**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

It should be noted that something funky is going on with the polls. Cruz has been retailing in Iowa more than others the last week, yet his Iowa numbers have not reflected. The reality is that he has probably increased his caucus turnout significantly, but the polls don't show it. Also Cruz's national numbers have not suffered over the "eligibility" question, so it can't be said that there is a balancing (gains from retail, losses from the attacks). We've been seeing lots of polling inaccuracy the last couple cycles. I wonder why.

[JKDS]

Sounds like you got some SANDers in your vagina

[JKDS]

Honestly though, I expect everything to go downhill. Media is only the first sign, then it was science journals, soon it will be everything else. What Im saying it...the entitled millenials may have all the degrees...but the stupid of millenials is stupider than the stupid of boomers.

Expect everything to go to shit soon, because in this day and age...no one is careful about anything anymore.

[wufwugy]

Why so interesTED in desCRibing what's Under my Zipper?

[wufwugy]

Honestly though, I expect everything to go downhill. Media is only the first sign, then it was science journals, soon it will be everything else. What Im saying it...the entitled millenials may have all the degrees...but the stupid of millenials is stupider than the stupid of boomers.

Expect everything to go to shit soon, because in this day and age...no one is careful about anything anymore.

id be interested in hearing more.

[spoonitnow]

Don't even get me started on the fucking millennials.

[wufwugy]

I'm thinking Rubio scores just a handful of points behind Trump in Iowa. With Cruz winning Iowa, Rubio will have tons of momentum to place first in New Hampshire. We'll then pretty quickly move into the Cruz vs Rubio showdown. I don't have much of a handle on who wins that. Part of my gut says Rubio since he would be mixing establishment vote with some conservative vote, but another part of my gut says there is enough grassroots anti-elite vote that Cruz could take it. The problem with the latter, however, is that Rubio isn't establishment; he's just acceptable among establishment types. Rubio can chip away at Cruz's support but Cruz can't chip away at Rubio's.

[wufwugy]

i really would like to hear about the millenials. i don't have any good theories about them.

[wufwugy]

I'm thinking Rubio scores just a handful of points behind Trump in Iowa. With Cruz winning Iowa, Rubio will have tons of momentum to place first in New Hampshire. We'll then pretty quickly move into the Cruz vs Rubio showdown. I don't have much of a handle on who wins that. Part of my gut says Rubio since he would be mixing establishment vote with some conservative vote, but another part of my gut says there is enough grassroots anti-elite vote that Cruz could take it. The problem with the latter, however, is that Rubio isn't establishment; he's just acceptable among establishment types. Rubio can chip away at Cruz's support but Cruz can't chip away at Rubio's.

Adding that Cruz can expand the primary electorate in ways that Rubio can't.

I have no clue who wins Cruz vs Rubio. Anybody have an opinion?

[JKDS]

Its entirely possible that this is just something thats always been going on. "the sky is blue, you just now opened your eyes" kinda thing.

But I dont think it is.

It feels like a lot of 'sources' cant be trusted anymore. Forbes is an example. But its science articles in general. A year or so ago, we had the anti-gays rallying around a completely bogus study regarding the health of kids adopted by gays, and it took a district court to look at it and say "ha, no" (he was right btw, the study was crap on its face). It goes deeper though, like the prankster who managed to get an article published a bunch of times even though it was complete bologna.

I was part of a peer reviewed journal for awhile. I got no training, and no instruction on how I reviewed the work. In fact, I was instructed to just 'edit' and pass it along. Thats not what peer review is about. Its supposed to be a system where someone does something, and others who are trusted in the community rigorously and passionately try to prove it wrong. If they succeed, no publication. Instead, we have millions of articles in science journal databases...and many of them add nothing to what "we know".

News talking about sensationalism isnt a new topic, but thats not how News used to be either. At some point, there was a shift were we stopped caring about accuracy, reliability, and authenticity...and shifted into just wanting to be entertained. Fox and CNN werent always so radically once sided...we used to care about unbiased news and honest reporting. Now its just whatever sells, and lies sell well.

But worse, they report the minority as if its the majority. We are led to believe that everyone is fanatical about safe spaces, tweeting, equality, etc. Thats not what my college experience was like 5 years ago though. Everyone I know laughs, and would have laughed, at the idea of a 'safe space'. (though we were big on equality...sjw-esk).

We have grade inflation like nobodys business, so I can only assume that our kids are stupider than the last generation. When you hold no one back, when there is no threat of 'being left behind', there is no incentive to try your hardest. Ask a millennial what they would do if they got a bad test grade. Theyll tell you "whine to the teacher, ask for extra credit, or that its imposible to get such a bad grade". Thats unnerving. Wheres the passion?

What happens when the last of the "hard working, passion driven, careful" boomers go away? Of course, not everyone is careless. Society wont collapse and we'll still have new businesses etc popping up. But I believe that the population of fuck-ups in the work place is gonna increase. I'm seeing Judges, who are supposed to be the epitome of respect, dignity, and neutrality, get into fights with defense attorneys. I'm seeing county clerks blatantly defy the law, and governors blatantly defy the law in support. According to several different sources, many candidates for POTUS have lied their asses off numerous times...yet nobody gives a fuck. Yet, candidates like Trump are right about a lot of things nevertheless. What is America great at nowadays? Why isnt it better?

Disaster is coming. I can feel it. And while I disagree with alot of what spoonitnow has said re culture recently, hes right that a change is coming too. Im hoping its a change within our generation though, and doesnt come from the one after it.

[JKDS]

The simple theory may very well be that millenials take too long to become adults. Maybe its as simple as people from my generation going to school like its an "experience" whereas people from my parent's generation went to make money. I get the sense that we care, as a generation, very minimally about education. We want to have it, because resumes lead to jobs, but we dont actually care about the work that goes into it. Do what you can to get the A (easy to do), but if you look at a single source outside of what you have too...shame on you.

Im ranting to much.

Its got implications for me though. I wonder if a closing argument that focuses on "personal responsibility" will be laughable in the coming years.

[wufwugy]

As for the scientific journal and media stuff, yeah something is going on. I feel like the trend can't be extrapolated to the whole though, meaning that I think other unpredictable stuff is also emerging that changes the paradigm. I don't have any evidence for this, it's just a feeling. Deterioration of media seems to be an effect of markets. That doesn't mean that monopolies handle media better, but it does suggest that we don't yet know what a "fixed" media system looks like.

As for the educational dumbing of millennials, I think here's a place where I disagree. It comes from looking at the incentives. We get pissed when we aren't given A's because the real reason we're in college in the first place isn't to learn but to get a credential. I don't think this shows less aptitude for learning among millennials, but flaws in the education institution. If you ever wonder why I dislike education subsidies so much, this is the biggest reason; they're propping up an archaic system that has gotten so bad that it's nearly pointless except as a signaling tool upon acquisition of a piece of paper.

As for the dying off of respectability and the work ethic, that does seem to be happening. The good news is that negative feedbacks get triggered. It's like how the social conservative revolution of the 70s and 80s wouldn't have happened except that the social liberal revolution of the 60s happened. However, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be a long term trend in one direction or another. We are losing our acceptance of respectability culture, but I'm not sure how much of a problem that is. Two examples: chief respectability is Victorian England (nobody would want to live there), and chief anti-respectability is southern black culture (being unaccepted into white mainstream culture, they largely defied it and all sorts of cool things came from that).

[wufwugy]

The simple theory may very well be that millenials take too long to become adults. Maybe its as simple as people from my generation going to school like its an "experience" whereas people from my parent's generation went to make money.

I think by far the biggest culprit is college subsidization. That has effectively delayed "adulthood" by 4-6 years (possibly more). Elementary education already delays "adulthood" by about 3 years as is. The mass subsidization of these institutions is wreaking havoc on our cultures.

[wufwugy]

i suspect that the idiotic decision for chelsea to come out as attack dog on sanders came straight from hillary (not her advisers) and shows her panicking and not thinking straight.

[JKDS]

You're right that college is being treated as a credential over education.

But the majority of millenials aren't learning outside of college. They sit at home smoking hookah, playing videogames, or going to bars. But few have a book on "stock trading" or are becoming seriously multilingual, or learning to code.

Granted, some are doing that. But it's only some. Is this how it's always been? A small minority actually becoming skilled in something? Maybe. Feels different though.

[spoonitnow]

Cruz isn't eligible to be president https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...html?tid=sm_fb

[wufwugy]

Cruz isn't eligible to be president https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...html?tid=sm_fb

here's what would happen

cruz's eligibility won't be challenged in court (lack of standing among plaintiffs). if he's president-elect, congress then has an avenue to challenge him. given that cruz is president-elect at this point, it's of the highest probability that the gop has a majority, and under no circumstances will they deny their guy presidency. even if the dems had majorities, they still would not deny an elected president the office. the electoral blowback would be ungodly. even if SCOTUS were to rule on it and even if the guy in your article is correct, SCOTUS would still rule in favor of cruz because SCOTUS is at its core an arm of the mood of the country (since its judicial review power depends upon it being thought of as legitimate).

cruz's canadian birth is about as much a non-issue as it gets. politically, it may be a problem simply because some people think it's a problem. however, if cruz gets elected, there is no chance he gets denied on eligibility.

[wufwugy]

You're right that college is being treated as a credential over education.

But the majority of millenials aren't learning outside of college. They sit at home smoking hookah, playing videogames, or going to bars. But few have a book on "stock trading" or are becoming seriously multilingual, or learning to code.

Granted, some are doing that. But it's only some. Is this how it's always been? A small minority actually becoming skilled in something? Maybe. Feels different though.

that's true.

it probably is different, but i dont think it will always be different. it is true that right now we live in a society that rewards immature and unproductive behavior more than it should. i think it's a mistake to underestimate the role of the incentives created by government policy in constructing this culture. elementary education of millennials was dramatically different than previous generations. we were taught to be entitled bitches, and it all pretty much came through a nationalized bureaucratically imagined system. previous generations were taught significantly different things (and by different people) than we were.

[spoonitnow]

here's what would happen

cruz's eligibility won't be challenged in court (lack of standing among plaintiffs). if he's president-elect, congress then has an avenue to challenge him. given that cruz is president-elect at this point, it's of the highest probability that the gop has a majority, and under no circumstances will they deny their guy presidency. even if the dems had majorities, they still would not deny an elected president the office. the electoral blowback would be ungodly. even if SCOTUS were to rule on it and even if the guy in your article is correct, SCOTUS would still rule in favor of cruz because SCOTUS is at its core an arm of the mood of the country (since its judicial review power depends upon it being thought of as legitimate).

cruz's canadian birth is about as much a non-issue as it gets. politically, it may be a problem simply because some people think it's a problem. however, if cruz gets elected, there is no chance he gets denied on eligibility.

Don't be so sure. John McCain is piling on: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...for-president/

[spoonitnow]

Cruz's law professor:

(CNN) Calling him a "fair weather originalist" and accusing him of "constitutional hypocrisy," Ted Cruz's former law school professor is arguing that the Texas senator's own legal philosophy disqualifies him from serving as president.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard whose students include President Barack Obama and Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan, hammered Cruz over questions about his presidential eligibility because of his birth in Canada, which have been raised by Donald Trump and caused headaches for the Calgary-born Texas senator in the Republican primary.

Appearing on "Anderson Cooper 360" Monday night, Tribe slammed Cruz for his "constitutional hypocrisy."

He argued that the strict, originalist legal philosophy that Cruz advocates on issues like the 2nd Amendment and gay marriage, and which his potential Supreme Court nominees would likely espouse, should disqualify him from being president.

"Ironically, the kind of justices he says he wants are the ones that say he's not eligible to run for president," Tribe argued. "This is important because the way this guy plays fast and loose with the Constitution, he's a fair weather originalist."

[JKDS]

You asked me b4 why I liked Sanders. The below statement is just one of many statements that make me support him

https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/12/b...e-not-colleges

[wufwugy]

Don't be so sure. John McCain is piling on: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...for-president/

they would for sure try to stop him from being nominated, but 90% of their attitudes would change if he was the nominee, and 100% would change if he was president-elect.

the same guys who hate cruz right now would rally behind him and say how much they always loved him if he actually won the election. it has to do with things like how their dislike of cruz has largely to do with thinking he's not electable (but if he gets elected that reason goes away) and that campaigns are really hard and most others wouldnt want to do it again and every republican congressman would have heightened awareness that if they were to do it over they would be potentially throwing away an already confirmed win.

they dont want cruz or trump to be the nominee, but they will support them full-throated if one of them is the nominee and especially if one is president-elect.

[wufwugy]

Cruz's law professor:

as far as ive seen, the large majority of law scholars think born abroad to us citizen means "natural born"

[wufwugy]

You asked me b4 why I liked Sanders. The below statement is just one of many statements that make me support him

https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/12/b...e-not-colleges

im not sure he said anything that puts him in a different camp than most (all?) other candidates. police aren't barred from investigating criminal rape on campus and nobody thinks they should be.

[spoonitnow]

In '92, Bill Clinton lost Iowa by 74%, then lost New Hampshire by 9%.

Get over it. Trump's the next POTUS.

[wufwugy]

Cruz's law professor:

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.

[wufwugy]

In '92, Bill Clinton lost Iowa by 74%, then lost New Hampshire by 9%.

Get over it. Trump's the next POTUS.

the candidates skipped iowa because harkin was in the race. harkin was governor of iowa.


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.

[JKDS]

im not sure he said anything that puts him in a different camp than most (all?) other candidates. police aren't barred from investigating criminal rape on campus and nobody thinks they should be.

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.

Of course every candidate supports police investigations of rape tho ..

[JKDS]

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.

Sone professors have substantial, serious, daily discussions with students. Others barely answer questions.

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

Of course every candidate supports police investigations of rape tho ..

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.

[wufwugy]

Sone professors have substantial, serious, daily discussions with students. Others barely answer questions.

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.

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.

[JKDS]

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.

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.

[spoonitnow]

im not sure he said anything that puts him in a different camp than most (all?) other candidates. police aren't barred from investigating criminal rape on campus and nobody thinks they should be.

[not trolling]

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]

[wufwugy]

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.

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.

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.

[wufwugy]

[not trolling]

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 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".

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.

[wufwugy]

The law sets this aside for certain types of discrimination, but being thought of as a rapist is not one of them.

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.

[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.

[JKDS]

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

[JKDS]

@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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[wufwugy]

trump plays the offended sjw card.

[spoonitnow]

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".

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.

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.

[spoonitnow]

an accusation alone shouldn't be enough for it to be legal to intrude into somebody's life except in the most superficial way.

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

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.

[spoonitnow]

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

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.

[JKDS]

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

[spoonitnow]

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.

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.

[wufwugy]

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

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.

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

yes i suspect hillary would not answer the way he did unless reeeeeeeeeally pressed.

[wufwugy]

@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.

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.

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[spoonitnow]

Trump handed Cruz his ass. Cruz has nothing for him.

[wufwugy]

it was the best performance by trump but cruz killed it. conservatives are rallying behind him.

[wufwugy]

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.

[spoonitnow]

"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."

[not trolling]

That absolutely disgusts me.

[/not trolling]

[wufwugy]

what about it disgusts you?

[wufwugy]

somebody this slick, who resonates with the base so well, is never losing the nomination

[spoonitnow]

somebody this slick, who resonates with the base so well, is never losing the nomination

What a pussy.

[spoonitnow]

what about it disgusts you?

[not trolling]

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]

[wufwugy]

[not trolling]

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.

[spoonitnow]

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.

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.

People are just too obsessed with their iPhone shoved up their asses to notice.

[wufwugy]

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.

[spoonitnow]

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.

[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.

[CoccoBill]

[not trolling]

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]

Maybe, maybe not.

http://www.interpretermag.com/snowden-is-a-fraud/

[spoonitnow]

Maybe, maybe not.

http://www.interpretermag.com/snowden-is-a-fraud/

Yeah okay. Nice try at a weak-ass coverup, US government.

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.

[wufwugy]

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).

[wufwugy]

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.

[wufwugy]

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).

[wufwugy]

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[wufwugy]

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/

[JKDS]

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.

[spoonitnow]

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.

Which is exactly what needs to happen, starting with doing everything he can to dismantle the complete and total fucking sham that Obamacare is.

[wufwugy]

Which is exactly what needs to happen, starting with doing everything he can to dismantle the complete and total fucking sham that Obamacare is.

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.

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.