shasolenzabi wrote: Look, the only reason Hilary looks as if she has the nomination all wrapped up is the Corporate media which put money into her campaign wants us to believe it is so. Bernie was the winner that CNN debate, CNN as a Time-Warner owned operation switched their polls to reflect the chosen one, not Bernie.
Social Media knows Bernie won, People on the vast Social Media networks are pro-Bernie, so the polls may lie as per the mandate of the Media moguls who want Hilary as she will leave them alone tax wise. Bernie would close loopholes and make them pay their fair share of taxes they dodge.
The corporate corruption, handouts, and other bad policies will make this nation a Oligarchial Corporatocracy which is a Fascist state BTW. Bernie seeks to end that.
Stop believing the Mainstream Media as they are pro-corporatist mouth pieces.
Ok, you just keep believing that. What evidence do you have to support the idea that the Sandman has any shot in the world of beating Clinton? His polls in IA and NH? They come in 1st and third as far as self identified white liberals in the us. Way to go he can win a minority of a minority. He might win Iowa. He is currently tied or behind in NH (a state he should win, it's next to his own and demos). Then what? South Carolina, Nevada, and a feth ton of other states where he will struggle to get more than 20% of the vote. I am not the mainstream media (strange how Sanders supporters sound like right wingers these days). I am am man who can look at numbers objectively.
Unless Clinton gets dragged in front of a federal court by FBI Feds, she will be the nominee, and if she is, Biden left himself open to swoop in to save the day (evidently you didn't watch his speech because it was carried by the lame stream media). I'm not sure you should take your Facebook page as a credible source of information.
Mass Media doesn't favor Clinton because they gave her money, they favor her because she's the establishment Candidate. It's the same reason they favored her in 2008, because no one at the time fathomed anyone else as posing a legitimate challenge and even when Obama started to have undeniable momentum leading into January, media outlets continued backing her because she was the Establishment candidate and Obama wasn't.
It's not about money, it's about how media outlets negotiate and work with the DNC to arrange rights and air time (the same kind of relationship exists with the RNC, in years where the Republican Primary isn't a mess). Their always going to favor the candidate that the party proper favors, not the guy who came out of left field.
And if you think Nate Silver is part of the Media establishment, you don't understand why he quit his high profile job at NYT. The fact is media likes a story to sell add copy. Fights sell add copy. There isnt really much of a fight on the left right now, so they have to make one. Sorry to break it to you Burnites, but Sanders is only even remotly in the news because the media wants him to be in the news because it helps them sell clicks and ads. The twitters and facebooks follow the headlines and act as a megaphone. Welcome to the 21st century. "Take a bow to the new revolution...Meet the old boss, same as the new boss". Somehow people still don't get irony in The Who lyrics.
The media favors those who will make them money. Period. If you think Murdock or Ailes, or the CEOs of GE or Viacom, or Disney or Time Warner really care about political ideology more than their bottom line, you are deluding yourself. They are all in the business of entertainment. And we are entertained by football and circuses and murder. Sanders will be an asterisk martyr. Perot, meet Nader, meet Sanders. Except Sanders will have no outcome on the general.
Gordon Shumway wrote: \Sanders will be an asterisk martyr. Perot, meet Nader, meet Sanders. Except Sanders will have no outcome on the general.
If you're looking for an analogy to previous elections, I'd use Kucinich. Sanders is basically running on Dennis Kucinich's 2008 platform, just minus the gun control, and plus some charisma.
Social Media knows Bernie won, People on the vast Social Media networks are pro-Bernie...
Yes, some people on the various social media networks support Sanders. These people also tend to be particularly forthright regarding this fact, as is generally the case when a nonstandard candidate achieves some success. This does not mean that Sanders is the more popular candidate overall, indeed there is a school of thought which dictates that a large activist base tends to indicate a lack of popular support as activists don't have any reason to exist in support of a popular candidate.
Social Media knows Bernie won, People on the vast Social Media networks are pro-Bernie...
Yes, some people on the various social media networks support Sanders. These people also tend to be particularly forthright regarding this fact, as is generally the case when a nonstandard candidate achieves some success. This does not mean that Sanders is the more popular candidate overall, indeed there is a school of thought which dictates that a large activist base tends to indicate a lack of popular support as activists don't have any reason to exist in support of a popular candidate.
10k plus supporters in Arizona rallies, 20k plus in Oregon doesn't really indicate that this is a mere "activist" crowd to me. The fact that he's beating Obama's 2008 fundraising "records" should indicate that there IS popular support.
10k plus supporters in Arizona rallies, 20k plus in Oregon doesn't really indicate that this is a mere "activist" crowd to me. The fact that he's beating Obama's 2008 fundraising "records" should indicate that there IS popular support.
Oh, there is, but my point is two fold:
A) Social networks are poor means of gauging support for a given candidate, unless you have access to raw data.
B) Sanders likely has less support than his supporters would like to believe.
BrotherGecko wrote: Truly it has become so corrupt that symbols of modern corporate coruption have decided to simply skip the middle men and run themselves.
And yet his supporters think he's an "outsider" for some reason
shasolenzabi wrote: Look, the only reason Hilary looks as if she has the nomination all wrapped up is the Corporate media which put money into her campaign wants us to believe it is so. Bernie was the winner that CNN debate, CNN as a Time-Warner owned operation switched their polls to reflect the chosen one, not Bernie.
Social Media knows Bernie won, People on the vast Social Media networks are pro-Bernie, so the polls may lie as per the mandate of the Media moguls who want Hilary as she will leave them alone tax wise. Bernie would close loopholes and make them pay their fair share of taxes they dodge.
The corporate corruption, handouts, and other bad policies will make this nation a Oligarchial Corporatocracy which is a Fascist state BTW. Bernie seeks to end that.
Stop believing the Mainstream Media as they are pro-corporatist mouth pieces.
Like I said, Im a registered republican. But at the moment unless Jeb gets the go ahead I think im going to vote for Bernie, at least he doesn't have a corrupt past as long as a football field. Yes im talking about Hillary The Clinton foundation, the e-mails and so on its just ridiculous that dems want her as the candidate. Just because she is popular doesn't mean you nominate her, its her actions and policy you need to look at and her actions so far look terrible.
Looks like Jeb may be out, so vote Bernie then! We need someone not beholden to the Wall Street Gangs.
Hilary has been given substantial donations by Time-Warner, which does own CNN. There was an article where they were said to have donated 400K to her, no idea what the others did, but whoever owns Washington Post also is heavy on the Hilary support.
Why do you think Jeb! may be out? I mean, aside from his mediocre campaign, nonexistent charisma, dwindling donor base, and so on - was there a story that he was thinking about calling it quits yet? I mean, there is obviously going to be that story, and probably pretty soon, but did it break yet?
Ouze wrote: Why do you think Jeb! may be out? I mean, aside from his mediocre campaign, nonexistent charisma, dwindling donor base, and so on - was there a story that he was thinking about calling it quits yet? I mean, there is obviously going to be that story, and probably pretty soon, but did it break yet?
Articles keep popping up on news feeds, one mentioned his cut backs to paid staff for the campaign, that is never a good sign for any candidate.
Ouze wrote: Why do you think Jeb! may be out? I mean, aside from his mediocre campaign, nonexistent charisma, dwindling donor base, and so on - was there a story that he was thinking about calling it quits yet? I mean, there is obviously going to be that story, and probably pretty soon, but did it break yet?
Articles keep popping up on news feeds, one mentioned his cut backs to paid staff for the campaign, that is never a good sign for any candidate.
It also happens fairly frequently though. I think that McCain had to scale his staff back to a skeleton crew and was running with mostly volunteers before eventually getting the nomination.
Washington (CNN)The Justice Department notified members of Congress on Friday that it is closing its two-year investigation into whether the IRS improperly targeted the tea party and other conservative groups.
There will be no charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner or anyone else at the agency, the Justice Department said in a letter.
The probe found "substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints. But poor management is not a crime," Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik said in the letter.
The IRS scandal exploded in May 2013 when Lerner answered a planted question at an American Bar Association event and apologized for inappropriately scrutinizing some groups applying for a tax exemption. Her response fueled a full-on scandal within hours that shook the Obama administration. Congressional hearings were held within weeks and the interim leader of the IRS was forced from office.
The IRS mishandled the processing of tax-exempt applications in a manner that disproportionately impacted applicants affiliated with the tea party and similar groups, leaving the appearance that the IRS's conduct was motivated by political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives.
IRS probed for 'potential criminal activity'
The IRS, which has a broad mandate ranging from tax collection to the implementation of key Obamacare provisions, has struggled to recover from the scandal. Obama nominated John Koskinen, a well-known turnaround manager, to run the agency.
Kadzik found "no evidence" to support a criminal prosecution.
"We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution," Kadzik said. "We also found no evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice. Based on the evidence developed in this investigation and the recommendation of experienced career prosecutors and supervising attorneys at the department, we are closing our investigation and will not seek any criminal charges."
Democrats welcomed the announcement.
"Today, the Justice Department confirmed the same conclusions we had years ago," Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement. "Over the past five years, Republicans in the House of Representatives have squandered literally tens of millions of dollars going down all kinds of investigative rabbit holes -- IRS, Planned Parenthood, Benghazi -- with absolutely no evidence of illegal activity."
But former House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-California, said the DOJ's decision gives the impression that "government officials are above the law."
"The Justice Department's decision to close the IRS targeting investigation without a single charge or prosecution is a low point of accountability in an administration that is better known for punishing whistleblowers than the abuse and misconduct they expose," Issa said in a statement. "After stating that their investigation confirms that tea party and conservative groups were improperly targeted, they dismiss it merely as a byproduct of gross mismanagement and incompetence -- ignoring volumes of evidence in the public record and efforts to obstruct legitimate inquires."
And Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means committee and the likely successor to outgoing House Speaker John Boehner, called the DOJ's announcement "predictable" and said his committee will continue its investigation into the IRS's actions.
"Through these investigations we have uncovered serious and unprecedented actions taken by the most senior IRS official in charge of the non-profit unit, Lois Lerner, to deprive conservative organizations of their constitutional rights," Ryan said in a statement. "Despite the DOJ closing its investigation, the Ways and Means Committee will continue to find answers and hold the IRS accountable for its actions."
So in other words, at the very least if anything wrong was done, there is not sufficient evidence to take the matter to trial. The Repbulcians, because they're so concerned about government waste, will continue to spend more tax dollars on yet another investigatory boondoggle that will likely embarrass them far more than any Democrat?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Actions that disproportionately affect minorities; de facto proof of racism
Actions that disproportionately affect Republicans; it was just bad management
I love how people can seriously compare Republican groups being targeted for investigation by an agency whose job it is to investigate groups for tax evasion/fraud to institutional racism.
If that isn't the perfect example of a persecution complex I don't know what is.
You'd think that after watching two other investigations become embarrassing witch hunts that make them look bad, they'd be reluctant to start yet another one. Especially in election season.
This is why jokes about the Republican party being incompetent get so much mileage...
Ouze wrote: Why do you think Jeb! may be out? I mean, aside from his mediocre campaign, nonexistent charisma, dwindling donor base, and so on - was there a story that he was thinking about calling it quits yet? I mean, there is obviously going to be that story, and probably pretty soon, but did it break yet?
Articles keep popping up on news feeds, one mentioned his cut backs to paid staff for the campaign, that is never a good sign for any candidate.
It also happens fairly frequently though. I think that McCain had to scale his staff back to a skeleton crew and was running with mostly volunteers before eventually getting the nomination.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if he is just scaling back, waiting for the inevitable falls of Trump and Carson, who are ratings/polling juggernauts. Once they're out, he can probably bounce back.
And if you think Nate Silver is part of the Media establishment, you don't understand why he quit his high profile job at NYT. The fact is media likes a story to sell add copy. Fights sell add copy. There isnt really much of a fight on the left right now, so they have to make one. Sorry to break it to you Burnites, but Sanders is only even remotly in the news because the media wants him to be in the news because it helps them sell clicks and ads. The twitters and facebooks follow the headlines and act as a megaphone. Welcome to the 21st century. "Take a bow to the new revolution...Meet the old boss, same as the new boss". Somehow people still don't get irony in The Who lyrics.
The media favors those who will make them money. Period. If you think Murdock or Ailes, or the CEOs of GE or Viacom, or Disney or Time Warner really care about political ideology more than their bottom line, you are deluding yourself. They are all in the business of entertainment. And we are entertained by football and circuses and murder. Sanders will be an asterisk martyr. Perot, meet Nader, meet Sanders. Except Sanders will have no outcome on the general.
Honestly, just by being discussed and getting to be in the debates, Bernie has all ready completed his primary objective for running. He said it himself, he was running to get people talking about the issues that he cares about which is inequality and corporate power. I think people having been talking about that more than ever lately.
Bernie won! Hilary has had to move tot eh left. The question is if he can keep her there long enough for it to matter once she is elected. I have doubts.
I don't see Jeb dropping out. I feel like everything he's doing is based on a long term. He'll start picking up more and more momentum as people drop out.
Unless there is a radical shift all of this feels like it plays to his strengths. We'll see.
Hulksmash wrote: I don't see Jeb dropping out. I feel like everything he's doing is based on a long term. He'll start picking up more and more momentum as people drop out.
Unless there is a radical shift all of this feels like it plays to his strengths. We'll see.
He won't drop out as he has a lot of money locked up. He can afford to what a while. The problem is the way the GOP revised their election process means that candidates don't necessarily need to drop out like before. If he still is running against 14? when votes are cast, he might not be able to win some of the early races. His donors will dry up entirely. Hello, candidate elect Trump, Carson, or Cruz. Goodbye, Republican Party. Granted, I still don't think Republicans are sucidal as a whole and the race will come down to maybe Rubio and Bush eventually, but the longer the voters hold the gun to their head, the more they look like a party that would conceivably elect a Trump. That might have already won the election for Dems. There was a good write up the other day in the WaPo about the origins of this trend of getting behind nuts with Palin the other day. Oh, if only McCain knew the ruination he was breeding back then.
Drop out?? I still think the smart money is on Bush winning the nomination. He isn't just the establishment candidate, but rather the establishment itself.
If the Establishment was 100% assured to win, Obama wouldn't be President, and Romney would never have gotten a nomination. Being 'in' with the Establishment is a huge boon but recent elections in particular have shown that it's not the end all.
jasper76 wrote: Drop out?? I still think the smart money is on Bush winning the nomination. He isn't just the establishment candidate, but rather the establishment itself.
I think the betting money has switched over to Rubio in the last few days. (Yeah, there is actually a betting market on this and it is pretty spot on since money is at stake, better than most snapshot polls at this point, at least).
jasper76 wrote: Drop out?? I still think the smart money is on Bush winning the nomination. He isn't just the establishment candidate, but rather the establishment itself.
I think the betting money has switched over to Rubio in the last few days. (Yeah, there is actually a betting market on this and it is pretty spot on since money is at stake, better than most snapshot polls at this point, at least).
Yeah my thinking is if not Bush, then Rubio. I acknowledge Bush is running votes in an environment with a loud anti-dynastic, anti-establishment, anti-government-in-general subset of voters.
jasper76 wrote: Drop out?? I still think the smart money is on Bush winning the nomination. He isn't just the establishment candidate, but rather the establishment itself.
I think the betting money has switched over to Rubio in the last few days. (Yeah, there is actually a betting market on this and it is pretty spot on since money is at stake, better than most snapshot polls at this point, at least).
Yeah my thinking is if not Bush, then Rubio. I acknowledge Bush is running votes in an environment with a loud anti-dynastic, anti-establishment, anti-government-in-general subset of voters.
And who is more that than Rubio, a man who can't even stand his job as a senator?
It's worth noting though that its unclear whether the Republican voters are capable of nominating someone who isn't a WASP. Not sure its happened in modern history..
jasper76 wrote: It's worth noting though that its unclear whether the Republican voters are capable of nominating someone who isn't a WASP. Not sure its happened in modern history..
Would Ronmey fall under the "P" as a Mormon? I don't know if Mormonism is considered Protestant?
Edit, if so, I don't believe they have ever nominated a non WASP.
jasper76 wrote: It's worth noting though that its unclear whether the Republican voters are capable of nominating someone who isn't a WASP. Not sure its happened in modern history..
Would Ronmey fall under the "P" as a Mormon? I don't know if Mormonism is considered Protestant?
Edit, if so, I don't believe they have ever nominated a non WASP.
Oh yeah, I forgot Romney was a Mormon lol. Mormons aren't technically Protestant. I know alot of Christians don't even consider Mormons to be Christian, and Romney was nominated, so maybe a Latino isn't such a longshot.
jasper76 wrote: It's worth noting though that its unclear whether the Republican voters are capable of nominating someone who isn't a WASP. Not sure its happened in modern history..
Would Ronmey fall under the "P" as a Mormon? I don't know if Mormonism is considered Protestant?
Edit, if so, I don't believe they have ever nominated a non WASP.
Oh yeah, I forgot Romney was a Mormon lol. Mormons aren't technically Protestant. I know alot of Christians don't even consider Mormons to be Christian, and Romney was nominated, so maybe a Latino isn't such a longshot.
If they thought they could win, I doubt any obstacle would impede them. Hell the Dems nominated a foreign born Muslim, right? I really think this might be a last gasp election of a dying party here. People tend to do crazy things when their backs are against the wall, in this case of changing demographics and religious ethics. I wonder what what we now call the GOP will look like in 20-30 years. It's hard to be the party of tradition when the world is changing so rapidly.
IMO, it should really be split up into two parties. That's basically what's happening now anyways, except in this case, the divided constituency on both sides of the Republican divide really only have half a party, and they are battling in a zero sum game for control rather than just splitting into 2 natural parties, pursuing their own political agendas, and allying on those issues where they have bipartisan agreement.
Sure, both will lose some power, but they're really only a power in Congress. They really have no chance of winning the Presidency since Trump has spoiled the brand entirely with Hispanic/Latino voters. And its hard to see this mono party having too much of a future without some serious platform revision, since it is so unpopular with women and youth.
Or when the traditions the party espouses are held to dishonestly For a party that proclaims the virtue of small government and fiscal responsibility, they sure spend inordinate amounts of time trying to legislate the bedroom and lots of money on ain't gonna go anywhere investigations (and that's without me ranting for a paragraph on all the other weird stuff the party gets tied up in).
I honestly think the issue the party faces isn't one of values. Many of the Party's values are still quite popular among voters and that's served the GOP well. The issue is that, far more than the Dems imo, the GOP is ripe with ideological hypocrisy and readily alienates large numbers of voters.
LordofHats wrote: Or when the traditions the party espouses are held to dishonestly For a party that proclaims the virtue of small government and fiscal responsibility, they sure spend inordinate amounts of time trying to legislate the bedroom and lots of money on ain't gonna go anywhere investigations.
I honestly think the issue the party faces isn't one of values. Many of the Party's values are still quite popular among voters and that's served the GOP well. The issue is that, far more than the Dems imo, the GOP is ripe with ideological hypocrisy.
I guess what I'm saying is that the constituency that hold "traditional Judeo-Christian values" sacred and consider the federal government unholy, these people deserve a party that also holds those ideals, rather than what they have, which is basically a free market party where "traditional values" is largely used as a veneer to attract socially conservative voters.
I feel that the conservative values voters really have no party, or at least a large chunk of them don't. The GOP is the party of moneyed interests, and the stereotypical conservative values voter is not particularly moneyed. So they are basically forced to vote against their economic interests, because they cannot vote against their conscience on certain values issues that the GOP dangles in front of them like a carrot.
jasper76 wrote: I guess what I'm saying is that the constituency that hold "traditional Judeo-Christian values" sacred and consider the federal government unholy, these people deserve a party that also holds those ideals, rather than what they have, which is basically a free market party where "traditional values" is largely used as a veneer to attract socially conservative voters.
No, they deserve to be ignored and diminished into irrelevance. They should be grateful that the republican party offers them even a token amount of attention, and can't even attempt to win elections without doing so. That they have a voice in politics at all is an embarrassment to the country.
LordofHats wrote: Or when the traditions the party espouses are held to dishonestly For a party that proclaims the virtue of small government and fiscal responsibility, they sure spend inordinate amounts of time trying to legislate the bedroom and lots of money on ain't gonna go anywhere investigations (and that's without me ranting for a paragraph on all the other weird stuff the party gets tied up in).
I honestly think the issue the party faces isn't one of values. Many of the Party's values are still quite popular among voters and that's served the GOP well. The issue is that, far more than the Dems imo, the GOP is ripe with ideological hypocrisy and readily alienates large numbers of voters.
I agree with you on the values front, the GOP could get lots of Latino and African American voters if they went that route. As you say, the problem there is hypocrisy. I was speaking more to a specific sense of non religious voters and people who respect and understand science. Strangely, that is the more educated crowd, not traditionally a Dem base, but is becoming more so. But that again points to how rapidly the world is changing. Less than 100 years ago we couldn't have predicted how quantum mechanics would change our views of science so dramatically. A party that is rooted in tradition has no hope in this landscape. Of course some people still don't understand how email works or why it is important. Values and party identity are slow to change, see the number of DEMs in southern states.
I guess what I'm saying is that the constituency that hold "traditional Judeo-Christian values" sacred and consider the federal government unholy, these people deserve a party that also holds those ideals, rather than what they have, which is basically a free market party where "traditional values" is largely used as a veneer to attract socially conservative voters.
I feel that the conservative values voters really have no party, or at least a large chunk of them don't. The GOP is the party of moneyed interests, and the stereotypical conservative values voter is not particularly moneyed. So they are basically forced to vote against their economic interests, because they cannot vote against their conscience on certain values issues that the GOP dangles in front of them like a carrot.
I think that's a bit too modern a look that leaves out how the party ended up where it currently is. The GOP isn't a conspiracy taking advantage of voters. The Traditional Judeo-Christian voter became core to modern Conservatism when the Party adopted a Southern Strategy following the passage of the Civil Rights Act. At that time, the party did the smart thing; they took an opposing stance to the socially progressive Democrates who pushed through the CRA but avoided overt racism. Instead, they catered to the interests of the Christian right and small government types building up Modern Conservatism into what it is now. The GOP isn't dangling a stick in front of tradition voters. They've been integral to it's success and power base for decades and the GOP most certainly spends lots of time and money on the things that interest them. How else did DOMA pass? Why is Abortion still a political hot topic? Why are GOP politicians constantly espousing the importance of God and the Bible?
The issue is that the pursuit of the Traditional Judeo-Christian voter, integral to the GOP's ability to win national elections, has become detrimental. The party has sacrificed the integrity of it's claim to small government and fiscal responsibility in unending battles over Gay Marriage, Abortion, Sex, Welfare, and keeping women in the kitchen to continue catering to and drawing in those votes. I don't think the Religious Conservative voters have been betrayed with no where else to turn. The party very much is theirs. Unfortunately Religious Conservatives just keep losing ground in almost all those areas, while shifting their line to increasingly extreme positions. If anything this alienates small government and economic conservatives, who by their very nature don't want the government regulating the bedroom or instituting religious education in schools.
This is especially noticeable in primary season because Conservative Values voters are a massively powerful lobby with the ability to raise huge amounts of money.
Yeah, the GOP needs to bone up on science...I think the kids these days are smart and know to trust scientists rather than preachers and business interests on an issue as potentially deleterious to their future as the warming of the planet. And that this is a partisan red tribe-blue tribe issue is amazing to me...it's a generic security issue, like leaded gasoline was.
I tend to think most GOP politiicians are fully aware of global warming as a reality, but are paid to do nothing about it that would harm their donors economic interests. And they are probably threatened by those interests in terms of threats to back political rivals, eliminate jobs, or move jobs from states.
I guess I just buy into the "Republicans are corporate sells out" line of thought. I really don't think they are. At least, no more than the Dems or anyone else in government.
For Global Warming, I'd again point to the Religious Right which has made being antagonistic with science a corner stone of it's foundation. Evolution is a conspiracy. Carbon dating is inaccurate. Vaccines cause Autism. Stem cell research probably would have never become a religious issue if it weren't conducted using discarded embryos ('aborted' babies). The Religious Right can't concede that something good came from a baby not being born. Abortion is murder damn it!
If science makes a claim, the Religious Right immediately jumps to refute it (often using the most brain dead logic while doing so). It's all about "science is the enemy." It has nothing to do with whether science is right or wrong anymore. This causes the Religious Right, and the GOP by extension, the drag in a number of other issues that have only tenuous, if any, relationships to religion and automatically oppose them simply because "science is the enemy." Corporations can certainly take advantage of that, and even encourage it, but I don't think it's something that can be solely blamed on them.
Frazzled wrote: So Peregrine doesn't like evangelicals. There's a shocker.
No, I don't like bigots whose primary goal is replacing our secular government with a Christian theocracy that the worst Islamic theocracies would envy. Why any decent person would like them, I have no idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I tend to think most GOP politiicians are fully aware of global warming as a reality, but are paid to do nothing about it that would harm their donors economic interests. And they are probably threatened by those interests in terms of threats to back political rivals, eliminate jobs, or move jobs from states.
I think it's even simpler than that: they know they'll be dead before any real problems happen, and their families are all rich enough that they won't suffer any consequences. So why give up their wealth and comfortable lives just so some poor people can maybe have a better future? It's pure selfishness, and I have no sympathy at all for them.
@ Lordofhats : I think if you take corporate money, you are by definition a corporate sellout, and that applies to both sides. The fact that most politicians do it doesn't make it any less so. That's just my opinion on the matter. I believe in publically funded elections.
The idea of a corporate sellout used to be anathema to art. Once upon a time in a place not so far away, the idea that an artist who would pander their wares to corporate shills was abhorrent. The few modern songs that I could have liked "Renegade" by whoever and the drop kick Murphy's music has been destroyed by over saturation and commodification. Guess I will still have to listen to Zepplin, Beatles and The Who. I think it could be worse. Ever hear Ween's Pizza Hut ad? Mother effen cheese bread.
Edit: Pizza Hutt dropped them. Look up "where'd the cheese go" on YouTube.
jasper76 wrote: I tend to think most GOP politiicians are fully aware of global warming as a reality, but are paid to do nothing about it that would harm their donors economic interests. And they are probably threatened by those interests in terms of threats to back political rivals, eliminate jobs, or move jobs from states.
I think it's even simpler than that: they know they'll be dead before any real problems happen, and their families are all rich enough that they won't suffer any consequences. So why give up their wealth and comfortable lives just so some poor people can maybe have a better future? It's pure selfishness, and I have no sympathy at all for them.
I've been saying that for a long time. And it basically applies to all the other problems that politicians of all sides continually fail to address. They're too well-insulated from the consequences of their actions. Most of them are already wealthy going in, and even if not, once elected they're on the gravy train for life, as they can always rely on getting jobs as lobbyists, think tank members, staff members for other politicians, political analysts/commentators, etc. Even then, do they really care about any problems their own kids will eventually face? They'll be dead before it happens to their kids, so why care?
Regarding the GOP opposition to global warming/climate change, it just defies logic that they still stick to that. Be smart, GOP, and just sidestep the issue altogether and say you're in favor of improving the environment in general to make us all healthier or something. Nobody can argue against cleaner air to breathe, cleaner water to drink, and cleaner land to grow our food in.
But that takes regulation and regulation is evil! The government can't tell business owners what to do (unless they're gay... or thinking of having an abortion... or thinking of paying their employees $70k, then it's completely okay to deride them and demand they change their behavior ). Polluting the water and air? Pft;
shasolenzabi wrote: Articles keep popping up on news feeds, one mentioned his cut backs to paid staff for the campaign, that is never a good sign for any candidate.
It also happens fairly frequently though. I think that McCain had to scale his staff back to a skeleton crew and was running with mostly volunteers before eventually getting the nomination.
While that is true, Jeb! is no McCain. John McCain never fell below 15% polling, even at his lowest. Jeb! is at a strong 5%, weak 7%.
Yeah, but McCain didn't have to deal with the levels of crazy we've got now with Trump and Carson actually leading in the GOP polls (he did have Palin, sadly, which is why he lost my vote).
So there's another GOP debate tomorrow, but at this point, I'm not expecting too much difference from the last two. There are still too many people for any one to give meaningful, detailed answers about their plans and policies.
It would be cool of there were some sort of themed debate at this point, where one or two or three issues are discussed at length. But I 'm expecting just another 2-3 hours of , "Obama bad, Clinton bad, Iran bad, abortion bad, government bad".
jasper76 wrote: Yeah, the GOP needs to bone up on science...I think the kids these days are smart and know to trust scientists rather than preachers and business interests on an issue as potentially deleterious to their future as the warming of the planet. And that this is a partisan red tribe-blue tribe issue is amazing to me...it's a generic security issue, like leaded gasoline was.
The same scientists that brought us the Bomb, nerve gas, the Holocaust, GM food, predicted global cooling/now global warming/now 'climate change", can't get their story straight on whether anything in particular is good or bad for you, and have a definite financial interest in whatever they are saying?
No, I don't like bigots whose primary goal is replacing our secular government with a Christian theocracy that the worst Islamic theocracies would envy. Why any decent person would like them, I have no idea.
No, I don't like bigots whose primary goal is replacing our secular government with a Christian theocracy that the worst Islamic theocracies would envy. Why any decent person would like them, I have no idea.
You guy s are attributing quotes to me that I did not make (specifically the 'worst theocracy' bit).
Frazzled , part of me want to engage with you in a discussion of the role of science in society, the near unanimity of climate scientists on climate change, etc, but I'm probably not the best suited to do so. My main point here was that its not in the GOPs future interest to be the party of science denial, and that it really makes no sense for the climate to be a partisan issue.
Besides, I don't have kids, so let the world boil, I suppose...
jasper76 wrote: Yeah, the GOP needs to bone up on science...I think the kids these days are smart and know to trust scientists rather than preachers and business interests on an issue as potentially deleterious to their future as the warming of the planet. And that this is a partisan red tribe-blue tribe issue is amazing to me...it's a generic security issue, like leaded gasoline was.
The same scientists that brought us the Bomb, nerve gas, the Holocaust, GM food, predicted global cooling/now global warming/now 'climate change", can't get their story straight on whether anything in particular is good or bad for you, and have a definite financial interest in whatever they are saying?
No, I don't like bigots whose primary goal is replacing our secular government with a Christian theocracy that the worst Islamic theocracies would envy. Why any decent person would like them, I have no idea.
And what particular theocracy is this?
Scientists have always used the term climate change. It is tabloids trying to spin scare stories who have flip-flopped, not the science.
The atomic bomb was also probably the greatest scientific breakthrough of the 20th century. It is just a shame that politicians misused it, just like they misuse science now. A prime example being politicians who support anti-vaccine groups which are always based on faulty studies.
Also, GM food has, as far as I know, not been linked to any health problems which are not also present in the non-GM food. And blaming scientists for the Holocaust is so far off the mark as to be insulting. The holocaust was a result of politicians misusing faulty research to further their own ends.
Please stop feeding into Frazzled's boredome-induced contrarianism. He knows that crucifying science for the advent of the holocaust and nuclear war is stupid, he just doesn't care at the moment.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz began the impeachment process against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen on Tuesday, accusing him of misleading the public and destroying documents that were sought under a congressional subpoena.
It was the latest move in the battle over the targeting of tea party groups at the tax agency.
Less than a week earlier, the Justice Department issued a report finding no criminal behavior in the decision by top IRS officials to subject conservative groups to intrusive scrutiny.
Among the specific charges leveled by Mr. Chaffetz and 18 of his fellow Republicans on the committee were that Mr. Koskinen, appointed by President Obama in December 2013 after the targeting scandal broke, misled Congress when he said he had turned over all of former IRS senior executive Lois G. Lerner’s emails and that he oversaw destruction of evidence when his agency got rid of backup tapes that contained the emails.
It was unclear how far the resolution would go in a Congress preoccupied with so many other fights and with little more than a year to go in President Obama’s tenure.
The impeachment resolution says the IRS knew as early as February 2014 that Ms. Lerner’s messages were missing as the result of a reported computer hard drive crash, but the agency didn’t notify Congress until June and the backup tapes were destroyed in March.
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the oversight committee, said the accusations against Mr. Koskinen were baseless and the impeachment drive was a waste of time and taxpayer money.
“This ridiculous resolution will demonstrate nothing but the Republican obsession with diving into investigative rabbit holes that waste tens of millions of taxpayer dollars while having absolutely no positive impact on a single American,” the Maryland Democrat said. “Calling this resolution a ‘stunt’ or a ‘joke’ would be insulting to stunts and jokes.”
The IRS released a brief, unsigned statement: “The IRS vigorously disputes the allegations in the resolution. We have fully cooperated with all of the investigations.”
Hours before the impeachment resolution was introduced, Mr. Koskinen told a Senate hearing that he has taken steps to try to clean up the mess left by the targeting scandal.
“The chain of command all the way down has changed. There are new people that have gone through, and we’ve pursued appropriate disciplinary review as needed,” Mr. Koskinen said.
He also acknowledged that his agency is still holding up a “handful” of tea party groups’ applications for nonprofit status, including one that has been waiting for nearly six years, The Washington Times reported this week.
He also said he hopes to have rules to limit political activities of nonprofit organizations in place before the general election next year, raising the specter of another major fight over the tax agency and political targeting.
Mr. Koskinen took over at the IRS after the May 2013 revelation that agency employees singled tea party and conservative groups out for special scrutiny, asking intrusive questions and delaying their applications for nonprofit status well beyond reasonable times. Ms. Lerner took administrative leave that month and resigned her post four months later.
The Obama administration said part of the problem was that the rules were too confusing, leaving the nonprofit groups and IRS auditors uncertain about what activity was allowed.
The IRS has tried a rewrite of those rules that would have prohibited nonprofit groups from conducting voter registration drives or hosting candidate forums. Overwhelming public opposition forced Mr. Koskinen to abandon that proposal, but he said Tuesday that he would try again.
“We would hope that we’d be able to provide these proposed new rules early enough next year so that they could — the work on them can be completed well in advance of the election so there wouldn’t be any confusion,” he said. “But I would stress that the work that we’re doing now is focused on clarifying — not changing — but clarifying the rules under which organizations operate.”
Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, told Mr. Koskinen that seemed like a waste of time and money when the IRS is already struggling to handle taxpayers’ phone calls during filing season and losing billions of dollars a year to tax fraud.
Mr. Hatch said he would push to impose more restrictions on IRS employees engaging in political activities outside of work. He also said he would try to dent the influence of the labor union representing IRS employees, which the senator suspected of helping feed the tea party targeting.
“Our overall goal here should be to restore the credibility of the IRS and ensure that this very powerful agency treats all American taxpayers fairly,” Mr. Hatch said.
He and other senators were critical of the IRS decision to award bonuses to some of the officials involved in “bad decisions” that led to the targeting.
“The targeting scandal, coupled with poor customer service and general mismanagement, has shaken what confidence taxpayers had in the IRS,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican. “To move beyond this, Congress and the IRS are going to have to work together to make the necessary changes to ensure similar abuses can never happen again.”
Of course it's going to continue, because it has too much political value for the republican party to give it up. There is no possible investigation result that will make them say "well, I guess the IRS did nothing wrong" so they're going to continue to make a big show of investigating until a new administration finally comes in and makes the whole thing irrelevant.
The atomic bomb was also probably the greatest scientific breakthrough of the 20th century. It is just a shame that politicians misused it,
They didn't misue it. They used it for its intended purpose.
All those nice cancer causing processed foods, additives, and chemicals were developed by scientists.
Science is just a tool. Think of a shovel. It can be used to dig a nice hole for your garden, or to beat someone over the head with.
The same tool that brought us the atom bomb also brought us smartphones, vaccines, cars, trips to the moon....you get my point.
Scientists are just tools too, bound by their financial interest. Scientists did just fine in the USSR and Nazi Germany. Yes I called it, time to wield the Godwin Hammer!
Please stop feeding into Frazzled's boredome-induced contrarianism. He knows that crucifying science for the advent of the holocaust and nuclear war is stupid, he just doesn't care at the moment.
dogma wrote: Chaffetz got 18 signatures from a committee with 25 Republicans. That is impressively bad.
After how the Benghazi hearings went down, I wouldn't want to reserve a seat on that clown car, either.
This to me is actually much more relevant. The threat of internal government organs being used to oppress political opposition is the hallmark of a banana republic. The fact there has been no punitive action taken speaks volumes.
Of course its hard to find where discipline has occurred to anyone in government....ever.
I have no problem with scientific method. I have a problem with setting scientists up to be the new priesthood. They've a proven capacity to walk hand in hand with the tyrant, and they are easily manipulated by money or ideology.
Frazzled wrote: All those nice cancer causing processed foods, additives, and chemicals were developed by scientists.
Yes, because no natural products have ever been known to cause cancer.
Mmm...outside of uranium, what would those be?
Thorium.
More seriously, oxygen, meat, your own cells growing too old.
Sunlight, tobbacco, asbestos, arsenic, and radon.
Oxygen is a pretty dangerous chemical as it is a powerful oxidizer capable of messing with molecules that with which it interacts. The production of oxygen is responsible for the first extinction level event, the Great Oxygenation Event, which wiped out a lot of the cyanobacteria before aerobic bacteria could evolve. There is a reason why so many people advertise the anti-oxidant effects of their health products, that stuff should be banned.
What is the alternative to building our society on the scientific method? Trial and error?
A theocracy has been proposed. Another alternative is go full 40K and declare that new ideas and research are evil while forgetting the knowledge of the past and telling stories of when a small, infected scratch didn't result in us having to cut a gangrenous leg off.
This whole cancerous thing seems unrelated to politics. And there is a whole thread related to that where you can take your whole "scientists/holocaust/atomic warfare" ramble...wait no, no you can't. It's off topic there as well. Probably best to just stop it entirely.
I find your lack of faith in the politics of bacon...disturbing...
To get this back on topic, whats with the Whitehouse publicly disagreeing with the Chief of FBI on the rise in crime currently? Didn't the Hoover/Kennedy scenario teach all Administrations to never mess with the FBI?
This to me is actually much more relevant. The threat of internal government organs being used to oppress political opposition is the hallmark of a banana republic. The fact there has been no punitive action taken speaks volumes.
The case against the IRS is rather weak, as it acted within the letter of law.
Frazzled wrote: Acting within the law doesn't mean it was ethical nor not politically motivated.
The Democrats should be careful. two can and will play at that game.
Actually, in this case, that is exactly what that means considering it is illegal to use the irs as a political tool. Evidently, the justice dept. didn't see that going on (mostly incompetence). Good thing the GOP is having hearings to get to the bottom of the matter (interestingly, politically motivated hearings are not illegal--two already do play that game).
Frazzled wrote: Acting within the law doesn't mean it was ethical nor not politically motivated.
Chaffetz couldn't get the entirety of his Party on board for an impeachment hearing against an easily demonized government organization that is ostensibly run by the opposition. Given that, the case seems rather weak.
Frazzled wrote: Acting within the law doesn't mean it was ethical nor not politically motivated.
The Democrats should be careful. two can and will play at that game.
Actually, in this case, that is exactly what that means considering it is illegal to use the irs as a political tool. Evidently, the justice dept. didn't see that going on (mostly incompetence). Good thing the GOP is having hearings to get to the bottom of the matter (interestingly, politically motivated hearings are not illegal--two already do play that game).
While I Agee, Ryan is not an ideal pick, any other people in the party that could do any better? Heck, when you have minority leader Pelosi offering more praise to his selection than some in his own party or right wing radio shock jocks, you know not is well in Denmark.*
Frazzled wrote: Acting within the law doesn't mean it was ethical nor not politically motivated.
The Democrats should be careful. two can and will play at that game.
Actually, in this case, that is exactly what that means considering it is illegal to use the irs as a political tool. Evidently, the justice dept. didn't see that going on (mostly incompetence). Good thing the GOP is having hearings to get to the bottom of the matter (interestingly, politically motivated hearings are not illegal--two already do play that game).
A DOJ that controlled by the admin? Yea...ok
I'm not disagreeing here, just pointing out that legality and politics is connected in this case.
motyak wrote: This whole cancerous thing seems unrelated to politics. And there is a whole thread related to that where you can take your whole "scientists/holocaust/atomic warfare" ramble...wait no, no you can't. It's off topic there as well. Probably best to just stop it entirely.
I'm no Tea Partier... but I sure as gak ain't payin' taxes so that I can see a .gov website running an anti-smoking campaign (seriously, most anti-smoking ads these days are .gov) I mean, seriously, I think it'd be better if the NSA put out PSAs that simply said, "Trust Us"
I'm no Tea Partier... but I sure as gak ain't payin' taxes so that I can see a .gov website running an anti-smoking campaign (seriously, most anti-smoking ads these days are .gov) I mean, seriously, I think it'd be better if the NSA put out PSAs that simply said, "Trust Us"
But in this day and age, if the Federal Gov't did not tell you smoking was bad, how could you possibly find out?
It is just a tiny symptom of the Federal gov't being the proposed/provided solution to almost everything.
Frazzled wrote: Acting within the law doesn't mean it was ethical nor not politically motivated.
The Democrats should be careful. two can and will play at that game.
Actually, in this case, that is exactly what that means considering it is illegal to use the irs as a political tool. Evidently, the justice dept. didn't see that going on (mostly incompetence). Good thing the GOP is having hearings to get to the bottom of the matter (interestingly, politically motivated hearings are not illegal--two already do play that game).
A DOJ that controlled by the admin? Yea...ok
To be fair, most of the people doing the actual investigating aren't political appointees, and were there before the current admin and will be there after the current admin.
Nah apparently nothing too good, Cruz or Rubio (I forget which, I was having the details relayed to me as I couldn't watch) apparently straight up beat Bush, Carson looked asleep and no one else did anything worth noting. Still too many people to have substantive debate.
The moderators were a bit aggressive and at times seemed to be using loaded questions to debate the candidates directly.
They framed their questions the way they did in an attempting to either cast the candidates in a bad light or force them to defend against a false implication.
Q: Senator, in light of recent highly edited videos, you put forth a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Senator, why do you hate women? (they didn't actually ask this one - this is just an example of how they were forming their questions)
Here is Senator Cruz's moment in the sun where he body-slammed the CNBC panel for their tactics.
Eh, they fell for it. If they want to prove they are ready to be president, they wouldn't fall for the really obvious traps, and keep away from pointless bickering.
America, I love your food, your culture, your history, your women
But sometimes I despair at the stupid things you do
Paul Ryan? God help America...
EDIT. Just because I said I loved America, doesn't mean to say I want to be an America. Mods: why is my location being shown as the USA, despite the fact I'm sitting in a house in the middle of the Scottish Highlands!!!
Get it sorted!!! This is the 2nd time this has happened!!!
EDIT. Just because I said I loved America, doesn't mean to say I want to be an America. Mods: why is my location being shown as the USA, despite the fact I'm sitting in a house in the middle of the Scottish Highlands!!!
Get it sorted!!! This is the 2nd time this has happened!!!
Probably has something to do with the (mostly correct) notion that 'Scottish Highlands' equates to 'Appalachians' since most Real Scotts migrated over after the Crown beat them down.
EDIT. Just because I said I loved America, doesn't mean to say I want to be an America. Mods: why is my location being shown as the USA, despite the fact I'm sitting in a house in the middle of the Scottish Highlands!!!
Get it sorted!!! This is the 2nd time this has happened!!!
Probably has something to do with the (mostly correct) notion that 'Scottish Highlands' equates to 'Appalachians' since most Real Scotts migrated over after the Crown beat them down.
I'll repeat what I said the last time this happened: I'm glad I'm collecting a Confederate army for civil war games. Damn Yankees
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Scottland will be the 52nd state, right after Puerto Rico.
Deep down, you know it to be true!
You can have our whisky (note the CORRECT spelling ) when you prise it from our cold dead hands.
Q: Senator, in light of recent highly edited videos, you put forth a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Senator, why do you hate women? (they didn't actually ask this one - this is just an example of how they were forming their questions)
Why not cite the questions that actually were asked? Why make things up? I mean, if the questions were equivalent to your fabrication there should be no need for it.
Q: Senator, in light of recent highly edited videos, you put forth a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Senator, why do you hate women? (they didn't actually ask this one - this is just an example of how they were forming their questions)
Why not cite the questions that actually were asked? Why make things up?
How dare you suggest we use quotes instead of making things up.
Indeed, I go so far as to say ...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Somebody get me a rowing boat. It's high time I headed across the Atlantic and introduced my left foot to the rears of two dakka members
Bourbon? Points and laughs
(puts on his stained wife beater T-shirt and Daisy Dukes)
Bring it cowboy. Your wussy whiskey is stilled from barrels we've already used and thrown away. british Whiskey, the finest recycled whiskey this side of Liverpool!
I'm trying to find some debate questions. This back and forth seems very unprofessional, though. Funny, but unprofessional.
Asked if Trump has the moral authority to lead the country, Mike Huckabee responds, “I love Donald Trump. He is a good man. I’m wearing a Trump tie tonight. Get over that one."
"Is it made in China or Mexico?" asks a moderator. Huckabee says he doesn't know.
Trump cuts in to say, "Such a nasty question, but thank you governor.”
My favorite part of the night was when the female moderator asked Trump why he opposed immigration on a H1B Visa and his criticism of Mark Zuckerberg. Trump claimed he never did that. She then asked where she saw that then and Trump said, "I have no idea, you are the guys who write this stuff" before he changed the topic. She looked pretty bad at that point.
Then later she said where she had read it, “I read it on the Donald J. Trump website,”
1. Straight from the DNC:
HARWOOD: Mr. Trump, you’ve done very well in this campaign so far by promising to build a wall and make another country pay for it.
TRUMP: Right.
HARWOOD: Send 11 million people out of the country. Cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit.
TRUMP: Right.
HARWOOD: And make Americans better off because your greatness would replace the stupidity and incompetence of others.
TRUMP: That’s right.
HARWOOD: Let’s be honest.
(LAUGHTER)
Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?
Wait Frazz, do you honestly think that claiming you are going to make Mexico pay for a wall across the southern border, deport 11 million people, and cut 10 trillion in taxes without increasing the deficit isn't purely a laughable work of fiction?
Actually, it may have been one of the candidates or the moderators. It's unclear.
HUCKABEE: You know, of the few questions I’ve got, the last one I need is to give him some more time. I love Donald Trump. He is a good man. I’m wearing a Trump tie tonight. Get over that one, OK?
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
(UNKNOWN): Is it made in Mexico?
HUCKABEE: I don’t know.
(UNKNOWN): Where’s it made? Is it made in China?
(UNKNOWN): Is it made in China or Mexico?
HUCKABEE: I have no idea.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Such a nasty — such a nasty question, but thank you, Governor.
You're right. I'm biased against stupid moderators.
Personally I've quit watching the debates. I'm already done with the whole thing. I want to see who the parties put forth so I can then decide whether to vote Libertarian or Greens again.
kronk wrote: Actually, it may have been one of the candidates or the moderators. It's unclear.
HUCKABEE: You know, of the few questions I’ve got, the last one I need is to give him some more time. I love Donald Trump. He is a good man. I’m wearing a Trump tie tonight. Get over that one, OK?
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
(UNKNOWN): Is it made in Mexico?
HUCKABEE: I don’t know.
(UNKNOWN): Where’s it made? Is it made in China?
(UNKNOWN): Is it made in China or Mexico?
HUCKABEE: I have no idea.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Such a nasty — such a nasty question, but thank you, Governor.
HUCKABEE: You’re welcome.
Actually, the question about where it was made was asked by Bush. When Trump was referring to the nasty question, he was talking about the original question the moderator asked Huckabee, not about where the tie was made. I'm not even sure Trump heard the origin of the tie question as there was a lot of crosstalk at that point.
Having just watched the debate highlights, I'll admit that there were an awful lot of character assassination questions being thrown around by the moderators.
Only an idiot would be bothered by the candidates being asked these type of questions though- this is the third Republican debate and we really don't need more "mr candidate... how would you make American safe durrr" questions.
I would love to see the DNC get quizzed the way the conservatives did last night.
My bias is towards intelligence. Ted Cruz's response was not intelligent, it was an idiotic deflection; one which has been bolstered by conservative media.
I would love to see the DNC get quizzed the way the conservatives did last night.
We both know that will never ever ever happen.
Realistically, they wouldn't because it wouldn't work. There is no zoo on the DNC side nor are there clowns willing to flap their heads on the DNC side. HRC might be a ridiculous and janky figure currently in Dem politics but she is a shark compaired to all the 'Nemo's' in the GOP. Heck, Bernie might be an outlier but he isn't stepping up to the plate in the race to be the loudest crazy person like GOP candidates.
Plus there is actual debate on the DNC side. With the GOP, Trump and Carson could literally make fart sounds with their mouths and wouldn't see a change in the polls. GOP debates are just entertainment (for people that hate what has happened to politics and mouth breathers) nothing said in them will matter or even listened to.
*edited: too many literallys for adult conversation. Then sentence structure.
Frazzled wrote: I have no problem with scientific method. I have a problem with setting scientists up to be the new priesthood. They've a proven capacity to walk hand in hand with the tyrant, and they are easily manipulated by money or ideology.
careful now frazzled...your starting to sound like me....
As someone who voted for Obama twice, I was genuinely excited by Rubio's answers. I've also listened to a much more in-depth speech of his on NPR in the past (since obviously in these formats they get to say little more than sound bytes). I thought he was witty, defended himself well, and basically stole the show!
What's really interesting is that Obama has paved the way for candidates like him - first term senator, young (for a president), and willing to go up against a much more seasoned opponent (Obama versus Hillary, Rubio versus Bush). I am really interested to see how he does!
I also thought Kasich was reasoned (as always, being the most moderate candidate) and that Chris Christie did quite well, although I don't see him jumping that much... I'm not sure why people thought Cruz did so well - he had an effective section about the format, but not much else (imo)
CNBC couldn't have left themselves any more open to criticism if they'd tried, though - that was crazy! Made for some interesting responses and the candidates mostly handled it pretty well, I thought... was much more interesting to watch than the prior debates, I thought (and thankfully less about Trump - who while entertaining, isn't someone I want to be the center of the discussion all the time with all the other interesting candidates).
Q: Senator, in light of recent highly edited videos, you put forth a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Senator, why do you hate women? (they didn't actually ask this one - this is just an example of how they were forming their questions)
Why not cite the questions that actually were asked? Why make things up? I mean, if the questions were equivalent to your fabrication there should be no need for it.
His point was that the cnbc moderators were deliberately tough on the republicans (which isn't a problem in and of itself), while the democratic moderators threw nothing but softballs and engaged in a love fest. Of course it's all designed to make the democratic candidates look good and the republican ones look bad.
I don't mind tough questions, just be fair and ask tough questions to both parties.
also the questions by that older guy, were just plain insulting at times. The comic book zinger, he threw at trump springs to mind.(not a trump fan by the way)
His point was that the cnbc moderators were deliberately tough on the republicans (which isn't a problem in and of itself), while the democratic moderators threw nothing but softballs and engaged in a love fest. Of course it's all designed to make the democratic candidates look good and the republican ones look bad.
I didn't realize that CNBC hosted the last Democratic debate.
His point was that the cnbc moderators were deliberately tough on the republicans (which isn't a problem in and of itself), while the democratic moderators threw nothing but softballs and engaged in a love fest. Of course it's all designed to make the democratic candidates look good and the republican ones look bad.
I didn't realize that CNBC hosted the last Democratic debate.
Vast left wing conspiracy...there all in cahoots you know...
Ya know, even if I were planning on voting Republican, there's absolutely NO way I could ever vote for Cruz. Even if his policies were well reasoned and "good" policies, I could never vote for a guy who literally looks like Glen Quagmire
jasper76 wrote: I still dont know why the Republican voters don't like Rand Paul. Best candidate on the stage, in my opinion, and by a good margin.
Having seen the whole debate now and playing "who won"?, I'd have to say Kasich. He'd probably make an excellent running mate to whoever wins .
I'm still thinkin Bush or Rubio will get the nomination, advantage Bush. Incidentally, the media trashed Bush's performance, but I think he did fine.
I think Kasich works much better on an audio only format (strange for a guy who used to be a tv personality on Fox News). There is something about his hands and the way he moves his arms that bothers me. Sort of like a mix of Lewis Black and Bob Dole.
I can see that. He does seem to have some limited motion or something in his arms. Doesn't make a gak to me in general, but especially when in the company of a human/orangutan hybrid and a televangelist.
Kasich also stumbles over his sentences at times, and doesn't make complete sentences at times. I don;t know if its nerves or what, but it could be confused by an observer that he's, shall we say, a simple man.
One thing I had not noticed before on the physical front: Rubio is a tiny little dude.
So.. Patton Oswalt ranked the candidates. Unfortunately I don't know how to embed... tweeters? Tw..... stuff people put put on Twitter. So I'm just going to copy and paste here.
Spoiler:
Patton Oswalt ✔ @pattonoswalt
Ted Cruz = dwarf cleric with 3 Charisma.
John Kasich = level 4 fighter with standard plate armor and a standard long sword, 10 strength
Chris Christie = shambling mound
Carly Fiorinia = level 5 Drow elf with a + 1 Ring of Vampiric rrgeneration
Rand Paul = halfling thief
Jeb Bush = NPC with 8s in all attributes and leather armor
Ben Carson = necromancer, 19 intelligence, 4 wisdom
Marco Rubio = paladin, 18 charisma, all other stats 9, cursed broadsword
Mike Huckabee = gelatinous cube
Trump = level 21 demi-liche, Lamarkin's Rod of Disease, Cloak of Revulsion
Anyway, as it's sort of gaming related I thought this crowd might appreciate it.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I could never vote for a guy who literally looks like Glen Quagmire
Maybe I'm just old but I'm getting more of a young Bob Hope vibe. I don't really know why, either. It's not like he actually looks like a young Bob Hope or anything.
Ouze wrote: So.. Patton Oswalt ranked the candidates. Unfortunately I don't know how to embed... tweeters? Tw..... stuff people put put on Twitter. So I'm just going to copy and paste here.
Spoiler:
Patton Oswalt ✔ @pattonoswalt
Ted Cruz = dwarf cleric with 3 Charisma.
John Kasich = level 4 fighter with standard plate armor and a standard long sword, 10 strength
Chris Christie = shambling mound
Carly Fiorinia = level 5 Drow elf with a + 1 Ring of Vampiric rrgeneration
Rand Paul = halfling thief
Jeb Bush = NPC with 8s in all attributes and leather armor
Ben Carson = necromancer, 19 intelligence, 4 wisdom
Marco Rubio = paladin, 18 charisma, all other stats 9, cursed broadsword
Mike Huckabee = gelatinous cube
Trump = level 21 demi-liche, Lamarkin's Rod of Disease, Cloak of Revulsion
Anyway, as it's sort of gaming related I thought this crowd might appreciate it.
That was fething brilliant. Patton is my absolute favorite comedian and seeing him live (in a tiny venue!) was the best.
Also, his brother Matt was on fire during the debate as well.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I could never vote for a guy who literally looks like Glen Quagmire
Maybe I'm just old but I'm getting more of a young Bob Hope vibe. I don't really know why, either. It's not like he actually looks like a young Bob Hope or anything.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I could never vote for a guy who literally looks like Glen Quagmire
Maybe I'm just old but I'm getting more of a young Bob Hope vibe. I don't really know why, either. It's not like he actually looks like a young Bob Hope or anything.
Spoiler:
Wow, that is quite similar, even if just because of the sad, dead eyes
Are we absolutely positive this guy isn't the illegitimate child of a certain junior senator from Wisconsin?
The US is sending special forces to Syria to assist anti-government rebels in fighting the so-called Islamic State (IS), officials have said.
There will be "fewer than 50" forces deployed in the region, in what will be the first time US troops are working openly on the ground in Syria.
There have been US special forces raids on IS militants in the country.
A senior administration official told the BBC this does not signal a change in US strategy in Syria.
The special operations forces will be focused on Northern Syria, the official said.
Analysis - Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence correspondent
The numbers are small, nonetheless the US decision represents a notable shift in US policy. Their mission will be "to help co-ordinate local ground forces and coalition efforts" against IS in northern Syria. In all likelihood they may fight alongside Kurdish forces who have been the most effective of Washington's local allies.
"Co-ordination" could well mean forward air controllers; teams trained in the skills of linking up tactical air power with troops on the ground; designating targets and calling in strikes. The fact that the US now has specialised A-10 ground attack aircraft reasonably close by at the Turkish air base of Incirlik may also be significant.
This is a small step intended not least to reassure Washington's unsettled allies in the region. The drift in US policy has become even more apparent since Russia's muscular intervention from the air. But to be convincing the US may need to do a good deal more and that seems to be at variance with President Obama's basic instincts.
US special operations forces have previously taken part in at least two raids in Syria.
In May, troops killed senior IS member Abu Sayyaf and captured his wife in eastern Syria.
And last summer, forces failed in an operation to rescue American hostages including journalist James Foley, who was later beheaded by IS fighters.
This week talks are being held in Vienna involving Iran, Syria's ally, for the first time.
The meeting sought to close the gap between the US and its allies, who support the rebels, and the key foreign allies of the Syrian government, Russia and Iran.
The US is sending special forces to Syria to assist anti-government rebels in fighting the so-called Islamic State (IS), officials have said.
There will be "fewer than 50" forces deployed in the region, in what will be the first time US troops are working openly on the ground in Syria.
There have been US special forces raids on IS militants in the country.
A senior administration official told the BBC this does not signal a change in US strategy in Syria.
The special operations forces will be focused on Northern Syria, the official said.
I have no idea what we're doing over there any more.
Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112
Dear Mr. Lack,
I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016.
The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.
The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.
CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case.
Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case.
Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case.
Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.
While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.
I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.
While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.
I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.
Sincerely,
Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee
(note - I have reformatted this to better fit on Dakka - Ouze)
The only question I thought that was totally inappropriate was the fantasy football one, personally - Chris Christie was totally right about that.
other wise though, I mean, these guys are floating absolutely ridiculous ideas and then getting defensive that they're getting called out on them. At one point Huckabee said he would cut costs in healthcare by curing heart disease, cancer, alzheimer's, and diabetes. This is a clown show, and they're crying people people are laughing at their big red noses and giant floppy shoes? What can you say to that?
Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112
Dear Mr. Lack,
I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016. The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.
The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.
CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.
While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.
I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.
While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.
I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.
Sincerely,
Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee
What's sad is, I read that whole thing thinking to myself, "What does a goofy looking Quarterback who plays for the Colts got to do with a large Media company??"
I just had my eyes checked on Wednesday (seriously), and the docs said I have 20/20 vision (my arse!)
What's really interesting is that Obama has paved the way for candidates like him - first term senator, young (for a president), and willing to go up against a much more seasoned opponent (Obama versus Hillary, Rubio versus Bush). I am really interested to see how he does!
America has been there and done that with JFK versus Nixon
But to address your point, Rubio does seem to have a very good grasp of foreign affairs, and is the least likely of all the candidates to order an invasion of San Marino
I remain utterly convinced that HRC will be measuring up new curtains for the White House, but if I had to pick a Republican candidate for president, it would be Rubio.
Foreign affairs will dominate the next President's term of office and Rubio seems the best of a bad bunch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Bob Hope doesn't care about humorless people.
Bob Hope doesn't care about anything - he's dead!
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the last time, Mods, can you get rid of that damn rag next to my profile!
This is just the RNC caving in to the thread by candidates to walk away from the RNC to do their own campaigns, which would really hurt the republican chances for the White House.
Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112
Dear Mr. Lack,
I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016.
The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.
The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.
CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case.
Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case.
Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case.
Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.
While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.
I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.
While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.
I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.
Sincerely,
Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee
(note - I have reformatted this to better fit on Dakka - Ouze)
Sean Hannity just said on his radio show that he has been contacted by numerous campaigns to see if he would be interested in being a moderator for an alternate debate in lieu of the debate the GOP backed out of. Yup, they are looking for a fair airing of ideas for sure.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Sean Hannity just said on his radio show that he has been contacted by numerous campaigns to see if he would be interested in being a moderator for an alternate debate in lieu of the debate the GOP backed out of. Yup, they are looking for a fair airing of ideas for sure.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Sean Hannity just said on his radio show that he has been contacted by numerous campaigns to see if he would be interested in being a moderator for an alternate debate in lieu of the debate the GOP backed out of. Yup, they are looking for a fair airing of ideas for sure.
Well, given that the previous debates were moderated by libs, wouldn't it be "fair" to allow Hannity to moderate just one of them? To "balance" things out?
Ouze wrote: I have no idea what we're doing over there any more.
Right now it looks like we're wasting tax payer's money to fight a proxy war with Russia, but that has the possibility of soldiers from each nation actually trading shots
d-usa wrote: You know, Russia/Iran/Saudis at least has a plan. It might be a crappy plan, but at least they have a plan.
We don't have one and I don't think we have ever had one.
I think it is a case that we know what we are opposing (Assad), we just don't know what we're standing for
d-usa wrote: You know, Russia/Iran/Saudis at least has a plan. It might be a crappy plan, but at least they have a plan.
We don't have one and I don't think we have ever had one.
Just one of "endless wars" from which the fat and greedy Military-Industrial-Complex that dominates our politics feeds off the tax dollars like the swollen parasite it has shown to be.
It is one thing to make plans and gear for defense, but we do not simply defend ourselves, and have not for some time, we just kick in doors and take for our corporate overlords, and many of our soldiers are getting savvy to that concept. for decades cut social programs along with tax cuts to the rich and corporate and allow them to dodge what little they are expected to pay to help support the nation that made them so well off, loopholes and other gimmicks, BUT always some "new threat" pops up just when things calm down to force out more money they claim they have to cut more to spend on the military force we exert recklessly causing more issues.
It is like clock-work and people seem not to see the pattern. then flagging pres gets 9/11, does not stop it with the info he had over a month prior, we go after the bad guys in Afghanistan, we have trouble finding him, but Taliban down, we fight on, suddenly we HAVE to invade Iraq, now we oust all these strong men who were keeping things bottled up. Now we have like clockwork once more this ISIS group as a result of the De-stabilization our greedy corporate masters caused. Meanwhile the American public gets small bytes of info as the news tosses us silly crap like what the Kardasshians are doing that is not actually news.
American people get played yet again. We have many issues to deal with, and some includes pulling funds from the overpaid MIC and back to social programs/safety nets, fix our crumbling unsafe infrastructure, get manufacturing back here, and enough of the petty BS that the Tea party-Republicans keep saying is more important than that. News from DC always sounds like kids tossing a tantrum and demanding to get what they want and ice cream as well. That is NOT leadership.
Shame we don;'t have the way to just fire all the bums and vote more practical people into those seats like Australia did a few years back.
I uhh...wouldn't hold Tony Abbott getting in as a great step forwards. May want to pick another example. And you may want to try to write less....word vomit-y? It is super hard to follow and get your point
motyak wrote: I uhh...wouldn't hold Tony Abbott getting in as a great step forwards. May want to pick another example. And you may want to try to write less....word vomit-y? It is super hard to follow and get your point
Broke it up and made it easier to read. Well, Abbott may not have been great, but Australia had had enough of the politicians and fired them, something that if held over their heads here might make the politicians here pause before they got stupid. Maybe.
Vast left wing conspiracy...there all in cahoots you know...
So your argument, and Cruz's argument, is that Conservatives are persecuted?
I think that's been their mantra for quite some time now. See "war on Christians, liberal media bias, liberal college professors, IRS targeting Tea Party, health care death panels, etc." Sure, some libs play that card too, but the conservatives seem to have really picked it up ever since Obama has been outmanurering them. I think the whole "take our country back" thing starts with that mindset. I don't really blame them though, it just seems like a natural human reaction to not want to take responsibility for our own weaknesses.
I don't really blame them though, it just seems like a natural human reaction to not want to take responsibility for our own weaknesses.
Then they are people who cannot own up to their own failings, a difficult argument to sell given that they are supposed to be tough on numerous issues.
I don't really blame them though, it just seems like a natural human reaction to not want to take responsibility for our own weaknesses.
Then they are people who cannot own up to their own failings, a difficult argument to sell given that they are supposed to be tough on numerous issues.
That is their stated game, but there are two problems with that. First, in order to give power back to the state and local level, they need national power to leverage through legislation that would do so in practice. Second, once they get that power, they do not want to relinquish it back to the state and local level, but rather solidify it for themselves (see Bush admin.). Its sort of like how one of the reasons why Communism only works in a theoretical sense--human desires and personal ambition trumps theory in practice.
As to people who cannot own up to their own failings, don't we all do that to a certain extent? I know have a hard time with it myself, but it's something I am mindful of and try to overcome. And I do not believe they would ever try to sell that argument in the first place, that's just my observation as an outsider from them.
Edit: or were you saying that it would be tough for them to sell the argument that they are being persecuted due to their posture? That makes more sense, but then when does rationality ever play into their mindset? They don't see that it isn't working.
I'd posit a different issue going back to my earlier argument about ideological hypocrisy; The GOP advocates smaller government and returning power to state and local authority, but so many of the issues they use as flag ships in their platforms require a large Federal government;
-They want to stand tough in the international community (big gov'ment)
-They want a strong national defense (big gov'ment)
-They want to enforce Judeo-Christian values (big gov'ment)
-They want to deport the illegals (big gov'ment)
-They want to be Tough on Crime (very big gov'ment)
Really the Republicans don't want a small federal government, they just don't want it in areas they don't want it in but that's the exact same thing Democrats want and we can't agree with the Democrats!
The Oklahoma legislature is very heavy on the republican side. And every time one of the cities tries to do something that they don't like they pass laws making it illegal for a city to pass a rule that they don't like. City wants to ban smoking? State legislature passed a law saying they can't do that. City wants to ban fracking within city limits? State legislature passed a law saying they can't do that.
So much for small government and "let local governments decide what they want".
Yep, can't be the world's super-power w/o BIG-Gubbmint! the whole argument by the right is so silly it makes people laugh. Our lowest levels of federal government were waaaaay back if at all in the 18th/19th century.
Vast left wing conspiracy...there all in cahoots you know...
So your argument, and Cruz's argument, is that Conservatives are persecuted?
Obviously... duh.
Here's the distilled problem:
1) Its inarguable that most of the media tends to be liberal/lefties.
2) CNBC (or any NBC affiliate for that matter) is one of THE most liberal groups in the media industry. FWIW: They also spent over 200 million on Vox.com!
3) That was the worst moderated debate I've seen. It's sad that THEY'RE the story and not the candidates.
4) It'd be like, having the Democratic debate hosted on FoxNews moderated by the conservatives. Yeah... you know how that'll go.
5) Speaking of which, no one wants to comment on the DNC own prohibition of have Fox host any of their debates? Yeah... GOP... WTF were you thinking?
6) #1 needs to be fleshed out as to why it's an issue... liberal/lefties who dominate the medias will obviously push liberal/liefty agendas as "mainstream" and anything but would be "extreme"... which, if you'd rub two neurons together, you'd know that ain't true in the US.
7) Having said all that... HRC will be the next President. She's unstoppable now. No 'ghazi, no email, no evidences of puppy slaughtering can stop her now. Hail to the Queen!
Yeah, if the there is a free market for news, and the free market wants a so-called liberal media, then it seems like the free market is reflecting market forces.
You're not talking gak about free market capitalism, are you? Because I'm pretty sure implying that capitalism has any sort of failing makes you a socialist .
Ouze wrote: Yeah, if the there is a free market for news, and the free market wants a so-called liberal media, then it seems like the free market is reflecting market forces.
You're not talking gak about free market capitalism, are you? Because I'm pretty sure implying that capitalism has any sort of failing makes you a socialist .
[sarcasm] The truth has been revealed! Far right wing republicans are all actually a bunch of dirt Commies! [/sarcasm]
From what I see, this is not some partisan conspiracy (mostly), its the GOP seeing that CNBC did a horrible job moderating a debate and now they won't let them mess up anymore.
Ultimately, the problem is that you can't have any sort of meaningful debate with 10+ candidates in two hours or less (including commercials), regardless of who is moderating or which network it's on. All you can really do with that many candidates is give them a bit of time to advertise themselves and their positions, can't do much more than give them a chance to make a soundbite.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Ultimately, the problem is that you can't have any sort of meaningful debate with 10+ candidates in two hours or less (including commercials), regardless of who is moderating or which network it's on. All you can really do with that many candidates is give them a bit of time to advertise themselves and their positions, can't do much more than give them a chance to make a soundbite.
And that is really the reason that it was ridiculous for the candidates to demand a 2 hour debate instead of a 3 hour debate. It made it clear that they are not interested in debating, they just want a national stage. When you have that many candidates with that little time the only way to get anything meaningful out of them is the straightforward approach that makes you look like a gotcha moderator even if you don't do a bad job like these guys. Adding that many moderators competing for time with that many candidates just made it even more of a clown car.
Ouze wrote: I have no idea what we're doing over there any more.
Right now it looks like we're wasting tax payer's money to fight a proxy war with Russia, but that has the possibility of soldiers from each nation actually trading shots
d-usa wrote: You know, Russia/Iran/Saudis at least has a plan. It might be a crappy plan, but at least they have a plan.
We don't have one and I don't think we have ever had one.
I think it is a case that we know what we are opposing (Assad), we just don't know what we're standing for
It doesn't seem like you actually need someone else to supply an argument with that last line; you seem content to simply invent their arguments in your head.
Ouze wrote: It doesn't seem like you actually need someone else to supply an argument with that last line; you seem content to simply invent their arguments in your head.
Erm... dude... she was Obama's Secretary of State in his first term.
Ouze wrote: It doesn't seem like you actually need someone else to supply an argument with that last line; you seem content to simply invent their arguments in your head.
Erm... dude... she was Obama's Secretary of State in his first term.
Wanna try that again bro?
Who is "you" that would be suggesting Hillary would make this better? I mean, is this a Clint Eastwood monologue directed at no one in particular, or what?
Ouze wrote: It doesn't seem like you actually need someone else to supply an argument with that last line; you seem content to simply invent their arguments in your head.
Erm... dude... she was Obama's Secretary of State in his first term.
Wanna try that again bro?
Who is "you" that would be suggesting Hillary would make this better? I mean, is this a Clint Eastwood monologue directed at no one in particular, or what?
Look at your old Avatar... *we* know where you stand.
So yes, like I said. You don't actually need anyone to supply an argument, you're content to simply make one up in your head and then rebut it. Good to know.
Ouze wrote: So yes, like I said. You don't actually need anyone to supply an argument, you're content to simply make one up in your head and then rebut it. Good to know.
Naw... you're just defending your Queen any chance you'd get by attacking *me* and not trying to reconcile my arguments.
Ouze wrote: So yes, like I said. You don't actually need anyone to supply an argument, you're content to simply make one up in your head and then rebut it. Good to know.
Naw... you're just defending your Queen any chance you'd get by attacking *me* and not trying to reconcile my arguments.
Good to know.
Unless I've been missing something, in this thread, there are no Clinton supporters.... There are people who are saying her nomination is "inevitable" which isn't the same thing as, "I like Hilary and think she'd make a great POTUS"
So yeah... I'm with Ouze on this one, you're making up an argument.
And even the people who "support" Hillary seem to support her only in the sense that she's better than whatever raving lunatic the republican party finally picks. I mean, "I'd rather have Hillary than Trump" is a pretty weak endorsement.
Ouze wrote: So yes, like I said. You don't actually need anyone to supply an argument, you're content to simply make one up in your head and then rebut it. Good to know.
Naw... you're just defending your Queen any chance you'd get by attacking *me* and not trying to reconcile my arguments.
Good to know.
Unless I've been missing something, in this thread, there are no Clinton supporters.... There are people who are saying her nomination is "inevitable" which isn't the same thing as, "I like Hilary and think she'd make a great POTUS"
So yeah... I'm with Ouze on this one, you're making up an argument.
So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?
I'm simply calling him out... that's all.
But, for some reason, he gets defensive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: And even the people who "support" Hillary seem to support her only in the sense that she's better than whatever raving lunatic the republican party finally picks. I mean, "I'd rather have Hillary than Trump" is a pretty weak endorsement.
whembly wrote: Here's the distilled problem:
1) Its inarguable that most of the media tends to be liberal/lefties.
2) CNBC (or any NBC affiliate for that matter) is one of THE most liberal groups in the media industry. FWIW: They also spent over 200 million on Vox.com!
3) That was the worst moderated debate I've seen. It's sad that THEY'RE the story and not the candidates.
4) It'd be like, having the Democratic debate hosted on FoxNews moderated by the conservatives. Yeah... you know how that'll go.
5) Speaking of which, no one wants to comment on the DNC own prohibition of have Fox host any of their debates? Yeah... GOP... WTF were you thinking?
6) #1 needs to be fleshed out as to why it's an issue... liberal/lefties who dominate the medias will obviously push liberal/liefty agendas as "mainstream" and anything but would be "extreme"... which, if you'd rub two neurons together, you'd know that ain't true in the US.
7) Having said all that... HRC will be the next President. She's unstoppable now. No 'ghazi, no email, no evidences of puppy slaughtering can stop her now. Hail to the Queen!
I was going to refute you point by point, but then I realized it would be pointless because you're so far dug in with the "vast liberal conspiracy" so instead I'll go with this...
whembly wrote: Here's the distilled problem:
1) Its inarguable that most of the media tends to be liberal/lefties.
2) CNBC (or any NBC affiliate for that matter) is one of THE most liberal groups in the media industry. FWIW: They also spent over 200 million on Vox.com!
3) That was the worst moderated debate I've seen. It's sad that THEY'RE the story and not the candidates.
4) It'd be like, having the Democratic debate hosted on FoxNews moderated by the conservatives. Yeah... you know how that'll go.
5) Speaking of which, no one wants to comment on the DNC own prohibition of have Fox host any of their debates? Yeah... GOP... WTF were you thinking?
6) #1 needs to be fleshed out as to why it's an issue... liberal/lefties who dominate the medias will obviously push liberal/liefty agendas as "mainstream" and anything but would be "extreme"... which, if you'd rub two neurons together, you'd know that ain't true in the US.
7) Having said all that... HRC will be the next President. She's unstoppable now. No 'ghazi, no email, no evidences of puppy slaughtering can stop her now. Hail to the Queen!
I was going to refute you point by point, but then I realized it would be pointless because you're so far dug in with the "vast liberal conspiracy" so instead I'll go with this...
So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?
I'm simply calling him out... that's all.
But, for some reason, he gets defensive.
Bro, it's an avatar.... By your logic, we can assume that d-usa "supports" ebola's fatal effects on people, or that gordon shumway supports the ingestion of feline housepets by extraterrestrial lifeforms living on earth
Or... that I support the overconsumption of chimichangas, burritos, and pancakes.
It's an avatar, and unless it's like those FB ones that actually say "Candidate 2016" on them, I don't assume any "support" for the thing pictured.
whembly wrote: I'd argue that the lunatics are on the blue team.
You could try, but you won't succeed. Disagree with the ideas of the democrats all you want, but they're not the party where one of the leading candidate's main campaign promises is to build a border wall to keep out all of the illegal immigrants and to get the other country to pay for it.
So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?
I'm simply calling him out... that's all.
But, for some reason, he gets defensive.
Bro, it's an avatar.... By your logic, we can assume that d-usa "supports" ebola's fatal effects on people, or that gordon shumway supports the ingestion of feline housepets by extraterrestrial lifeforms living on earth
So it's a coincidence that he'd decide to temporarily swap out his totally awesome A-10 avatar to the "deal with it" Hillary avatar?
Nah... don't buy it.
Besides, Ouze can defend himself.
Or... that I support the overconsumption of chimichangas, burritos, and pancakes.
You'd be like Deadpool... what's wrong with that?
Who doesn't wanna be the Merc with the Mouth?
It's an avatar, and unless it's like those FB ones that actually say "Candidate 2016" on them, I don't assume any "support" for the thing pictured.
Um... he publically stated that he leans liberal. So, it isn't hard to infer.
Besides, I'm not attacking him... just challenging him a bit.
Geez... why is everyone's fee-fees a bit tight now? I've only been gone for a week.
whembly wrote: Here's the distilled problem:
1) Its inarguable that most of the media tends to be liberal/lefties.
2) CNBC (or any NBC affiliate for that matter) is one of THE most liberal groups in the media industry. FWIW: They also spent over 200 million on Vox.com!
3) That was the worst moderated debate I've seen. It's sad that THEY'RE the story and not the candidates.
4) It'd be like, having the Democratic debate hosted on FoxNews moderated by the conservatives. Yeah... you know how that'll go.
5) Speaking of which, no one wants to comment on the DNC own prohibition of have Fox host any of their debates? Yeah... GOP... WTF were you thinking?
6) #1 needs to be fleshed out as to why it's an issue... liberal/lefties who dominate the medias will obviously push liberal/liefty agendas as "mainstream" and anything but would be "extreme"... which, if you'd rub two neurons together, you'd know that ain't true in the US.
7) Having said all that... HRC will be the next President. She's unstoppable now. No 'ghazi, no email, no evidences of puppy slaughtering can stop her now. Hail to the Queen!
I was going to refute you point by point, but then I realized it would be pointless because you're so far dug in with the "vast liberal conspiracy" so instead I'll go with this...
Whembly be like:
Meaning... you got nuthin.
Got it.
No, I have plenty. However, it would really be pointless to explain it you because you wouldn't believe it, again, because you're so far entrenched in the "vast liberal conspiracy" narrative to think straight. So I guess if you want to take that as "having nuthin," knock yourself out. Wake me up when the next Hilary scandal breaks.
Also, I've been dying to use that Adam Savage GIF and this seemed like a good time.
So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?
I'm simply calling him out... that's all.
But, for some reason, he gets defensive.
Bro, it's an avatar.... By your logic, we can assume that d-usa "supports" ebola's fatal effects on people, or that gordon shumway supports the ingestion of feline housepets by extraterrestrial lifeforms living on earth
Or... that I support the overconsumption of chimichangas, burritos, and pancakes.
It's an avatar, and unless it's like those FB ones that actually say "Candidate 2016" on them, I don't assume any "support" for the thing pictured.
Right, and I'm a robot being forced to watch really bad movies... We should really just relax!
whembly wrote: I'd argue that the lunatics are on the blue team.
You could try, but you won't succeed. Disagree with the ideas of the democrats all you want, but they're not the party where one of the leading candidate's main campaign promises is to build a border wall to keep out all of the illegal immigrants and to get the other country to pay for it.
It's still in the primary mang.
Besides... Trump won't win. He's trending down in the worst way, and he doesn't have a great grassroot infrastructure in any of the states. (neither does Carson/Fiorina either).
If I'm a betting man, we're looking at either Rubio or Cruz.
whembly wrote: I'd argue that the lunatics are on the blue team.
You could try, but you won't succeed. Disagree with the ideas of the democrats all you want, but they're not the party where one of the leading candidate's main campaign promises is to build a border wall to keep out all of the illegal immigrants and to get the other country to pay for it.
It's still in the primary mang.
So just because it's "still in the primary," something as fething idiotic as what Trump is suggesting doesn't count at lunacy? Or pretty much anything that has spilled out Carson's mouth? Or Fiorina's?
So I guess this applies to things you say as well:
If I'm a betting man, we're looking at either Rubio or Cruz.
To keep things on topic, I think I could "deal" with one of those guys as POTUS, but not the other. I haven't really done due research on Rubio, because I also lean away from the right, and I fully intend to vote for Sanders.... But NOTHING that I've seen from Cruz has given me anything but a feeling of dread for what would/could happen if that clown got elected.
whembly wrote: I'd argue that the lunatics are on the blue team.
You could try, but you won't succeed. Disagree with the ideas of the democrats all you want, but they're not the party where one of the leading candidate's main campaign promises is to build a border wall to keep out all of the illegal immigrants and to get the other country to pay for it.
It's still in the primary mang.
So just because it's "still in the primary," something as fething idiotic as what Trump is suggesting doesn't count at lunacy? Or pretty much anything that has spilled out Carson's mouth? Or Fiorina's?
Sure, tax the mutherfething out of any wire transfer from US to Mexico. That'll be a start. (Colorado does this, so it's not unheard of)
So, inexperience is lunacy then...
Great, scooty, we elected Obama to two terms. Lunacy...
Glad you cleared that up.
So I guess this applies to things you say as well:
So? He's still saying it, and the other candidates aren't much better. Besides, "it's just the primary" is a concession that the republican candidates will lie about who they are to appeal to the raving lunatics and win the primary, then lie about everything they just said to appeal to mainstream voters. I'm not sure which is worse, being a raving lunatic or being a spineless liar who will say anything if it gets a few more votes.
Besides... Trump won't win. He's trending down in the worst way, and he doesn't have a great grassroot infrastructure in any of the states. (neither does Carson/Fiorina either).
He's still considered a legitimate candidate. If the republican party wasn't so hilariously detached from reality he wouldn't even be on the stage at those debates. The fact that he's considered "mainstream" enough for the party as a whole really says something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Sure, tax the mutherfething out of any wire transfer from US to Mexico. That'll be a start. (Colorado does this, so it's not unheard of)
I don't think you understand the sheer scale and cost of what Trump is promising. A border wall would be one of the biggest civil engineering projects in history, and likely one of the most expensive. Taxing money sent to Mexico makes about as much sense as promising to pay for the war in Afghanistan by having a bake sale.
And let's not forget that Trump promised to get Mexico to pay for his border wall. Taxing US citizens/residents to pay for it is not the same thing.
So? He's still saying it, and the other candidates aren't much better. Besides, "it's just the primary" is a concession that the republican candidates will lie about who they are to appeal to the raving lunatics and win the primary, then lie about everything they just said to appeal to mainstream voters. I'm not sure which is worse, being a raving lunatic or being a spineless liar who will say anything if it gets a few more votes.
There's truth to that.
But, don't you thing the primary exist as a vetting process, a process that's taking an extremely long time with all the early entrance into this campaign? This is a good thing. Find the best possible candidate.
Whereas on the DNC side, it's truly HRC's ticket to lose. Sanders ain't go a chance.
Besides... Trump won't win. He's trending down in the worst way, and he doesn't have a great grassroot infrastructure in any of the states. (neither does Carson/Fiorina either).
He's still considered a legitimate candidate. If the republican party wasn't so hilariously detached from reality he wouldn't even be on the stage at those debates. The fact that he's considered "mainstream" enough for the party as a whole really says something.
Yup. That's what I'm saying. The GOP leadership has fethed up enough that Trump/Carson/Fiorina are the rebellouous choices. Not necessarily because it is believed that they're BETTER, but it's a cry for leadership to start listening to their constituents.
Besides... Trump is a Democrat wearing a Republican costume doing whatever is best for Trump's interests. Regardless... he's trending downwards in a real bad way and if nothing else happens... he'll flame out by the end of the year.
whembly wrote: Sure, tax the mutherfething out of any wire transfer from US to Mexico. That'll be a start. (Colorado does this, so it's not unheard of)
I don't think you understand the sheer scale and cost of what Trump is promising. A border wall would be one of the biggest civil engineering projects in history, and likely one of the most expensive. Taxing money sent to Mexico makes about as much sense as promising to pay for the war in Afghanistan by having a bake sale.
And let's not forget that Trump promised to get Mexico to pay for his border wall. Taxing US citizens/residents to pay for it is not the same thing.
Ever heard of the TVA?
Hoover Dam?
It'd be like that.
My brother is an engineer for Walsh and he confided to me that a wall would be fething simple. Not all of it would be a physical barrier too. The construction of that won't surpass any of the large civil projects we have going on now. It's simply the will, and funding that is required.
Now, how to make "Mexico pay for it"? Yeah, no fething clue. We don't need Mexico to pay for it.
whembly wrote: But, don't you thing the primary exist as a vetting process, a process that's taking an extremely long time with all the early entrance into this campaign? This is a good thing. Find the best possible candidate.
If your vetting process has Trump above 1% support then your vetting process has serious problems.
Yup. That's what I'm saying. The GOP leadership has fethed up enough that Trump/Carson/Fiorina are the rebellouous choices. Not necessarily because it is believed that they're BETTER, but it's a cry for leadership to start listening to their constituents.
So let me get this straight: republican voters are supporting obvious raving lunatic candidates just to make a point to party leadership? How exactly does this disprove my claim that the republican party is insane? Agree or disagree with the democrats all you want, but you at least have to admit that they're offering legitimate candidates who are capable of governing a country.
whembly wrote: But, don't you thing the primary exist as a vetting process, a process that's taking an extremely long time with all the early entrance into this campaign? This is a good thing. Find the best possible candidate.
If your vetting process has Trump above 1% support then your vetting process has serious problems.
I can say thing on the DNC side where Sanders is enjoying just as much support too...
Yup. That's what I'm saying. The GOP leadership has fethed up enough that Trump/Carson/Fiorina are the rebellouous choices. Not necessarily because it is believed that they're BETTER, but it's a cry for leadership to start listening to their constituents.
So let me get this straight: republican voters are supporting obvious raving lunatic candidates just to make a point to party leadership? How exactly does this disprove my claim that the republican party is insane? Agree or disagree with the democrats all you want, but you at least have to admit that they're offering legitimate candidates who are capable of governing a country.
Because the GOP leadership has fethed the voters. Serves them right.
fething Sanders and Clinton can run the Country... but straight to the damn ground for different reasons.
Again... you keep push the hyperbolic "raven lunatic" thing. I don't think you know what that means.
Right now on the DNC side, there's a raving (see what I did there?) socialist and a raving corruptocrat as your candidate. And you're yammering about "legitimate candidates who are capable of governing a country"... those would hacks would be better?
Right now on the DNC side, there's a raving (see what I did there?) socialist and a raving corruptocrat as your candidate. And you're yammering about "legitimate candidates who are capable of governing a country"... those would hacks would be better?
o.O
We'll see eh? We'll see...
Except... ya know... there's really nothing wrong with having socialist ideals, as you're insinuating. Last I checked, none of the European countries that have some form or semblance of "socialism" have collapsed yet.
Also, the IMF have produced a report that completely destroys the arguments of Reaganomics, which I know so many Republicans love, so again... a candidate like Sanders is far less a lunatic than one who would say "In my America there'd be no gay people", or anything close to that affect.
whembly wrote: Sure, tax the mutherfething out of any wire transfer from US to Mexico. That'll be a start. (Colorado does this, so it's not unheard of)
That is somehow making Mexico pay for it? Do you even listen to anything the man says? Oh that's right, he's secretly a Democrat pretending to be an idiot Republican!
So, inexperience is lunacy then...
Who said anything about inexperience? Me? Or are you just making up arguments again? As far as Carson goes, we have his insanely idiotic comments about the Holocaust, he's insanely idiotic biblical 10% flat tax, his denial about being involved with Mannatech, his no Muslims should be President or on the Supreme Court comments, his 'people go to jail and come out gay so obviously it's a choice' comments. Those are some of just his recent moronic ramblings... This fething clown is your front runner.
Great, scooty, we elected Obama to two terms. Lunacy...
Yeah, because he's obviously history's greatest monster. Instead of actually come up with something of substance to say, just deflect to complain about Obama!
Glad you cleared that up.
Good, I know the truth is difficult for you sometimes. See my earlier GIF about reality if you have any further questions.
My brother is an engineer for Walsh and he confided to me that a wall would be fething simple. Not all of it would be a physical barrier too. The construction of that won't surpass any of the large civil projects we have going on now. It's simply the will, and funding that is required.
Awesome, your engineer brother says it's no big deal to build a massive wall 2000 miles long in the middle of nowhere! Problem solved! I'll write my Congressmen and Senators to let them know your brother said it's no biggie, all we need is a little bit of willpower and elbow grease!
Now, how to make "Mexico pay for it"? Yeah, no fething clue. We don't need Mexico to pay for it.
Right, because you love government spending and taxes now apparently.
whembly wrote: Sure, tax the mutherfething out of any wire transfer from US to Mexico. That'll be a start. (Colorado does this, so it's not unheard of)
That is somehow making Mexico pay for it?
It's a start! Mind you that's *my* idea.. not from Trump or anyone else.
Do you even listen to anything the man says? Oh that's right, he's secretly a Democrat pretending to be an idiot Republican!
Yes. Reminds me much of the other Democrats.
So, inexperience is lunacy then...
Who said anything about inexperience? Me? Or are you just making up arguments again? As far as Carson goes, we have his insanely idiotic comments about the Holocaust, he's insanely idiotic biblical 10% flat tax, his denial about being involved with Mannatech, his no Muslims should be President or on the Supreme Court comments, his 'people go to jail and come out gay so obviously it's a choice' comments. Those are some of just his recent moronic ramblings... This fething clown is your front runner.
And your front running is a perfect example of The.Worst.Political.Human.Being.Possible. Corrupt to the core. She enriched herself and her foundation while servering her tenure as Secretary of State. Just imagine what would happen with her as President. :shudder:
Great, scooty, we elected Obama to two terms. Lunacy...
Yeah, because he's obviously history's greatest monster. Instead of actually come up with something of substance to say, just deflect to complain about Obama!
Hey... your rules.
Glad you cleared that up.
Good, I know the truth is difficult for you sometimes. See my earlier GIF about reality if you have any further questions.
My brother is an engineer for Walsh and he confided to me that a wall would be fething simple. Not all of it would be a physical barrier too. The construction of that won't surpass any of the large civil projects we have going on now. It's simply the will, and funding that is required.
Awesome, your engineer brother says it's no big deal to build a massive wall 2000 miles long in the middle of nowhere! Problem solved! I'll write my Congressmen and Senators to let them know your brother said it's no biggie, all we need is a little bit of willpower and elbow grease!
That's the spirit!
Frankly, I know you're being sarcastic and I'm shocked that a pipe-fitter like you would be drinking the blue koolaid that deeply to NOT consider that as a viable option.
Now, how to make "Mexico pay for it"? Yeah, no fething clue. We don't need Mexico to pay for it.
Right, because you love government spending and taxes now apparently.
So... again... attacking *me* instead of attacking the argument.
And your front running is a perfect example of The.Worst.Political.Human.Being.Possible. Corrupt to the core. She enriched herself and her foundation while servering her tenure as Secretary of State. Just imagine what would happen with her as President. :shudder:
Wait, Dick Cheney's had a sex change and is now running for the Democrats?
And your front running is a perfect example of The.Worst.Political.Human.Being.Possible. Corrupt to the core. She enriched herself and her foundation while servering her tenure as Secretary of State. Just imagine what would happen with her as President. :shudder:
Wait, Dick Cheney's had a sex change and is now running for the Democrats?
You know, I never really understood the hatred that man inspires.
Glad you brought him up, because Hillary Clinton is/was doing EXACTLY what critics of Cheney claimed to have done.
And your front running is a perfect example of The.Worst.Political.Human.Being.Possible. Corrupt to the core. She enriched herself and her foundation while servering her tenure as Secretary of State. Just imagine what would happen with her as President. :shudder:
Wait, Dick Cheney's had a sex change and is now running for the Democrats?
You know, I never really understood the hatred that man inspires.
Glad you brought him up, because Hillary Clinton is/was doing EXACTLY what critics of Cheney claimed to have done.
She's set the Middle East ablaze with false accusations of weapons of mass destruction?
whembly wrote: It's a start! Mind you that's *my* idea.. not from Trump or anyone else.
It's equally as stupid as any other part of this plan.
Yes. Reminds me much of the other Democrats.
That makes no sense and you know it. Trump is playing directly into what your party base wants to hear.
And your front running is a perfect example of The.Worst.Political.Human.Being.Possible. Corrupt to the core. She enriched herself and her foundation while servering her tenure as Secretary of State. Just imagine what would happen with her as President. :shudder:
My front runner? The Democrats aren't my part because I'm not a party lapdog like you. I've made this perfectly clear in the past, but go ahead and continue to ignore and make up an argument like you have with every one of your posts lately.
Hey... your rules.
See above.
In those cases... of course.
It's entitlements need a good look'e'doo.
Right, because using government money to help citizens is a travesty when we could be dumping money into building a wall!
Frankly, I know you're being sarcastic and I'm shocked that a pipe-fitter like you would be drinking the blue koolaid that deeply to NOT consider that as a viable option.
Pipefitters don't build walls, we install pipes. And no, building a useless wall in the middle of the desert to try and keep brown people out appeals in no way to me.
Sorry to disappoint.
So... again... attacking *me* instead of attacking the argument.
You got nuthin.
You're like the living example of the Republican Party of 2015; you just ignore the stuff you disagree with and make up arguments so you can feel like you're winning. Oh, and of course accuse everyone of "attacking you!"
And your front running is a perfect example of The.Worst.Political.Human.Being.Possible. Corrupt to the core. She enriched herself and her foundation while servering her tenure as Secretary of State. Just imagine what would happen with her as President. :shudder:
Wait, Dick Cheney's had a sex change and is now running for the Democrats?
You know, I never really understood the hatred that man inspires.
Glad you brought him up, because Hillary Clinton is/was doing EXACTLY what critics of Cheney claimed to have done.
She attempted to kill the Batman with a weaponized umbrella?
So... again... attacking *me* instead of attacking the argument.
You got nuthin.
You're like the living example of the Republican Party of 2015; you just ignore the stuff you disagree with and make up arguments so you can feel like you're winning. Oh, and of course accuse everyone of "attacking you!"
Heh... I feel the same that about you as "Team Blue".
It's not really comparable. The distances involved, and the terrain make it a near impossibility to build, maintain, and police the wall. And the cost would end up being outrageous, which would mean either more debt, more taxes, or less of everything else. In the end,It's probably much similar to reform the system to allow immigrants and migrant workers to come here legally more easily.
What, the people who demand to reap all the advantages of society without contributing? Or does that not count as entitlement?
Um... what?
I'm making the point that it's only ever "entitlement" when poor people want benefits from society, never when rich people want all the benefits of the system without paying, and then twisting your words to make a joke about it. We never talk about how "entitled" rich people are when they demand that they keep as much of their earnings as possible depsite the fact that they'd not make anywhere near that amount without society backing them up.
It's not really comparable. The distances involved, and the terrain make it a near impossibility to build, maintain, and police the wall. And the cost would end up being outrageous, which would mean either more debt, more taxes, or less of everything else. In the end,It's probably much similar to reform the system to allow immigrants and migrant workers to come here legally more easily.
In the end, it's easier to bump up ICE to enforce the actual fething laws and to end Sanctuary Cities.
Remove the incentive for illegals... and then they won't come in droves.
What, the people who demand to reap all the advantages of society without contributing? Or does that not count as entitlement?
Um... what?
I'm making the point that it's only ever "entitlement" when poor people want benefits from society, never when rich people want all the benefits of the system without paying, and then twisting your words to make a joke about it. We never talk about how "entitled" rich people are when they demand that they keep as much of their earnings as possible depsite the fact that they'd not make anywhere near that amount without society backing them up.
*sigh*
Here we go again....
What do you mean by "rich people". Nah... nevermind, it'll be the same ol' arguments.
Most of us here in the states aren't interested in European styled socialist policies. (with one caveat)
The caveat is that in time, I think we'll have a healthcare system similar to Canada or Germany... but, it'll be awhile because the current system really needs to crash for something drastic to happen.
It's not really comparable. The distances involved, and the terrain make it a near impossibility to build, maintain, and police the wall. And the cost would end up being outrageous, which would mean either more debt, more taxes, or less of everything else. In the end,It's probably much similar to reform the system to allow immigrants and migrant workers to come here legally more easily.
In the end, it's easier to bump up ICE to enforce the actual fething laws and to end Sanctuary Cities.
Remove the incentive for illegals... and then they won't come in droves.
Simple, really.
That goes along with reform the system. Both need to be done.
And they were coming long before sanctuary cites existed, and will continue to come long after they are gone. The incentive is work, not "I might be able to stay".
Remove the incentive for illegals... and then they won't come in droves.
Simple, really.
This right here just proves how little you really understand about the immigration "problem" in the US.
To be fair, I did think like you for a long time. This issue was just covered in my public policy class, and the professor turns out to be kind of the "bees knees" expert in this area. So, while I'm also not an expert, there really is quite a lot going on in this situation.
Even people who have extremely little to do with immigration are against guys like Trump and most Republican plans.... guys like Anthony Bourdain, who just penned an aritcle that flat stated the restaurant business would basically collapse if the gov't enacted some of the policies that the Republicans want.
It's not really comparable. The distances involved, and the terrain make it a near impossibility to build, maintain, and police the wall. And the cost would end up being outrageous, which would mean either more debt, more taxes, or less of everything else. In the end,It's probably much similar to reform the system to allow immigrants and migrant workers to come here legally more easily.
In the end, it's easier to bump up ICE to enforce the actual fething laws and to end Sanctuary Cities.
Remove the incentive for illegals... and then they won't come in droves.
Simple, really.
That goes along with reform the system. Both need to be done.
And they were coming long before sanctuary cites existed, and will continue to come long after they are gone. The incentive is work, not "I might be able to stay".
It can be done... but man, this is stupid because it's basically saying to NC officials... hey, here's a law that prohibit you from breaking federal laws.
Remove the incentive for illegals... and then they won't come in droves.
Simple, really.
This right here just proves how little you really understand about the immigration "problem" in the US.
To be fair, I did think like you for a long time. This issue was just covered in my public policy class, and the professor turns out to be kind of the "bees knees" expert in this area. So, while I'm also not an expert, there really is quite a lot going on in this situation.
Even people who have extremely little to do with immigration are against guys like Trump and most Republican plans.... guys like Anthony Bourdain, who just penned an aritcle that flat stated the restaurant business would basically collapse if the gov't enacted some of the policies that the Republicans want.
Bull. fething. gak.
That's the exact same argument that "we need these workers because they'll only do the jobs that American refuses them".
That's horse gak.
Yeah, the industry will take a hit... yes, some products will have to rise because the labor is more expensive.
So what. We'll deal with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Oh, no, I disagree with sanctuary cities as well. I just don't think they are the intensive.
There are many incentives involved. Sanctuary Cities is only just one of them.
Certainly, his remarks could be rather hyperbolic, but the point still remains that you would be doing more harm than good to the nation's economy by simply deporting everyone or whatever other "plans" the Republicans have.
It's not really comparable. The distances involved, and the terrain make it a near impossibility to build, maintain, and police the wall. And the cost would end up being outrageous, which would mean either more debt, more taxes, or less of everything else. In the end,It's probably much similar to reform the system to allow immigrants and migrant workers to come here legally more easily.
In the end, it's easier to bump up ICE to enforce the actual fething laws and to end Sanctuary Cities.
Remove the incentive for illegals... and then they won't come in droves.
Simple, really.
That goes along with reform the system. Both need to be done.
And they were coming long before sanctuary cites existed, and will continue to come long after they are gone. The incentive is work, not "I might be able to stay".
It can be done... but man, this is stupid because it's basically saying to NC officials... hey, here's a law that prohibit you from breaking federal laws.
It's also another example of "completely useless laws in NC".
It's not an actual problem here in NC. Republicans think it is, but it's not.
Certainly, his remarks could be rather hyperbolic, but the point still remains that you would be doing more harm than good to the nation's economy by simply deporting everyone or whatever other "plans" the Republicans have.
Yup. Read it. Reading it again. (I do read Thinkprogress and Vox... just to get the lay of the land )
Aaaaand we're supposed to whitewash certain things or people who breaks the law.
Raising the minimum wage will cripple the economy and destroy small businesses. Destroying a giant supply of cheap labor will be fine because businesses can easily deal with increased costs.
Aaaaand we're supposed to whitewash certain things or people who breaks the law.
Got it.
No... I don't think so. However, we do have over 50k children who have one or more parents "missing" due to deportation. You have upwards of 600k people across the country graduating High School every single year that are actually illegally here. Most of those arrived in the US before the age of 2, and completely view themselves as American. Many of them don't even realize that they are undocumented.
I don't think deportation for merely being here is good enough reason to do so, especially where children are involved. How much is being spent federally for little to no "gain"? Undocumented workers, illegal aliens, bring in Billions of dollars to State and Local tax coffers and the economy. That is money that I don't think this country can afford to lose.
d-usa wrote: Raising the minimum wage will cripple the economy and destroy small businesses. Destroying a giant supply of cheap labor will be fine because businesses can easily deal with increased costs.
Makes sense....somewhere....
Justifying our nation actions in not enforcing the immigration laws because we like our food cheap... is...
what?
Hypocritical in the worst ways?
gak man, I've advocated to keep the illegals here, as long as they're not criminals (besides being here illegally), pay a fine, and get legal residence status (but not voting rights). THen, get in line if you want to be citizen and do it the right way.
We can tweak this process to make it work better, but at the same time we shouldn't create a massive incentive to folks to come here illegally... that includes throwing the fething books at places like restarunts if they knowingly hire illegals.
whembly wrote: that includes throwing the fething books at places like restarunts if they knowingly hire illegals.
Thing is, I've just been told about a guy who was in the US illegally, went to college, got a Bachelor's AND a Masters, worked for NYT, WaPo and other "prestigious" newspapers for over a decade; all while being undocumented. He has since gone and done things the right way.... But my point is, "proving" that a person is here illegally may be more complicated that you make it seem.
Another problem is, if you go after restaurants for hiring illegals, what are you going to do about companies like Dole, Chiquita, etc. who make extensive use of illegal and migrant workers in their fields all to "keep prices low"?
whembly wrote: that includes throwing the fething books at places like restarunts if they knowingly hire illegals.
Thing is, I've just been told about a guy who was in the US illegally, went to college, got a Bachelor's AND a Masters, worked for NYT, WaPo and other "prestigious" newspapers for over a decade; all while being undocumented. He has since gone and done things the right way.... But my point is, "proving" that a person is here illegally may be more complicated that you make it seem.
Mandate E-Verify system at all locations.
It's in place in some industry... in state of Missouri, I had to prove it.
Another problem is, if you go after restaurants for hiring illegals, what are you going to do about companies like Dole, Chiquita, etc. who make extensive use of illegal and migrant workers in their fields all to "keep prices low"?
d-usa wrote: Raising the minimum wage will cripple the economy and destroy small businesses. Destroying a giant supply of cheap labor will be fine because businesses can easily deal with increased costs.
Makes sense....somewhere....
Justifying our nation actions in not enforcing the immigration laws because we like our food cheap... is...
what?
Hypocritical in the worst ways?
gak man, I've advocated to keep the illegals here, as long as they're not criminals (besides being here illegally), pay a fine, and get legal residence status (but not voting rights). THen, get in line if you want to be citizen and do it the right way.
We can tweak this process to make it work better, but at the same time we shouldn't create a massive incentive to folks to come here illegally... that includes throwing the fething books at places like restarunts if they knowingly hire illegals.
That doesn't make it any less idiotic to argue that increased labor cost due to minimum wage laws would destroy the economy, but that increased labor costs due to a shift in the labor pool wouldn't.
Increased costs will have the same effect, and arguing that one reason will be the end of business while another won't have a catastrophic effect is bordering on schizophrenia. The economy won't care if you agree with the political reason or not, and I'm not even arguing for or against it.
Just pointing out that there is no reason to take anyone serious if they claim that increased labor costs are horrible while at the same time claiming that increased costs are no big deal.
Just pointing out that there is no reason to take anyone serious if they claim that increased labor costs are horrible while at the same time claiming that increased costs are no big deal.
I didn't say it was "horrible".
I said the industry would deal... just like all the other major changes that were discovered.
So the restaurant industry should get a pass because they have exploited a source of illicit labour, and become dependant upon it to maximize their revenue? That is not a sustainable business model.
What happens to their restaurants then if the source of their labour becomes legitimate, and eligible for higher wages? Do we need to turn a blind eye to a new set of illegal immigrants coming in to drive down the wage costs for these businesses?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So the restaurant industry should get a pass because they have exploited a source of illicit labour, and become dependant upon it to maximize their revenue? That is not a sustainable business model.
What happens to their restaurants then if the source of their labour becomes legitimate, and eligible for higher wages? Do we need to turn a blind eye to a new set of illegal immigrants coming in to drive down the wage costs for these businesses?
Let's try this again:
You can really only have two simple arguments: either the industry will be destroyed by higher labor costs, or the industry will adapt to higher labor costs.
If you have people who argue that increased labor costs are going to destroy the industry only to turn around and argue that higher labor costs are fine and won't affect the industry all that much, then that is a pretty good indicator of a politician that shouldn't be listened to.
That's not an argument for or against any policy, law, or tax. That's just common sense.
If you think that businesses are going to survive higher labor costs that will result because you dramatically decrease the labor pool and remove cheap illegal labor, then that's fine. But then stop arguing that that same business isn't going to survive higher labor costs from an increased minimum wage.
If you think that a business is going to be destroyed by higher labor costs from an increased minimum wage, then that's fine. But then stop arguing that that same business won't be hurt by higher labor costs from a decreased labor pool. and removal of cheap illegal labor.
Heck, I would at least appreciate the integrity if someone would go on record and say that small businesses that employ cheap illegal labor deserves to struggle and go bankrupt when their labor costs go up due to having to employ lawful labor. At least then their argument would have consistency and they wouldn't be pretending that the bottom line somehow cares WHY their labor costs went up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Who says they will be eligible for higher wages, I bet they would still start out at minimum wages, but they might be eligible for benefits (401k, health care, etc.).
Labor that isn't legal often isn't paid a legal minimum wage either. And there also may be less cost to the employer due to not having to pay payroll taxes on illegal labor.
Who says they will be eligible for higher wages, I bet they would still start out at minimum wages, but they might be eligible for benefits (401k, health care, etc.).
Gordon Shumway wrote: Who says they will be eligible for higher wages, I bet they would still start out at minimum wages, but they might be eligible for benefits (401k, health care, etc.).
You seem to think that they're being paid minimum wage in the first place. This probably isn't the case, so paying them minimum wage IS higher wages.
You can really only have two simple arguments: either the industry will be destroyed by higher labor costs, or the industry will adapt to higher labor costs.
If you have people who argue that increased labor costs are going to destroy the industry only to turn around and argue that higher labor costs are fine and won't affect the industry all that much, then that is a pretty good indicator of a politician that shouldn't be listened to.
That's not an argument for or against any policy, law, or tax. That's just common sense.
If you think that businesses are going to survive higher labor costs that will result because you dramatically decrease the labor pool and remove cheap illegal labor, then that's fine. But then stop arguing that that same business isn't going to survive higher labor costs from an increased minimum wage.
I don't recall making that argument
d-usa wrote: If you think that a business is going to be destroyed by higher labor costs from an increased minimum wage, then that's fine. But then stop arguing that that same business won't be hurt by higher labor costs from a decreased labor pool. and removal of cheap illegal labor.
Another argument that I did not make. We seem to be on a run of strawmen.
d-usa wrote: Heck, I would at least appreciate the integrity if someone would go on record and say that small businesses that employ cheap illegal labor deserves to struggle and go bankrupt when their labor costs go up due to having to employ lawful labor. At least then their argument would have consistency and they wouldn't be pretending that the bottom line somehow cares WHY their labor costs went up.
This is actually closer to what I said when I said that the exploitation of illegal immigrants for labour was "not a sustainable business model", but I never said that they should struggle or go bankrupt. I would rather that they adapted.
d-usa wrote: I was replying to another posters "it will increase costs, but they will cope" comment.
And I honestly didn't intent my argument as a "keeping labor cheap is a good reason to ignore the law" argument.
I think we just got our wires crossed.
Never worry, when I seen you quote me I thought that you were responding to me alone. The cheap labour argument was an atypical one for you to advance so I thought I'd ask if that was what you were actually trying to articulate.
So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?
he doesn't have a Hillary "Deal with it" Gif... He has an A10 Warthog...
I think you're losing it Whembly XD
*had*
Right after the last Republican debate.
I paid attention when I was on vacay!
It wasn't after the last Republican debate. It was after her appearance at the "Lets Try And Hurt Hillary Clinton Politically" committee.
I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton. I'm less of a fan, however, of the infinite whoring out of 4 dead Americans by the Republican party, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars, for partisan political purposes. I was excited by how well she did during the hearings because it seemed like perhaps we can finally drop the never-ending Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaazhhhi! hearings that are a fig leaf for the RNC's agenda - once you have prominent Republicans finally admitting the whole thing was a charade to hurt her in the polls, maybe we can finally move on.
So, instead of making a pretend story in your head about what you imagine I think about Hillary Clinton, you could read things I actually wrote, in this thread, about Hillary Clinton. Behold the ringing endorsements!
Spoiler:
Ouze wrote: Not that the Democrats are better. I suspect most Americans realize that the drama with the private server is exactly how the rest of Mrs. Clinton's presidency would be; just a few plausible deniable notches above one sleazy scandal after another. And will the GOP work with her? I daresay, they will not. It would make the last 8 years look like minor friction, and the excitement of the historic First Woman President would be quickly surpassed by the First Woman President / First Husband & Wife Presidents To Get Impeached. So, it's that, or Senator Nochance, or Whats His Face with a name recognition marginally less than mine.
Maybe I'm just getting old and tired and jaded, but man, this is the worst electoral match I have seen in my entire life.
Ouze wrote: Just as I'm fairly confident that Jeb will be the nominee, I'm not sure at all it will be Hillary. She's a pretty terrible campaigner on the best of days.
Ouze wrote: I'd be surprised if we don't see a anyone-but-Hillary nomination process similar to what Mitt had in 2012. I don't think they'll get anywhere but I am sure quite a few people are just... wearied by the thought of the nonstop scandal machine that will be cooking for the next like, almost a decade.
Ouze wrote: I'd be sort of excited about Biden running.
Literally the only reason I want to see Hillary Clinton win at this point it so you will lose your gak. And even then, just thinking about your 2 or 3 bumps per day with Today's Hillary Clinton Scandal Update is just exhausting to me mentally. Assuming she gets re-elected, we're looking at literally almost a decade more of today's Daily Caller \ Brietbart \ Drudge \ #TCOT talking point regurgitation.
Here is the only candidate I support, and more importantly, why:
From page 176 to here there have been a lot of 1 or so line posts made that, either intentionally or unintentionally, aren't having a positive effect on the discussion. "try again bro", "so you got nuthin", and posts of a similar vein are not conducive to good discussion and serve only to ruin whatever the discussion was and drag it down into the mud. This isn't what is going to happen in this thread. So general warning, people need to police their posts better or else steps will be taken
The US is sending special forces to Syria to assist anti-government rebels in fighting the so-called Islamic State (IS), officials have said.
There will be "fewer than 50" forces deployed in the region, in what will be the first time US troops are working openly on the ground in Syria.
There have been US special forces raids on IS militants in the country.
A senior administration official told the BBC this does not signal a change in US strategy in Syria.
The special operations forces will be focused on Northern Syria, the official said.
I have no idea what we're doing over there any more.
When you find someone who does, tell us and we can put him in charge.
There is literally no candidate of either party that I would trust to actually improve the situation, frankly. I haven't really heard a single one say "We can't make this better, so we can at least try to not make it worse" or something to that effect.
Ouze wrote: There is literally no candidate of either party that I would trust to actually improve the situation, frankly. I haven't really heard a single one say "We can't make this better, so we can at least try to not make it worse" or something to that effect.
Sanders is, IIRC, the only one to thus far even mention working with "the other side" or work with "everyone" to effect changes. To me, it shows that he understands you can't do much without half to 2/3ds of the elected people in congress
There have been a few who have thrown out some teamwork-style ideas. I actually did a quick refresher before I posted so I didn't look stupider than normal - I was sort of expecting Rand Paul to have favored noninvolvement (he doesn't).
Obviously everyone has their own opinion on this, but I personally think we should stay out of it, full stop, the end - and no candidate has endorsed that. Even Bernie has situationally approved of a military intervention.
Ouze wrote: There have been a few who have thrown out some teamwork-style ideas. I actually did a quick refresher before I posted so I didn't look stupider than normal - I was sort of expecting Rand Paul to have favored noninvolvement (he doesn't).
Obviously everyone has their own opinion on this, but I personally think we should stay out of it, full stop, the end - and no candidate has endorsed that. Even Bernie has situationally approved of a military intervention.
Ahh, you were referring to the ME.... I was referring to domestic policies, gotcha. And IIRC, during the CNN debate, Sanders tried to say he wouldn't use the military, but under goading from moderators eventually said that he'd use the DoD if "necessary", but not before that point.
I agree, we should completely get the feth out of dodge with the ME. We should leave Israel alone until such a time as they actually need aid (ie, they for whatever reason get to a point where they cannot defend themselves), and generally just steer clear of any involvement with those countries. The only involvement I think we should have is if THEY initiate contact saying, "hey, we want to negotiate peace, will you be an impartial moderator for our two sides?"
d-usa wrote: It might be political posturing, but Paul Ryan is already saying things that give me a tiny sliver of hope in the House.
Me too.
He's a wonkey moderate with a dash of conservative appeal and a dash of knowing what he has to do to make things work.
We know he isn't going to make everyone happy at the same time... but, if he can foster an environment that everyone has a say, then things may be less bak gak insane.
We know he isn't going to make everyone happy at the same time... but, if he can foster an environment that everyone has a say, then things may be less bak gak insane.
Not much tho.
I'm much less interested in an environment where everyone "has a say", at least as it pertains to THAT room. I am much more interested in an environment where things get done. Compromise, discussion and negotiation. Not political hostages and the "usual" gak-fest we've had for the past 8-10 years.
I'm much less interested in an environment where everyone "has a say", at least as it pertains to THAT room. I am much more interested in an environment where things get done. Compromise, discussion and negotiation. Not political hostages and the "usual" gak-fest we've had for the past 8-10 years.
We know he isn't going to make everyone happy at the same time... but, if he can foster an environment that everyone has a say, then things may be less bak gak insane.
Not much tho.
I'm much less interested in an environment where everyone "has a say", at least as it pertains to THAT room. I am much more interested in an environment where things get done. Compromise, discussion and negotiation. Not political hostages and the "usual" gak-fest we've had for the past 8-10 years.
Both parties share a burden on that... yes.
Let's see if Ryan can lead a change. But, the Democrats and President Obama will need to play that dance too. They weren't interested in any compromise either, as the shutdown theatric/debt limit ordeals/budget continuation benefits the Ds more than the Rs.
Let's see if Ryan can lead a change. But, the Democrats and President Obama will need to play that dance too. They weren't interested in any compromise either, as the shutdown theatric/debt limit ordeals/budget continuation benefits the Ds more than the Rs.
Ohh, I completely agree with you there.
And in other news, there's this little gem out of Texas:
Hey what do you have against the real world Patridge Family? Why do you hate Buddha?
In their defense this is El Paso. I would be praying all the time for the rapture too if I lived in El Paso. Its Texas' deathworld experiment to see if we could develop our own atomic mutie force vs. New Mexico's atomic muties.
Frazzled wrote: Typical of what-revealing your own prejudice?
Yes. I am prejudiced against religious loons who spoil their own children's future because they're so arrogant they think they know the mind of God < This is literally listed out right as one of the gravest Sins any human being can make (for those who haven't read their NT, or selectively cheery pick it )
Like many homeschoolers, the McIntyre family in El Paso was given wide latitude in their children’s education. They had almost no oversight from educators. They were never required to follow a curriculum or have their children take standardized tests like children in public (and most private) schools do. The results weren’t pretty: The children learned almost nothing they couldn’t learn in Sunday school.
Texas DOES require home schooled kids to take the same standardized tests. That part is BS. My wife was a teacher in Texas, and is now working for the state here in IL. I'll just say that not every state has a strict of a set of home schooling rules as Texas does, sadly. in IL, you can just say "I'm homeschooling my child" and withdraw them with no penalty or oversight. NOT TRUE in Texas, where you have to take yearly standardized tests and maintain a minimal level on your results.
Frazzled wrote: Typical of what-revealing your own prejudice?
Yes. I am prejudiced against religious loons who spoil their own children's future because they're so arrogant they think they know the mind of God < This is literally listed out right as one of the gravest Sins any human being can make (for those who haven't read their NT, or selectively cheery pick it )
So in your world view this is typical? Please cite statistics to support this is "typical."
Like many homeschoolers, the McIntyre family in El Paso was given wide latitude in their children’s education. They had almost no oversight from educators. They were never required to follow a curriculum or have their children take standardized tests like children in public (and most private) schools do. The results weren’t pretty: The children learned almost nothing they couldn’t learn in Sunday school.
Texas DOES require home schooled kids to take the same standardized tests. That part is BS. My wife was a teacher in Texas, and is now working for the state here in IL. I'll just say that not every state has a strict of a set of home schooling rules as Texas does, sadly. in IL, you can just say "I'm homeschooling my child" and withdraw them with no penalty or oversight. NOT TRUE in Texas, where you have to take yearly standardized tests and maintain a minimal level on your results.
feth standardized testing. The system here in NY before the common core worked fine (one of the best public school systems in the country). Now we have the goddamn common core tests, and another wave of teacher-blaming. I'm just glad I graduated before the main wave of tests hit.
It would be nice to have well-designed education rules made by actual teaching professionals (teachers, administators, ect) but the common core is anything but. And leads to even more "teaching for the test".
I doubt it, but let's have Benghazi hearings anyway. We got the money to throw around for specious political gains, right? The KKK is reprehensible, but I just screened Birth of a Nation the other day for one of my classes, and damn if Griffith didn't know what he was doing as a filmmaker.
Anonymous claims to have leaked KKK members online and some Republican leaders are on there. So fake or is this going to blow up into a big scandal?
Is it plausible? Yes and no. It's entirely believable that some members of the far right end of the party would agree with the KKK, and the far right end of republican voters certainly does. On the other hand, I doubt anyone too important on the national level is a KKK member. Even if the party leadership wouldn't have a problem with their racism they'd be insane to allow that kind of potential scandal to exist. So I'd be very skeptical of any claim that any important names on the list are legitimate.
Is it true? Who knows. The more important question is what evidence they provide to support the names. I could easily make a list of forum members here who are associated with the KKK, but that doesn't make it true. Without supporting evidence the list is worthless.
Will it blow up? That depends on what evidence is provided, and who is on the list. If important national-level party members are on the list and there's convincing evidence to support the claim then it's a huge scandal that will instantly end the careers of everyone involved and quite possibly end the republican party as a relevant player in US politics. But if it's just some weak claims about state politicians and a one-term house member or two then the party will put out the usual form letters about not endorsing racism and the whole thing will be quickly forgotten.
Anonymous claims to have leaked KKK members online and some Republican leaders are on there. So fake or is this going to blow up into a big scandal?
Is it plausible? Yes and no. It's entirely believable that some members of the far right end of the party would agree with the KKK, and the far right end of republican voters certainly does. On the other hand, I doubt anyone too important on the national level is a KKK member. Even if the party leadership wouldn't have a problem with their racism they'd be insane to allow that kind of potential scandal to exist. So I'd be very skeptical of any claim that any important names on the list are legitimate.
Is it true? Who knows. The more important question is what evidence they provide to support the names. I could easily make a list of forum members here who are associated with the KKK, but that doesn't make it true. Without supporting evidence the list is worthless.
Will it blow up? That depends on what evidence is provided, and who is on the list. If important national-level party members are on the list and there's convincing evidence to support the claim then it's a huge scandal that will instantly end the careers of everyone involved and quite possibly end the republican party as a relevant player in US politics. But if it's just some weak claims about state politicians and a one-term house member or two then the party will put out the usual form letters about not endorsing racism and the whole thing will be quickly forgotten.
Not plausible at all... considering the source.
This is the same group that "outed" Officer Wilson in Ferguson like three times.... and each of them were the wrong Wilson.
Feth them.
Also... you conveniently ignore the history of the KKK as it was a bunch of Democrats.
Regardless... it didn't destroy Robert Byrd's career towards US Senate either.
So... go ahead... I'm willing to go with a full Benghazi-like Committee Review. But, let's review ALL US Representative and ALL US Senator while we're at it.
whembly wrote: Not plausible at all... considering the source.
Did you even read what I said? I said that it's plausible that some republicans (but probably not any important ones) are KKK members because the republican party includes the racist right, not that the source is a credible one. In fact I explicitly stated that the list alone is worthless without supporting evidence.
Also... you conveniently ignore the history of the KKK as it was a bunch of Democrats.
And you conveniently ignore that this was before the parties swapped left/right alignments.
whembly wrote: Not plausible at all... considering the source.
Did you even read what I said? I said that it's plausible that some republicans (but probably not any important ones) are KKK members because the republican party includes the racist right, not that the source is a credible one. In fact I explicitly stated that the list alone is worthless without supporting evidence.
You're trying to rationalize any glimmer of hope to hang something on the GOP as the racist party... and it hasn't worked.
Also... you conveniently ignore the history of the KKK as it was a bunch of Democrats.
And you conveniently ignore that this was before the parties swapped left/right alignments.
Nope. The parties swap has always been BS as it's an attempt to whitewhash the racist Democrat history. It's more complicated than the racist switched sides.
The Republicans in the 60's (or older) are NOT the current Democrat Party.
Still... you haven't acknowledged Robert Bryd... a very prominent member of the modern Democratic party.
Letting loose a bunch of Yabbuts out of the cage is bad for discussion. Everybody knows the history of the Repubs and Dems. None of it matters or is honestly of any particular relevance in a 2015.
The individual releasing the list isn't a credible source a the moment. We are supposed to get more information in the next two days. That information will be what proves anything of importance.
Personally, I doubt even if a major political figure of either party was found to be affiliated with the KKK it will damage their career. We have Carump, HRC and Truson running for president unironically. Hell, in my own hometown people refuse to believe Kilpatrick did any wrong. D.C. had a mayor get busted doing cocaine...he was good to go.
whembly wrote: You're trying to rationalize any glimmer of hope to hang something on the GOP as the racist party... and it hasn't worked.
Are you seriously trying to deny that the far right in the US is the end of the political scale that racists most commonly identify with?
Nope. The parties swap has always been BS as it's an attempt to whitewhash the racist Democrat history. It's more complicated than the racist switched sides.
The Republicans in the 60's (or older) are NOT the current Democrat Party.
That's not what I said. The racists didn't literally just switch sides, but the left/right alignment indisputably is not the same as it used to be. The racist democrats of that era were leftovers from a time when the democrats were the conservative pro-slavery party. But the democrats of the late 1800s have nothing to do with the party platform of 2015.
Still... you haven't acknowledged Robert Bryd... a very prominent member of the modern Democratic party.
What is there to acknowledge? He was young and stupid, joined the KKK back in the 1940s, and soon left it. And he later expressed regret for his actions and explicitly stated that he no longer supported the KKK in any way. And, in case you didn't notice, he's also dead. So I fail to see what an example of a democrat who was a KKK member 70 years ago has to do with a list of modern republicans who are supposedly currently KKK members.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: Personally, I doubt even if a major political figure of either party was found to be affiliated with the KKK it will damage their career. We have Carump, HRC and Truson running for president unironically.
It certainly will. You can be racist in the US and win elections, but you have to at least disguise it a bit so that the uninformed middle doesn't reject you. But even the uninformed middle knows that the KKK is really bad and won't vote for a KKK member.
whembly wrote: You're trying to rationalize any glimmer of hope to hang something on the GOP as the racist party... and it hasn't worked.
Are you seriously trying to deny that the far right in the US is the end of the political scale that racists most commonly identify with?
I'm denying the "most commonly" part.
Racist exists in all walks of life. Sorry to burst your bubble in any attempt to demagogue the Republican party as the racist party in the US.
Nope. The parties swap has always been BS as it's an attempt to whitewhash the racist Democrat history. It's more complicated than the racist switched sides.
The Republicans in the 60's (or older) are NOT the current Democrat Party.
That's not what I said. The racists didn't literally just switch sides, but the left/right alignment indisputably is not the same as it used to be. The racist democrats of that era were leftovers from a time when the democrats were the conservative pro-slavery party. But the democrats of the late 1800s have nothing to do with the party platform of 2015.
Sure. Still doesn't support your claims that Conservatives or the GOP are "The" racist party.
In fact... that's really highly insulting, as there there "isn't" a racist party these days.
Still... you haven't acknowledged Robert Bryd... a very prominent member of the modern Democratic party.
What is there to acknowledge? He was young and stupid, joined the KKK back in the 1940s, and soon left it. And he later expressed regret for his actions and explicitly stated that he no longer supported the KKK in any way. And, in case you didn't notice, he's also dead. So I fail to see what an example of a democrat who was a KKK member 70 years ago has to do with a list of modern republicans who are supposedly currently KKK members.
Had Byrd been a Republican... do you think he'd be as successful in politics with this skeleton out of the closet?
Racist exists in all walks of life. Sorry to burst your bubble in any attempt to demagogue the Republican party as the racist party in the US.
Have you been paying any attention to stuff like the confederate flag train wreck?
Sure. Still doesn't support your claims that Conservatives or the GOP are "The" racist party.
In fact... that's really highly insulting, as there there "isn't" a racist party these days.
That's not what I said. Seriously, there's a difference between "the GOP is the racist party" and "racists are usually on the right end of the left/right scale and vote republican".
Had Byrd been a Republican... do you think he'd be as successful in politics with this skeleton out of the closet?
Exactly.
I suspect he would have done just fine. But what does this hypothetical have to do with anything here? It seems like your entire argument against the list is nothing more than "democrats suck too".
I suspect he would have done just fine. But what does this hypothetical have to do with anything here? It seems like your entire argument against the list is nothing more than "democrats suck too".
I don't think anybody is really surprised at the whataboutism that always gets thrown around.
It didn't sound like he said that the R's are rasicts, just that racists are more likely to be R's. Which makes sense. Racism and liberalism tend no to go hand in hand. Racism is a reactionary thing, and the R's attract the conservatives and the reactionaries. Does this mean that the R's are a racist party, no. In fact, I'd posit Carson's success is proof that the R's aren't a racist party.
Racist exists in all walks of life. Sorry to burst your bubble in any attempt to demagogue the Republican party as the racist party in the US.
Have you been paying any attention to stuff like the confederate flag train wreck?
Sure. Still doesn't support your claims that Conservatives or the GOP are "The" racist party.
In fact... that's really highly insulting, as there there "isn't" a racist party these days.
That's not what I said. Seriously, there's a difference between "the GOP is the racist party" and "racists are usually on the right end of the left/right scale and vote republican".
Fair enough... but, I've yet to see any evidence of that. If you can back that up, I'd be interested in seeing that.
Had Byrd been a Republican... do you think he'd be as successful in politics with this skeleton out of the closet?
Exactly.
I suspect he would have done just fine. But what does this hypothetical have to do with anything here? It seems like your entire argument against the list is nothing more than "democrats suck too".
No. The point is that while it's inconvient for Byrd to deal with it, he never suffered any consequences of it. And for what its worth, he shouldn't because he did publically renounce it like you said and asked for forgiveness.
However, I'd argue that if he was a Republican, the Democrats would of never let go of this.
That's why you'd never see a KKK/obvious racist Republican... that person would never get elected in the first place.
whembly wrote: However, I'd argue that if he was a Republican, the Democrats would of never let go of this.
You can speculate all you want, but that has nothing to do with the current issue.
That's why you'd never see a KKK/obvious racist Republican... that person would never get elected in the first place.
The whole point of this list is that these are supposedly unknown KKK members, people who hid their KKK affiliation and want to keep it hidden. That's why anyone is bothering to talk about it as a shocking revelation instead of just pointing to the politician's website where they proudly say "I'm a KKK member".
Fair enough... but, I've yet to see any evidence of that. If you can back that up, I'd be interested in seeing that.
It's not really an evidence thing (I'm not sure who you would study that), but a liberalism vs conservatism (or, reactionaries in this case). Racism is reactionary, R's attract conservatives and reactionaries, therefore racists are more likely to be republican. Just like how socialists are more likely to be democrats. I'll going to see if there is any semi-competent study out there though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, I found one thing that's not just an opinion piece. The study is done by "NORC" (never heard of them, so no idea on any bias to look at), but it's kind of interesting. Also sort of depressing at times (seriously, that many people opposed to interracial marriage!). It looks like there's a general trend downward in both parties, and the R's have more, although it's not more than 10% or so most of them time. Although how precisely that indicates racism is unsure.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/01/new-data-proves-white-republicans-are-more-racist-than-white-democrats-images/
All of that is fething hogwash. Dickish? You bet. But actually evidence that they're truly racist? Yeah, not seeing it.
And that is why racist politicians get elected into office.
Because unless you pull a clan-mask out of their back pocket people will just go on believing that people who voted for that uppity boy are just overly sensitive about these totally non-racially charged comments.
All of that is fething hogwash. Dickish? You bet. But actually evidence that they're truly racist? Yeah, not seeing it.
And that is why racist politicians get elected into office.
Because unless you pull a clan-mask out of their back pocket people will just go on believing that people who voted for that uppity boy are just overly sensitive about these totally non-racially charged comments.
Uppity is a racist term?
Jesus christ on a pogo stick.
No, that amounted to the fact that ANY opposition to Obama is racist.
Uppity 'can' be a racist term, depending on the context of the word including who says it and who it is being used to describe.
If opposing Obama would be enough to be called a racist you would end up with people calling you the grand-wizard by now, and that's clearly not the case.
whembly wrote: Right. That's the state of our politics. Agree?
But you claimed that the Democrats never let go of anything and it's unfair against Republicans, so now you're acknowledging that the Republicans do it as well?
Seriously?
All of that is fething hogwash. Dickish? You bet. But actually evidence that they're truly racist? Yeah, not seeing it.
It must be nice to be as fething clueless to the real world as you are.
whembly wrote: [Good... give up that line of attack because it's never going to be what you want it to be.
Line of attack? No, it's going to be the usual thing where you say something ridiculous, people call you out on it, you double-down on it without actually giving anything of substance, people get exasperated, and then you move on to another Hilary Clinton scandal story from your preferred right-wing echo chamber "news" source.
You know, how this thread has worked for the last 180 fething pages.
The Clinton foundation, the e-mails and so on its just ridiculous that dems want her as the candidate. Just because she is popular doesn't mean you nominate her, its her actions and policy you need to look at and her actions so far look terrible.
socialist 
