Printable View
finished the article in question. his view on cruz is without substance. his only reference point for describing cruz's law philosophy is some arguments they had in class. if law professor was writing an essay for english professor, english professor gives law professor an f.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
the candidates skipped iowa because harkin was in the race. harkin was governor of iowa.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
alls i see is trump getting colossal amounts of news coverage yet not being able to go anywhere above mid-20s in the states. people are looking for other options.
It's not about barring them...it's about keeping the college put of it. They have no business interfering in that sort of thing, and ruin lives because of it. Bernie supports that idea, seems clinton does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Of course every candidate supports police investigations of rape tho ..
Sone professors have substantial, serious, daily discussions with students. Others barely answer questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
More to the point, it was years ago...and any discussion had could have been for the sake of argument and not stemming from belief.
if it's interfering regarding criminal stuff, then yeah. they should be allowed to have civil disputes though. like it's okay for a university to expel somebody who they consider having committed rape on campus. granted most universities do it a stupid way and are often wrong, but that's sort of a different issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
yeah it's more about the latter and the way in which he described it. his one point of substantiation for labeling the philosophy of a student is what amounts to classroom arguments decades old. it's not terribly reasonable to think that the professor has an adequate understanding of cruz's positions from this.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I disagree. We're talking about a body interfering with the personal,private sexual relations between two people. I don't want anyone anywhere near that. If it's not rape, sexual assault, etc, then they need to mind their own business. If it is one of those things, it should be left to the state who has experience in the issue and the laws involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
[not trolling]Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Oh man, I am so excited by this reply. You should totally look into how colleges are handling this right now. It's worse than you could probably imagine at this point.
Let's say Nancy accuses Greg of sexual assault and takes it to their college's disciplinary board, but she refuses to go to the police and file charges. The disciplinary board will not allow Greg to defend himself against Nancy's accusations, and if they decide that there's more than a 50 percent chance that the charges are true, then Greg gets kicked out of college.
This is not a joke, an exaggeration, uncommon or rare. There are several major lawsuits going right now over all of this.
While I could give countless examples, I don't want to spam you or overwhelm you. Here is a very good read that will probably get you interested enough to look into it yourself: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...05280211043510
I only ask that you please read this response to the WSJ article in popular women's online publication TheFrisky so that you can see what we're dealing with here: http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-04-18/...journal-op-ed/
Another good place to look is the Paul Nungesser case where his accuser turned her [more or less proven fake] rape accusations against him into her fucking thesis because she's an art major.
[/not trolling]
I think there's an unintentional misunderstanding. What I said has been law for a long time. It's the freedom of private entities to set policies regarding their private interactions. It is lawful and should continue to be so for a university to expel somebody based on a set of criteria they choose and have been agreed upon. The law sets this aside for certain types of discrimination, but being thought of as a rapist is not one of them. Obviously you know this already, as you're much more versed in the law than myself. I just needed to clarify what I was referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
As far as investigation of allegations go, private entities are lawful in doing so except for in ways that interferes with police investigations and rights of others. So even then, universities should be allowed to hold their own investigations into campus rape. The funny thing here is that universities are utterly failing on this because it is normally much more efficient for universities to not have much of an investigation and let the police do their jobs, but universities don't do this for the reason of, you guessed it, too many subsidies. Administrations are absorbing so much extra money that they don't know what to do with, that they are changing their own administrative policies towards campus behavior in negative ways that they otherwise would not.
I get it, universities handle this stuff terribly. These aren't examples of police being barred from investigating rape though. Like in the hypothetical you created, Nancy didn't charge Greg criminally, so the steps to allow police to get involved in the first place aren't triggered. I do acknowledge that my statement "and nobody thinks they (the police) should be (barred)" is misleading since clearly some accusers and universities think exactly that. There are those with incentives or an agenda to not want cops involved. I should have said "the vast majority of people who will be voting in 2016 do not think that the police should be barred from investigating allegations of rape brought to them regardless of if they happened on campus".Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It should be added that it isn't so much that universities are "handling this stuff terribly", like I just said they are, because from the perspective of the university, they are actually making good decisions. The university doesn't want police involved because it would be terrible news for the university and its finances. But it also can't brush the allegations under the rug since the perception among its main consumers (young women) would still do great financial damage to the university. So, the university has great incentive to handle it in-house and in such a way that men are victimized.
The incentive for universities to "do the right thing" for themselves by doing the wrong thing is also created by government subsidies and intervention. I'll explain how this is the case if anybody wants to hear it.
I want to clarify here, because I think what I said is possibly wrong and it's hopefully currently being explored by lawsuits. I doubt companies can get away with firing people because the boss thinks an employee raped somebody with no evidence or conviction, but the laws regarding universities are probably more favorable to universities than this. Regardless my point was that universities can expel people for breaking T&C, and if that T&C includes being "convicted" of rape by a university tribunal, and if it's lawful for the T&C to include that, then universities aren't breaking the law by doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Something is wrong about the analyses the media is covering on Trump. It's either that his enormous crowds mean that he is going to CRUSH the election, vastly outperforming the polls; or it's that his enormous crowds are a significant degrees less about his political endeavors and more about his celebrity status. I tend to think it's the latter, but it could be the former. My rationale is that if any mega celebrity were to hold rallies about virtually any topic, they would get many thousands of attendees.
My argument isn't legal, it's moral. There is likely a ton of legal support for my side here, but I'm too lazy to research and point it out.
I disagree with the notion that anything can be bargained for. Even assuming equal power and information, I think there are some things that shouldnt be contractual. An investigation into someone's sex life is one of those things. This topic is arguably the most private thing that a person does, and the most worthy of privacy protection. I don't think we should be able to throw that protection away with such little evidence. If we're gonna enter this area, I want good cause. Signing this protection away wi th the stroke of a pen seems very wrong to me. "Allow the world to see into your last relationship or be expelled, btw you agreed". Yuck. I don't like it
@Trump rallys
It's possible he's paying ppl to make it look like he's got a crowd. Who knows. I think he's got the nomination though regardless.
i don't have any problem with an increase in privacy protection in that regard. an accusation alone shouldn't be enough for it to be legal to intrude into somebody's life except in the most superficial way.
trump plays the offended sjw card.
The bold is the point. The idea is that he's suggesting universities should keep their fucking noses out of it, and if the girl wants something done, she can drag her ass to the police, etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This type of shit is one reason why fewer men are entering college than would have been expected at this point. It's an extremely hostile environment for men, on average. There's going to be a point where the market of women getting useless degrees with borrowed money is going to become saturated, and then they'll have to do something.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
On the topic of police being barred from investigating rape, that's really confusing the issue. Universities have encouraged girls to feel like they don't have to go to the police (and often that they shouldn't) because they're going to have to answer questions about the accusations. If you ask a girl why she didn't go to the police first, people will attack you saying that it was her choice and that you're victim blaming.
i just wanted to be clear that i dont think his position sets him apart from the field. i think most of the candidates believe it and if asked, most of the gop candidates would also say what sanders said. him having said it, though, does deserve credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-...n-wall-street/
Economists backing sanders. Calling reich an economist. I'm not trying to re argue past points, just showing that he's got support
His position sets him clearly apart from the field compared to other Democrats, but not so much for Republicans. Liberals are what have enabled this shit to happen and supported it. A good example of this is the "yes means yes" policy towards consent that's popping up more and more in the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Well, the author is using about as loose of a definition of economist as you can get without being ridiculous. Still, the support for Sanders' position on Wall Street is much lower than I would expect. Adding regulation to the already-most-regulated-by-far industry is very popular among academics and professionals. In fact the sector of academics that disagrees with it to a degree much greater than other sectors is economics, but that doesn't mean all economics disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
It should be noted that academic macroeconomics is sort of a mess. It teaches an unusually high amount of stuff that neglect economic laws and principles. For example, one of the first things taught in macro is how the field of macroeconomics was created by the situation of market failure (the Great Depression) and the need to construct a theory to explain it and to be used to help solve it (which is what Keynes did). What the field of macroeconomics has yet to do (except about 1/3rd of those in the field) is acknowledge that they're begging the question, i.e., assuming that the market failed when in fact it did not. There was no money market, law market, or regulation market, and when you examine how those three elements (mainly money) behaved in the run up and during the Great Depression, it is seen that they were causative. Regardless, the majority of macro academics don't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. My guess is because the implications of it dismantling their worldview are too dire.
yes i suspect hillary would not answer the way he did unless reeeeeeeeeally pressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
trump vs cruz vs rubio polls have trump in the low 40s (but winning). trump vs cruz polls have trump still in the low 40s and losing by near double digits.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
i dont think trump can win unless other candidates play spoiler. rubio and carson are mostly spoiler to cruz. even if trump wins iowa and new hampshire, if it goes heads up against one of a few of the other candidates, he's gonna lose.
on the democrat side, even if sanders wins in iowa and new hampshire (>50% probability imo), hillary will probably still win. the reason is that too many democrats believe in the wrong idea that electability is a function of appeal to moderates. they're going to doom their own party by backing hillary.
the gop is also stupid on this since they would rejoice a sanders nomination and think hillary is the toughest. that foul smell is the washington advisor bubble oozing out of their skin. i would say it would take somebody like cruz or sanders getting the nomination and then winning the general to prove them wrong, but they've already been proven wrong, they just don't care to listen.
The funny thing about Ted's slam on "New York values" is that it's believed by a lot of New Yorkers themselves. Just because somebody lives in a cesspool doesn't mean they love that cesspool. I can't imagine this will do anything other than help Cruz since most GOP voters outside of NY agree with what he said. The one aspect of it that has potential to backfire is that Trump's response was strong.
He could have said the same about Seattle values, and some of the people I know who live in that crime-infested, disrespectful, irresponsible, entitled garbage heap would agree.
Trump handed Cruz his ass. Cruz has nothing for him.
it was the best performance by trump but cruz killed it. conservatives are rallying behind him.
what i just love is how the gop establishment is making moves towards favoring trump in the fight against cruz. so much for trump being such an outsider, huh? the establishment thinks he's weak on policy and can be molded to what they want, but they're scared shitless of cruz because he's the one guy who doesn't put up with their bullshit. there's nothing republican politicians hate more than principled reform.
this only helps cruz. the last thing trump should want is the establishment to say they're okay with him. the conservative base HATES the establishment by now. just look at how badly rubio's doing. he's very conservative yet the base considers him a traitor since the establishment likes him.
[not trolling]Quote:
"He called Snowden a public servant," Rubio said. "When I'm president if we can get our hands on him, Snowden will be prosecuted as a traitor."
That absolutely disgusts me.
[/not trolling]
what about it disgusts you?
somebody this slick, who resonates with the base so well, is never losing the nomination
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cszk3lmXLbw
What a pussy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
[not trolling]Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Snowden is the single biggest national hero of my lifetime. He should have a holiday named after him for the sacrifices he made for us.
[/not trolling]
i want details. i have no position on snowden. some say he didn't break the law, others say he did. i see reason that either could be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Who cares if he broke the law? The NSA broke the fuck out of the law and took a massive fat shit on the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
People are just too obsessed with their iPhone shoved up their asses to notice.
breaking the law is a place to start with regards to evaluating what he did. im not sure the nsa broke the law either. regardless im not a fan of the nsa's practices given that theyre causing more problems than solving.
That's the point: You wouldn't know of the NSA's practices if it wasn't for Snowden.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
i get that. it doesn't mean that he also hasn't done things that are wrong. im not saying he did, im asking.
Maybe, maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
http://www.interpretermag.com/snowden-is-a-fraud/
Yeah okay. Nice try at a weak-ass coverup, US government.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Back on topic here: Cruz is about to fuck up and lose Iowa. Trump is polling even with him in Iowa right now since Tuesday's debate. Trump also has NH locked down.
i have a feeling that trump would be a better president than the support he gets suggests. what i mean is that his support comes largely from emotion and butt spew, with only a small amount from sense -- yet his presidency would probably engage more sense than that.
it's frustrating to watch people rally to him for stated reasons that are in action rejected by rallying to him. consistency in stated reasons would have them rally to cruz or paul. they say they want a fighter, somebody who is not a tool of the establishment, somebody who formidably defends values of freedom and law, yet they rally to a guy who doesn't represent those that well (trump) while rejecting the guy who does (cruz).
it should be noted that a trump presidency wouldn't be a political revolution. it would be a continuation of same old same old with a smidgen of change (some good, some bad).
of those high in the polls, the only revolutionary presidencies would be cruz and maybe sanders.
the reason i say "maybe" sanders is because the democratic elites actually do mostly agree with him; they just don't talk about it because they think it's unpopular and bad politics. what would make a cruz presidency revolutionary is that it would mean a significant defeat of the washington cartel by a grassroot ideology. this is also why obama was never the "change" candidate; he was very mainline washington cartel/establishment democrat. he just got away with the slogan "change" because he said things that hadn't been said much before (yet had been mostly believed for a while by his party's establishment).
an example of the distinction and why those who support trump are actually not doing so by stated reasons is that he's pandering to iowa on ethanol while cruz has held firm in his rejection of the racket. trump will never stand up to corrupt government. it would be awesome if his supporters paid enough attention to eventually see this.
there's a good deal of irony in that the gop establishment is running to embrace trump now that they think he's the only person who can stop cruz. and trump embraces it and engages standard-establishment rhetoric against cruz. trump always was and always will be a tool of the corrupt cartel.
if this shit was in a movie, i'd call it too contrived to believe could actually happen, since, you know, people have brains they are presumed to use every once in a while.
http://theresurgent.com/bob-dole-who...than-ted-cruz/
Nah, a trump presidency would be bonkers. Idk in what way, but he gives off an extremely arrogant vibe. Not in the bad way that Bush gives off...I mean in a "im gonna do what I want, and that's that" sort of way. He'll create enormous change...in some direction. Like, I can see him taking over businesses like presidents did in the past. I can see him doing showy things abroad to flex strength... a "big stick" sort of feel. Idk. He seems like someone that's gonna go cray and do things like this tho.
I don't think cruz will go crazy. He's got different views, but I see him welding executive power conservatively...whereas Trump is gonna push the boundaries of what he can do all the way to the line and beyond until congress forces him to stop.
Agree that sanders would be a huge change as well tho.
Which is exactly what needs to happen, starting with doing everything he can to dismantle the complete and total fucking sham that Obamacare is.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
overall i think he would push more in the direction than most others for some conservative issues (maybe obamacare is one, but honestly trump likes subsidies and regulatory power, so he might not be that reformative here), while entrenching some non-conservative positions that everybody will claim they didn't see coming from what should be an obvious populist leftist.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
trump has much more in common with european socialist leftism than people think. it's mostly because anti-immigration has become a right-wing issue of recent (even though it traditionally isn't). trump loves his authoritarianism, special interest favors, and sjw tactics. sometimes i wonder if you really do support him or if you're just trolling, given that those are three things you have either explicitly or implicitly condemned to some degree.
+1 for authoritarianismQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
+1 for special interest favors
He's obviously not using SJW tactics though. He's really the antithesis of everything SJW-related both irl and in campaigning.
he doesn't use every sjw tactic in the book, but he likes playing the victim and vilifying his opposition in obscene fashion whenever he can.
It's not really playing the victim when you really are the victim. It's like a boy who cries wolf situation en masse where so many people have "played the victim" without actually being a victim that it's a knee-jerk reaction to look down on anyone who actually is a victim.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also he's supposed to vilify the opposition; this is American politics. I haven't seen him vilify the opposition in any way that wasn't true so far.
Also, he's now winning in Iowa, and his lead there is increasing by the hour.
the scenarios where trump plays victim are typically when he is not a victim. his responses are self-serving fabrications. his response to the ny values thing perfectly illustrates this. his version of victimhood as well as vilification of the opposition have a special twinge of self-serving hypocrisy greater than is typical of others. every thing he has said this cycle, virtually without exception, is contradictory to things he said many years ago or just a couple years ago or even just a few days ago.
given how dominant he is in the media, he should be expected to beat everybody in every poll by at least double digits. this correlation does tend to break down when elections come around, but i dont know to what extent. i won't bother linking it since nobody will read it, but word is that his iowa ground game is garbage. cruz's is outstanding. we may find iowa to be a test of some running theories about what makes for votes.
i wonder if attack ads will hit trump at any point before iowa. very few have been run so far, and the one time trump was falling (while carson was rising) was when some attack ads were actually running. they will damage him greatly. ive a theory that we won't see that many attack ads on him for iowa though, since everybody else will want to attack cruz and the rubio/bush thing, and cruz may be planning on winning iowa purely on ground game. i could see this coinciding with tremendous output of attack ads by cruz on trump in new hampshire.
if cruz could win iowa via ground game and then pummel trump and rubio with ads in new hampshire while also pushing ground there, he'd finish trump. ofc that's an if.
earlier i said a trump presidency would not be revolutionary; i stick to that. but what would be revolutionary is a trump gop nomination. the reason for this is that trump is very antagonistic to just about every conservative value you can think of and highly favorable to every left liberal value you can think of. the only reason he has popularity is it just so happens that angry authoritarians who try to think about politics as little as possible have recently transitioned into the republican party, so it's in there that trump resonates.
anyways, a trump nomination would show that conservatism is dead since it would be the populist "conservative" party supporters nominating a left liberal. trump would be more effective at growing the power of the state than clinton or sanders. when you look at what he actually believes about the role of governments and economics, he's in bernie sanders territory for most things.
it's not a coincidence that a large proportion of people who support trump list sanders as their #2 (and vise versa).
btw, conservatives hate trump. serious hate. i had no idea how much until i started reading some conservative publications. good lord do they loathe him. this election will show us just how much electoral power conservatives have in the primaries. we'll see if they still have reagan-esque power and can rally behind one very strong and anti-establishment candidate in cruz just like was with reagan. they for sure would if trump wasn't in the race, but it's hard to say to what degree the gop electorate has shifted from conservative to left liberal authoritarianism these days.
sobering perspective on trump by an economist and libertarian:
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31435
on the spectrum the west has been operating under for a a few centuries now (classical-liberal market-capitalist individualism britain/america vs left-liberal socialist fascist state-stoicism italy/russia/france), trump is the latter by a lot.
ive applied some more thought to it. even if trump wins both iowa and new hampshire, cruz could still be the hidden favorite to win the nomination. cruz's camp knows this too. the reason is that if cruz can finish second behind trump, after the first few states, it will knock everybody else out, and a large majority of their supporters will back cruz instead of trump. so far, trump has had a ceiling in all hypothetical heads up nomination polls of middling-low forties.
what we could be looking at here is trump having a base of support that will never leave him at somewhere between 20-40, while cruz has a base of evangelicals between 20-30 that he can get in every state. after the field dwindles, trump's base is highly unlikely to expand much, while anybody running against him would expand theirs, excluding kasich and maybe christie.
i found some pro-trump sites for the purpose of trying to understand what goes through the minds of those who like him. three main things have jumped out: (1) they consistently mis-identify conservatism as republicanism, just like how the left mis-identifies trump support as conservatism. (2) they have no coherent ideology other than nationalism wielded by a strongman. (3) they take pride in how little they understand/care about/pay attention to politics. you'd think they would take this as a sign that their opinions are foolish, but no, they're mad that politics is even a thing in the first place. they view obama as a king and think the solution is a different king.
spoon soon to de-endorse trump im sure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc2gUer8ACY
lol noQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
0% chance.
I swear that you keep reaching and reaching for reasons to try to convince yourself that Trump is going to lose, and it's just not there.
I want trump to lose.
But there is no question that he understands the game, and is playing the game, far better than any other candidate. I respect that.
Part of that game is endorsements. Now, everyone HATES palin...but for some reason she is popular to an absurd degree with a subset of ppl. Now, they're trump's ppl. I bet he gets more endorsements, and continues to do well.
Tho its certainly a Trump v cruz v maybe rubio fight right now. The rest are legit wasting their time and money.
you have presented exactly zero counters to any evaluation ive made on the strengths, weaknesses, and meanings of the data and logic. there are mountains of reasons why trump winning the nomination would be strange (a minority of his support comes from republicans for fuck's sake) and you're telling me im wrong because my statements don't agree with the ten second chatter.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
i mean look at this. how in the shitting shit is this guy going to win the republican nomination when his support is made up of ~29% republicans and 43% democrats? is the wisdom now that the republican party isn't even republican anymore? if trump wins this nomination with these kinds of numbers, it basically means that the republican base isn't even the base (a paradox).
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/up...crat.html?_r=0
scroll down for the charts.
the dude has more in common with lena dunham than he does with the people who support him. he's probably going to do well in the primary fight, but at the end of the day, there are way too many asterisks and the most likely scenario is that he won't be the nominee.
I disagree. Trump's strategy is his doom. You know why he gets his ass kicked in head to head polls against Cruz or Rubio? Because everybody who isn't already on Trump's wagon fucking hates his guts because he has done nothing but lie and belittle everybody else. When Carson drops out, do you think his supporters will go to Trump? Fat fucking chance. When Bush goes, are his supporters becoming Trumpkins? No fucking way. If Rubio or Cruz go, their supporters will go to the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Trump is the ultimate "un-pandered" candidate, meaning that his support comes from the voters that nobody else has pandered to yet (racially charged nationalists who cheer rah rah rah at the sound of "They're (Mexicans) rapists", "blood coming out from her whatever", and "I like people who weren't captured"). But it is his embrace of this crowd that has alienated him to everybody else. That "everybody else" is the size of a group of people he needs in order to win.
So, yeah, his strategy has been abysmal. He's not a genius. His ability to win depends on the hypothesis that there are just enough people who hear his bigoted inanity and say "that's my guy". A whole lot of losers have polled as high as him at this point in the cycles and have lost horribly.
Her endorsement isn't garbage, but she is not viewed highly by that many conservatives anymore. Her support aligns with those who already support Trump (*cough* reality celebrity *cough*). The kinds of endorsements Cruz has gotten (like Van Der Plaats) is more important. In fact Cruz is the only person who so far has gotten game-shifting endorsements. I wouldn't be surprised if Cruz gets Mark Levin's endorsement (possibly the most coveted endorsement for any Republican). He's Levin's preferred candidate and Levin is livid at a campaign (signs point to it being Trump's) for trying to intimidate him.Quote:
Part of that game is endorsements. Now, everyone HATES palin...but for some reason she is popular to an absurd degree with a subset of ppl. Now, they're trump's ppl. I bet he gets more endorsements, and continues to do well.
Look at it this way, I'm voting in the GOP primary, and a month ago I was open to the idea of holding my nose and voting for Trump in the general if he were to get the nomination. But today, I can't stand him. He's a self-serving hypocritical lying cheating narcissist. For a while I thought that maybe he was just overtly abrasive yet had some decent ideals behind it all, but nope, the guy has since fully revealed himself to have zero principles.
>50% of those who will vote in this primary will end up feeling the same way about Lena Trumpan as I do.
So he's a politician?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
there are plenty of politicians who are not, yet they have difficulty changing the system partly due to the view from some voters that politics is nothing but a corrupt monolith.
there's a deep irony in that trump embodies what his supporters say they dislike, while there are others in the race that embody what his supporters say they like yet they do not support them.
And Trump's lead continues to grow in Iowa and the rest of the United States.
we're going to find out who wins the nomination based on who between cruz and rubio get the majority of the fallout vote from carson and bush. im giving trump a 15% chance to win based on a small possibility that he doesn't gain just the tiny amount that he should be expected to gain and the not as small chance that cruz and rubio both stay in the race for a while. many of the later states are northeast and may actually give trump a majority heads up, but if it's down to trump vs cruz or trump vs rubio immediately after the sec primary results, trump should lose.
i dont think i see rubio winning the cruz vs rubio fight because at least 40% of the fallout vote will go to cruz and he'll still remain ahead of rubio in a 3-way race. but rubio could play spoiler and get trump elected if he stays in too long. i suspect that he could know that and drop out in time though, possibly on the secret condition that he's cruz's vp.
his lead hasn't grown, it has remained constant.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
cruz has narrowed the gap very slightly is all. rubio has narrowed into 3rd more significantly. trump has ceiling'd, the only growth in poll results across the same pollsters have come from cruz and rubio. this was predictable given the numbers of respondents who are willing to vote for trump in the first place and the fact that the supporters of every other candidate hate his guts.
this would drastically change if trump showed enough hu strength. then, the only chance he could lose would be by way of a conservative shy tory effect. id put trump at >70% under the circumstance of strong hu results.
actually it does appear that trump has gained some iowa ground and cruz lost a little after trump major endorsed increasing ethanol subsidies and cruz stood his ground in denying cronyism. this should have collapsed trump's support outside of ethanol farmers, but ofc it wouldn't since people love doing the wrong thing.
gonna be amazing when he underperforms his polls by 10% due terrible ground game and everybody sees trump is little other than a medium-talent manager and peak-talent narcissist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us...oach.html?_r=0
/ is what growth looks like
\ is what cruz looks like
dealwithit.gif
do you think that president trump won't do what he says he'll do?
Even if the Mexicans won't pay for the Great Wall of Trump, we can still pay for it with the oil we get from ISIS and have plenty left over.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
40% chance trump and hillary planned this.
if he wins the nomination, 40% chance that in the final week before the election he says "we should shoot all muslims and mexicans on sight" and then after he loses the election he's seen at a democrat party.
You're up to 90210%.
politics can be both trivial entertainment and a vehicle to make lives better.
lol what did Cruz do?
http://i.imgur.com/JzxYdum.jpg
538's polls-plus forecast is probably more accurate. i think it underestimates cruz's win probability as well. it doesn't account for caucus realities. history shows that the evangelical candidate can expect up to like 20% jump in actual results above the polls.
if trump wins, we should be seriously looking at a theory that the media picks the nominees (and the president). the conservative base hates him, yet half the conservative media (mainly rush) are deflecting their own principles in supporting the most conservative candidate possible and giving trump a pass because of ratings. the national media is doing the same thing. a trump nomination would be the best possible thing for the media elite, and they know it.
and the people who support trump? i would say they're being duped and used except its their own damn responsibility to act like they have >70 iq.
cruz's iowa strategy mirrors what has worked in the past. it's not just the ground game, but in not going negative. iowa caucus-goers historically punish the hell out of candidates who haven't stuck to the ground and who have gone off message of their own quality policies and who have spent too much time on the attack. this probably has to do with the fact that the caucus includes rallies of people discussing their own selections. this weights heavily towards the devoted with a strong message. i wouldnt be surprised to see a meltdown of trump support at the caucus along these lines, as his supporters will not have much ammunition for their candidate and will end up learning more about other candidates than from the entire time leading up to feb 1.
that said, it really could be that the ball was dropped already on the effective way to attack trump and he'll cruise to victory. too many candidates, too focused on beating out other candidates, none able to focus energies on the leftist running way with their nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/op...f=opinion&_r=0
He went up against Trump and got got like every other bitchass they've tried to throw at him. After he toe tag body bags Sanders, it's all going to be over.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
o dat bernie
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/03/be...is-taxi-rides/
it's almost as if capitalism has flourished because despite ideals people may hold, they typically still make the more economical and fulfilling choices. it would be nice if they could use these experiences to further their understanding of the world instead of just sticking to their harmful ideals.Quote:
Just a couple months ago, Bernie Sanders lambasted Uber as an “unregulated” company with “serious problems,” but financial disclosures by the Democratic presidential candidate reveal that whenever his campaign requires a taxi, they literally always turn to Uber.
Bernie the retard Socialist Communist shithead Sanders DERP DERP LEMME UBER MY DERP fucking dumbass.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
steve deace explains why the latest round of iowa polls likely do not remotely represent reality.
http://stevedeace.com/news/pollsters-and-their-fools-paradise/
tldr: they assume 200% increase in voter turnout than previous highest (2008), yet there are no signs on the ground of that coming to pass. it appears that trump's "surge" is just the pollsters loosening their "likely voter" standards to the degree that they predict this highly unlikely outcome of landslide turnout for trump in the midst of no signs of so on the ground.
he's not a retard. he has just not thought things through.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
iowa gop registrations are down too. on logistics alone, it's not possible for all those new voters to come out for trump. day-of registrations take time. trumpkins will be the first of any to use any excuse to not make their monday afternoon-night all about the cold and the stress.
hey spoon what do you guys prefer to be called: trumpkins, trumpistas, trumpoids, los donaldarios?
I'm busy watching the Royal Rumble.
I don't see the problem. It is an unregulated company with serious problems, that doesn't mean it's unusable. They're in the middle of several lawsuits, not including those with taxi companies, and it's largely due to the company's failure to train it's drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But they're still better than taxis and buses. The risk associated with using uber is also much much smaller when you've got guards, aids, or friends traveling with you...which of course bernie does
This says pretty much nothing about Bernie Sanders. His campaign, as a whole, relies on Uber. It is not beyond reasonable doubt to think that Sanders is not aware of every bit of minutiae within his campaign. I'll admit its a great headline, but to actually pretend it's substantive is laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
First, bitch
Oh god, it's an unregulated company, we better swoop in and regulate the fuck out of it so that we can save everyone from their unregulated selves. Typical liberal approach to everything. How about Bernie Sanders regulates deez nuts? Go over to Sweden, the country you're just in fucking love with, and get buttfucked in the ass by a pack of wild jihads and see how that works out for you.
It is regulated, just less so than taxis.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
The problem is that here is this less regulated company that works better than the more regulated ones, and the divergence in quality is significantly due to the regulation differences. Bernie's intention isn't to turn the better company into a worse one, but that's what his policies contribute nonetheless.
Sure it does. The point stands even if Sanders has no idea about it. His campaign selects Uber because it is better. Sanders' policies do not intend to make it worse but still would.Quote:
This says pretty much nothing about Bernie Sanders. His campaign, as a whole, relies on Uber. It is not beyond reasonable doubt to think that Sanders is not aware of every bit of minutiae within his campaign. I'll admit its a great headline, but to actually pretend it's substantive is laughable.
Regulation is highly destructive to product innovation and consumer interests. This story is important because it is an example of a disruptive company that serves consumers far better than the incumbent old producers have, yet a politician wants to take that away and do to it what would turn it into the same old shitty product that taxis are.
On top of that, the level quality assurance creation Uber has undergone in just a couple years is substantially higher than anything it could have gotten through government regulation.
The competitive market solves these problems so easily. What's the other solution? Have unelected, unchecked bureaucracies add to the tens of thousands of unread pages of unvetted regulations already? Because that's what happens. We want to believe that regulatory agencies are directly related to our votes, but they're not.
Taxis have become like Comcast: formidably entrenched in a mostly monopolistic market due to government policies. Uber is like a new form of internet access that's swooping in and giving all consumers a deal they want far more. Sanders' ideals are to turn Uber into the new Comcast even though he doesn't realize that's what they do.