Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 04, 2016, 12:32:25 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1239
26  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of AAD on: March 12, 2016, 01:51:08 pm
Meh... I tried it. I couldn't really get into it.
27  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Wedding conundrum on: March 12, 2016, 01:49:29 pm
It's probably worth mentioning that I've been invited to her wedding.

How big are your respective weddings? I'm inclined to agree with Vosem's take, and if her wedding is big while your's is a more intimate affair, you could not invite the other friend and save face pretty easily.

I'm not sure how big her wedding will be, but mine will be ~250.
28  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Wedding conundrum on: March 11, 2016, 07:43:52 pm
Anyway, my best friend has indicated that he and his fiancé will not attend if I invite his ex. Through diacussuions with him, it appears that the objection is mainly coming from his fiancé (for unknown reasons...

I really think you should ask your best man/best friend to get his fiancé on board. Think about it: What is really the big deal here? Just tell them to avoid her. How hard is that? It seems unfair to make you disinvite someone just because they may bump into that person. Like, come on, over 250 people? If he doesn't care as much as it's his fiancé, then this seems a little ridiculous.
In theory, I agree with you, but I've come to realize that she's kinda crazy. And honestly, their relationship is probably not going to last. He went from wanting to break up, not knowing how to sit her down to do it, to proposing a couple months later. She's crazy clingy... She didn't hear from him for 4 hours and started freaking out. And I don't think it's ,y place to say anything, but this is just part of a larger problem.

Quote
However, if they won't budge, then I think you should ultimately not invite the ex. Yes, I think it's kind of petty for them, aka, your best man, to say they won't come if his ex happens to be 1 of 250+ people, but at the same time he should still get priority over that other person - Especially if he's your best man. You should let him know this is kind of ridiculous, though.

Also, one thing that might change all of this - Is his ex vindictive or a scene-maker? Because if she isn't, and is generally reserved/won't cause issues, then it shouldn't be a problem. If she is liable to do that, then just don't invite her.
No. And if I told her not to talk to him at the wedding, I'm confident she would respect that.
29  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Wedding conundrum on: March 10, 2016, 10:17:37 pm
It's probably worth mentioning that I've been invited to her wedding.
30  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Wedding conundrum on: March 10, 2016, 10:09:11 pm
I agree with Vosem (don't get to say that every day!).

So would you suggest I tell the friend why I'm not inviting her?
31  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Wedding conundrum on: March 10, 2016, 09:59:19 pm
I am 18 and perhaps not the greatest person to give you advice here, but it seems to me that if someone is your very best friend and they are insistent on a certain person not going to your wedding for them to attend, I would accede to their wishes. Things can later be smoothed out with your other friend without the risk of you losing what seems to be a much more significant friendship.

Interesting... that's the position I took initially, but of the 10+ people I've talked to looking for advice, you're the first person besides myself to take that position.

Simple solution to this problem: invite both of them and assure each that the other is DEFINITELY not coming.

Horrible idea. #1, the girl doesn't care if he's there. #2, and more importantly, if I lie, and he flips out, things could go horribly wrong. Lying to the guy with depression probably isn't the way to go, and while inviting her could leas to him not coming to the wedding, we would still be friends after. If I lied, I doubt he'd forgive that.
32  Forum Community / Forum Community / Wedding conundrum on: March 10, 2016, 08:36:57 pm
So I'm looking for some advice here, and I made this a general topic as opposed to a poll because I'm more interested in the "why" rather than pure numbers.

Years ago, my best friend dated one of my other friends; I was the one who got them dating (although they were acquaintances through politics prior to this). They had a very nasty break-up after he was medically discharged from basic training due to an injury sustained there; the breakup and discharge led to his depression significantly worsening

I wish to invite both of them to my wedding. The best friend is my best man. Due to my wanting to avoid conflict and ability to put my foot in my mouth (which you and I are all well aware of--the same flaw led to my resignation as a moderator... Yes, I resigned), I screwed up and informed my best friend of my desire to invite his ex. At this point , I am of the opinion that I should have never said anything to him at all regarding the issue , so bringing that up that error will not be helpful.

Anyway, my best friend has indicated that he and his fiancé will not attend if I invite his ex. Through diacussuions with him, it appears that the objection is mainly coming from his fiancé (for unknown reasons... I really don't know why she would/should care if his ex is there),  his part of the objection is due to his uncomfortability around his ex.  My thought is that the wedding will have 250+ people there. He and his ex honestly likely won't even bump into each other. The only reason he knows ahead of time that she would be there is because I was trying to avoid conflict and ended up putting my foot in my mouth.

So the point I'm at is deciding between inviting her and risking him not coming to the wedding (meaning I'm losing my best man and risking my friendship with my best friend) or not inviting a good friend in order to avoid sacerificing another friendship. The third option I came up with is to ask her if she is even available the date of the wedding... If she can't come, I could just avoid the conflict by finding that out before, but does this option have any downsides I'm not realizing?

So, any input would be greatly appreciated.
33  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic MI/MS election results thread (first results @8pm ET) on: March 08, 2016, 09:35:15 pm
Shout out to Nate Silver who gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning Michigan.

Nate Silver's model, not Nate Silver
34  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic MI/MS election results thread (first results @8pm ET) on: March 08, 2016, 09:23:44 pm
Shout out to Nate Silver who gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning Michigan.

Nate Silver's model, not Nate Silver
35  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican MI/MS/ID/HI election results thread (first results @8pm ET) on: March 08, 2016, 07:17:08 pm
Just voted for Kasich. I legitimately didn't decide which party's primary I would participate in until I checked the party selection box, which was the last thing I did. It was Kasich or Sanders, and it came down to which one I thought my vote would influence more. PredictIt had Kasich slightly higher, and I'm in a more Democratic district, so I figured my individual vote had a heigher weight intra-district on the GOP side (for delegate purposes). Never before have I been so undecided.

Decided to switch the avatar considering I was pretty much an independent today.
36  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be on: March 07, 2016, 10:52:02 pm
Setting the Supreme Court at a constant number. Likely 9. I see no reason to sway from 9.
37  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: If you left Atlas for one week........ on: March 07, 2016, 10:50:21 pm
At this point, I don't think so. I feel like I've been pretty low profile since I returned. Either that or like 50-some people have me on ignore.
38  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: What standard is used for the 2nd Amendment? on: March 06, 2016, 11:14:13 am
Well there are 3 standards for the First Amendment, not just strict scrutiny. The Court hasn't clarified which standards apply to the Second Amendment or when they apply. So the answer to your question is, for now, it depends on which Circuit's jurisdiction you live under.
39  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: CPAC Straw poll: Cruz 40% Rubio 30% Trump 15% Kasich 8% on: March 05, 2016, 06:26:07 pm
What's the chance that Gary Johnson could end up winning that straw poll with Rand Paul now out of the race?

My guess is that they'll only include the Republican candidates in the straw poll.


It was kinda weird that they included Sanders, Clinton, and Bloomberg.
40  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: My Op-Ed in The Hill: Only Kasich nomination can save the GOP on: March 04, 2016, 06:00:27 pm
It's not the rules, it's the message. Your problem with TRUMP appears to be that he's clearly articulating the parts of the Republican message that until now major figures in the party have chosen to say in coded language. At least with TRUMP there is no need for a secret decoder ring which is a large part of his appeal. You say you don't want the crazies in the party but you haven't said how you'd do that other than procedurally.

At this point, I don't know that it feasibly can be done (or rather undone). You need elected officials to start saying, "I don't care if I get primaried. I'm not going to spout extremist stances so that I can win a primary." The problem is that it's a positive feedback cycle. People who previously weren't political decided to get involved in politics, and while both sides have radicals, the radicals at issue now joined to GOP--not because there was anything wrong with the GOP at that time, but because that party more closely aligned with those radicals' views. Some officials decided to tap into those new supporters and pandered to them. This made people inside the party shift right as well; I'm not sure what the reason for that was. I've seen people completely reverse positions and become more radical, and these people are not elected people, just party participants. I don't know if it's because they want to stay in what they feel is the "majority" opinion-wise or what the reason is. But as the grassroots shifted right, this caused elected officials to shift right in order to stay in office. This in turn brought in new radicals and caused former sane party participants to also shift right.

I can tell you how to avoid it: don't pander, and when the bad apples come in in the first place, make it known that their radical ideas aren't welcome. But we're past that now. I don't know how you undo that without pissing off the radicals in order to drive them from the party.
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: My Op-Ed in The Hill: Only Kasich nomination can save the GOP on: March 04, 2016, 04:51:30 pm
You touched upon it, but it didn't come across as the focus of your piece. You focused upon which candidate could present Republican positions positively without concerning yourself over why those positions have tended to appeal principally to the angry white male vote. It's not as simple as the pandering you wish were the problem; if that were the problem then the angry white male voters would never have come to identify themselves as Republican in the first place.

That's true as to the piece, but that has no bearing on your allegation that I have not accepted that my party has an addiction. 750 words is pretty short, and the focus here was to do what I can in the present moment. I've advocated for stopping Trump by any means necessary, even if that means a last-minute rules change that makes the crazies leave the party; I don't want the crazies in the party. But putting that in an op-ed right before Super Tuesday doesn't really accomplish much. At least this had the opportunity--granted it's a longshot--of doing something.
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: My Op-Ed in The Hill: Only Kasich nomination can save the GOP on: March 04, 2016, 09:59:19 am
Nathan, nothing will save the GOP from itself this election cycle. TRUMP is a mainstream Republican because he represents exactly the sort of unfocused angry voters the Republican Party has become addicted to these last few years in its quest for electoral victory at any cost. Until the GOP is able to at least climb the first of the twelve steps of recovery, I won't be enabling it at all with my votes. That is why I recently changed my long time independent avatar to a Democratic avatar. By focusing upon the candidates the GOP selects rather than the voters the party reaches out to, it's clear that you personally have not yet accepted the fact that your party has an addiction. Not that you are alone in your failure. I have yet to hear any Republican who has taken that first step. No doubt there are a few, but they certainly aren't getting heard. There are plenty like yourself who can see the consequences of the party's addiction and who deplore those consequences. But also like yourself, they seek to treat the symptoms rather than come to grips with the cancerous addiction that eats at the party and is destroying its long term prospects as a presidential party.

At least TRUMP is not delusional about the types of voters the Republican Party has become addicted to. The problem with him is that he embraces that addiction and feeds it to his own benefit just as he has with other addictions other people he has taken for a ride have had.

I have acknowledged that though, and I touched on this in the piece. Your point is exactly what I was talking about when I said, "For years elected Republican officials have increasingly pandered to a small minority of extremely conservative voters—all in an effort to gain votes." Pushing the party to the right to gain support of Tea Party voters was the worst decision elected GOP officials made in years; this is something I've been saying for years.
43  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: My Op-Ed in The Hill: Only Kasich nomination can save the GOP on: March 04, 2016, 09:48:05 am
I'm sorry, Inks. While I'm impressed you've published your op-ed it's still a wishful thinking.

I don't necessarily disagree. If I had to put money on it, I'd say Trump will be the nominee. But the sane Republicans at least have to try.
44  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Scalia's Replacement: What if Senate Democrats..... on: March 04, 2016, 12:27:38 am
Escalation by the Democrats is one of the many reasons I oppose the GOP's current stance. If you can obstruct for a whole year, how long until you start blocking nominees during a president's entire second term?

That could happen.  But my greater concern is that escalation ultimately leads to someone following through on the FDR plan.

That's another significant risk. Honestly, setting the size of the Court should probably be an amendment.

Agreed.

I think Trump is the most likely to pull something like that, so hopefully we'll never find out.

I'd be more worried about it with Cruz than Trump. Trump is obnoxious, but he's honestly not that radical policy-wise. He just acts like it to drum up support. Cruz actually is radical, and he seems like the type to try to unfairly hijack the Court.
45  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Scalia's Replacement: What if Senate Democrats..... on: March 04, 2016, 12:07:46 am
Escalation by the Democrats is one of the many reasons I oppose the GOP's current stance. If you can obstruct for a whole year, how long until you start blocking nominees during a president's entire second term?

That could happen.  But my greater concern is that escalation ultimately leads to someone following through on the FDR plan.

That's another significant risk. Honestly, setting the size of the Court should probably be an amendment.
46  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Michigan on: March 04, 2016, 12:04:19 am
Trump <40%
Clinton <60%
47  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Scalia's Replacement: What if Senate Democrats..... on: March 03, 2016, 11:27:36 pm
Escalation by the Democrats is one of the many reasons I oppose the GOP's current stance. If you can obstruct for a whole year, how long until you start blocking nominees during a president's entire second term?
48  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: My Op-Ed in The Hill: Only Kasich nomination can save the GOP on: March 03, 2016, 07:07:44 pm
Inks,

  Great article by the way cool to see an article by a forum member published in The Hill. But, Kasich is too boring and not conservative enough for most republicans.

Thanks.  I've actually had decent luck with The Hill.  I'm 2/2 publication-wise with them (my first being a letter in support of Hagel's confirmation).
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / My Op-Ed in The Hill: Only Kasich nomination can save the GOP on: March 03, 2016, 06:39:53 pm
For those who wish to read it, today The Hill published my op-ed in support of Kasich.  Here is the opening paragraph:

Quote
If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination for President, it will spell the end of the Republican Party's legitimacy for years to come. Many GOP leaders have realized this and have been candid in their concerns about Trump as the nominee, but what they are not talking about is what happens to the party if someone else is nominated. While Trump’s nomination would all but guarantee immediate disaster for the GOP, nominating anyone other than Ohio Governor John Kasich will merely delay said disaster.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/271525-only-kasich-nomination-can-save-the-gop
50  About this Site / The Atlas / Trouble entering polls on: March 02, 2016, 08:43:48 pm
I keep a generic "Error: Poll not entered" message when I try to enter GOP or Dem primary polls.  Anybody else been having issues?  (I also emailed Dave, but I figured maybe I'm missing something.)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1239


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines