**** Elections thread *****

[JKDS]

Issue wise, I think he'd be good too. I think his voting record is phenominal, and he's great on gay rights.

[wufwugy]

do you think his economic policies are reasonable?

[wufwugy]

the stumped trump got the cruz blues, down 10 points by the typically most accurate iowa pollster.

[JKDS]

I do. The criticisms are always "gimme gimme gimme", and I think that's unfair. I'm not an economist though.

Well, I agree with much if it anyway.

The point seems moot though. The president has some effect on economic policy, sure. But it's 95% congress

[wufwugy]

the "gimme gimme gimme" criticism comes from people who are bad at messaging. it's a fault of those who are good at economic policy.

the president has a lot of effect on economic policy. he has more effect than anybody.

what do you think when you hear that people who study economics for a living think that sanders is out to lunch?

[JKDS]

His effect is marginal in comparison to congress's. Example, many republicans are pushing for tax reform and turning it into a small 3 page thing. They can't do that. They can argue for it, but congress is the one makin the decision.

I'm concerned when economists say that. But it doesn't seem like the whole picture. Economists are in a tax bracket likely to be hurt by bernie. Many are republican. Yet, bernie is no fool. To say he decided one day to champion a form of economics that is completely unfounded and unheard of seems unlikely to me. He's got someone behind him saying it's a good idea.

But maybe he doesnt. Still, I doubt his economic policies would be put in force. We won't suddenly become socialist, and one big reason is that democrats tend not to unite together that often. Bernie would have to really fight for bythis, and if it's such an uphill battle...it won't happen.

[JKDS]

I'll rephrase. The president's economic power is small, but can be implemented almost immediately. Congress's is humongous, extending to even individual citizens at this point, but is slow moving.

Obamacare is an act of congress, for example. Regulations are mostly POTUS actions...but congress can eliminate them with ease. The reason is that economic power is focused in the legislature, and and power the POTUS has was given to him by congress.

[wufwugy]

the policies congress enacts and the policy direction of congress and every other relevant body are dependent on the president.

To say he decided one day to champion a form of economics that is completely unfounded and unheard of seems unlikely to me.

sadly, that is what has happened. it is rare to find him support things that are economically sound. he couldn't pass econ 101.

note that the vast majority of people are illiterate on economics. it's so bad that economists often say one of the worst things they have to deal with is illiterate yet confident opinions on economics. this point can be understood just by knowing that econ 101 teaches the minimum wage reduces total surplus, yet many millions of people think it's a good idea. as well as we know that gravity makes apples fall from trees, we know that the minimum wage is bad economic policy, yet an entire political party and half the voting electorate supports it.

populism can be quite dangerous. sanders is an example of it, as is trump.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah okay, I'm sure Cruz just magically gained like 20+ points from less than two months ago. Somebody got paid off to lie about poll results. This is why we need Trump in office so that we can stop this type of blatant corruption. Surely the American people aren't stupid enough to believe that he gained those points legitimately?

[OngBonga]

What on earth makes you think Trump will stop corruption? This man doesn't understand that money isn't the most important thing in everyone's life.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if these figures are indeed manipulated, though. America, fuck yeah.

[OngBonga]

Surely the American people aren't stupid enough to believe that he gained those points legitimately?

They were stupid enough to vote Bush in after he blatantly cheated the previous time.

I mean no offence, but I don't have a high opinion of the average American voter's intelligence level.

[spoonitnow]

They were stupid enough to vote Bush in after he blatantly cheated the previous time.

I mean no offence, but I don't have a high opinion of the average American voter's intelligence level.

This is exactly my point. There's absolutely no way he earned that legitimately. The Republican party has a long history of blatantly throwing elections to serve the candidate the rich white men behind the curtain choose.

What on earth makes you think Trump will stop corruption? This man doesn't understand that money isn't the most important thing in everyone's life.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if these figures are indeed manipulated, though. America, fuck yeah.

Trump is being attacked by his own party at greater and greater levels because of his inability to be corrupted. His family has so much money that they can't be tempted. The President of the United States makes less than half a million each year. There's plenty of incentive there to pay him off, but Trump doesn't care about the salary. He already has more money than he knows what to do with, and getting more isn't as important to him as taking care of huge problems in this country.

This is like the 1962 Candidates tournament in Curacao where Fischer discovered he was at a major disadvantage by the Russians colluding against him. It's Trump vs all of the Republican candidates and all of the Democratic candidates because their masters know that they can't control him.

[JKDS]

the policies congress enacts and the policy direction of congress and every other relevant body are dependent on the president.

Congressional policy is dependent on the president's arguments like a parent's actions are dependent on their kid's arguments. Sure, there's influence, but it's congress deciding what to do and the president has no power to force them to do anything.

He can direct and decide what his agencies below him do, yes. But if congress ever decides that they don't want that agency to act how it's acting, they just threaten to cut funding. The POTUS has no ability to get money, so if congress say cuts funding to the CIA, then the CIA is gone.
Or, more realistically, they can say "heres money, it is not to be used for gathering data on citizen communications". The POTUS can do anything about that.

[boost]

Rilla:

Your stance on argument makes me think you'd love this podcast called "The Great Debates". It's a debate show, but the topics are often absurd, and even when they are pretty mundane, they take debate tactics to a humorously absurd extreme. It's pretty much a satire of argument.

[wufwugy]

Congressional policy is dependent on the president's arguments like a parent's actions are dependent on their kid's arguments. Sure, there's influence, but it's congress deciding what to do and the president has no power to force them to do anything.

He can direct and decide what his agencies below him do, yes. But if congress ever decides that they don't want that agency to act how it's acting, they just threaten to cut funding. The POTUS has no ability to get money, so if congress say cuts funding to the CIA, then the CIA is gone.
Or, more realistically, they can say "heres money, it is not to be used for gathering data on citizen communications". The POTUS can do anything about that.

the way it is technically is different than the way it is practically. the laws that pass are laws the president wants passed. the degree to which he is happy with each law is proportional to how much control of each chamber his party has. the same applies for appointments. the us president is by a lot the most powerful individual on economic policy in the world.

[wufwugy]

i cant tell if spoon is trolling or serious. exactly how he wants it im sure.

[wufwugy]

ze only question now is who president cruz's vp gonna be.

if he picks anybody currently running, i see it being rubio. if he doesn't go with rubio, i see him not choosing somebody running and instead doing some sort of nikki haley or susana martinez thing. that's a little dangerous though since they haven't been nationally vetted. however, they also haven't been obscure like palin was.

it'll be rubio though. a cruz/rubio ticket takes florida out of the equation and lets them focus on evangelical/tea party turnout that would win the other swing states. given how well cruz understands these things, i suspect he'll also know that pennsylvania is easily a red state if the gop puts in major turnout focus there. the state has an unusually high proportion of evangelical/tea party rural folk who weirdly don't ever get targeted by any presidential campaigns. it's a naturally more red state than ohio.

[spoonitnow]

i cant tell if spoon is trolling or serious. exactly how he wants it im sure.

The most effective, charismatic cult leaders, shit I mean professional wrestlers, shit I mean speakers, are the ones who present a very exaggerated, over-the-top version of who they really are.

[JKDS]

Cruz / Oprah Winfrey ticket.

I actually don't know oprah's political afiliation. But what a bomb vp thay would be, he'd get votes just for having her.

[wufwugy]

i take everything i said about rubio being the nominee back. he's not winning this. i only just started looking at his campaign strategy. it's abysmal. he doesn't know what he's doing. i suspect establishment insiders have been so reluctant to back him for this reason.

[OngBonga]

I will say that Trump's idgaf attitude is worthy of admiration.

But he's still a fat faced fuck.

[spoonitnow]

According to the results of the latest Monmouth University poll surveying voters identifying as Republican or independents leaning toward the GOP, Trump earned 41 percent, nearly tripling the support of his closest rival, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who took 14 percent.

Make America great again.

[wufwugy]

those results actually hurt trump more than help. because people misread them enough that when he greatly underperforms them, he'll look bad and more people will jump ship than otherwise would.

national numbers are bad at this stage, but especially bad when of just registered voters.

dont be surprised if he gets crushed in iowa since a great proportion of his supporters don't know how to caucus.

[spoonitnow]

Cruz is 4 points from single digits and 27 points away from Trump. Every single person in Iowa could vote twice for Cruz, and it won't matter.

[wufwugy]

national polls don't matter in primaries. they would matter if all states voted on the same day. but since voting is sequential, national polls really only show things like name recognition and potential growth in support.

[spoonitnow]

Trump's main base of support hasn't changed, and it won't change even if Cruz eeks out a win in Iowa. If anything, it will bring Trump even more supporters because Canadian Cruz is so ridiculously bad. Cruz winning Iowa might actually make it more likely that Trump wins the primary.

[JKDS]

What's interesting is that both democrats are so democratic, and republics won't vote for either. In a trump vs clinton or trump vs sanders showdown, it's more likely they go trump than them. Or so it would seem. Do people still vote for independents?

[wufwugy]

what do you mean so democratic?

there isn't a whole lot of crossover in votes from one side to the other because of electoral structure. a winner-take-all system makes for two divergent sides, which galvanizes opinions, which makes elections won by base turnout instead of appeal to the so-called "center".

[JKDS]

I mean there is a much lower percentage of republicans who would vote clinton or sanders than who would ordinarily give the den a chance. Instead, every republican hates clinton and sanders both. They are not getting any republicans to switch to them...even if trump were to win the nomination

[spoonitnow]

I think that democrats would vote for Trump over Canadian Cruz. Cuban Cruz is decidedly more dangerous to their political ideals imo, even if he's not as vocal about it.

[wufwugy]

I mean there is a much lower percentage of republicans who would vote clinton or sanders than who would ordinarily give the den a chance. Instead, every republican hates clinton and sanders both. They are not getting any republicans to switch to them...even if trump were to win the nomination

i think you'd be surprised.

there is more interest in the gop right now because there are so many more candidates, several of whom appeal to different people down the aisles. additionally, both clinton and sanders have crossover appeal, just among different groups. for example, sanders and trump would compete for a lot of the same low-education white northern men in ways that other candidates would not. this is because they're both a similar side of the nationalist protectionism that low-education white northern men care so much about. sanders also has a lot of crossover appeal among self-described libertarians. granted, these aren't libertarians who have much understanding of liberty. they're the ongbonga sort, actually. they can be described more as "lifestyle socialistic anarchists" or something. it's the crowd that thinks anarchism is more of a lifestyle than politics and they want the government out of things except for the great number of things that they consider just and moral.

also a ton of republicans would switch (or just stay home) if trump was the nominee. the establishment has considered doing something like running bush as an independent, who would switch back to republican in the 2020 primaries if he won the WH in 2016. this would be a very powerful strategy (if it was somebody like christie instead of bush) since the candidate would adopt all the centrist and non-controversial policies of the gop without any of the baggage of the bad ones. this would triangulate the democrats' center and take many votes. it would be possible to see many traditionally blue states turn independent for that cycle.

trump R, sanders D, christie I, could end up with christie I winning.

[wufwugy]

I think that democrats would vote for Trump over Canadian Cruz. Cuban Cruz is decidedly more dangerous to their political ideals imo, even if he's not as vocal about it.

well, yeah, that's pretty true. cruz would win by way of massive base turnout (which is what wins elections, not appeal to independents or centrists). but trump has a ton more in common with the democrats than cruz does. which is part of why trump is not going to win the nomination. only like 5% of primary voters have paid attention to this election so far, and because of trump being all over the news, they're substantially disproportionately distributed to trump enthusiasts.

[wufwugy]

bush is correct on how to deal with isis and stuff and why trump's policies wouldn't help and would make things worse.

[wufwugy]

goddamn cruz is killing it.

[spoonitnow]

[JKDS]

Ya think rubio looks to young? I feel that's playing into his lower numbers. He's not a bad speaker and he has support, maybe ppl just don't trust his age.

[wufwugy]

i dont think he looks too young. there are several substantive reason that people are not enthused by him. he is straddling more than he may be able. conservatives have substantive reason to believe he's basic establishment, and establishment voters have reason to believe that he is less reliable than they like. jfk was young. obama was young

[wufwugy]

we saw something in the debate, im not quite sure what it means. trump is more calculating with regards to cruz. he has backed off what was the beginnings of attacks on cruz. it could be that in trump's mind, the national polls are what matter, so he now has no need to attack cruz, but im not sure.

another explanation is that he intends on making cruz his vp. a third is that he anticipates leaving the race and endorsing cruz. both of those seem wishful thinking, but the problem with the first explanation is that for trump to believe it, it means trump is making a mistake.

twtbaw imo. trump is just a villager who is not assessing the situation correctly. the first explanation stands. he legitimately thinks cruz is not a threat because he is focused on national polls.

[wufwugy]

i am definitely not supporting rubio. he's a good speaker, that's about it. his campaign strategy is god awful. he could lock this thing up with a serious ground game, but like trump, he has not paid much attention to it.

obama didnt win by getting the country to like him, he won by knocking on doors and getting pledges from new people who liked him. trump and rubio seem to think that they can win by winning the airwaves. not gonna happen. all politics is gotv.

[wufwugy]

cruz got the better of his clashes with rubio. i think some chinks in rubio's armor showed, but not in an obvious way.

what surprises me is how nobody took on trump's "go after the families" bullshit. bush was in the best position to do it, but maybe he didn't think of it. bush could have easily won the debate by hammering with conviction the fact that we don't target families and that any claim otherwise is deeply out of step with american principles.

[wufwugy]

cruz won the debate. because this was the first debate with a lot of eyes on him and he lived up to all expectations.

[wufwugy]

trump took second. because he looked more reasonable and presidential than before.

[JKDS]

we saw something in the debate, im not quite sure what it means. trump is more calculating with regards to cruz. he has backed off what was the beginnings of attacks on cruz. it could be that in trump's mind, the national polls are what matter, so he now has no need to attack cruz, but im not sure.

another explanation is that he intends on making cruz his vp. a third is that he anticipates leaving the race and endorsing cruz. both of those seem wishful thinking, but the problem with the first explanation is that for trump to believe it, it means trump is making a mistake.

twtbaw imo. trump is just a villager who is not assessing the situation correctly. the first explanation stands. he legitimately thinks cruz is not a threat because he is focused on national polls.

This reminds me of a cross examination strategy.

Sometimes when a direct exam occurs, it's incredibly damaging to your case. Lots of bad facts got out, the witness appeared likeable and credible, and you're not exactly sure if the jury will believe any kind of cross you do.

But, you notice the jury wasn't really paying too much attention. If that's true, the doing a cross is just going to exemplify all those bad facts. You inadvertently draw their attention to the damage, because cross examination is fun.

But get this. Choosing not to cross does the opposite. If you decide "no, there's no reason to cross your honor", it plants the idea that this witness didn't actually have anything important to say. Anyone who fell asleep during the direct exam now feels justified in doing so, and if the direct wasn't memorable...then the jury will forget it.

With trump, this could be a strategy. Getting into a fight may make cruz seem legit, and could show off the flaws of trump and highlights of cruz. But don't pay much attention, and maybe America will ignore him too. Afterall, trump is in the spotlight, and people may focus on what he thinks is important. Note how the big fights were with bush, someone who's essentially already lost. Trump is saying "look over here, this guy is important, watch me decimate him...no reason to even look at anyone else. They don't matter."

[a500lbgorilla]

Donald Trump bends the knee.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/12/...all-trump-pay/

"“If I’m elected president, we will secure the border, we will triple the border patrol, we will get a wall that works, and I’ll get Donald Trump to pay for it,” the Texas senator said."

"The billionaire wasn’t offended though, he laughed and said “I’ll build it!”"


In no uncertain terms, Donald is signalling that he is not strong enough to win this campaign and that he is willing to follow a real leader like Ted Cruz.

He also said that he would not run as an independent, again signalling his exhaustion.

[JKDS]

It didn't feel that way to me. He can't say "no, I wouldn't build it", but making a joke out of it is a good way to brush off the attack.

Also, he's trying to win favor with repubs, who hated the idea of him running as an independent. He's playing to them now.

[wufwugy]

This reminds me of a cross examination strategy.

Sometimes when a direct exam occurs, it's incredibly damaging to your case. Lots of bad facts got out, the witness appeared likeable and credible, and you're not exactly sure if the jury will believe any kind of cross you do.

But, you notice the jury wasn't really paying too much attention. If that's true, the doing a cross is just going to exemplify all those bad facts. You inadvertently draw their attention to the damage, because cross examination is fun.

But get this. Choosing not to cross does the opposite. If you decide "no, there's no reason to cross your honor", it plants the idea that this witness didn't actually have anything important to say. Anyone who fell asleep during the direct exam now feels justified in doing so, and if the direct wasn't memorable...then the jury will forget it.

With trump, this could be a strategy. Getting into a fight may make cruz seem legit, and could show off the flaws of trump and highlights of cruz. But don't pay much attention, and maybe America will ignore him too. Afterall, trump is in the spotlight, and people may focus on what he thinks is important. Note how the big fights were with bush, someone who's essentially already lost. Trump is saying "look over here, this guy is important, watch me decimate him...no reason to even look at anyone else. They don't matter."

i like this. it works as part of the strategy based on the view that trump is ahead.

[wufwugy]

Donald Trump bends the knee.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/12/...all-trump-pay/

"“If I’m elected president, we will secure the border, we will triple the border patrol, we will get a wall that works, and I’ll get Donald Trump to pay for it,” the Texas senator said."

"The billionaire wasn’t offended though, he laughed and said “I’ll build it!”"


In no uncertain terms, Donald is signalling that he is not strong enough to win this campaign and that he is willing to follow a real leader like Ted Cruz.

He also said that he would not run as an independent, again signalling his exhaustion.

tight read. can be explained by other stuff tho. points if turns out to be correct. which it could. trump still hasnt spent money. he hasnt needed to, but we also cant be fully sure of his intentions until he does.

[wufwugy]

trump's bombast aside, he's not wrong about some of the things people hate him for. it's not wrong to deport illegal residents. it's not wrong to not support citizenship or legalization of illegal residents. in fact, it is wrong to not do so, due to how it deters legal immigration and legal incentives.

i favor legal immigration of virtually anybody who has the desire and the ability, but the reasons i do aren't enough to make immigration by illegal means as justified.

also, it's funny how the political media narrative is so deeply embedded into the idea of hispanic votes being deterministic of electoral outcomes. hispanics can swing every which way and the electoral map won't change. whites and blacks are key demos. the trumpian, cruzian mega anti-illegal-immigration politics will probably be an immensely and unexpectedly powerful strategy. the reason is that mostly the people who support illegal immigration can't vote, don't vote, or won't vote on that issue primarily.

i would not be surprised if a cruz candidacy won with >55% of the national vote. the silent majority is real. the media is asleep at the wheel.

[spoonitnow]

lol Canadian Cruz

[wufwugy]

trump could do that too. it's just less clear what a trump candidacy would entail electorally

[JKDS]

People dont hate trump for wanting to deport illegals or for being anti-amnesty. They hate him for being racist about it, and for wanting to build a wall.

Most thinking people dont think a wall will work, and dont think its worth the cost. Whats next, do we set up guard towers on the ends so no one can come in through the gulf or the pacific? Do we have our aircraft carriers start patrolling nonstop the shores, and plant deep sea mines to stop immigrant submarines? What about the much longer Canadian border? Couldnt an illegal fly to Canada, then just drive in? Even if we built the great wall of Mexico, are we willing to pay through the nose to ensure its properly staffed and guarded? (Remember, the White House is apparently strapped for cash as idiots keep storming their front lawn, unchecked).

As to whether hes actually racist or not, who knows. His comment early about how theyre all "rapists and theives" is not gonna go away, regardless of whether that was just a ratings grab.

[a500lbgorilla]

Rilla:

Your stance on argument makes me think you'd love this podcast called "The Great Debates". It's a debate show, but the topics are often absurd, and even when they are pretty mundane, they take debate tactics to a humorously absurd extreme. It's pretty much a satire of argument.

I listened to one with John Mayer where they argued about Trump and truckers. It was pretty funny. I wish they would prepare for the arguments ahead of time. While it's funny to hear them reach on the spot, it'd be great if they could do some ground work and pull some real haymakers out of no where.

[wufwugy]

People dont hate trump for wanting to deport illegals or for being anti-amnesty. They hate him for being racist about it, and for wanting to build a wall.

As to whether hes actually racist or not, who knows. His comment early about how theyre all "rapists and theives" is not gonna go away, regardless of whether that was just a ratings grab.

my gut says the comment (and many like it) don't hurt him for the reason you implied in the bolded.

contrast this to the legitimate rape guy. he said the body has a way of shutting down a baby from being raped, and the important part of this is that he believed it and it's wrong. with trump, people think he doesn't exactly believe it.


as for the wall, i feel like it is reasonable to think that it's reasonable to have an area where illegal activity is taking place be dealt with. it's no panacea tho

[wufwugy]

so trump said some really nice things about putin. the media hates it and calls trump a stupid doofus. i cant help but imagine that this is an easy to spot example of trump playing chess while everybody else plays checkers. if you're looking to be in a position of negotiating power with somebody, you don't talk down to them. outrage journalism constantly plays level 1 werewolf and nothing else.

[spoonitnow]

A wall has worked wonders in plenty of other parts of the world. It's ridiculous to write off its effectiveness here.

[JKDS]

Lemme ask you. What's the wall gonna do? Not guards, not cameras, the wall itself. How does it stop immigration better than say increasing border patrol? Than increasing border surveillance? We don't exactly have mad max style caravans charging our gates and running rampant, we're talking desperate people willing to hike through the desert and most likely die before they even get here. How's the wall stop tunnels? How's it stop boats? All a wall will do is provide a tangible showing of control when the non tangible would be far better and cheaper.

[spoonitnow]

Lemme ask you. What's the wall gonna do? Not guards, not cameras, the wall itself. How does it stop immigration better than say increasing border patrol? Than increasing border surveillance? We don't exactly have mad max style caravans charging our gates and running rampant, we're talking desperate people willing to hike through the desert and most likely die before they even get here. How's the wall stop tunnels? How's it stop boats? All a wall will do is provide a tangible showing of control when the non tangible would be far better and cheaper.

Yeah you're right. It didn't help at all in Israel: "While 9,570 citizens of various African countries entered Israel illegally in the first half of 2012, only 34 did the same in the first six months of 2013, after construction of the main section of the barrier was completed." That's a reduction of over 99.5 percent.

People are willing to die to illegally immigrate to the United States. So what? Plenty of people are willing to die to commit other crimes. That doesn't mean we should make it easier for them to commit those crimes.

Also, trying to represent a wall as the only thing that would be done in an overall plan to stop illegal immigration, like you're doing with all of your "How does it stop _______?" questions is ridiculous. It's like you think we're just going to stop having border patrol or cameras and sensors at the border and on the beaches close to the border.

And to be clear, what's proposed is not strictly a wall in the sense of the Great Wall of China where it's just one long-ass, tall-ass wall. What's proposed is broken up into several sections, some of which are big-ass walls, and some of which are covered by border patrol agents with better preventative equipment than what they have now. All of those questions you asked are a part of the fucking plan for the wall. Jesus Christ.

So many people have opinions about this shit when they have no idea what they are talking about, and it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

[a500lbgorilla]

You know what I'm tired of hearing from any Republican? XYZ is "not serious". As a bit of rhetoric, this one should have been retired about 2 years ago, but the old guard will not let go.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politi...-trump-debate/

[a500lbgorilla]

Hilary is powerplaying the Bern out of the election. Girl is a pure [strikethru]leader[/strikethru] operator that even Putin doesn't want to square off with.

[JKDS]

Yeah you're right. It didn't help at all in Israel: "While 9,570 citizens of various African countries entered Israel illegally in the first half of 2012, only 34 did the same in the first six months of 2013, after construction of the main section of the barrier was completed."

Next you'll argue for the UK's gun contol policy. Our immigration is different than isreal's, and I think I've already done a good job explaining why. Please, continue to ignore it while calling me ignorant.

Also, trying to represent a wall as the only thing that would be done in an overall plan to stop illegal immigration, like you're doing with all of your "How does it stop _______?" questions is ridiculous. It's like you think we're just going to stop having border patrol or cameras and sensors at the border and on the beaches close to the border.

You missed the point. I'm not saying a wall is all that would be done. I'm asking you how it would improve security more than simply putting up cameras, having more guards, or any other method beyond what us no longer being called a "fence". A wall itself does absolute dick, and would do nothing to stop illegal entry into the US.
Nows probably a good time to discuss how many illegals don't even enter from the mexico-us border at all. So sad, please. [/QUOTE]

[wufwugy]

when serious people (hi rilla) say "wall", they're using it partly as shorthand. not that many people think it's just constructing a physical barrier then being done with it.

that said, i probably don't support a wall. first off, it seems that the laws are already on the books that allow for more than enough border security, but the federal government doesn't do its duty and actively deters the border states' attempts as well.

that aside, i do not like the message a wall says about the direction we're taking. its protectionism and a denial of the cause of the problems in the first place. if instead of keeping latin americans out of the country, we stopped the drug war, we wouldn't have the border problem in the first place and the relationships of both countries would improve far more than by border security.

reagan wasn't wrong when he said we need open borders with mexico. people have forgotten this because they haven't seen that the drug war has changed the equation.

[wufwugy]

it should also be noted that the democratic establishment does not want any deterrence of importation of undocumented residents. it helps them greatly, electorally and it helps prop up the welfare state. plus it's the current left's version of the white savior complex.

[a500lbgorilla]

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/S.../06/id/388502/

Just guess how many other "not serious" points I can find through the last 7+ years.

[a500lbgorilla]

I listened to one with John Mayer where they argued about Trump and truckers. It was pretty funny. I wish they would prepare for the arguments ahead of time. While it's funny to hear them reach on the spot, it'd be great if they could do some ground work and pull some real haymakers out of no where.

Hey they argued Christmas and it was good.

"I just wish Christmas could evolve into something we could all share."
"That's absurd."

Now we're cooking with oil.

edit Alright, they're not that good.

[wufwugy]

llllllloooooooooolllllllll

https://www.instagram.com/p/_VgZCZutWq/

[boost]

Hey they argued Christmas and it was good.

"I just wish Christmas could evolve into something we could all share."
"That's absurd."

Now we're cooking with oil.

edit Alright, they're not that good.

Haha.. I like the unpreparedness. I guess I enjoy the off the cuff unpolished nature of the show. The humor ends up being kind of subtle and more along the lines of a comical hang out with friends.

It also is a great way to train your brain to pick up on poor rhetoric and argumentative tricks without having to watch two people who are seriously trying to persuade listeners with these insubstantial tactics.

[boost]

Hilary is powerplaying the Bern out of the election. Girl is a pure [strikethru]leader[/strikethru] operator that even Putin doesn't want to square off with.

I'm not sure how I feel about giving her credit for this-- I mean, maybe, but it seems more likely that it's the big money that backs the party trying to rig the race in their horse's favor.

Also, are you just impressed by the political maneuvering, or are you actually cheer leading this angle shooting?

[a500lbgorilla]

I wish I could find some Diane Rehm episodes where they bring on lawyer types that brutalize each other, but I've seen some great shit on that talk show. You can really find yourself spun around by great debaters, and I'd love to find that in an arena arguing over Santa or whatnot.

I'm not sure how I feel about giving her credit for this-- I mean, maybe, but it seems more likely that it's the big money that backs the party trying to rig the race in their horse's favor.

Also, are you just impressed by the political maneuvering, or are you actually cheer leading this angle shooting?

In 2017, Hilary Clinton will be president. I'm just enjoying the ride.

[boost]

In 2017, Hilary Clinton will be president. I'm just enjoying the ride.

Right, but is that really your preference? Like, I don't think I disagree with you, and I do appreciate the spectacle of expert level political maneuvering, but I also don't want to see a Clinton presidency.

[wufwugy]

In 2017, Hilary Clinton will be president. I'm just enjoying the ride.

she aint. she aint she aint she aint.

using every element of conventional wisdom i know of, the belief that she's a favorite to win arises from the idea of demographic determinism. lucky for us, the idea of demographic determinism is total nonsense.

why do you think she's going to win?

[a500lbgorilla]

Right, but is that really your preference? Like, I don't think I disagree with you, and I do appreciate the spectacle of expert level political maneuvering, but I also don't want to see a Clinton presidency.

No, it's not my preference. But who am I and what does it matter?

If I rubbed my magic lamp and a Genie popped out and granted me 3 presidents, I would have elected Barack in '08, and what did that manage? I would have elected Bush in '04 (I got swift boated), and I would have elected Bush in '00 (I was young and enraptured by conservative talk radio, plus Gore was a bitch as seen by his voterate retreat).

So at this point, I'm really enjoying Cruz because that guy has smart leaking out his sweat glands. I like Trump because he also represents a seismic threat to the old guard of the Rs. I like Bernie because he authentically speaks to my generation (my vegan friends are big fans and it's a lot of fun to pump up Trump infront of them), but odds are odds and those odds have got Hilary taking it all the way more often than not.

I'm not in the business of standing in the way of the inevitable.

[a500lbgorilla]

she aint. she aint she aint she aint.

using every element of conventional wisdom i know of, the belief that she's a favorite to win arises from the idea of demographic determinism. lucky for us, the idea of demographic determinism is total nonsense.

why do you think she's going to win?

She's going to win the D ticket and chances are great that the nation shows up for a D president. Simple as that.

[a500lbgorilla]

And you can fight me on this, today, in 2015. But I'll just bump this thread in 2017 and say, "I told you so".

[boost]

Cool. I wasn't trying to attack you or anything, just was pretty sure you weren't a blind no-matter-what Clinton supporter. I like your stance. I find that I'm more and more pragmatic with every thought I process, no matter the topic.

With politics specifically, I've gotten excited for campaigns, I've felt the pang of supporting the loser, I've been let down by the winner I cheered for-- I'll vote, I'm not cynical, I'm not jaded, I am just pragmatic with my emotions and my bandwidth regarding outcomes I have no influence on.

[a500lbgorilla]

Cool. I wasn't trying to attack you or anything, just was pretty sure you weren't a blind no-matter-what Clinton supporter. I like your stance. I find that I'm more and more pragmatic with every thought I process.

I've gotten excited for campaigns, I've felt the pang of supporting the loser, I've been let down by the winner I cheered for-- I'll vote, I'm not cynical, I'm not jaded, I am just pragmatic with my emotions and my bandwidth regarding outcomes I have no influence on.

Yeah, me too. Wish it didn't feel like such shit.

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?



Hot damn, do I recommend that Roosevelts docu on Netflix. This guy has a river named after him. In the Amazon. Rio Roosevelt. He almost died exploring it. He was like 55.