: This is an excellent point, and I agree. However, it will be very hard when the media WANTS to make it a horse-race. That's where the ratings are at! Therefore, any step to differentiate yourself from Clinton will be spun as an "attack", especially when some of Sanders core beliefs are very different from Clinton's. If tries to highlight those, it will be seen as an attack and any praise/positives will be cut from the sound bites.
Sure, and I think that explained most of his campaign before now. Sanders differentiated, the media called it attacks, Sanders internet supporters understood it as attacks and went to town. But more recently he's pushed in to territory that is just straight up attacks, with no media interpretation required.
In order to maintain his movements momentum, he needs to keep them relevant. However, he also needs to pivot to creating an actual movement and ground game for post-election grass roots mobilization. I haven;t heard much about the second point. Since I want his ideas to stay in mainstream US politics after this election, I truly hope he can pivot and build that movement and not just be a Ron Paul of the left.
Yeah, I think Sanders needs to focus on remaining relevant after this election. It's a tough balancing act between continuing to make waves and win votes, and not burning any bridges.
And your comparison to Ron Paul is perfect - Ron Paul much prefers ideological purity to actually being useful. And as a result the libertarian movement he leads is doomed to sitting on the sidelines, talking about how everything would be great if they ever got a tiny amount of relevance. Sanders would be making a big mistake if he did the same, especially because the supporter base for his politics is much greater than Paul ever came close to commanding.
Liberalism is very well defined, we don't have to reinvent the word to make it fit some agenda.
I think the issue here is that liberalism has two very distinct meanings. In the greater world liberal is used to mean economic liberalism, ie it's an argument for open markets and capitalism. Whereas in the US liberal is used to mean social liberalism, which is a philosophy looking for a happy medium between individual liberty and social justice.
But even when the term used in the economic liberal sense, it doesn't really equate to libertarianism. There's a really big difference between believing that the best result for society comes from more open markets, and believing that open markets are an end in and of themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Janthkin wrote: No idea if it's intentional, but previewing this attack helps desensitize the voters to it when the Republicans try to pull it out in the general election.
Maybe? It was such a weak argument that that could just be right. Doesn't say much for the Sanders supporters who are doubling down on it, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Looks like the zodiac killer is slated to win Wisconsin, and most likely leading to a brokered convention.
It'll be fun watching the republican party tear itself apart
Exit polling in Wisconsin asked Republican voters who should be the party's candidate - who wins the most delegates or who the delegates decide through party rules. What the pollsters were expecting was to see Trump supporters say it should be whoever got the most delegates, while the Cruz and Kasich people would think it should be up to elected delegates.
Except a strong majority of voters for everyone said the nomination should go to whoever got the most votes.
This was a Wisconsin only thing, so it could be some quirk in that state alone, but it could also be a sign that simply stopping Trump from getting 1,237 and then shafting him in the second round might end up being a total mess for the Republican party.
Perhaps the Republican Party needs to split into the Tea party wing and the more moderate central Republicans.
While there is certainly a core of support for Tea Party and Trump, they clearly don't have the wide-spread support needed to allow them to take over the whole organisation.
At the end of the day, the party needs a candidate that is acceptable to the majority of its own members and to the general public. Trump isn't that candidate.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the Republican Party needs to split into the Tea party wing and the more moderate central Republicans.
While there is certainly a core of support for Tea Party and Trump, they clearly don't have the wide-spread support needed to allow them to take over the whole organisation.
At the end of the day, the party needs a candidate that is acceptable to the majority of its own members and to the general public. Trump isn't that candidate.
The Republicans haven't had anybody like that since Ronald Reagan.
I think GW Bush's victory was more due to the fact that they didn't want to be bored to death by Mr Charisma AKA Al Gore
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democratic Party wants nothing at all to do with leftism, however.
The Democratic Party is not a permanent, never changing thing. Remember it was once the home of good old boy southern racism. But another part of the party, New England progressives, pulled it somewhere new, and now it's the home of special interest minorities. More recently, Reagan dragged the Republican party in to movement conservatism.
I think the mechanism you don't understand is that moving a political party doesn't rely on getting elites to change their policy goals, a political party moves when old elites are replaced with new ones who have new policy goals.
The very short post that you are quoting goes on to say that much of the Democratic Party would have to be replaced before it would go left.
The whole libertarian thing is really interesting when viewed on spectrum as it seems to reach towards anarchism. But then you also have the left leaning anarchism, which doesn't get along well at all with right leaning anarchism. Just like left leaning statists and right leaning statists don't seem to get along so well.
Thats the funny part about this, Libertarian used to mean left-wing anarchist until the 50´s, if I remember correctly, when right-wing think-tanks successfully shifted its meaning to it´s laissez-faire definition we have today.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, it looks like Ted Cruz's victory has just hammered the final nail into the Republican party's bid to have their candidate in the White House.
If Trump can't win a majority, expect to see a deal done behind closed doors with anybody but Trump gaining the nomination.
The Republican party grassroots will never forgive the top brass for this 'betrayal,' the party will be divided...
and a divided party will be steam rolled by HRC.
They lose with Trump, and they lose without him. This campaign is getting pretty boring because all roads lead to
Clinton in the White House (which has been the most likely outcome since Obama won his second term).
I suppose the GOP could try and recruit some serious star power. It would have to be someone better than Paul Ryan. Colin Powell would do the trick, but I know he's not interested and maybe not even Republican anymore. But it would take someone of that caliber to compete.
In any case, there's certainly entertainment left to be had in how much damage a wrecking ball can do.
Yup, looks like a flaming dumpster train wreck at this point.
Cruz the "outsider" (who was actually originally desperately seeking to be part of the power structure until they rejected him and so he determined to do it his own way) apparently believes he has a shot at a contested convention and has now teamed up with the GOP establishment and is torpedoing Trump's chances of hitting the magic number. What Cruz, in his arrogance, doesn't seem to get is that there is no way the GOP supports him as the national candidate. Convention means no Trump and no Cruz. It also means the GOP likely fractures badly, potentially crippling it nationally. Even if the GOP were to somehow get around the personality conflicts with Cruz, he loses badly to HRC.
Bernie is cute, but he still is not a serious threat to HRC. He needs to be very careful not to get to aggressive and burn bridges. HRC is pretty notorious for her memory of slights and he is already being quite the gadfly.
So my prediction is HRC for the Dems, Republicans go to convention and it turns into a cluster with someone completely unelectable in the general coming out and HRC waltzes to victory.
Cruz won Wisconsins, as did Bernie, but I have a feeling both of them will get crushed in New York. That will essentially kill Bernie dead for good (unless he can pivot and create a political base that is more than an election lever).
Meanwhile, Trump and Cruz will head to a brokered convention because Cruz just is not going to win NY after dissing it in the past.
Edit: i think the GOP Elites would be wise to let Cruz be the nominee and get crushed to silence the call off "We would win if we had a true Conservative on the ballot. Moderates aren't Conservative enough!". After Cruz's crushing defeat, the elites could turn to the base and say "STFU Noobs!"
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the Republican Party needs to split into the Tea party wing and the more moderate central Republicans.
While there is certainly a core of support for Tea Party and Trump, they clearly don't have the wide-spread support needed to allow them to take over the whole organisation.
At the end of the day, the party needs a candidate that is acceptable to the majority of its own members and to the general public. Trump isn't that candidate.
That's been the Republican Party's problem for years now. This election cycle is just highlighting how bad it's become because they had high number of candidates running and still couldn't find anybody that could consistently win over a majority of primary voters. The months of battling pluralities just showcases how bad the candidates are.
Now that it's highly unlikely that Trump will win enough delegates to win the nomination with the first floor vote at the convention it seems likely that none of the current candidates, Trump, Cruz and Kasich will win the nomination. If Trump can't win the first vote I don't see how he gets enough support from unbound delegates to win a subsequent vote. If the party doesn't want Trump I don't see how they can rationalize picking Cruz who will have a smaller plurality of total votes and delegates than Trump, ditto for Kasich. If there's a Republican who could appeal to the majority of the party and moderate middle of the electorate enough to have a shot at beating HRC after winning the nomination at a contested convention I can't think of who he/she is and that person probably should have already been running a campaign.
It will be interesting to see what impact a race between HRC and Not Trump has on voter turnout since turnout is a key factor in the Congressional races that are also on the ballot.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, it looks like Ted Cruz's victory has just hammered the final nail into the Republican party's bid to have their candidate in the White House.
If Trump can't win a majority, expect to see a deal done behind closed doors with anybody but Trump gaining the nomination.
The Republican party grassroots will never forgive the top brass for this 'betrayal,' the party will be divided...
Nah... it simply means none of the Primary candidates won't get to 1237 delegates to win the nomination outright on the first ballot.
Mechanisms exists to reconcile this on the convention floor.
and a divided party will be steam rolled by HRC.
Regardless of the GOP Primary outcomes, that's still very much true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Appearing as an obstructionist dbag is a fast way to lose and election
Well... Cruz has so far has show that hasn't hurt him.
I think more interesting is the congressional races. The D's will probably recapture the Senate, but can they get enough momentum to capture the house?
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the Republican Party needs to split into the Tea party wing and the more moderate central Republicans.
While there is certainly a core of support for Tea Party and Trump, they clearly don't have the wide-spread support needed to allow them to take over the whole organisation.
At the end of the day, the party needs a candidate that is acceptable to the majority of its own members and to the general public. Trump isn't that candidate.
Trump isn't *that* candidate...
However, splitting up the parties is just pissing in the wind.
During Obama's Presidential tenure, the more conservative GOP voters has been kicking ass in local and state elections. The challenge up to this point is seeing that translate in the Federal government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: A significant part of Bush's victory was to do with distinctly dodgy voting practices in Florida.
Getting the 1% to pay for everything is not really close to what Sanders is agitating for.
Yeah... I flubbed that... he should've said:
"You locate the wealthiest top one-tenth of 1% of people in the station and demand they buy everyone's subway pass."
Those poor poor plutocrats, how will they survive with just two Cadillacs instead of ten?!
Indeed... poor bastiches...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Cruz won Wisconsins, as did Bernie, but I have a feeling both of them will get crushed in New York. That will essentially kill Bernie dead for good (unless he can pivot and create a political base that is more than an election lever).
It's not a forgone conclusion that Bernie gets curb stomped in NY anymore...
Meanwhile, Trump and Cruz will head to a brokered convention because Cruz just is not going to win NY after dissing it in the past.
All Cruz needs to do is to keep Trump under 50% statewide, which prevents Trump from triggering the winners-takes-all provision in NY. That's probably doable as Cruz obviously has the momentum after WI, and there's a 2-week gap between now and NY's Primary.
Edit: i think the GOP Elites would be wise to let Cruz be the nominee and get crushed to silence the call off "We would win if we had a true Conservative on the ballot. Moderates aren't Conservative enough!". After Cruz's crushing defeat, the elites could turn to the base and say "STFU Noobs!"
I'm not so sure about that... otherwise, they wouldn've have fought the Tea Party so hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think more interesting is the congressional races. The D's will probably recapture the Senate, but can they get enough momentum to capture the house?
Not likely.
But I do see them gaining control over the Senate in '17.
Cruz is dead in New York and New Jersey. Trumps going to get more than 50%. Cruz mocked New York in a national debate. They won't forget that. (It's politics 101 not to insult the voters whose votes you wish to acquire)
Even if he hadn't made that statement, I think that he'd still get crushed. I don't think excessive Southern religiosity is attractive to voters in that region generally speaking.
jasper76 wrote: Cruz is dead in New York and New Jersey. Trumps going to get more than 50%. Cruz mocked New York in a national debate. They won't forget that. (It's politics 101 not to insult the voters whose votes you wish to acquire)
Even if he hadn't made that statement, I think that he'd still get crushed. I don't think excessive Southern religiosity is attractive to voters in that region generally speaking.
Trump can still win all of NY and NJ's delegates... and he would STILL need 61% of the remaining delegates to get to 1267.
That's what I keep hearing. It would be more entertaining to see the convention process play out. Although Trump vs Clinton debates would be fun, and Trump vs Sanders would be epic. (Note that I do care about the Republic, so I don't want Trump within a whiff of the Executive branch.)
Cruz is custom-built to lose the 2016 general election, so if I were RNC I'd be trying to pump Paul Ryan up like nobody's business. But he's just a kid, so he'll lose too. But who else do they have?
jasper76 wrote: Cruz is dead in New York and New Jersey. Trumps going to get more than 50%. Cruz mocked New York in a national debate. They won't forget that. (It's politics 101 not to insult the voters whose votes you wish to acquire)
Even if he hadn't made that statement, I think that he'd still get crushed. I don't think excessive Southern religiosity is attractive to voters in that region generally speaking.
Cruz is custom-built to lose the 2016 general election, so if I were RNC I'd be trying to pump Paul Ryan up like nobody's business. But he's just a kid, so he'll lose too. But who else do they have?
Some dude from Ohio who just happens to be sitting in third place AND isn't quite as crazy as the guy in silver and gold.....
This is how the FBI destroys Hillary: The 10 questions that could end her White House dreams These questions, if answered honestly, would most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders
The FBI’s upcoming interview of Hillary Clinton will be a turning point in the race for Democratic nominee, especially since Clinton won’t be able to speak to James Comey and his FBI agents in the same manner her campaign has communicated with the public. Unlike loyal Hillary supporters who view the marathon Benghazi hearings to be a badge of courage and countless prior scandals to be examples of exoneration, the FBI didn’t spend one year (investigating this email controversy) to give Clinton or her top aides parking tickets. They mean business, and lying to an FBI agent is a felony, so Hillary Clinton and her aides will be forced to tell the truth. The doublespeak involving convenience and retroactive classification won’t matter to seasoned FBI agents whose reputations are on the line; the entire country feels there’s a double-standard regarding this email controversy.
Imagine if you had 22 Top Secret emails on your computer?
Would you be able to claim negligence?
Also, the issue of negligence is a canard. Clinton and her top aides were smart enough to understand protocol. For every legal scholar saying that indictment isn’t likely (because it’s difficult to prove Clinton “knowingly” sent or received classified intelligence), there’s a former attorney general and former intelligence officials saying that indictment is justified.
Ultimately, every question asked of Hillary Clinton by James Comey will benefit the Sanders campaign. In a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, one candidate is being investigated by the FBI and has negative favorability ratings in ten national polls. The other candidate, Bernie Sanders, just raised more money in February than Clinton, without the help of Wall Street or oil and gas lobbyists. If Clinton gets indicted, the Democratic establishment and superdelegates will have no choice but to rally around Bernie Sanders.
I explain three possible scenarios in my latest YouTube segment regarding how the Clinton campaign would react to the reality of indictment. No doubt, certain supporters would still vote for Clinton, even with the possibility of criminal behavior.
In reality, Bernie Sanders is the true front-runner, since he’s free of perpetual scandal and performs better against Trump in general election. Vermont’s Senator also isn’t linked to an FBI investigation, which used to mean automatic front-runner status in American politics.
Therefore, below are ten questions the FBI should ask Clinton and her top aides. These questions, if answered honestly, will most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders. Remember, the issue of convenience or negligence won’t be enough to circumvent repercussions from owning a private server as Secretary of State. FBI director James Comey and his agents aren’t Democratic superdelegates or beholden in any way to a political machine. They’ll demand answers to tough questions and below could be some of the topics discussed in Clinton’s FBI interview.
1. What was the political utility in owning a private server and never using a State.gov email address?
There was a political motive in circumventing U.S. government servers and networks. Clinton didn’t go to the trouble of owning a private server (something her predecessors never did) for work and private use, without thinking of the political ramifications.
An editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel titled “Clinton’s abysmal record on open government” explains the possible political motive regarding Clinton’s unconventional email practices:
The issue immediately at hand — and under investigation by the FBI — is Clinton’s use of a private email server for State Department communications. Clinton may have violated national security laws by making top secret documents vulnerable to hackers and available to people without proper security clearance…
In addition, regardless of Clinton’s excuses, the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences…
And donations to the foundation from foreign governments have raised conflict of interest questions for Clinton as secretary of state, an office with power over foreign affairs and favors second only to the president’s.
As stated in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws.”
We can’t even see Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches, do you think Clinton wanted the public to know information about her foundation?
2. Were all 31,830 deleted private emails about yoga?
According to ABC News, Clinton’s staff had an amusing way of deciphering how to delete over 30,000 emails:
A Time magazine cover story about the email scandal released last week reported: “This review did not involve opening and reading each email. Instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache — 31,830 emails — did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be ‘private, personal records.’”
There was no government oversight, therefore the FBI has every right to ask why Clinton’s staff was allowed to pick and choose (through keyword searches) private emails from others that could have contained classified intelligence.
3. Why didn’t you know that intelligence could be retroactively classified?
This leads to the issue of negligence; a zero-sum proposition. Either Clinton wasn’t smart enough to know protocol, or breached protocol. Both scenarios aren’t good for a future presidency. Both scenarios won’t prevent legal repercussions, given the 22 Top Secret emails.
4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?
An article in Madison.com titled “Emails: Clinton sought secure smartphone, rebuffed by NSA” explains the issue of Clinton’s Blackberry:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.
A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.
“We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure ‘BlackBerry-like’ communications,” wrote Donald R. Reid, the department’s assistant director for security infrastructure.
“The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive.”
Standard smartphones are not allowed into areas designated as approved for the handling of classified information…
Clinton used a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA. Along with the issue of political motive, and why she deleted tens of thousands of emails, the unsecured Blackberry use could easily lead to an indictment.
5. What did you say to Bryan Pagliano?
Mr. Pagliano recently received immunity. He’s told the FBI, most likely, about his conversations with Hillary Clinton. Any discrepancy in stories could lead to a felony charge for Hillary Clinton or Pagliano’s immunity to be revoked. Both have every incentive to tell the truth.
6. Why were 22 Top Secret emails on a private server?
This is a simple question with no logical answer circumventing political repercussions. If Clinton and her staff are able to evade this issue, future government officials will also be able to have Top Secret intelligence on unguarded private servers.
7. Was any information about the Clinton Foundation mingled with State Department documents?
The answer to this question could lead to hundreds of other questions.
8. Did President Obama or his staff express any reservations about your private server?
President Obama’s White House communicated with Clinton via her private server. If anyone in the White House said anything about Clinton’s server, this could lead to new controversy.
9. Did Bill Clinton send or receive any emails on your private network?
The server was located in their home, so it’s a valid question.
10. How was your private server guarded against hacking attempts?
Foreign nations and hackers already tried to compromise Clinton’s server.
These questions could easily give Bernie Sanders the nomination. I explain that Clinton faces possible DOJ indictment in the following appearance on CNN International. Although Bernie can win without Clinton’s indictment, the email controversy will most likely become a giant story very soon. With issues revolving around trustworthiness before the FBI interviews, Clinton won’t be able to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination in 2016.
...
Then... I wasn't shocked as this site has effectively endorses Sanders.
Rosebuddy wrote: The very short post that you are quoting goes on to say that much of the Democratic Party would have to be replaced before it would go left.
I thought about using your latter 'ousting' language to explain that what happens is nothing like that, there's no planned takeover or coup or anything like that. It's just a natural process, Monday's base produces Tuesday's elites.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Cruz won Wisconsins, as did Bernie, but I have a feeling both of them will get crushed in New York. That will essentially kill Bernie dead for good (unless he can pivot and create a political base that is more than an election lever).
Yeah, and this is the other place where Sanders has been lacking. He's campaigned only on his own behalf, Clinton has been fundraising for other candidates, because she knows the long game and how to build a base of support. Sanders is running a one man crusade that is likely to peter out. It's a shame, because his campaign has shown there's a lot of votes and a lot of money out there for the Democrats if they make a genuine effort at tackling inequality, higher education and similar issues.
Edit: i think the GOP Elites would be wise to let Cruz be the nominee and get crushed to silence the call off "We would win if we had a true Conservative on the ballot. Moderates aren't Conservative enough!". After Cruz's crushing defeat, the elites could turn to the base and say "STFU Noobs!"
Something tells me that there'll still be voices out there claiming Cruz wasn't conservative enough
The other issue is that while losing the presidency sucks, there's a whole lot of other races on the same day. There's a big concern that Trump will not only lose, but he'll push the Democratic participation up so high that the Republicans will end up losing lots of other races. It gets really interesting in the house - it's current gerrymandered state means there's a whole lot of Republican seats that are held 55-45 or thereabouts, get a really bad presidential candidate and it could hit that tipping point where loads of Republicans lose their seat.
Edit: i think the GOP Elites would be wise to let Cruz be the nominee and get crushed to silence the call off "We would win if we had a true Conservative on the ballot. Moderates aren't Conservative enough!". After Cruz's crushing defeat, the elites could turn to the base and say "STFU Noobs!"
Something tells me that there'll still be voices out there claiming Cruz wasn't conservative enough
Heh... not likely. If someone does that, just invoke The Gibb's Stare:
The other issue is that while losing the presidency sucks, there's a whole lot of other races on the same day. There's a big concern that Trump will not only lose, but he'll push the Democratic participation up so high that the Republicans will end up losing lots of other races. It gets really interesting in the house - it's current gerrymandered state means there's a whole lot of Republican seats that are held 55-45 or thereabouts, get a really bad presidential candidate and it could hit that tipping point where loads of Republicans lose their seat.
The issue in this regard is if Trump's the nominee, most GOP/Conservative voters would just stay home. Thus, putting the House at risk for the D's to take control.
Me? If Trump's the nominee, I'll write in Deadpool/Cthulu and then vote conservative down ticket.
End of the day that was a knife edge election. Whichever way Florida went decided the President, but showed that both parties were commanding roughly equal voter turnouts. And 2004 showed that a skilful Republican candidate could win a strong result.
It's what has come after that where the wheels have fallen off.
It's not a forgone conclusion that Bernie gets curb stomped in NY anymore...
538 is projecting Clinton winning 61 to 36. Have you got different figures?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Trump can still win all of NY and NJ's delegates... and he would STILL need 61% of the remaining delegates to get to 1267.
Not happening...
Does New York have a 50% trigger? I know there's a 20% minimum like most loophole primaries, but I've not seen a 50% trigger anywhere. I thought the big issue was whether Cruz would hit 20% and so claim a bunch of primaries, because if he didn't then the delegates would end up overwhelmingly with Trump, he'll claim something like 75 of the 91 delegates.
Anyhow, the other part that's misleading about Trump needing 60% of the delegates is that many states to come are winner take all. If he wins Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, then he gets real close. The trick then is the other two winner take all states, Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota. Give him any two of those and he'll make his target.
That's all a quite a stretch of course, winning any one of those three looks unlikely, winning two looks very slim. But it shows that it isn't about the % of delegates needed, but the key winner takes all states that will decide this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The issue in this regard is if Trump's the nominee, most GOP/Conservative voters would just stay home. Thus, putting the House at risk for the D's to take control.
Yep. The alternate risk is if Trump was to be shut out at the convention in favour of Cruz or anyone else, then there might be a groundswell against the party. Exit polling from Wisconsin asked Trump, Cruz and Kasich voters who the nomination should be - they expected Trump supporters to say 'whoever gets the most votes' and Cruz/Kasich voters to say 'whoever is decided through the convention process'. But a strong majority of voters for each candidate all stated it should be whoever got the most delegates. That shows there's a decent risk of a reaction against the party, maybe even one that's as strong as the reaction against a Trump nomination.
No-one likes it when party insiders overturn democratic results, and I'd say Republicans are a lot more sensitive that than most. However this ends up playing out, the Republican leadership will have to play it very cleverly.
They will have to play it very cleverly indeed, because despite all of Trump's odious qualities, his basic appeal is that the great majority of Americans have been failed by the poitical classes, and that is correct.
Even people who really don't want to see Trump in the White House, don't necessarily support business as usual.
That is why Sanders has got so much support. Frankly it's why Obama was so popular. Change away from a system that no longer seems to serve the interests of the majority.
Cruz is custom-built to lose the 2016 general election, so if I were RNC I'd be trying to pump Paul Ryan up like nobody's business. But he's just a kid, so he'll lose too. But who else do they have?
Some dude from Ohio who just happens to be sitting in third place AND isn't quite as crazy as the guy in silver and gold.....
Hey, I've come to kinda like Kasich. But lets be honest, he could only win his home state, and nothing else (so far) in the primaries. I don't think he's be a realistic contender in a general election. I'm afraid his 'decent human being' approach to politics no longer resonates with the Republican base.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, it looks like Ted Cruz's victory has just hammered the final nail into the Republican party's bid to have their candidate in the White House.
If Trump can't win a majority, expect to see a deal done behind closed doors with anybody but Trump gaining the nomination.
The Republican party grassroots will never forgive the top brass for this 'betrayal,' the party will be divided...
and a divided party will be steam rolled by HRC.
They lose with Trump, and they lose without him. This campaign is getting pretty boring because all roads lead to
Clinton in the White House (which has been the most likely outcome since Obama won his second term).
I suppose the GOP could try and recruit some serious star power. It would have to be someone better than Paul Ryan. Colin Powell would do the trick, but I know he's not interested and maybe not even Republican anymore. But it would take someone of that caliber to compete.
In any case, there's certainly entertainment left to be had in how much damage a wrecking ball can do.
If I were a Republican voter, I'd feel cheated and bitter if some other candidate was dumped on me. As bad as Trump and Cruz are, at least they toured the nation to get the votes.
Republicans on this site might not want to hear this, but in the long term interests of the party, they need to be crushed by HRC in November. Then, and only then, can they start to rebuild. They need a massive shock to the system.
The GOPs actions during Obama's presidency has a lot to do with what is going on right now with this election. You can't support the rhetoric that they have these last 8 years without it affecting their base. I am confident that under Clinton not only will the GOP return to the same tactics they have relied on with Obama but at an increased capacity. Clinton because she has been touted as an anti-American demon (despite being basically a conservative in blue colors) the GOP will be forced to fighter her tooth and nail to feed their base what they want.
Basically what I'm saying is a Clinton presidency couldn't be any worse for the GOP or arguably the health of American politics. After 4 to 8 years under Clinton, like I did with Jeb, we will be wishing Trump was running (if he already isn't) because an open extremist is polling high in the race.
At least that is what I feel I am seeing. It is my prediction I will be glad to learn I am completely wrong on. However, I'm fairly confident a Clinton presidency will pull the GOP even farther right.
The right is already in caricature mode. Hard to get any worse than "we will obstruct everything you do".
A Cruz Presidency would also lead to a dysfunctional executive/legislative relationship, because almosy everybody in national politics hates Ted Cruz.
I won't even speculate on Trump. We'll have bigger problems to deal with than the state of the GOP party politics and the executive/legislative relationship if he gets elected.
BrotherGecko wrote: Clinton because she has been touted as an anti-American demon (despite being basically a conservative in blue colors) the GOP will be forced to fighter her tooth and nail to feed their base what they want.
Basically what I'm saying is a Clinton presidency couldn't be any worse for the GOP or arguably the health of American politics. After 4 to 8 years under Clinton, like I did with Jeb, we will be wishing Trump was running (if he already isn't) because an open extremist is polling high in the race.
Can you explain that Jeb part a little more? I am not sure what you are saying there.
It is ironic that Obama being pretty corporate, militaristic, and statist (very similar to GWB in many ways) didn't leave the Republicans a lot to work with and so they basically switched to pure obstructionism. HRC is pretty centrist with perhaps an even stronger corporatist swing so will likely cause a lot of the same issues. The problem for the GOP is that strategy pushes them further and further to the margins. Trump has managed to draw wider support by appealing to some more populist elements, many of which are not consistent with the GOPs current planks. The DNC seems to have better massaged it's populist planks and reconciled them with their larger money supporters. The GOP still firmly serves it's institutional supporters but can't seem to herd it's ideological side and work that into a broader message. It's why I seem them doomed to a role as an increasingly regional party and national minority. Given national demographic trends, I don't see them building the coalitions they need to remain viable nationally as a majority party.
BrotherGecko wrote: The GOPs actions during Obama's presidency has a lot to do with what is going on right now with this election. You can't support the rhetoric that they have these last 8 years without it affecting their base. I am confident that under Clinton not only will the GOP return to the same tactics they have relied on with Obama but at an increased capacity. Clinton because she has been touted as an anti-American demon (despite being basically a conservative in blue colors) the GOP will be forced to fighter her tooth and nail to feed their base what they want.
Basically what I'm saying is a Clinton presidency couldn't be any worse for the GOP or arguably the health of American politics. After 4 to 8 years under Clinton, like I did with Jeb, we will be wishing Trump was running (if he already isn't) because an open extremist is polling high in the race.
At least that is what I feel I am seeing. It is my prediction I will be glad to learn I am completely wrong on. However, I'm fairly confident a Clinton presidency will pull the GOP even farther right.
Demographics are working against the GOP base. The white/male/middle-aged supporter is slowly being replaced by Hispanic and other ethnic groups.
The traditional working class voter is also feeling the squeeze.
It's been said a million times, but Catholic Hispanics should be natural Republicans due to their Conservative nature, but Trump's statements about keeping Mexicans out of the USA, Muslimes etc etc won't play well with non-white Americans IMO.
whembly wrote: Trump can still win all of NY and NJ's delegates... and he would STILL need 61% of the remaining delegates to get to 1267.
Not happening...
Does New York have a 50% trigger?
EDIT: Yes it does... if Trump gets 50% in NY, WTA is triggered and he takes it all... if not, NY is by Congressional district. Cruz/Kasich just need to keep Trump from 50% and it's doable as they're competitive in update NY.
NEW YORK
Election type: primary
Date: April 19
Number of delegates: 95 [11 at-large, 81 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (but with majority winner-take-all trigger statewide and at the congressional district level)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 20%
I know there's a 20% minimum like most loophole primaries, but I've not seen a 50% trigger anywhere. I thought the big issue was whether Cruz would hit 20% and so claim a bunch of primaries, because if he didn't then the delegates would end up overwhelmingly with Trump, he'll claim something like 75 of the 91 delegates.
Trump winning 75 delegates in NY is baked in to the idea that he needs to do better. So far, he's under performed all the Primary polls, so if you're looking that the Trends, Trump is in trouble EVEN if he sweeps NY & NJ.
Anyhow, the other part that's misleading about Trump needing 60% of the delegates is that many states to come are winner take all. If he wins Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, then he gets real close. The trick then is the other two winner take all states, Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota. Give him any two of those and he'll make his target.
Pennsylvania will be like WI. Plus, most of the delegates are unbound and Cruz has so far been able to get "his guys" in the Pennsylvania delegate pool. And, Trump absolutely loses Nebraska/Montanna and SD.
Trump's only chance is California, is it isn't looking good for him there either.
That's all a quite a stretch of course, winning any one of those three looks unlikely, winning two looks very slim. But it shows that it isn't about the % of delegates needed, but the key winner takes all states that will decide this.
Nope. It's really about performing well in each of the next state's congressional districts.
June 7 is the key date as that's the California GOP Primary.
We're headed to a contested convention bro.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The issue in this regard is if Trump's the nominee, most GOP/Conservative voters would just stay home. Thus, putting the House at risk for the D's to take control.
Yep. The alternate risk is if Trump was to be shut out at the convention in favour of Cruz or anyone else, then there might be a groundswell against the party. Exit polling from Wisconsin asked Trump, Cruz and Kasich voters who the nomination should be - they expected Trump supporters to say 'whoever gets the most votes' and Cruz/Kasich voters to say 'whoever is decided through the convention process'. But a strong majority of voters for each candidate all stated it should be whoever got the most delegates. That shows there's a decent risk of a reaction against the party, maybe even one that's as strong as the reaction against a Trump nomination.
No-one likes it when party insiders overturn democratic results, and I'd say Republicans are a lot more sensitive that than most. However this ends up playing out, the Republican leadership will have to play it very cleverly.
If Trump's the nominee, I can see the GOP voters sits at home giving the D's control in the WH/House/Senate (ala, 2008). Nothing the GOP leadership can do to ameliorate that imo.
But, if it's a "not-Trump"... we'll see. And at this point, it'll have to be either Cruz or Kasich. An outsider dropping in to "save the day" ain't going to happen.
EDIT: another view is this.
Delegates not allocated = 882.
Trump has 743.
So, 1237 – 743 = 494 that he needs.
Therefore, Trump needs to win (494/882 = 56%) of the delegates. That's a high bar...
Just eye-ball this upcoming Primary schedule...
Tuesday, April 19:
New York
Tuesday, April 26:
Connecticut
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tuesday, May 3:
Indiana
Tuesday, May 10:
Nebraska
West Virginia
Tuesday, May 17:
Oregon
Tuesday, May 24:
Washington
Tuesday, June 7:
California
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
South Dakota
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, it looks like Ted Cruz's victory has just hammered the final nail into the Republican party's bid to have their candidate in the White House.
If Trump can't win a majority, expect to see a deal done behind closed doors with anybody but Trump gaining the nomination.
The Republican party grassroots will never forgive the top brass for this 'betrayal,' the party will be divided...
and a divided party will be steam rolled by HRC.
They lose with Trump, and they lose without him. This campaign is getting pretty boring because all roads lead to
Clinton in the White House (which has been the most likely outcome since Obama won his second term).
I suppose the GOP could try and recruit some serious star power. It would have to be someone better than Paul Ryan. Colin Powell would do the trick, but I know he's not interested and maybe not even Republican anymore. But it would take someone of that caliber to compete.
In any case, there's certainly entertainment left to be had in how much damage a wrecking ball can do.
If I were a Republican voter, I'd feel cheated and bitter if some other candidate was dumped on me. As bad as Trump and Cruz are, at least they toured the nation to get the votes.
Republicans on this site might not want to hear this, but in the long term interests of the party, they need to be crushed by HRC in November. Then, and only then, can they start to rebuild. They need a massive shock to the system.
A contested convention can only cause bad things for the Republican Party. It's unlikely that Trump gets the magic number of 1237 delegates so he won't win the first floor vote but it's pretty much impossible for anyone else to get to 1237 either. Once the first floor vote is over and all the delegates are unbound it will be tough for Trump to win a subsequent vote. However, it would be difficult to rationalize the delegates choosing Cruz or Kasich, who both performed worse than Trump in the primaries, and tout them as better candidates as that would be openly contradicted by the primary results. There is no white knight candidate to ride into the convention pick up the nomination unite the party and win the general. Nominating a candidate that didn't even run in the primaries alienates every vote who supported a candidate that did run. The Republican Party made their bed and now they have to lie in it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, it looks like Ted Cruz's victory has just hammered the final nail into the Republican party's bid to have their candidate in the White House.
If Trump can't win a majority, expect to see a deal done behind closed doors with anybody but Trump gaining the nomination.
The Republican party grassroots will never forgive the top brass for this 'betrayal,' the party will be divided...
and a divided party will be steam rolled by HRC.
They lose with Trump, and they lose without him. This campaign is getting pretty boring because all roads lead to
Clinton in the White House (which has been the most likely outcome since Obama won his second term).
I suppose the GOP could try and recruit some serious star power. It would have to be someone better than Paul Ryan. Colin Powell would do the trick, but I know he's not interested and maybe not even Republican anymore. But it would take someone of that caliber to compete.
In any case, there's certainly entertainment left to be had in how much damage a wrecking ball can do.
If I were a Republican voter, I'd feel cheated and bitter if some other candidate was dumped on me. As bad as Trump and Cruz are, at least they toured the nation to get the votes.
Republicans on this site might not want to hear this, but in the long term interests of the party, they need to be crushed by HRC in November. Then, and only then, can they start to rebuild. They need a massive shock to the system.
A contested convention can only cause bad things for the Republican Party. It's unlikely that Trump gets the magic number of 1237 delegates so he won't win the first floor vote but it's pretty much impossible for anyone else to get to 1237 either. Once the first floor vote is over and all the delegates are unbound it will be tough for Trump to win a subsequent vote. However, it would be difficult to rationalize the delegates choosing Cruz or Kasich, who both performed worse than Trump in the primaries, and tout them as better candidates as that would be openly contradicted by the primary results. There is no white knight candidate to ride into the convention pick up the nomination unite the party and win the general. Nominating a candidate that didn't even run in the primaries alienates every vote who supported a candidate that did run. The Republican Party made their bed and now they have to lie in it.
I don't agree with this premise.
That's how these conventions work.
It's up to the party leadership to teach the public how this works. I'm not optimistic that they can do this, so yes, there will be chaos.
We just haven't seen a contested convention for quite some time.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, it looks like Ted Cruz's victory has just hammered the final nail into the Republican party's bid to have their candidate in the White House.
If Trump can't win a majority, expect to see a deal done behind closed doors with anybody but Trump gaining the nomination.
The Republican party grassroots will never forgive the top brass for this 'betrayal,' the party will be divided...
and a divided party will be steam rolled by HRC.
They lose with Trump, and they lose without him. This campaign is getting pretty boring because all roads lead to
Clinton in the White House (which has been the most likely outcome since Obama won his second term).
I suppose the GOP could try and recruit some serious star power. It would have to be someone better than Paul Ryan. Colin Powell would do the trick, but I know he's not interested and maybe not even Republican anymore. But it would take someone of that caliber to compete.
In any case, there's certainly entertainment left to be had in how much damage a wrecking ball can do.
If I were a Republican voter, I'd feel cheated and bitter if some other candidate was dumped on me. As bad as Trump and Cruz are, at least they toured the nation to get the votes.
Republicans on this site might not want to hear this, but in the long term interests of the party, they need to be crushed by HRC in November. Then, and only then, can they start to rebuild. They need a massive shock to the system.
A contested convention can only cause bad things for the Republican Party. It's unlikely that Trump gets the magic number of 1237 delegates so he won't win the first floor vote but it's pretty much impossible for anyone else to get to 1237 either. Once the first floor vote is over and all the delegates are unbound it will be tough for Trump to win a subsequent vote. However, it would be difficult to rationalize the delegates choosing Cruz or Kasich, who both performed worse than Trump in the primaries, and tout them as better candidates as that would be openly contradicted by the primary results. There is no white knight candidate to ride into the convention pick up the nomination unite the party and win the general. Nominating a candidate that didn't even run in the primaries alienates every vote who supported a candidate that did run. The Republican Party made their bed and now they have to lie in it.
I don't agree with this premise.
That's how these conventions work.
It's up to the party leadership to teach the public how this works. I'm not optimistic that they can do this, so yes, there will be chaos.
We just haven't seen a contested convention for quite some time.
Trump's campaign is already talking to the media about how undemocratic and terrible it would be to not give Trump the nomination even if he's short of 1237. Having the largest plurality doesn't guarantee Trump anything but he's already laying the groundwork for causing protests and chaos if he doesn't get what he wants even if he doesn't actually earn it through the primary process. The convention could result in nominating Cruz or Kasich but there's the obvious flaw in the logic of declaring that the candidate who finished with the 2nd or 3rd best plurality of delegates and votes is somehow the best candidate for the party. Giving the nomination to somebody who didn't even run seems like a slap in the face to all the candidates that did run and the people who supported those candidates with time, money and votes. There are many possible outcomes from a contested convention but none of them put the Republican Party in a strong position for the general election.
The parties (both!) did this to themselves with these delegates and super delegates to try and prevent party darlings from losing to a populist candidate.
Trump not getting to the magic # would be fantastic.
Bernie winning the pupular (i.e. regular delegate) vote would be fantastic.
Because then both parties will have to explain why the belief of the american people in "one person, one vote" isn't really in the people's best interest...lol....
Ted Cruz, Not Paul Ryan, Would Probably Win A Contested Convention The ‘establishment’ might not like Cruz, but the delegates likely will.
It’s like something out of an Aaron Sorkin script. After their bitterly divisive primary, the Republican delegates come together to nominate John Kasich on the fourth ballot at a contested convention in Cleveland, despite his having won only his home state of Ohio. Or they choose House Speaker Paul Ryan, despite his not having run in the primaries at all. Balloons descend from the ceiling, celestial choirs sing and everything is right again with the Republican Party, which goes on to beat Hillary Clinton in a landslide in November.
As I said, it’s like something out of a TV show. In other words: probably fiction. It’s not that hard to imagine a contested convention. In fact, with Donald Trump’s path to 1,237 delegates looking tenuous, especially after his loss in Wisconsin on Tuesday night, it’s a real possibility. And it’s not hard to see how Republicans might think of Kasich or Ryan as good nominees. If Republicans were starting from scratch, both might be pretty good picks, especially from the perspective of the party “establishment” in Washington.
But Republicans won’t be starting from scratch, and the “establishment” won’t pick the party’s nominee. The 2,472 delegates in Cleveland will. And most of them will be chosen at state or local party conventions a long way from Washington. Few will be household names, having quietly attended party gatherings in Fargo, North Dakota, or Cheyenne, Wyoming, for years with little remuneration or recognition. Although the proverbial Acela-riding insiders might dream of Ryan or Kasich, there are indications that the rank-and-file delegates are into Ted Cruz — and they’re the ones who will have votes in Cleveland.
To recap a bit, the Republican presidential voting process is separate from the delegate selection process in most states. In South Carolina, for instance, most delegates are selected through a series of county, congressional district and state conventions. Although those delegates are bound to Trump (who won the state’s primary on Feb. 20) on the first ballot, they could peel off and vote for another candidate after that.1
There are some states where delegates are selected directly on the ballot (as in Maryland, for instance) and others where slates are submitted by the candidates (as in New Hampshire) — these are a fairly small minority. Below, you’ll find a table showing the Republicans’ delegate selection method in all states and territories, according to the Republican Party’s rulebook.
Without getting too lost in the details,2 there are five major delegate selection methods:
Candidates choose their delegates (10 percent of delegates). In some states, candidates name a slate of delegates. These states include California, making it even more important to the Republicans’ delegate math; delegates won in California are likely to remain loyal to their candidates longer than in most places.
Directly elected (16 percent of delegates). Other delegates, as I mentioned, are chosen directly on the primary ballot. Usually, the ballot indicates which candidate the delegate prefers, and the delegates are bound to that candidate. An important exception is Pennsylvania, where 54 delegates will be elected on the ballot as uncommitted.
In these first two cases, there’s a strong link between the presidential preference vote and delegate selection. The link isn’t perfect — weird things can happen when voters are asked to choose from among a number of delegates they’ve never heard of — but it’s pretty close. However, these two groups combined will represent only 26 percent of all delegates in Cleveland (or 24 percent if Pennsylvania’s uncommitted delegates aren’t included in the tally).
The other delegate selection methods are as follows:
Selected at state or local conventions (55 percent of delegates). The majority of delegates, as I mentioned, are chosen through a series of state and local conventions or caucuses. This is grass-roots democracy at work, with somewhere between dozens and thousands of Republican activists attending these events.
Selected by state or local party committees (12 percent of delegates). In a few other cases, however, party insiders are responsible for appointing some delegates. The state executive committee names 14 at-large delegates in Tennessee, for instance, a point of contention because these delegates are thought not to be favorable to Trump even though he won the state.
Republican National Committee members (7 percent of delegates). Finally, the 168 members of the RNC — three in each state — are automatically chosen as delegates. This used to be an important group because these delegates were uncommitted even on the first ballot in many states, making them equivalent to the Democrats’ “superdelegates.” But this year, Republican rules usually bind them to the statewide winner on the first ballot. Like other delegates, they may be free to choose whom they want later on.
We know that Cruz is likely to do well among delegates chosen through state and local conventions because we’ve seen that demonstrated quite a few times already. This is most obvious in the three states — Colorado, Wyoming and North Dakota — where there was no presidential preference vote. Cruz won nine of the 12 delegates chosen at county conventions in Wyoming (Trump won one), and Cruz has gotten six of six picked so far at congressional district conventions in Colorado (more Colorado congressional districts will choose their delegates this week). In North Dakota, delegates are technically unbound, but Cruz got a highly favorable slate of delegates approved at the state convention on Sunday; only one or two delegates of the 25 chosen appear favorably disposed to Trump.
Cruz has also gotten good results at state and local conventions in states that do hold a presidential preference vote. In fact, considering that relatively few states have completed their convention process, it’s remarkable how many examples you can find of Cruz cleaning Trump’s clock: for example, in Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and South Dakota. It’s possible that Trump will improve his delegate-selection efforts in subsequent states, and with his chance of winning the GOP nomination down to 49 percent at prediction markets, he’s become a tempting buy-low opportunity. But in terms of delegate selection, Trump has nowhere to go but up, making it more essential for him to win 1,237 delegates by California or come very close to it.
We have fewer examples of how Cruz will fare among delegates chosen by party committees, but Tennessee represents an initial success for him. Another good proxy for how state party insiders are leaning is endorsements from state legislators. Cruz has about six times more of those than Trump and more than twice as many as Kasich, according to data collected by Boris Shor and Will Cubbison. Furthermore, Cruz has been fairly popular among state legislators for some time, according to Shor and Cubbison; they’re not merely coming to him out of desperation.
Then there are the 168 RNC delegates. Perhaps they’d be favorably disposed to Ryan or Kasich, but they represent a relatively small share of the delegate pool. And with strong ties to their state parties, they don’t all fit the stereotype of Washington insiders either.
It also helps Cruz that he, like Trump, will have won a fair number of delegates from the first two categories — directly elected delegates and delegates chosen by the candidates. True, these may be only about a quarter of delegates combined, but those are delegates that a candidate like Ryan would have a hard time winning over, meaning that he’d need a supermajority of delegates from the other categories. Also, in some states, delegates are bound based on the primary or caucus results for more than one ballot. So while Cruz could be a viable choice from the second ballot onward, it might not be until the fourth ballot or so that Ryan would really have a shot.
It’s true that a contested convention is uncharted territory in the modern political era, so we can’t be completely sure what the delegates would do. The 2,472 delegates have nearly unlimited authority to rewrite the convention rules, and if most of the them really wanted to see Ryan or Kasich nominated, they could probably find a way to do it. Or, if the voting was a stalemate between Trump and Cruz for many ballots, a true dark horse — maybe someone far more obscure than Ryan or Kasich — could emerge as a compromise. We can’t rule out these outcomes.
But we’re also learning more and more about who those delegates are now that they’re being chosen. They’re not members of the Washington “establishment.” Instead, they’re mostly grass-roots activists, and many of them want Cruz to be their next president.
I saw that article, and I agree, for the same reasons. Contested conventions are crazy, but they're still ~2500 die hard republicans. There is no way they nominate Trump on a second ballot, but I think they'll go for the hard right conservatism of Cruz.
I just don't see it playing out well. If Cruz goes in 2nd place with Trump barely under the magic number, but Cruz comes out with the nomination despite not being able to win a plurality, winning by a method that smacks of political gamesmanship, and having alienated both the vote leader and the party establishment, how can that not end in disaster? Keep in mind that even the Cruz voters in Wisconsin overwhelmingly said they think the nomination should go to whoever gets the most votes.
It doesn't matter if "that's how these conventions work"- politically, with the current climate, I don't see how anyone but the frontrunner getting the nomination turns out well for the party. (And with the whole "Anyone But Trump" faction, even that will be problematic). Expecting the GOP leadership to somehow lecture their angry populist wing (already largely hostile to the so called "GOP establishment") to swallow a bitter pill seems like throwing gasoline on a fire.
Trying to work out if Trump would run as a third party if he doesn't get the nomination.
On one hand it's spiteful, which is how he keeps his luminous orange hue.
On the other hand being 'screwed by the establishment' gives him a great out without actually losing...which he would have to assume is completely inevitable as a third party candidate.
Trump/Sanders though...the underdog odd couple that will confuse America great again!
@whembley: If you're best hope is Ted Cruz, just give up all hope now. Ted Cruz is not a palatable nominee.
The best chance for the GOP was either Rubio or maybe Bush,, and both were squished underfoot by Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
plastictrees wrote: Trying to work out if Trump would run as a third party if he doesn't get the nomination.
On one hand it's spiteful, which is how he keeps his luminous orange hue.
On the other hand being 'screwed by the establishment' gives him a great out without actually losing...which he would have to assume is completely inevitable as a third party candidate.
Trump/Sanders though...the underdog odd couple that will confuse America great again!
I'm betting 50/50 that Trump runs Independent if he feels he is cheated by the party.
Sanders would never run with Trump, that should go without saying.
jasper76 wrote: If you're best hope is Ted Cruz, just give up all hope now. Ted Cruz is not a palatable nominee.
The best chance for the GOP was either Rubio or maybe Bush,, and both were squished underfoot by Trump.
The thing to watch out for is if the RNC Committee crew doesn't re-issue the 2012 rules.
If they keep the 2012 rules, then it's down to Trump or Cruz.
Trump consistently loses to Clinton in any head-to-head polls.
Cruz is actually leading Clinton in the head-to-head polls.
I think Cruz would definitely have an uphill battle vs. Clinton, but he'd have a chance. It could be the 2014 scenario as the D's are electing someone who doesn't resonate with the masses.
I do agree with you regarding Rubio... he's the *best* GOP candidate to take down Clinton. But, alas... ain't meant to be.
jmurph wrote: It doesn't matter if "that's how these conventions work"- politically, with the current climate, I don't see how anyone but the frontrunner getting the nomination turns out well for the party. (And with the whole "Anyone But Trump" faction, even that will be problematic). Expecting the GOP leadership to somehow lecture their angry populist wing (already largely hostile to the so called "GOP establishment") to swallow a bitter pill seems like throwing gasoline on a fire.
Let's be fair though, Trump won a ton of his delegates due to quirks in the rules and a crowded field. He hasn't taken 50% of any given state yet. He's got the most votes, but nothing approaching a mandate. And that's the rule: get to half, or take your chances in a convention.
If I was in the RNC, I'd worry less about the angry populists, who aren't a reliable bloc, and more on the religious right, which is. Running Cruz shows the hard right that the GOP is about true conservative values. More Trump voters would support Cruz than vice versa. It's the smarter play, and Cruz can be expected to not embarrass the party too badly, especially if the actual general election seems lost. All those down ticket races matter.
The GOP has spent six years trying to kowtow to angry voters since the Tea Party sprang up, and it's gotten nothing but grief. I don't think they make the same mistake twice. It's the same cold calculation the democrats make with the Green party and the other far left agitators: make them realize that it's a two party system, and they'll buckle to support the lesser of two evils. Worst case, they're just staying home.
plastictrees wrote: Trying to work out if Trump would run as a third party if he doesn't get the nomination.
On one hand it's spiteful, which is how he keeps his luminous orange hue.
On the other hand being 'screwed by the establishment' gives him a great out without actually losing...which he would have to assume is completely inevitable as a third party candidate.
Trump/Sanders though...the underdog odd couple that will confuse America great again!
I'm betting 50/50 that Trump runs Independent if he feels he is cheated by the party.
Sanders would never run with Trump, that should go without saying.
Trump won't (or unwilling) be able to fund it if he loses the GOP nomination.
jmurph wrote: It doesn't matter if "that's how these conventions work"- politically, with the current climate, I don't see how anyone but the frontrunner getting the nomination turns out well for the party. (And with the whole "Anyone But Trump" faction, even that will be problematic). Expecting the GOP leadership to somehow lecture their angry populist wing (already largely hostile to the so called "GOP establishment") to swallow a bitter pill seems like throwing gasoline on a fire.
Let's be fair though, Trump won a ton of his delegates due to quirks in the rules and a crowded field. He hasn't taken 50% of any given state yet. He's got the most votes, but nothing approaching a mandate. And that's the rule: get to half, or take your chances in a convention.
If I was in the RNC, I'd worry less about the angry populists, who aren't a reliable bloc, and more on the religious right, which is. Running Cruz shows the hard right that the GOP is about true conservative values. More Trump voters would support Cruz than vice versa. It's the smarter play, and Cruz can be expected to not embarrass the party too badly, especially if the actual general election seems lost. All those down ticket races matter.
The GOP has spent six years trying to kowtow to angry voters since the Tea Party sprang up, and it's gotten nothing but grief. I don't think they make the same mistake twice. It's the same cold calculation the democrats make with the Green party and the other far left agitators: make them realize that it's a two party system, and they'll buckle to support the lesser of two evils. Worst case, they're just staying home.
plastictrees wrote: Trying to work out if Trump would run as a third party if he doesn't get the nomination.
On one hand it's spiteful, which is how he keeps his luminous orange hue.
On the other hand being 'screwed by the establishment' gives him a great out without actually losing...which he would have to assume is completely inevitable as a third party candidate.
Trump/Sanders though...the underdog odd couple that will confuse America great again!
I'm betting 50/50 that Trump runs Independent if he feels he is cheated by the party.
Sanders would never run with Trump, that should go without saying.
Trump won't (or unwilling) be able to fund it if he loses the GOP nomination.
Third party threats is very weak-sauce.
.
What has Trump done to make you think that he responds rationally to real or perceived slights? The dude doesn't seem capable of letting anything slide, and I don't put it past him for a minute to run for sole purpose of fething over the Republican Party for screwing him out of the nomination .
Cruz is actually leading Clinton in the head-to-head polls.
I think Cruz would definitely have an uphill battle vs. Clinton, but he'd have a chance. It could be the 2014 scenario as the D's are electing someone who doesn't resonate with the masses.
General election polls prior to the nomination aren't very reliable, but they've shown Clinton perking back up. The problem is, I don't care very much about Cruz vs. Clinton nationally. Look at the states that matter:
A Cruz nomination puts vaguely purple states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin completely out of play, but it might work in states like Iowa and North Carolina. I think Virginia is way too establishment to go for Cruz. Assuming Cruz rallies in Iowa, NC, and Virginia, he'd almost certainly lose Colorado and Nevada, along with NH. That means he has to win Ohio and Florida. It's a tight needle to thread
<small> Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com</small>
plastictrees wrote: Trying to work out if Trump would run as a third party if he doesn't get the nomination. On one hand it's spiteful, which is how he keeps his luminous orange hue. On the other hand being 'screwed by the establishment' gives him a great out without actually losing...which he would have to assume is completely inevitable as a third party candidate.
Trump/Sanders though...the underdog odd couple that will confuse America great again!
I'm betting 50/50 that Trump runs Independent if he feels he is cheated by the party.
Sanders would never run with Trump, that should go without saying.
Trump won't (or unwilling) be able to fund it if he loses the GOP nomination.
Third party threats is very weak-sauce. .
What has Trump done to make you think that he responds rationally to real or perceived slights? The dude doesn't seem capable of letting anything slide, and I don't put it past him for a minute to run for sole purpose of fething over the Republican Party for screwing him out of the nomination .
He has a brand, and part of that is that he's a "winner".
Besides, he's *not* going to get the fundings he'd need for a 3rd party run.
Cruz is actually leading Clinton in the head-to-head polls.
I think Cruz would definitely have an uphill battle vs. Clinton, but he'd have a chance. It could be the 2014 scenario as the D's are electing someone who doesn't resonate with the masses.
General election polls prior to the nomination aren't very reliable, but they've shown Clinton perking back up. The problem is, I don't care very much about Cruz vs. Clinton nationally. Look at the states that matter:
A Cruz nomination puts vaguely purple states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin completely out of play, but it might work in states like Iowa and North Carolina. I think Virginia is way too establishment to go for Cruz. Assuming Cruz rallies in Iowa, NC, and Virginia, he'd almost certainly lose Colorado and Nevada, along with NH. That means he has to win Ohio and Florida. It's a tight needle to thread
<small> Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com</small>
That's why I said Cruz would have an uphill battle vs. Clinton.
Gun to my head, if I had to bet... I'd say Clinton wins 9 out of 10 times.
EDIT: I think Cruz wins Colorado and WI. But Ohio/Florida? <shudder> That's going to be ridiculously close.
plastictrees wrote: Trying to work out if Trump would run as a third party if he doesn't get the nomination.
On one hand it's spiteful, which is how he keeps his luminous orange hue.
On the other hand being 'screwed by the establishment' gives him a great out without actually losing...which he would have to assume is completely inevitable as a third party candidate.
Trump/Sanders though...the underdog odd couple that will confuse America great again!
I'm betting 50/50 that Trump runs Independent if he feels he is cheated by the party.
Sanders would never run with Trump, that should go without saying.
Trump won't (or unwilling) be able to fund it if he loses the GOP nomination.
Third party threats is very weak-sauce.
.
What has Trump done to make you think that he responds rationally to real or perceived slights? The dude doesn't seem capable of letting anything slide, and I don't put it past him for a minute to run for sole purpose of fething over the Republican Party for screwing him out of the nomination .
He has a brand, and part of that is that he's a "winner".
Besides, he's *not* going to get the fundings he'd need for a 3rd party run.
Kinda like how people predicted he would never make it this far?
The dirty secret behind Trump is that he has anemic fundraising, and isn't really spending much of his own. He's luxuriating in free media, but he's not running ads, he has no ground game, and even his high level campaign staff is threadbare.
He's done amazingly well because of an odd confluence of events and his own, lets call it charisma. A third party run would probably be embarrassingly futile.
plastictrees wrote: Trying to work out if Trump would run as a third party if he doesn't get the nomination.
On one hand it's spiteful, which is how he keeps his luminous orange hue.
On the other hand being 'screwed by the establishment' gives him a great out without actually losing...which he would have to assume is completely inevitable as a third party candidate.
Trump/Sanders though...the underdog odd couple that will confuse America great again!
I'm betting 50/50 that Trump runs Independent if he feels he is cheated by the party.
Sanders would never run with Trump, that should go without saying.
Trump won't (or unwilling) be able to fund it if he loses the GOP nomination.
Third party threats is very weak-sauce.
.
What has Trump done to make you think that he responds rationally to real or perceived slights? The dude doesn't seem capable of letting anything slide, and I don't put it past him for a minute to run for sole purpose of fething over the Republican Party for screwing him out of the nomination .
He has a brand, and part of that is that he's a "winner".
Besides, he's *not* going to get the fundings he'd need for a 3rd party run.
Kinda like how people predicted he would never make it this far?
The funding needs for Primary is tiny compared for General Election.
He can pull a Perot, but he'd lose his ass off and damage his "Trump Brand".
Its just a measure to provide protection to church security teams in case they have to defend themselves. It ranks them the same as the PoPo in terms of legal defenses. 
Click the map to create your own at