Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 17 of 111 FirstFirst ... 715161718192767 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,275 of 8309
  1. #1201
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm not sure that Trump's 180 turn away from his bombastic style will help him. It lets policy take a more central role, which makes him look worse since he's outmatched on policy.
    That was bizarre.
  2. #1202
    I'm happy to see the biggest fraud in the country endorsed El Donaldario: Ben Carson. Well, he doesn't have to a be a fraud; it could be that he's intensely delusional. Regardless, his campaign was a mail scam, he lied about Cruz with the Iowa thing and played the hypocrite in the details for how he blamed Cruz for his own mistake, and he has now endorsed the guy who compared him to a child molester.

    His highlight was his counter to PC culture and promotion of self-reliance.
  3. #1203
    Quote Originally Posted by FeliciaLee View Post
    That was bizarre.
    It was, dare I say, boring.
  4. #1204
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Trump wins, there will be no contested convention.
  5. #1205
    I'm gonna contest your mom.
  6. #1206
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    What if Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders became one person?

    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  7. #1207
    She makes me think of this:



    It's the differences between ideas that do good and ideas that make us feel good. Warren is top notch at communicating ideas that make us feel good.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 03-12-2016 at 11:59 AM.
  8. #1208
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    "There's a virtual consensus among economists..."

    :^)
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  9. #1209
    It should be noted that the violence at Trump rallies is not historically new. It tends to happen when one segment of authoritarianism disagrees with another segment of authoritarianism on who should get special treatment. The unfortunate thing is that the fighting between the two groups make them look like they're antipodal when really they're not.

    Trump knows what he's doing and the tactics of his opponents are no different than his own tactics. As hard as it is to pin Trump down on his true beliefs, I really do think that he believes in fascism and corporatism to the greatest degree. Everything he has ever done in politics has been about using state power to further the agenda of a group regardless of the constitutional liberties it deletes. It's not hyperbole to say that if his rhetoric on policy was fully implemented, there would be no civil liberties anymore. He is an outrageously dangerous man. Many others like him who came before him looked like he does now when they were first rising up, and few called them the danger they really were.
  10. #1210
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    "There's a virtual consensus among economists..."

    :^)
    What are you referring to?
  11. #1211
    sure
  12. #1212
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It should be noted that the violence at Trump rallies is not historically new. It tends to happen when one segment of authoritarianism disagrees with another segment of authoritarianism on who should get special treatment. The unfortunate thing is that the fighting between the two groups make them look like they're antipodal when really they're not.

    Trump knows what he's doing and the tactics of his opponents are no different than his own tactics. As hard as it is to pin Trump down on his true beliefs, I really do think that he believes in fascism and corporatism to the greatest degree. Everything he has ever done in politics has been about using state power to further the agenda of a group regardless of the constitutional liberties it deletes. It's not hyperbole to say that if his rhetoric on policy was fully implemented, there would be no civil liberties anymore. He is an outrageously dangerous man. Many others like him who came before him looked like he does now when they were first rising up, and few called them the danger they really were.
    Wha' the heck? This is the one I quoted!
  13. #1213
    there's apparently some weird multiquote malfunction on this site where it doesnt delete old quotes from new posts so you end up with the same quote in multiple posts. i dont know how it works but some of the others might.
  14. #1214
    Jumped in my time machine and got the before and afters of Ted's first term.

  15. #1215
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It should be noted that the violence at Trump rallies is not historically new. It tends to happen when one segment of authoritarianism disagrees with another segment of authoritarianism on who should get special treatment. The unfortunate thing is that the fighting between the two groups make them look like they're antipodal when really they're not.

    Trump knows what he's doing and the tactics of his opponents are no different than his own tactics. As hard as it is to pin Trump down on his true beliefs, I really do think that he believes in fascism and corporatism to the greatest degree. Everything he has ever done in politics has been about using state power to further the agenda of a group regardless of the constitutional liberties it deletes. It's not hyperbole to say that if his rhetoric on policy was fully implemented, there would be no civil liberties anymore. He is an outrageously dangerous man. Many others like him who came before him looked like he does now when they were first rising up, and few called them the danger they really were.
    Great post. How much does it hurt that the guy you like, the genius who's policies are objectively correct, is going to vote for this man to be president? Seriously, does it make you rethink your Cruz support at all or do you think it's just something he has to say?
  16. #1216
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanglow View Post
    Great post. How much does it hurt that the guy you like, the genius who's policies are objectively correct, is going to vote for this man to be president? Seriously, does it make you rethink your Cruz support at all or do you think it's just something he has to say?
    It doesn't. Drawing lines in the sand based on who votes for whom and who supports what ideas is dangerous business. This social purity helps nothing. I used to be somebody who judged others based on their politics; it was all sorts of wrong and I've since learned from it. For all I know, Spoon intends to vote for Trump this Tuesday, but that doesn't change how I think of Spoon. I don't think Spoon is a bad guy and I think he doesn't think Trump is a bad guy. I think he thinks Trump is a good guy (or as he would say, the right kind of bad guy). Imposing my thoughts on Trump onto my thoughts of those who support him would be an awful thing for me to do.

    In addition I don't presuppose to know what Cruz is thinking about Trump. It could be that he thinks Trump would be less bad than Clinton for the mere reason that his party is GOP and he would have surrounding him greater amounts of GOP influence than Clinton would. This is the standard reason why the right-wing has a "vote for the conservative in the primaries then hold your nose and vote for whomever in the general" mantra. I see its merit, but I disagree with it, at least in this instance.

    There's a great deal of nuance here too. For example, if Trump were to win the nomination and ask Cruz to be his VP and Cruz accepted, part of me would be upset that he accepted it but part of me would be happy. I don't know if it would be better to reject Trump outright or to influence him from the inside.

    Cruz's statement that he will support the Republican nominee is probably the correct one. I like Rubio's the best (he intends to support the nominee but it's getting harder every day to support Trump). I'm personally with Rick Perry and Ben Sasse in that I would rather reject Trump outright, but if I'm running for the nomination against Trump, I would probably say the same thing Cruz has. There are a million reasons why it benefits Cruz (and conservatism) for him to say it at this point.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 03-12-2016 at 09:36 PM.
  17. #1217
    A more succinct response would be that I support Cruz because of his policies, and Cruz saying he would vote for Trump in a hypothetical doesn't change Cruz's policies. I don't even know that I wouldn't vote for Trump in the general. It depends. I probably wouldn't, but there's always more to learn and a constant need to reassess ideas.
  18. #1218
  19. #1219
    So sad. While I disagree with the Trump cult, constantly repeating that we need a plantation, paid for by the left in exchange for votes in order to "succeed" is unbelievably tragic.
  20. #1220
    bigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,437
    Location
    Nest of Douchebags
    Hey Wuf, you said," The typical Redditor supports Bernie for his technically incorrect policy positions. I support Cruz for his technically correct policy positions."

    Is there a Cruz policies for dummies summary somewhere that isn't his campaign page? Something with minimal bias towards left or right?

    Edit:

    Also, understanding why Bernie's policies are technically incorrect and how you define technically incorrect would help. Do you mean technically unfeasible? And by technically something similar to pragmatically?
    Last edited by bigred; 03-13-2016 at 11:21 AM.
    LOL OPERATIONS
  21. #1221
    Quote Originally Posted by bigred View Post
    Hey Wuf, you said," The typical Redditor supports Bernie for his technically incorrect policy positions. I support Cruz for his technically correct policy positions."

    Is there a Cruz policies for dummies summary somewhere that isn't his campaign page? Something with minimal bias towards left or right?

    Edit:

    Also, understanding why Bernie's policies are technically incorrect and how you define technically incorrect would help. Do you mean technically unfeasible? And by technically something similar to pragmatically?
    The only source I can think of that tells you where candidates stand is ontheissues.org, but it still tells you little. I don't know of any "policies for dummies" page.

    Here's one example of Sanders' plans not reflecting reality, by an economist: http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31156

    The majority of what I'm getting at when I say "technically correct" is economics. Virtually every economic position Sanders holds doesn't reflect academic interpretations. Taxing the rich to pay for services for the middle class doesn't have the desired effect because there isn't nearly enough money and because even the wealthy operate on the margins and are already taxed at much higher rates than other income groups. He makes mistakes like thinking that savings is bad and spending is good.

    A recent comment he's made is something along the lines of "you don't need the choice to buy between 17 different kinds of shoes" (I don't remember exactly what it was, but the sentiment is the same). His intent was in that he thinks that by reducing some of the profit incentive of companies, the leftover money can be put to better use by being funneled into poor or middle class funds or services, and he acknowledges that this would reduce the number of companies and types of shoes. Economists in entirety disagree with this assessment. Econ 101 teaches that the shoe market is technically a "monopolistic competition" model, where a reduction in supply increases prices and where price controls and regulations create capital flight from the market. Sanders' proposal is seen in action today in virtually every major city center housing and rent prices. Construction regulations are so extreme that only a handful of companies are capable of building (and only certain types of building). This keeps supply of housing extremely low and prices extremely high. We all take it for granted that city prices are naturally sky high, but economists do not believe they are naturally sky high and instead think the prices are a byproduct of the regulatory environment. So, while Sanders thinks socializing elements of shoe distribution would benefit the poor, what it actually does is make everybody worse off, most significantly so the poor.

    Possibly Sanders' most egregious economics mistake is misunderstanding incentives. It should be noted that when economists discuss public policy, they're really just talking about incentives, so this isn't small beans. At large, Sanders' ideas greatly reduce the incentive towards production and productivity. They do these all sorts of ways, by increasing barriers to entry in markets for producers, by reducing marginal incomes through taxes, by reducing labor force participation through welfare. One area in which Sanders is possibly decent though is that his education ideas would possibly orient the education system less towards the current anti-labor-force paradigm. Granted, the net effect of his increasing subsidization of education would be negative when compared to the far higher degree of competition and innovation that would come through lower subsidization at all levels and a move towards school choice.

    As for Cruz, what I've seen from him is a solid understanding of economics. He's so good on it that he's the only politician I've seen discuss the role of the Federal Reserve tightening monetary policy in creation of the 08 financial crisis. This is stuff that you never see discussed outside of economics circles. I suspect Cruz knows about it since he was roomies with Ramesh Ponnuru at Princeton, who is close friends with David Beckworth, one of the leading economics bloggers on the issues of monetary policy and the Fed.

    Cruz's view of taxes, regulations, education, welfare, and healthcare pretty much all align with what I know about economics. On taxes, he's all about deleting distorted incentives created by the tax code (a HUGE deal) and increasing production. On regulations, he doesn't seem to be too much unlike Calvin Coolidge, who presided over the best economy possibly in the country's history all because of how much he reduced federal intrusion into producer and consumer choices. On education, he wants to decentralize and reduce subsidization, which is easily the best thing that can be done for the education system. Nobody was talking about a failing education system in the 50s, and it was because incentives and choice regarding education was localized, non-distorted, and robust. The economist widely considered in the top 2 most important of the 20th century, Milton Friedman, has discussed this at length in various books. On welfare, well, it's all about incentives. Giving people money is just bad news because of how it disrupts productive capital. Taking it from the productive reduces their production, and giving it to the unproductive increases their unproductive-ness. Regulation is a big factor here too, like in how all this pro-union, pro-minimum-wage, pro-red-tape stuff raises the price of labor enough that the lower skilled are permanently kicked out of the labor market.

    There's much more than can be said, but the post is already way too long. Hope this helps.
  22. #1222


    I really don't like the "conservative black people are uncle toms" meme-- people that push the meme are obviously hopelessly unaware of how racist it is... but, nonetheless, this made me laugh out loud.
  23. #1223
    Quote Originally Posted by FeliciaLee View Post
    So sad. While I disagree with the Trump cult, constantly repeating that we need a plantation, paid for by the left in exchange for votes in order to "succeed" is unbelievably tragic.
    Black communities were doing substantially better back in the decades before welfare and victimization culture than they are today. This ranges from about the 20s to the 70s. Black graduation at all levels (including Ivy League) and employment was off-the-charts higher. Today, the blame is all "legacy of slavery", but in reality is the legacy of welfare, Al Sharpton style victimization, and centralization of education. If it really was the legacy of slavery, things wouldn't have been so much better in the 20s-70s for blacks economically. Legacy of slavery style racism gets the blame, when the real culprit is SJW style racism. Thomas Sowell is the main economists who discusses this stuff.
  24. #1224
    How do you feel the loss of manufacturing jobs and the drug war contributed to the decline of the black middle class?
  25. #1225
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanglow View Post
    How do you feel the loss of manufacturing jobs and the drug war contributed to the decline of the black middle class?
    I'm not sure. I don't think either is a primary mover. The localization of the decline of manufacturing shows that it didn't affect most black communities. The drug war looks to be largely an effect; although, it does contribute some cause with things like black men having even less capacity to reform.

    I don't think changing either of those things would be primary movers in improvement of black communities either. Black men don't start out on drugs or in prison; they get there through other means. One of the leading theories is that it's a rejection of the family ethic and work ethic, yet nobody knows exactly why this has happened. Welfare is an obvious and significant reason, as can be seen in things like welfare incentives to not work or to have children in unwed households. It looks to me like black communities were on the path towards embracing the mainstream Protestant work and family ethics until the welfare/victimization/school-centralization era came about. Granted, accepting the ethics have always been harder for black people because of racism and institutions against them, but that doesn't change the fact that embracing the ethics are positive.

    Anyways, I think manufacturing played an insignificant role and drugs perhaps played a symbiotic role with the other listed elements.
  26. #1226
  27. #1227
    http://www.redstate.com/absentee/201...dministration/

    Ben Carson: I Didn’t Want To Endorse Trump, But He Promised Me A Job
















































    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
  28. #1228
    So Kasich is staying in to making sure Cruz has no chance to win a majority but also lowering Trump's odds. lolgop
  29. #1229
    It's sad.

    On the bright side, it's a symptom of the RNC cronyists dying. Cruz 2020!
  30. #1230
    Wuf, list three apprehensions you have about a Cruz presidency.
  31. #1231
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Wuf, list three apprehensions you have about a Cruz presidency.
    Man that's a tough one. I support him to the degree that I do because I agree with his policies so much that I don't have apprehensions. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the person whose political ideals seem to line up the most with my own (Thomas Sowell*) was an early Cruz endorser.

    Even with something like the idea that maybe as President he would play the Washington game and overly compromise like virtually everybody else does, I just don't think he would. He knows that his strength comes from not doing that. His supporters, in near entirety, want somebody who will stand unwavering against the Washington juggernaut of ever increasing federal power. For example, we would rather see Senator Cruz filibuster 4 years straight of any SCOTUS nominees coming from Hillary Clinton than to lay down swords and confirm somebody who is just going to make things worse. The Washington wisdom is that this can't work because "voters want to see things getting done", so they think compromise has to be made. But no, Cruz supporters want a guy who will use his fullest powers to stop bad things from happening, not act like principles need to be compromised.

    I'm gonna have to think about if I can come up with some solid answers to your question. I don't have an apprehension that Cruz would ultimately be a flip flopper like the rest of them, and if I did, I wouldn't support him nearly as much as I do. On policy, I like everything. His tax plan isn't the best there ever was, but I would be astounded if he could get that enacted since it would be remarkably better than any tax system the country has had in modern times.

    My only real apprehension is he wouldn't be able to do what he says he will. But I don't think that answers your questions satisfactorily. It just makes me look like a fanboi who thinks Titanium Ted can do no wrong.


    *It should be noted that Sowell is not totally anti-state; whereas I am. It's just that when you have a government monopoly that's not going away, my thoughts align with his more than any other famous person I know of.
  32. #1232
    An example of a normal apprehension I would have with a politician that occupies a similar space to the space Cruz does is that he could get out of hand with evangelical authoritarianism. The thing is, though, that I think Cruz, even though he's deeply evangelical, looks like one of the best politicians there is for freedom of religion (and freedom from religion). I'm not the only hardcore atheist who thinks this. I do not think that Cruz would push any federal evangelicalism down any throats.
  33. #1233
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm not the only hardcore atheist who thinks this. I do not think that Cruz would push any federal evangelicalism down any throats.
    He's too much of a constitutionalist to even go down that road.
  34. #1234
    Quote Originally Posted by FeliciaLee View Post
    He's too much of a constitutionalist to even go down that road.
    I would not be surprised if he's one of, say, five national politicians who has even read the edited out sections of Jefferson's A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.

    You know, where he originally wrote "that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction." Which means his intent was to claim that beliefs at large should not be subjected to government intervention or regulation.
  35. #1235
    Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,458
    Location
    California, USA
    Among other things, today's PPA email said the following:
    This was a big week for poker politically, as the final declared opponent of online poker running for president in either major party, FL Sen. Marco Rubio, dropped his bid after losing his home state’s primary. As you know, Senator Rubio was an original co-sponsor of RAWA, which would ban states from authorizing online poker and other forms of online gaming. While none of the remaining five have made recent statements in support of our right to play, an unknown is far better than the nut low.


    When the 2016 campaign kicked off, the GOP field had six committed, outspoken online poker opponents: Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Gov. George Pataki, and Rubio.
  36. #1236
    I'm happy to see Cruz not on that list. If he was, well, let's say that would be one of my apprehensions -- not because I want to play online poker, but because it would signal some missteps in the philosophy of liberty that all signs say he espouses.
  37. #1237
    If Kasich stays in the race, Trump will probably get to 1237. Kasich can pull off enough anti-Trump vote that Trump's 40% ceiling will win states that he needs to lose, like the soon to come Arizona. With Kasich in the race, Trump will probably win ~10 more states including California. Without Kasich in the race, Cruz would win all the remaining states except New York and maybe 2 or 3 others.

    Fantastic stuff. Trump probably made a deal with Kasich to give him the VP spot. Of course after getting the nomination Trump will ask "What deal?". How ironic it would be for the party with the base of conservatism to nominate a man whose political ideology is that government exists for the purpose of granting monopoly power to specific groups, who was propped up to the nomination by a sycophant who's ideas better reflect Democratic leftism, all the while behind the curtains is the party elite who wanted to stop this guy but chose to not do so because the only way was for them to embrace a different guy who would put a stop to their gravy train of cronyism.
  38. #1238
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    But no, Cruz supporters want a guy who will use his fullest powers to stop bad things from happening, not act like principles need to be compromised.

    I know it sounds good, but what does the end game of a full bore "no compromise" approach look like? Like, let's assume your (and Cruz's) thoughts on policy are 100% the best possible, but there is a good chance that "no compromise" will see none of them enacted-- are you under the impression that this produces an equal or better world than one in which compromises are made and thing get done?

    we would rather see Senator Cruz filibuster 4 years straight of any SCOTUS nominees coming from Hillary Clinton than to lay down swords


    You don't see how strategically unsound this is? I mean, this is happening right now, and if they stick to their guns they'll lose Congress for sure. It's such an easy play for Obama.
  39. #1239
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I know it sounds good, but what does the end game of a full bore "no compromise" approach look like? Like, let's assume your (and Cruz's) thoughts on policy are 100% the best possible, but there is a good chance that "no compromise" will see none of them enacted-- are you under the impression that this produces an equal or better world than one in which compromises are made and thing get done?
    No change is worse than bad change. Even so, change would still happen, just that the side that would be compromising is the other one.

    Over nearly a century, the country has seen a steady increase of one side compromising principles in favor of the other side, specifically the limited government side has been losing an overwhelming majority of political battles to the big government side, and it's largely due to a lack of trying from the limited government side. Some of this ties into your next question, so I'll go there.

    You don't see how strategically unsound this is? I mean, this is happening right now, and if they stick to their guns they'll lose Congress for sure. It's such an easy play for Obama.
    The Trump phenomenon exists because Republicans have been doing what you've called strategically unsound. The Cruz following also exists for that reason. If you listen to conservative radio or conservative bloggers or commenters, you'll see that they think of the Republican elite worse than anybody. The left has got nothing on their hatred for the Boehners and McConnells and * cough* Rubios *cough* because of the millions of campaign promises they made that they swiftly betrayed when Obama and Harry Reid asked them to. 75% of the GOP voting base is voting against not sticking to their guns.

    We've done this before. It was 2014. The media, all the Democrats, and the entire GOP elite said Republicans had to give in to Obama's agenda and act like upstanding statesmen who would compromise away citizens' liberties in proper form, but the rebels in the party, namely Ted Cruz, were so adamant about not losing the battle that they shut the government down. The GOP elite, Democrats, and media cried and bemoaned how this would doom the GOP in the 2014 elections just months down the road. But then the elections came and there was a grand conservative sweep, with Republican politicians knocking Democrats out of the most solid of blue states (like Maryland) and getting a greatest House majority in many decades.

    The consultant class was wrong. Laying down arms and giving into more government to take away peoples' freedoms doesn't actually win elections. It loses elections and gives rise to guys like Donald Trump. Had the GOP elite not pat themselves on their backs for the 2014 conservative wave of which they had nothing to do with and then immediately start bending over for the Democrats for the next year, Trump would not have had such an opening.

    If the GOP elite lays down arms on the SCOTUS nominee and Obama gets somebody through, conservatives will vote against them in droves. Masses of conservatives are already warning they will do this. If the GOP elite sticks to their guns, they'll get base turnout in their favor. Base turnout is what wins elections. It's not the independents and moderates like the standard pundit narrative says. Romney won those and still lost the election. It's all about energizing the base and convincing potential voters why your message is the best message.


    This is why I don't think it's unwise to think President Cruz could get most of his agenda done. He knows that you don't back down, you reform the electorate to your supporters, and you spread your message to any who will listen. And when you do that, they will come, and against all the odds exclaimed by the jabberwocky pundits, you'll get reform passed. It's what Reagan did. Everybody thought he couldn't win until he did (in a landslide). Everybody thought he couldn't get his reforms through until he did. He did it by not kicking his principles to the curb and instead taking the message to the people.


    So, yeah, I'm saying that I think the GOP would win in a tsunami filled with giant Washington-cartel-bloodsucking octopi if they had totally shut down Obama's and the Democrats' agenda. But they didn't. They gave him and the Democrats more than they even asked for. 'Tis the story of a GOP elite that wants to be a part of the Washington culture. They keep asking, "Are we cool yet?". They're the awkward kid that just moved in from a different town who just wants to fit in. They were never as good with girls or as good at expressing themselves or as much of free spirits as all the progressives around them. They're awestruck. They just want to be liked. The Washington Cool Kids tell them they have to give illegals special treatment or else they won't be liked. The Washington Cool Kids tell them they have to give a leading state sponsor of terrorism hundreds of billions of dollars or else nobody will think peace is their thing, man. The Washington Cool Kids tell them that they can't fight Obama and instead they have to fund his agenda for the rest of his term with no strings attached or else they won't get any dates for the prom.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 03-18-2016 at 12:22 AM.
  40. #1240
    Turned out longer than I would have liked. If you read only one part of it, make it the last paragraph. It really is what's going on in Washington. You have to be a progressive leftist to be cool, and so many GOP elites have internalized this.
  41. #1241
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I know it sounds good, but what does the end game of a full bore "no compromise" approach look like? Like, let's assume your (and Cruz's) thoughts on policy are 100% the best possible, but there is a good chance that "no compromise" will see none of them enacted-- are you under the impression that this produces an equal or better world than one in which compromises are made and thing get done?
    It should be added that I don't support a "no compromise" position so much as I advocate not compromising principles. You never get everything that you want, but inherent to the idea of compromise is that you get some of what you want. There is pretty much no universe in which a Clinton SCOTUS nomination would have any positive effects on the trajectory of law. The country's strength has been highly dependent on its federalism, but under all the Democrats and most of the Republicans, it has been steadily turning into a unitary state. A compromise on a Clinton SCOTUS nomination would be like compromising to only drive towards the cliff edge at 30 mph instead of 60 mph. Both are taking you off the cliff.
  42. #1242
    You still seem to be stuck on tactics, when I'm talking strategy.
  43. #1243
    This is both, yo.
  44. #1244
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  45. #1245
    The anti-Trump protesters are fucking retards. All it does is galvanize support for Trump. He could edge the nomination over this.
  46. #1246
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    They have their own memeboys now: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/carl-t...-aids-skrillex

    I would not recommend watching the clips if you haven't yet. Too cringy.
    What are they even protesting against? Election? Do they even know?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  47. #1247
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Trump vs Hillary is going to be amazing to watch.
  48. #1248
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    I wonder how many will come out to vote...just so the other doesn't win...
  49. #1249
    Far more would vote against Trump than against Hillary. She'd beat him by significant margins. Also, virtually nobody on the Democrat side would stay home and tons on the Republican side would stay home.

    The good thing is that Trump isn't getting the nomination. He would have to sweep all remaining Northeast states and California and get some great luck in some others. If he wins Arizona, he can do it, but if he loses, it's very unlikely.
  50. #1250
    Trump's equity to become president should be something crazy low like <1%. Millions of Midwestern blue collar white men that don't even exist would have to materialize to make up for his colossal gap with women. IIRC he'd have to win something like 80% of men. It's just not going to happen. Especially when he gets shredded by the media post-nomination and he ends up only winning men by a ~Romney margin.
  51. #1251
    John Kasich epitomizes the definition of "a horse's ass."
  52. #1252
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    If you're so sure that Trump won't win the nomination, then go put your money where your mouth is. Bovada has him at -400 currently while both Cruz and Kasich are at +600.
  53. #1253
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The anti-Trump protesters are fucking retards. All it does is galvanize support for Trump. He could edge the nomination over this.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Far more would vote against Trump than against Hillary. She'd beat him by significant margins. Also, virtually nobody on the Democrat side would stay home and tons on the Republican side would stay home.
    Derp.
  54. #1254
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This is both, yo.
    If you're going to do this, I'm just going to go ahead and play along:

    Nope, you are wrong.
  55. #1255
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    If you're going to do this, I'm just going to go ahead and play along:

    Nope, you are wrong.
    Oh I see, I'm supposed to intuit you when you say something enigmatic and general, but when I respond in kind I've started a game.
  56. #1256
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    If you're so sure that Trump won't win the nomination, then go put your money where your mouth is. Bovada has him at -400 currently while both Cruz and Kasich are at +600.
    By sportsbetting MMA I learned that gambling on what I care about ruins it for me. Stress and such. So I quit and I'm not starting it up again.
  57. #1257
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Oh I see, I'm supposed to intuit you when you say something enigmatic and general, but when I respond in kind I've started a game.
    That was not the only post on this subject getting at the same point.

    But to spell it out: My point is that standing for your principles no matter what sounds all nice and well, but when stubbornly digging in your heals on one principle such that there is no realistic positive end game to be had, you're in fact not standing for your principles. You have yet to present a realistic scenario in which being an obstructionist makes the country a better place.
  58. #1258
    You're assuming the "no realistic positive endgame to be had" aspect.

    There is little point to fighting for/against something if you think doing so isn't positive. I believe in the Senate using its fullest powers to deny Obama another nomination because of the real world positive effects it would have and how it plays into the endgame of an overall strategy.

    Obstructionism has become a boogie man term in politics, where anytime anybody fights against what the media wants, they're obstructing and therefore deterring the virtuous progression of an ever increasing social justice society. But when viewed for what it is, when you're obstructing bad things, you're doing good. As gladly as the Allies obstructed the Axis, I'll support politicians who obstruct any attempts at undermining principles of liberty. The media says this will only make me and those I support look bad, but I disagree. Voters tend to support quite different things than the media.
  59. #1259
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    "Being an obstructionist" is a pretty wide, generic net that is too vague to mean much imo. Of course obstructing things will be positive in the right situations. I think boost might mean something more specific than what that particular word carries with it.
  60. #1260
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Of course obstructing things will be positive in the right situations.
    This.
  61. #1261
    Even though in the latest AZ poll Trump leads by 13, there are several silver linings in its methodology that suggest Cruz may win.

    Hoping for a total shutout from Titanium Ted and Kasich learning to distinguish his ass from his face and dropping out. Chance of Titanium Ted winning AZ? Maybe I say 30%. Chance of Kasich getting assface removal surgery before the convention even if he gets no more delegates? Negative infinity.
  62. #1262
    Cruz: "we need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods"

    lol constitution
  63. #1263
    How is that against the constitution?
  64. #1264
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How is that against the constitution?
    Let's say there isn't a legitimate argument for its unconstitutionality-- then what? It's ok?

    This screams of a quote being taken out of context, and as you can see in the original press release which is the source of this quote, it is slightly-- but only slightly.

    In the wake of the atrocious terrorist attacks in Brussels, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today issued the following statement:“Today radical Islamic terrorists targeted the men and women of Brussels as they went to work on a spring morning. In a series of coordinated attacks they murdered and maimed dozens of innocent commuters at subway stations and travelers at the airport. For the terrorists, the identities of the victims were irrelevant. They –we—are all part of an intolerable culture that they have vowed to destroy.
    “For years, the west has tried to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of political correctness and fear. We can no longer afford either. Our European allies are now seeing what comes of a toxic mix of migrants who have been infiltrated by terrorists and isolated, radical Muslim neighborhoods.
    “We will do what we can to help them fight this scourge, and redouble our efforts to make sure it does not happen here. We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence. We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.
    “We need to secure the southern border to prevent terrorist infiltration. And we need to execute a coherent campaign to utterly destroy ISIS. The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we can be are at an end. Our country is at stake.”


    There probably can be reasonable arguments made on either side of this being constitutional, and certainly it would depend on what specifically was implemented, as the proposal is quite vague. But again, who cares? What I care about is whether it is a good idea or not. Without specifics, it's really hard to judge the merits this rhetoric being put into action, but on the surface, the picture it paints, definitely doesn't seem like anything resembling a good idea.
    Last edited by boost; 03-22-2016 at 09:47 PM.
  65. #1265
    Profiling is good stuff. It's not unconstitutional. It is naturally accepted for pretty much all things. Except when it involves race, sex, or religion, few want to touch it because the SJW backlash is immense. Not profiling wastes resources and allows bad actors to flourish by easily hiding.

    The constitution protects from mistreatment. Profiling is not mistreatment. Harassment or illegal information gathering are mistreatment, but they are not the same as profiling.

    I'll add that I think that the severe rejection of profiling in our culture emerges from the naive narrative espoused by a subset of the electorate that people are fundamentally good.
  66. #1266
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Whether something is constitutional is a fun essay topic in law school. Even when you have a SCOTUS decision that clearly decides the issue, there is always argument for the other way (with legal support). Often, what it comes down to is how easy it is to make the argument.

    Patrolling an area based on some large, general presumption is a very easy argument to make.

    I'm wondering what ted cruz really means here though? Police already distribute themselves based on crime rates and response times. They already focus more heavily on those areas where shit is most likely to go down (like known drug spots). So what does it mean for muslims to go beyond this? Assuming they do have a higher crime rate, what does it mean to increase patrol and enforcement past what is already bein done?

    I imagine it involves eroding the right to privacy and from unreasonable searches. Which is part of why the unconstitutional argument is so easy to make.
  67. #1267
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Profiling is good stuff. It's not unconstitutional. It is naturally accepted for pretty much all things. Except when it involves race, sex, or religion, few want to touch it because the SJW backlash is immense. Not profiling wastes resources and allows bad actors to flourish by easily hiding.

    The constitution protects from mistreatment. Profiling is not mistreatment. Harassment or illegal information gathering are mistreatment, but they are not the same as profiling.

    I'll add that I think that the severe rejection of profiling in our culture emerges from the naive narrative espoused by a subset of the electorate that people are fundamentally good.
    Again, tactics vs. strategy.

    It is a good tactic. But when it is not used tactfully it can very easily be a poor strategic move.

    Also, it can be a good move when only narrow goals are considered. For example, profiling by targeting black neighbourhoods to nab drug dealers may be a good way to arrest a lot of drug dealers, but you also end up arresting what are essentially scofflaws who happen to be all black because of the net you've cast. Now even if we concede on the assumption that blacks are more likely to be drug dealers (and that selling drugs is bad), we still end up with a net bad effect since we end up with a broken community with less opportunities which renders more people prone to enter into the black market.

    So, in theory, profiling is a useful tool, and in practice it can be, but your "lol sjws' kneejerk PC response is lol" knee jerk response paints an entirely too rosy picture of the practice-- with just a few incorrect inputs, profiling can be extremely harmful and counter productive.
  68. #1268
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    with just a few incorrect inputs, profiling can be extremely harmful and counter productive.
    When it is, it's not profiling, unless you're talking about resource waste, which is harmful. If profiled people experience undue negative harm, it is because of something other than the profiling, like harassment. Profiling is just who you're looking at. Overdoing it isn't profiling.

    I don't agree with some of the tactics used or proposed.

    Additionally, if profiling is used along the lines of something like "blacks are more likely to be drug dealers", the problem is incompetence of the police force in not profiling intelligently. Instead what should be done is to profile drug dealers (this involves substantially more than just race, and frankly I don't think it even involves race), and use that to monitor within legal bounds.
  69. #1269
    Should it be depressing to me that my sister and her husband have many thoughts about Trump and every one of them is factually inaccurate? They consume 10-30 minutes a day of highly agenda driven opinion media. Trump really could shoot somebody in the street and keep all his votes since nobody who supports him would even hear about it.
  70. #1270
    my sister and her husband have many thoughts about Trump and every one of them is factually inaccurate
    I'd be interested to know who read this and assumed they were on the right/left.


    Trump crushes AZ by 25%
  71. #1271
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    As a resident of AZ, I am completely unsurprised. Sheriff Joe was a huge endorsement
  72. #1272
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    As a resident of AZ, I am completely unsurprised. Sheriff Joe was a huge endorsement
    As my home for 10 years, I was disappointed (but not surprised).
  73. #1273
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    Additionally, if profiling is used along the lines of something like "blacks are more likely to be drug dealers", the problem is incompetence of the police force in not profiling intelligently. Instead what should be done is to profile drug dealers (this involves substantially more than just race, and frankly I don't think it even involves race), and use that to monitor within legal bounds.
    Based on his quote, it sounds like Ted intends to profile based on being muslim rather than being a terrorist though. Is this not the same type of incompetence?

    I'm not sure his quote limits himself to just profiling either, the patrolling aspect sounds like something more.
  74. #1274
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Based on his quote, it sounds like Ted intends to profile based on being muslim rather than being a terrorist though. Is this not the same type of incompetence?

    I'm not sure his quote limits himself to just profiling either, the patrolling aspect sounds like something more.
    It's among the comments I like the least. Like when Walker was trying to compete with Trump on utter silliness and said that we should consider building a wall on the Canadian border.
  75. #1275
    Apparently the polling was way off, which is funny since they were off in antipodal directions. I think Cruz edges out a victory HU, but he didn't even get close due to the month of early voting AZ had, where 18% went to Rubio and Carson. I remember thinking how senseless early voting was in primaries when I first heard about it.

    Big news in Cruz taking all 40 delegates in UT by way of breaking 50%. 69% of the vote to be exact. It's why I always say that if I go Christian again I would just choose Mormonism. They seem to be the only group that takes shit seriously and doesn't let a fifth grade fascist noogie their brains.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •