Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
thekingofkings wrote: The difference here is that fully 1/4 of the voters (and I am basing that on less than 50% voting and of those that did, nearly half went to Trump, this is not a 100% accurate number, but bear with me here) think that it was two rottweilers. They preferred their dawg.
No argument that half the voting public thinks that, but what people think doesn't define what it true
I'd argue the fact that so many people believe a fairly hapless, centre left party like the Democrats to be rottweiler is a large part of how the Republicans have been given permission, and even required to act as they have.
This was Hilary's election to lose and she did it in style. Trump was very beatable, and Hilary should have done so, but using the dawg analogy, her comments (and they were most likely taken completely out of context...think Marie Antoinette) made people think "Trumps a lying *@#$@, but Hilary blatantly hates us" she should and could have chosen her words more carefully, because right or wrong, a lot of the folks I work with who went with Trump assumed she meant 50% of Trump voters regardless. so even if he had a lot of racists (and he did, but to be honest, Hilary had her own racists in support as well) the assumption of folks was that she was directly accusing them.
I agree with you on the negative impact of Clinton's deplorables comment. I'm not making excuses for her, it was a big blunder because she should have known how it would be taken. It really sits in the same basket as Obama's 'clinging to guns and religion' or Romney's 47% comments.
That said, I'm still not sure Trump was as beatable as claimed. Not because he's good, he was a disaster, but because I believe at this point the Republicans could put up a hellbeast summoned from the sacrifice of Ted Cruz's college roommate, and it would win 60 million votes. That's the coalition they've got turning out each election, voting for guns, abortion, taxes etc.
Clinton though, she had to deal with a far more fickle Democratic base, and one that was coming off 8 years of mild progress under Obama. Building enthusiasm there would need a really charismatic person, and man she is not that. But we shouldn't take it for granted that anyone else, either a present player like Biden, or a past candidate, would have fared any better?
I think a lot of this is just about timing, and about the presidency swapping sides every couple of terms.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: because I believe at this point the Republicans could put up a hellbeast summoned from the sacrifice of Ted Cruz's college roommate, and it would win 60 million votes.
I'd argue the fact that so many people believe a fairly hapless, centre left party like the Democrats to be rottweiler is a large part of how the Republicans have been given permission, and even required to act as they have.
In my opinion identity politics are beginning to have the same effect on the Left that abortion did on the Right in the late 90s and early 2000s; a broad non-issue to most that increasingly shrill proponents use as a wedge issue to mobilize their base at the cost of the center. Were there an actual rottweiler in the democratic message (something imposing, aggressive, with real mass to it) it may have done better.
That said, I'm still not sure Trump was as beatable as claimed. Not because he's good, he was a disaster, but because I believe at this point the Republicans could put up a hellbeast summoned from the sacrifice of Ted Cruz's college roommate, and it would win 60 million votes. That's the coalition they've got turning out each election, voting for guns, abortion, taxes etc.
Trump wouldn't have taken Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida if abortion, taxes, etc were the only topic du jour. Obama was very good for the Democratic platform tactically, but we're also seeing that over-reliance on him as an individual has taken root in poor strategic execution; there is virtually no bench within the party, little up-and-coming talent, no one for party leadership to hand the reins to. Obama had to try to make the hand-off to Hillary Clinton, this strange un-person who exists as almost a purely political construct of whatever is expedient. People in this significant 'average person' demographic voted for Trump/didn't vote for Hillary in a continuation of a populist trend. That's not a Democrat/Republican divide, it's establishment/anti establishment. Had Democrats run Bernie, Wisconsin and Michigan at the very least are far less likely to have swung.
'Inevitability' is kind of a funny reason to attribute Hillary's loss to given that it was more or less her entire platform. Paraphrasing Lena Dunham, "it was supposed to be her job, she worked her entire life for this!'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/29 15:36:08
Co'tor Shas wrote: Although maybe they'll get their own unqualified celebrity who will win against all expectations.
Tom Hanks, with T-Pain as VP??? Man... those press conferences would be on fire!
On the Corey Booker front: there was a documentary made about him a couple few years ago talking about taking on entrenched politics and winning. I think it was in Newark or wherever he got his start, he took on a 16 year sitting mayor/councilman/congress-critter, and eventually won (it took him 2 campaigns but he did it, all the while running a clean campaign directly counter to the dirty campaign that his opponent ran)
Booker may not have the "household name" status that a Clinton, Powell, or Sanders does, but damn near everyone I've ever come across who's heard of him, thinks fairly highly of him, which could/would be of some help for a POTUS run in the future.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Trump is now calling for jail time and/or loss of citizenship for anyone who burns a US flag.
This is the person that's less bad than Clinton?
SCOTUS has already said "nyet" to that.
"Don't blame me, I voted for the dopehead."
-Frazzled.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Trump is now calling for jail time and/or loss of citizenship for anyone who burns a US flag.
This is the person that's less bad than Clinton?
What type of crap bag could be for this type of law?
The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT), and co-sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Thomas Carper (D-DE). The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in jail and a fine of no more than $100,000.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Trump is now calling for jail time and/or loss of citizenship for anyone who burns a US flag.
This is the person that's less bad than Clinton?
SCOTUS has already said "nyet" to that.
"Don't blame me, I voted for the dopehead."
-Frazzled.
This would be the SCOTUS that Trumo is going to pick at least 1 person for yeah ?
That being the reason why some of the electorate voted for him .
The same SCOTUS that ruled on Roe Versus Wade --- and everyone has accepted that ever since.
Uh huh.
still :
Spoiler:
Congrats on, apparently, electing the worlds first entirely fictitious President.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/29 17:22:56
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Yes that SCOTUS. There is
1. Stare decisis involved.
2. This one wasn't even close.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
When the screaming starts over abortion -- and the fundies have already been kicking off over his -- current -- backtracking over gay marriage -- remember this.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
And now we're arguing that "ban flag burning!" is the same as "ban flag burning under these circumstances because X" is two equivalent arguments. Shameful.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Just Tony wrote: [Since the highest CO2 producing item on this planet is human beings as a whole, wiping out tons of them wholesale along with the need to raise copious amounts of livestock to feed them is probably one thing Socialism is doing that is better for the planet than Capitalism.
Um....no, just no to this on so many levels. The number one producer of CO2 in the world is volcanic eruptions. The amount of CO2 man makes is less than the average yearly variation ( + OR - 5%) in CO2 output from volcanic eruptions.
Even natural plant decomposition far outpaces manmade CO2.
Their listed sources include:
US Geological Survey
Oregon State University, Oceanography department
National Geographic Explorer
Volcanoes National Park
Under the current system any candidate requires 60+ votes in the Senate.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now we're arguing that "ban flag burning!" is the same as "ban flag burning under these circumstances because X" is two equivalent arguments. Shameful.
President Fictitious is baiting the activist left, not rank and file Democrats, by mentioning flag-burning knowing that protesters are more likely to burn flags now in order to antagonize him. But President Fictitious also knows that that’ll backfire, since news footage of the burnings will alienate average Americans and drive them into his camp.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Trump is now calling for jail time and/or loss of citizenship for anyone who burns a US flag.
This is the person that's less bad than Clinton?
What type of crap bag could be for this type of law?
The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT), and co-sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Thomas Carper (D-DE). The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in jail and a fine of no more than $100,000.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the act was summarized as such:
Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.
There's a wild difference between what Trump is advocating("Punish those who burn the flag in protest!") and the proposed thing.
Both are bad ideas certainly, but one of these things is not like the other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/29 18:09:03
So on the subject of volcanoes we have one person quoting scientists in the relevant field and one person quoting a partisan web page that claims to base their argument in research.
One source is decent with problems, the other one gives you an F.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/29 18:13:37
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
He's going to lead the charge to repeal Obamacare:
Here's how Trump's HHS pick wants to replace Obamacare
Spoiler:
By tapping House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Price to serve as his Secretary of Health and Human Services, President-elect Trump has added to his team one of the most serious and knowledgeable Republicans on healthcare policy, and in the process pressed his finger on the scales of the internal GOP debate over how specifically to replace Obamacare.
In contrast to many Republicans, who have talked in terms of repealing Obamacare without offering their own vision for the healthcare system, Price, an orthopedic surgeon, has for years been refining his own detailed plan. In fact, he was one of the few Republicans who introduced an alternative bill in 2009, during the actual debate over Obamacare. You can read that version of the "Empowering Patients First Act" in its entirety here.
Given that Trump offered scant details on healthcare during the campaign, Price could have outsized influence on the incoming president's health policy. Price happens to also be close with House Speaker Paul Ryan, who he succeeded as chair of the Budget Committee. Both of the men have similar attitudes on health policy, including overhauling Medicare and Medicaid. During an interview I did with Price for my 2015 book "Overcoming Obamacare," we discussed his basic philosophical approach to replacing the law.
Two things should stand out to those trying to understand the thinking of the next HHS Secretary (assuming Senate confirmation).
Price told me unequivocally that reforming the system has to start with fully repealing Obamacare: "It needs to be fully repealed, because the first step out of the gate for Obamacare is a step in the wrong direction and that is for government control over every aspect of health care, so it's hard to fix the system that they have put in place without ending that premise that government ought to be running and controlling health care."
At the same time, in contrast to some conservatives, Price told me, "Coverage is important, and our bill, the 'Empowering Patients First Act,' we believe provides not just an incentive, but the financial feasibility for every single American to purchase the coverage that they want." He added that "the system doesn't work if people aren't covered."
When it comes to healthcare policy, those on the right have been engaged in a long struggle, which my book detailed, on how to reverse Obamacare. The spectrum of opinion has ranged from a desire to fully uproot Obamacare and fundamentally reject its emphasis on expanding coverage (rather than merely reducing costs) to a preference to reforming it more modestly and perhaps maintain certain provisions. Price falls somewhere in the middle of that spectrum (one also occupied by his ally Ryan). That is, he wants to fully repeal it, but he also thinks it's important to consider policies that would provide broad coverage.
The biggest demonstration of this is Price's preference for offering tax credits to individuals to purchase insurance rather than simple tax deductions. Though it seems like an esoteric argument, it's actually pretty fundamental to understanding the differences on the right on health policy.
Many conservatives prefer offering tax deductions to individuals because they function more like a tax cut – that is, people's tax liabilities are reduced by the amount that they spend toward coverage. However, anybody who supports this view has to be prepared to accept the fact that it will benefit a more limited number of people, because many Americans with low incomes pay little or no income taxes against which to deduct.
Providing individuals with tax credits of a specific amount, regardless of how much they pay in taxes, would benefit that lower-income population. Of course, it comes with a higher cost, as tax credits function more like spending, which is what gave other conservatives pause. Former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who was also floated as a potential HHS pick, called tax credit-based plans "Obamacare Lite." Whether Trump realizes it or not, by tapping Price, he is providing a boost to the Price school over others.
"Credits are a challenge for some folks on my side of the aisle, and I understand that," Price told me when I pressed him on the disagreement among conservatives. "But the problem I have right now is that we are imprisoned by a system that doesn't provide high-quality care for many individuals in our society, especially at the lower end of the economic spectrum, because of the rules that have been put in place by the federal government. So, if we freed up the patients to select the kind of coverage that they want, we would get a model and a system that actually worked for them and not for government."
I wrote about the most recent version of Price's plan in detail when it came out last year, but here's how it would basically work.
It would repeal the text of Obamacare, and replace it with a system that would provide tax credits to individuals based on age. Though previous versions had varied the credits based on income, doing so by age is easier to administer (HHS won't get into the problems it's had with Obamacare in terms of verifying income for the purposes of the subsidies) and it also provides more money to those who have to pay more for insurance. In addition, there would be a one-time tax credit to put in a health savings account for routine medical expenses.
Unlike previous incarnations of GOP reform proposals, the plan only modestly meddles with the tax bias in favor of employer insurance, and also encourages small businesses to band together to purchase insurance through trade associations and allows for the sale of insurance across state lines. He also calls for providing grants to states to cover those with pre-existing conditions (one way Trump may square his promises to repeal Obamacare while offering something to those with such illnesses).
Price's plan was very similar to the House Republican plan promoted by Ryan, and as Budget Committee chair, Price embraced Ryan's proposals to block grant Medicaid to states and transition Medicare to a system where seniors would use subsidies to choose among competing private plans. During the campaign, Trump was an opponent of significant entitlement reform, but along with Ryan, an HHS secretary Price would be another voice in his ear arguing in favor of a major overhaul.
All of these grand plans, of course, are just ideas until they grapple with political realities. But given what a blank slate Trump is on healthcare policy, the Price choice would give us the best indication yet of where the administration may be heading.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/29 18:18:49
Just Tony wrote: [Since the highest CO2 producing item on this planet is human beings as a whole, wiping out tons of them wholesale along with the need to raise copious amounts of livestock to feed them is probably one thing Socialism is doing that is better for the planet than Capitalism.
Um....no, just no to this on so many levels. The number one producer of CO2 in the world is volcanic eruptions. The amount of CO2 man makes is less than the average yearly variation ( + OR - 5%) in CO2 output from volcanic eruptions.
Even natural plant decomposition far outpaces manmade CO2.
Their listed sources include:
US Geological Survey
Oregon State University, Oceanography department
National Geographic Explorer
Volcanoes National Park
Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
Just Tony wrote: [Since the highest CO2 producing item on this planet is human beings as a whole, wiping out tons of them wholesale along with the need to raise copious amounts of livestock to feed them is probably one thing Socialism is doing that is better for the planet than Capitalism.
Um....no, just no to this on so many levels. The number one producer of CO2 in the world is volcanic eruptions. The amount of CO2 man makes is less than the average yearly variation ( + OR - 5%) in CO2 output from volcanic eruptions.
Even natural plant decomposition far outpaces manmade CO2.
Their listed sources include:
US Geological Survey
Oregon State University, Oceanography department
National Geographic Explorer
Volcanoes National Park
Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
I'm a fan of how that article gushes about the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 while conveniently forgetting to mention the subsequent acidification.
I find it hilarious when people talk about how far to the Left the Dems have gone. If you think they were Left now, wait until the next election, it is only going to get worse! Why, because Trump has proven that Clintonian Centrism will not work, and what alternative do the Dems have then? You guessed it, move towards Bernie on the Left.
This is important because winning is supposed to be the raison d’etre of centrism. Over the years, the centrists have betrayed the Democratic party’s liberal base in all sorts of ways – deregulating banks, securing free trade deals, signing off on Wall Street bailouts and the Iraq war. Those who bridled at all this were instructed to sit down and shut up because the Clintons and their triangulating ilk were the practical ones who would bring us victory.
Except that they don’t. This year the Republicans chose an honest-to-god scary candidate, a man who really ought to have been kept out of the White House, and the party’s centrists choked. Instead of winning, the pragmatists delivered Democrats to the worst situation they’ve been in for many decades, with control of no branch of the federal government and only a handful of state legislatures. Over the years, and at the behest of this faction, Democrats gave up what they stood for piece by piece and what they have to show for it now is nothing.
.....
This will happen because what leading liberals cannot understand – what they are psychologically blocked from understanding – is that the problem isn’t really the white working class. The problem is them.
.....
Liberalism today is an expression of an enlightened professional class, and their core economic interests simply do not align with those of working people. One thing we know about professionalism is that it exists to shield insiders from public accountability. If coming up with a solution to what ails liberalism means listening to people who aren’t part of the existing nonprofit/journalistic in-group, then there will be no solution. Liberals would rather lose than do that.
If the unreconstructed Democratic party is to be saved, I suspect, what will save it is what always saves it: the colossal incompetence of the Republicans. This, too, we can already see coming down the rails. Donald Trump is getting the wrecking crew back together, and before too long, I suspect, he will have the country pining for Hillary Clinton.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/11/29 20:16:43
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Just Tony wrote: [Since the highest CO2 producing item on this planet is human beings as a whole, wiping out tons of them wholesale along with the need to raise copious amounts of livestock to feed them is probably one thing Socialism is doing that is better for the planet than Capitalism.
Um....no, just no to this on so many levels. The number one producer of CO2 in the world is volcanic eruptions. The amount of CO2 man makes is less than the average yearly variation ( + OR - 5%) in CO2 output from volcanic eruptions.
Even natural plant decomposition far outpaces manmade CO2.
Their listed sources include:
US Geological Survey
Oregon State University, Oceanography department
National Geographic Explorer
Volcanoes National Park
And yet they don't link to any of their sources, or include a single number in the entire article. Hell, even the commentators on it call the article out as bs via the same US Geological Survey article I linked.
Just Tony wrote: [Since the highest CO2 producing item on this planet is human beings as a whole, wiping out tons of them wholesale along with the need to raise copious amounts of livestock to feed them is probably one thing Socialism is doing that is better for the planet than Capitalism.
Um....no, just no to this on so many levels. The number one producer of CO2 in the world is volcanic eruptions. The amount of CO2 man makes is less than the average yearly variation ( + OR - 5%) in CO2 output from volcanic eruptions.
Even natural plant decomposition far outpaces manmade CO2.
Their listed sources include:
US Geological Survey
Oregon State University, Oceanography department
National Geographic Explorer
Volcanoes National Park
Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
I'm a fan of how that article gushes about the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 while conveniently forgetting to mention the subsequent acidification.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Trump is now calling for jail time and/or loss of citizenship for anyone who burns a US flag.
This is the person that's less bad than Clinton?
SCOTUS has already said "nyet" to that.
There is no functional way to strip anyone of their US citizenship under Federal/Constitutional law. In fact the only way for a US citizen to lose their citizenship is if he/she voluntarily renounces it as part of an emigration process.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/29 23:39:06
Clearly you don't live in Trumptown. It's full of flying rodent gak mental ideas.
Trump's presidency is already falling apart, months before it even gets into real action. It's plain right now that the whole thing is going to be a long drawn out clown car crash, embarrassing everyone in the world who cares about western democracy and who isn't an anti-estab True Believer, and producing real world results that are disastrous to everyone who isn't very rich.
Consequently I think the Democrats actually can do well in 2 and 4 years just by running some candidates who are quietly competent.
Kilkrazy wrote: Clearly you don't live in Trumptown. It's full of flying rodent gak mental ideas.
Trump's presidency is already falling apart, months before it even gets into real action. It's plain right now that the whole thing is going to be a long drawn out clown car crash, embarrassing everyone in the world who cares about western democracy and who isn't an anti-estab True Believer, and producing real world results that are disastrous to everyone who isn't very rich.
Consequently I think the Democrats actually can do well in 2 and 4 years just by running some candidates who are quietly competent.
Everyone said his candidacy was falling apart, also, complete with a cartoon cover on Time of him melting down. Yet here he is, President.
Kilkrazy wrote: Clearly you don't live in Trumptown. It's full of flying rodent gak mental ideas.
Trump's presidency is already falling apart, months before it even gets into real action. It's plain right now that the whole thing is going to be a long drawn out clown car crash, embarrassing everyone in the world who cares about western democracy and who isn't an anti-estab True Believer, and producing real world results that are disastrous to everyone who isn't very rich.
Consequently I think the Democrats actually can do well in 2 and 4 years just by running some candidates who are quietly competent.
Everyone said his candidacy was falling apart, also, complete with a cartoon cover on Time of him melting down. Yet here he is, President.
His candidacy, by all normal measures, did fall apart. You don't go on about how the election is rigged before votes are even cast when your campaign is going well. Republican voters just didn't care.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
