**** Elections thread *****

Quote:

---

And in a chilling sign for Republicans, 68% of Trump's supporters say they would vote for the blustery billionaire businessman if he ran as an independent rather than a Republican; just 18% say they wouldn't. The rest were undecided.

---

Says USAToday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

it should also be noted the not profiling creates more bad things. when policy is to search every grandma at the airport as much as every jihadi-profile person, time and energy is wasted on the worthless examination of grandmas, which detracts from the time and energy put into potential jihadis.

---

The amount of wasted resources was a larger victory for terrorists than 9/11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

If it was added to current taxes, it would be terrible. But if it's the only tax, it would improve the health of the economy and peoples' lives several times over. Cruz's plan is overall fantastic.

Consumption taxes are the least destructive of all taxes.

---

You didn't hear me the first time, so I'll say it louder: BUT HE'S WANTING TO ADD ANOTHER TAX.

On a more serious note, Cruz's tax plan wouldn't see the light of day even if the guy was elected to three terms. The tax system is never going to change until the fall of the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Just to jump over the conversation to share two things:

On Netflix, Best of Enemies is a great documentary about the Robert F Buckley Jr / Gore Vidal televised debates that forever changed how the news media covered politics.

Buckley was a masterful debater who was pushing a new form of combative conservatism via his publication The National Review and Vidal was a brilliant author who had just published a satire about the sexual exploration and exploits of an MTF transexual. They were both on the cutting edge of what both ends of the political spectrum would later become.

Through 10 televised debates shown after news coverage of the R/D conventions, they had forever changed how the news media would cover politics - no longer centrists who merely cemented the truth, the News would become the argumentative punditry we all know and love today.

On top of that, Cruz has an interview on NPR this morning where he argues against the science of climate change. If you want to see why I love this guy so much, just listen to him stand a bit taller than reality itself. (I'll link it later when NPR publishes it online).

If ever you needed two reasons why I constantly say that argument is fundamentally empty, look no further than these.

---

Good find, I'll definately take a look. Seems pretty cool

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Nah. There's tons of problematic behavior. Look at at-will employment. Half the reason people get fired over stupid shit is because they're allowed to be. Companies are permitted to do so, and do in fact do so by an overwhelming margin. Why bother risking bad publicity when you can just fire them?

What else. BP oil spill, in fact any time a company has done something to justify having an EPA. The Jungle. Ecoli scares at taco bell. The shop that refused to make a gay wedding cake. The college that suspended kids for black face.

Both companies and governments are heavily scrutinized, but governments are still more so. Hell, half our laws are to facilitate such scrutiny! There is no reason to have public records or open courts but for challenging the gov.

As far as criminal profiling being the only thing they're aware of...it's got nothing to do with hate for the government's use of it. Some director somewhere makes a movie, a bunch of tv shows follow. You can't go two episodes into law and order or the wire without hearing about profiling. It's incredibly widespread, and often is attached specifically to racial profiling...something sjw are quick to spread animosity towards.

But, while this is the most common type of profiling and the most well known by far (due to media coverage, nothing more), I can think of one other type thay ppl may know. And that is advertising profiling. But as to your point that criminal profiling is the only one ppl hate... I disagree. Loads of people can't stand the idea of ads catering to them and learning and storing info about them.

---

you're looking at outliers and calling them trend. you're arguing for why monopolies do not behave like monopolies behave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Just to jump over the conversation to share two things:

On Netflix, Best of Enemies is a great documentary about the Robert F Buckley Jr / Gore Vidal televised debates that forever changed how the news media covered politics.

Buckley was a masterful debater who was pushing a new form of combative conservatism via his publication The National Review and Vidal was a brilliant author who had just published a satire about the sexual exploration and exploits of an MTF transexual. They were both on the cutting edge of what both ends of the political spectrum would later become.

Through 10 televised debates shown after news coverage of the R/D conventions, they had forever changed how the news media would cover politics - no longer centrists who merely cemented the truth, the News would become the argumentative punditry we all know and love today.

On top of that, Cruz has an interview on NPR this morning where he argues against the science of climate change. If you want to see why I love this guy so much, just listen to him stand a bit taller than reality itself. (I'll link it later when NPR publishes it online).

If ever you needed two reasons why I constantly say that argument is fundamentally empty, look no further than these.

---

well, there is merit to arguing "against" climate change. ive noticed positions are much more nuanced that is the narrative. geophysicists do use hard science to show why the earth may be warming and the statistics suggest a level of probability that it is, but then they jump to wild conclusions about where it's going based on that. the other side sees the wild conclusions for the baseless they are, but then make the mistake of denying much probability of climate change being real.

argument is empty the same way that a description of gravity is empty. the description is not the thing itself. but a description of gravity can be evaluated on the merits, just like any argument. argument can't be invalid because if it were that would mean that there's no way to describe validity. unless ofc you want to accept that premise, at which point the argument against argument is self-defeated and pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

You didn't hear me the first time, so I'll say it louder: BUT HE'S WANTING TO ADD ANOTHER TAX.

---

exchange

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

exchange

---

I was going to type out a typical "in-debate" response to whatever your typical "in-debate" response would have been, but it's like midnight and I'm old and tired so fuck it.

On a real note, I'm soooo hoping that we get to see Trump vs. Hillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

you're looking at outliers and calling them trend. you're arguing for why monopolies do not behave like monopolies behave.

---

Outliers, sure. You are way to deep into the Kool aid to have any real discussion about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Outliers, sure. You are way to deep into the Kool aid to have any real discussion about this.

---

the view that when people say anti-government things they're drinking kool-aid seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the arguments. government is not a unique entity. it is a monopoly. science and academia have a lot to say about monopolies. i ask that we understand these things and apply them appropriately.

the drinking of kool-aid transpires when the fact that government is a monopoly and should be assessed as one is disregarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

the view that when people say anti-government things they're drinking kool-aid seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the arguments. government is not a unique entity. it is a monopoly. science and academia have a lot to say about monopolies. i ask that we understand these things and apply them appropriately.

the drinking of kool-aid transpires when the fact that government is a monopoly and should be assessed as one is disregarded.

---

You didn't hear him the first time: YOU DRANK THE KOOL AID SO YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER. AKA FUCK LOGIC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

well, there is merit to arguing "against" climate change. ive noticed positions are much more nuanced that is the narrative. geophysicists do use hard science to show why the earth may be warming and the statistics suggest a level of probability that it is, but then they jump to wild conclusions about where it's going based on that. the other side sees the wild conclusions for the baseless they are, but then make the mistake of denying much probability of climate change being real.

---

Sure, sure. There's merit in understanding it all and engaging on the front of what should or could be done. But that's not where Cruz is laying down the line. Hear him here: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459026...-ted-cruz-says

Quote:

---

argument is empty the same way that a description of gravity is empty. the description is not the thing itself. but a description of gravity can be evaluated on the merits, just like any argument. argument can't be invalid because if it were that would mean that there's no way to describe validity. unless ofc you want to accept that premise, at which point the argument against argument is self-defeated and pointless.

---

Well, argument is empty in the exact opposite way as the description of gravity being empty. Gravity is predictive and it can tell you about the past, there's meaning in it. And there can be meaning in argument, if both participants have a strong mastery of the facts, have a reverence and respect for them, and are dedicated to the argument bringing everyone closer to the Truth with a capital T. That almost never happens.

There's a story about some mathematician or scientist who was proven wrong and was glad for it. He didn't worry about the time he had wasted perusing whatever he was on about incorrectly, nor did he worry about missing his chance to cement his place in the history of science, he was just glad to be shown wrong.

Argument is empty in every other way, but still useful. That's what Buckley and Vidal knew, that it doesn't have to be about the issues as much as it has to be about the other person and the audience. It's not about battling out ideas to strengthen them or see one as clearly superior, it's just about figuring out who should be following whom.

a description of gravity is an argument.

people don't describe gravity wrongly that often because of how easy it is for that argument to be falsified.

it seems to me that you're looking at things that are not as easy to falsify as a bad argument for gravity, and thinking of them as fundamentally different from arguments that are easy to falsify. i see no reason to think that would be the case.

if you are correct, you are also not correct. saying argument is empty is itself an argument, meaning that the claim is empty itself. it's like saying numbers are not numeric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Sure, sure. There's merit in understanding it all and engaging on the front of what should or could be done. But that's not where Cruz is laying down the line. Hear him here: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459026...-ted-cruz-says

---

well, he's not wrong. he is wrong about the data he stated as showing that global warming isn't true (the data doesn't say one way or the other), but that's mostly it, at least on the substantive agw stuff.

Gov't is a monopoly, scientific theories are arguments... you're missing the mark on both of these in the same way. For two things to be the same without qualification, they need to be isomorphic. One difference and you've got to say "Gov't is like a monopoly" "Gravity is like an argument."

The basic difference is that the scientific method attempts to restrict how you approach a problem in a manner that keeps you from being as stupid as you normally are, whereas general argument has no such process or effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

well, he's not wrong. he is wrong

---

Right, he's wrong. He's wrong about every new piece of information he brings to the table and wrong about his overall conclusions, but no one can nail him down on it because he's so good at arguing - he's so good at letting people be as stupid as the always are.

http://i.imgur.com/omVSdxH.png

It's about to be a fucking blood bath for that Canadian fuck Cruz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Gov't is a monopoly, scientific theories are arguments... you're missing the mark on both of these in the same way. For two things to be the same without qualification, they need to be isomorphic. One difference and you've got to say "Gov't is like a monopoly" "Gravity is like an argument."

The basic difference is that the scientific method attempts to restrict how you approach a problem in a manner that keeps you from being as stupid as you normally are, whereas general argument has no such process or effect.

---

the scientific method is an argument.

the lack of process or effect you apply to general argument exists for the scientific method as well. it's just that most people have mostly accepted the scientific method. when you say things wrong about gravity, you tend to get shutdown because it's easy to shut those down.

things that are the same are not different because one is more difficult to achieve than the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Right, he's wrong. He's wrong about every new piece of information he brings to the table and wrong about his overall conclusions, but no one can nail him down on it because he's so good at arguing - he's so good at letting people be as stupid as the always are.

---

what overall conclusion is he wrong about?

his overall conclusion is what he's most right about, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

the scientific method is an argument.

---

No.

Quote:

---

the lack of process or effect you apply to general argument exists for the scientific method as well. it's just that most people have mostly accepted the scientific method. when you say things wrong about gravity, you tend to get shutdown because it's easy to shut those down.

---

No.

There are arguments that surround science, but they are not the scientific method. Look at the arguments that surrounded Darwin's Evolution and compare them to how Darwin formed his theory of Evolution.

Quote:

---

things that are the same are not different because one is more difficult to achieve than the other.

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

what overall conclusion is he wrong about?

his overall conclusion is what he's most right about, actually.

---

Alright, let me listen to it again.

"Is there global warming? I'm asking you."

"Sure."

"Alright you're incorrect."

"Climate Change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory for a gov't power that wants to take power because it can never be disproven."

Ride those dummies, Ted.

He really is amazing. I can't stop but love how he dances between truth and nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

"Climate Change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory for a gov't power that wants to take power because it can never be disproven."

Ride those dummies, Ted.

---

Honestly, this is a great point.

Is Global Warming falsifiable?

It's an even better point because he can throw it out rhetorically, but someone can pick it up seriously and really wonder about it. It's why I love him.

edit and TLDR, the answer is yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

No.



No.

There are arguments that surround science, but they are not the scientific method. Look at the arguments that surrounded Darwin's Evolution and compare them to how Darwin formed his theory of Evolution.



No.

---

im not getting into this with you.

if you think this is a debate, you don't know what argument is. the scientific method is the leading argument for how to describe reality. one day a better argument may come along. there are plenty of worse arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

"Climate Change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory for a gov't power that wants to take power because it can never be disproven."

---

we're not dealing with exact terminology here. "climate change" is not a scientific theory.

cruz is correct about the political climate change elements being pseudo-scientific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

im not getting into this with you.

if you think this is a debate, you don't know what argument is. the scientific method is the leading argument for how to describe reality. one day a better argument may come along. there are plenty of worse arguments.

---

No it isn't. It simply isn't. I'll explain it as I've explained it before, but no it isn't.

Quote:

---

we're not dealing with exact terminology here. "climate change" is not a scientific theory.

cruz is correct about the political climate change elements being pseudo-scientific.

---

Holy shit.

Wuf, what is the scientific method?

What is climate change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Right, he's wrong. He's wrong about every new piece of information he brings to the table and wrong about his overall conclusions, but no one can nail him down on it because he's so good at arguing - he's so good at letting people be as stupid as they always are.

---

This post of mine is seriously burning this forum down right now.

edit wish I didn't typo 'they' though

Let me show you how the scientific method isn't an argument.

There was a time way back when where someone shown light through a prism and saw a rainbow and said, "the impurities of the glass have corrupted the light and given us the colors."

Then thousands of years later, one dude took a second prism which refracted the light of the first back into white light, thus showing that white light was actually all-colored light.

Where's the argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Wuf, what is the scientific method?

---

you've asked this before and i gave the correct answer.

Quote:

---

What is climate change?

---

climate change is change of climate. that is not a scientific theory, unless you want to say that the observation that climates change is a theory, but that's more of a law than anything. in fact im not exactly sure what it is. mmm might have a better explanation. if we start talking about how anthropogenic global warming could arise from geophysical properties and theories, then we're getting more into what we can call scientific theories relevant to climate change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

you've asked this before and i gave the correct answer.

---

Googling ain't giving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

climate change is change of climate. that is not a scientific theory, unless you want to say that the observation that climates change is a theory, but that's more of a law than anything. in fact im not exactly sure what it is. mmm might have a better explanation. if we start talking about how anthropogenic global warming could arise from geophysical properties and theories, then we're getting more into what we can call scientific theories relevant to climate change.

---

The greenhouse gas effect happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Let me show you how the scientific method isn't an argument.

There was a time way back when where someone shown light through a prism and saw a rainbow and said, "the impurities of the glass have corrupted the light and given us the colors."

Then thousands of years later, one dude took a second prism which refracted the light of the first back into white light, thus showing that white light was actually all-colored light.

Where's the argument?

---

And don't get me wrong, you can find argument around it. But argument isn't an aspect of the scientific method. The scientific method is bringing in the second prism and seeing what happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Then thousands of years later, one dude took a second prism which refracted the light of the first back into white light, thus showing that white light was actually all-colored light.

---

that's not the scientific method. it's an experiment.

the argument that is the scientific method includes experimentation. the argument that is the scientific method is the description of steps to take to use to accurately describe the phenomena of the prism light. it says "the way we do this to an appropriate level of certainty is to hypothesize in certain ways, experiment in certain ways, analyze in certain ways, repeat in certain ways, then develop theories in certain ways". this is an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

that's not the scientific method. it's an experiment.

the argument that is the scientific method includes experimentation. the argument that is the scientific method is the description of steps to take to use to accurately describe the phenomena of the prism light. it says "the way we do this to an appropriate level of certainty is to hypothesize in certain ways, experiment in certain ways, analyze in certain ways, repeat in certain ways, then develop theories in certain ways". this is an argument.

---

It's called the experimental method, too, friendo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

And don't get me wrong, you can find argument around it. But argument isn't an aspect of the scientific method. The scientific method is bringing in the second prism and seeing what happens.

---

you've got it backwards. the scientific method is the argument that people bring to the physical universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

you've got it backwards. the scientific method is the argument that people bring to the physical universe.

---

I think I taught you that trick.

It's how people translate the physical world into human terms. There's no argument. The argument is when they turn to others and say, "I have the answer" and they say, "nah, you don't".

edit and even then, like I said before, in the best of circumstances, the argument can be great, but that's not always the case. People argued against Darwin's theory of evolution and even played out lines insulting Darwin's ancestors as monkeys unlike theirs. Just as people argued over the same observations with Cajal driven by their need to see what wasn't there so they could have their name sealed into the history books. But the truth has a way of being independent of anyone's opinions, and science has a funny way of getting close to that truth.

so cruz got one of the most coveted endorsements in all politics (the iowa evangelical leader). it'll be a weird turn of events for cruz to not win iowa

also national polls mean next to nothing now. if all the primaries happened on the same date, they would, but these 30-40 percents trump is getting in states like georgia are subject to all the change in the world that comes from momentum from early states.

half of me wants to see cruz trump and rubio get to march with a third of the vote then nobody will have a majority then brokered convention then mitt! mitt! mitt! mitt! mitt! will get nominated for the "i told you so" candidacy.

All of me wants to see Cruz win the R ticket. I'm always impressed. It might just be that I like demagogues over power-players, but Cruz is always polished.

cruz has the upper hand vs trump here. big time. trump is attacking cruz out of weakness and he knows it. notice how trump said he wouldnt attack cruz unless cruz attacks him first, but now has taken that back and is lashing out. meanwhile cruz is a rock and sticking to his plan.

the man is fucking isaac newton

Idk, there wasn't any reason to attack or focus on Cruz before. There was carson and bush and rubio to look at

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Idk, there wasn't any reason to attack or focus on Cruz before. There was carson and bush and rubio to look at

---

well yes. what im getting at here is subtle

few days ago trump preempted a fight by saying "he's rising in the polls now but i won't attack him unless he attacks me". then cruz doesnt attack. then trump changes his mind and attacks. cruz is playing his hand the way he wants but trump is not.

i think this also plays to the narrative cruz wants to put out. he's "the one true conservative who doesn't play games but can obviously handle his shit when needed"

Nah Canadian Cruz attacked Trump in underhanded ways. It's not a big deal though because Trump wipes the floor with him in Iowa and every other state except maybe Alaska.

why alaska

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

why alaska

---

Because they're basically a part of Canada, where Cruz is from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Idk, there wasn't any reason to attack or focus on Cruz before. There was carson and bush and rubio to look at

---

Trump is like a plague. It sprawls into every opening it can find. Cruz is like a German Army. It concentrates its forces and pierces through.

Only a misguided fool would support Trump as this point.

Im not a trump supporter, I just respect what he's doing. It's amazing how much name recognition can do, and how much pure advertising talent can do.

Im a misguided fool who supports bernie though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Im a misguided fool who supports bernie though.

---

why do you support bernie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Only a misguided fool would support Trump as this point.

---

im on the fence. i wouldnt support him in the primary, but im on the fence in a general. im unsure of how to assess him.

part of me thinks that if he's using your strategy of negotiation and he's actually more reasonable behind the scenes, he could be a great president who would focus on significant reductions in regulations and taxes. another part of me thinks that he would be such a disaster that the authoritarian left would come out on top over the next twenty years in response.

another part of me thinks that 4 years of hillary would be better than 4 years of trump, not because her policies are anything but awful, but because she'd lose reelection to a likely solid gop candidate.

Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

why do you support bernie?

---

In a world of dishonesty, bernie has credibility. When he talks about getting things done in congress, he speaks of compromise and finding middle grounds rather than unreasonably pushing a far left agenda. Specifically, he said this with gun control.

I'm also his target audience, 90s kid with debt.

But, even when his policies are questionable, I don't see those ever being an issue. Is he gonna dismantle banks and crush wall street? No way. Just like trump isn't gonna deport 11 million people.

When you compare him to the other candidates though, I don't see a hidden plan or agenda. He's playing face up, while ppl like clinton, cruz, rubio, carson, and even trump to some extent are playing with hidden motives.

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

do you think his economic policies are reasonable?

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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.

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.

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.

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

But he's still a fat faced fuck.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

goddamn cruz is killing it.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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."

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

lol Canadian Cruz

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