Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 04, 2016, 11:58:13 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 269
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: McConnell rules out confirming Garland in lame duck on: Today at 11:55:46 pm
Hopefully Obama withdraws Garland in the lame duck as a big FU to them.

Would be quite the disgusting treatment of a universally respected judge to do so.

Oh yeah, because the GOP is treating this "universally respected judge" SO well.

Roll EyesRoll EyesRoll EyesRoll EyesRoll EyesRoll EyesRoll EyesRoll EyesRoll EyesRoll EyesRoll Eyes

Of course the GOP isn't treating him respectfully. I believe the point was that there's no reason for Obama to screw over Garland like that.

Exactly.

While I'm ambivalent on the confirmation (they really should at least put him through the wringer in confirmations and make their case why they think he doesn't deserve to be on the court), they're playing typical partisan games. They don't want their advantage on the court to go away, simple as that.

For Obama to essentially Charlie-Brown a respected jurist and yank away the nomination just as it's about to happen because he sees a better deal would be senseless and cruel. Unless Garland was in on it the whole time, but I seriously doubt that,

But if he is, he can sit through a couple of days of confirmation hearings and then announce he's withdrawing himself from consideration because he's so disappointed by how some people in the Senate have politicized the confirmation process (inevitably one of the Tea Party senators will have said/asked something inflammatory by then). Then Obama can give a speech about how he tried to extend an olive branch and offer a nominee that everyone could accept but the Senate Republicans spat in his face.

Then next year, the Senate will confirm 39 year old Shanequa Barrios-Chung as the first bisexual transwoman atheist SCOTUS justice on a 51-49 vote.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Most likely #NeverTrump Republican to run as a third partier? on: Today at 11:50:19 pm
Justin Amash, based on his cryptic tweet:

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/727693152170196994


How that would end:

"Amash? What is that, Pig Latin for HAMAS? Sad."
-@realDonaldTrump
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is the Republican party a racist party? on: Today at 02:04:10 am
No

Donald Trump is not a racist and 80% of his supporters aren't either. Trump is still awful though.
No, otherwise I wouldn't be a Republican.

Guys, I understand why you feel like you are Republicans. I also hate paying so much in taxes when much of it is being wasted on public employee unions and endless wars. I want to be able to keep at least some of my FICA taxes to invest in a way of my choosing. I think premium support should be introduced in Medicare and there should be greater cost sharing, especially for those who can afford it. I would be quite content if the Ryan budget was adopted.

That being said I understand I am not a Republican and wouldn't be accepted into the Republican party. I knew this before, but the 2016 election has made it crystal clear. Both of you are not going to be accepted by the Republican rank and file either. That doesn't make you Democrats but you guys just are not Republicans.

Might god you have moved to the right. I seem to recall you being not quite so conservative economically. Wink

I definitely feel I should get to invest my retirement income in the way of my choosing. I don't mind paying some FICA taxes to help the indigent in old age and of course disability insurance. I also think premium support would be a good idea as long as traditional Medicare is allowed to compete. Lastly, I really want an end to all the nonsense in the tax code and just want a lower tax rate in return. I don't want to get subsidized to buy a house, or to pay my state income tax, or any of the other crap built into the tax code. I think the Republicans are more likely to change that but that could just be because they are out of power currently. Lots of entrenched interests there.

No they're not. The GOP, in terms of what it actually does when it controls Congress, basically exists by and for very rich people who live in blue states - they're the ones who bankroll GOP campaigns and they want deductions for their $10M Manhattan townhouse and their high state and local taxes.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is the Republican party a racist party? on: Today at 02:01:50 am
These kinds of Internet comments sum up why many of the self-described "conservatives" in the Republican Party aren't really conservative. They just want to make sure "those people" get put in their place.

5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Anti-Trump Republicans, why now? on: Today at 01:30:48 am
I'm genuinely curious why you think you qualify as an independent when it's extremely obvious where the majority of your views lie.

I mean, calling yourself an independent but  making a blanket statement about a party and views of minorities, women, etc seems ridiculous.

You know, marty, I've actually voted for Republicans before.

But if your vision for your party is one where people who believe in evolution and don't think someone who gets pregnant from a rape should be denied access to the morning after pill are automatically not welcome, good luck ever winning a national election again. You guys could have had the Senate back in 2010 rather than 2014 if you weren't living in the 15th century on social issues (and science, for that matter).
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What has been the worst decision/action on the GOP primary side this year? on: Today at 01:27:24 am
Putting all the establishment money into Jeb Bush's campaign

Wouldn't be so much of a problem except that the Establishment's conception of what the GOP should be is basically the British Conservatives - across-the-board austerity, tax cuts for the super-rich and deregulation of banking and finance, while largely ignoring social/cultural issues or immigration. Jeb! was a fine candidate for that, but that agenda falls flat among actual GOP voters.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How ya feeling tonight? on: Today at 12:51:13 am
Disappointed that all the cynical things I've thought about the GOP and its supporters the past couple of years have been proved true in all the worst ways.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Anti-Trump Republicans, why now? on: Today at 12:44:38 am
First off, the term "material" is subjective. A conservative would find it ridiculous "material"  that bernie sanders tweets about how "it's outrageous that school loans charge higher interest than car loans", or that rape victims should be automatically believed. A liberal would find it ridiculous that evolution isn't taught in some schools, on and on and on.

So if "material" is what drives you away from a certain party, then you are by definition not truly independent, because your biases are what make you think the material is easy.

If you think wanting evolution to be taught in schools makes someone a liberal, you're part of the problem. Why don't you ask some people in the Conservative Party in the UK or any other "right" party in the world how they feel about evolution? They'll look at you like you're crazy. Evolution trutherism isn't conservative; it's fundie nonsense. William Jennings Bryan argued against evolution being taught in schools - was he conservative?

I won't even respond to your rape comment because it's disgusting and more evidence of your party's underlying issues.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What has been the worst decision/action on the GOP primary side this year? on: Today at 12:39:50 am
Thinking they could just get a handful of rich guys to write million dollar checks and everything would sort itself out.

When you can be considered a serious candidate by winning the backing of a handful of people who can donate millions of dollars to you, without having to actually go out and prove you can connect with actual voters, there's a huge margin for error.

And when the party apparatus itself has been made relatively cash poor since big donors would rather put their money in super PACs, a collective action problem arises. That happened to a lesser extent in 2012 with Sheldon Adelson and various other billionaires dumping money into ads hammering Romney to create an opening for their own preferred candidates (Gingrich and Santorum) who didn't have a chance in hell of winning.

Say what you will about campaign finance and Citizens United and all that, but the Republican Party probably wishes that those 17 candidates had to go out and get $2,700 donations from thousands of people. It would have eliminated the empty suits before the process had even began.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Since the GOP primary is practically done, which opponent hated Trump the most? on: Today at 12:34:43 am
It is amazing that it's not the candidate Trump compared to a child molester, yet we know it's not given that he endorsed Trump.

He slept through that part of the primary.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Anti-Trump Republicans, why now? on: Today at 12:03:19 am
Here's a better question: why do you lie to us all when you call yourself "Indy" when of the thousands of posts you have made, not a single one said anything negative about any other party?

Your party provides so much easy material, I often don't get a chance to critique the other side (which I used to do in earlier times when I posted more often on here).
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Anti-Trump Republicans, why now? on: Today at 12:00:42 am
Quote
He hates that "political correctness" stuff.

Which explains why he threw North Carolina under the bus? No, he loves political correctness.

He, like most Americans, has better things to do than agonize over who is taking a piss/dump the next stall over at Target.

Your party's third-in-line to be president for 8 years, Denny Hastert, was a fricking serial pedophile.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Anti-Trump Republicans, why now? on: May 03, 2016, 10:55:04 pm
You say you won't vote for Trump because he peddles lies and conspiracy theories. You were perfectly fine with your party's members claiming Barack Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim and talking about "death panels" and "terror babies."

You say you won't vote for Trump because he says hateful things about women and minorities. Your party had two US Senate candidates suggest women should consent to be impregnated against their will by rapists. You've had Tea Party rallies with protesters carrying some truly vile signs and saying truly bigoted things for nearly a decade now - many of the same people who are now supporting Trump.

You said that anyone who ever disagreed with you was a "RINO" or "Establishment" and that experience in public service made you an "insider." Trump won with this very playbook by being someone who has never held any kind of public office.

So why not Trump? He's from the private sector. He's created jobs. He hates that "political correctness" stuff. What's the deal?
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: #NeverTrump GOP endorsements (Sasse,Whitman,Romney,Baker, Beck,Kristol,Ridge...) on: May 03, 2016, 07:25:41 pm
any guesses which one of these Never Trumpers will speak at the DNC? My money is on Whitman.

Whitman might make a good VP pick for Hillary if she were shrewd enough.

Christine Todd Whitman or Meg Whitman? Both seem like poor choices for different reasons.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Lyin Ted suspend his campaign tonight? on: May 03, 2016, 07:23:18 pm
At this point, they should both just go the Ron Paul route and stop campaigning but not officially withdraw. Cruz is just going to further embarrass himself if he stays in public - the press conference this morning was a total disaster.

Besides, I think the GOP donor class has officially had it with this race - they threw away money on Jeb!, they threw away money on Marco, they've thrown away money on #NeverTrump/de facto Cruz, and none of it has worked. They're done.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could a Trump nomination cause an exodus of moderate Republicans? on: May 03, 2016, 12:28:29 am
I could see someone like Susan Collins endorse Hillary Clinton and announce she's becoming a Democrat.

If I were her, I'd say I'm not voting for Trump and leave it at that.

Then, after election day, if the Democrats have a majority, I'd say I'm becoming an independent and caucusing with the Democrats. If it's a 50-50 tie, I'd say I'm becoming an independent but haven't decided who I'll caucus with. If the Democrats don't take back the Senate, I'd leave things the way they are.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ted Cruz refuses to answer if he'll support Trump on: May 02, 2016, 12:09:06 am
Quote
If there are enough "red-meat conservatives" in America to get a majority of the vote in November, why weren't there enough "red-meat conservatives" in the GOP primary to stop Donald Trump?

That's a good question - because they didn't get behind Cruz in Iowa. [\b]Had they done so, this would have been over a long time ago.

Quote
You are really misreading the country if you think people voted against Mitt Romney because he wasn't conservative enough.

I knew Romney was in trouble when white middle class friends in Texas were remarking about how he was like a car salesman and they didn't trust him.

Quote
And why would pro-lifers be upset with a man who wants to punish women for having abortions?!

When he came out in favor of changing the platform the day after winning in New York. Why would we support Judas?

You're right - a lot of them voted for Trump!
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: For Republican and independent voters who lean right: Facing the Trump reality on: May 01, 2016, 10:43:52 pm
Quote
So you're going to compare the poorest parts of Chicago to Mississippi as a whole?

There's not as much economic disparity in MS as in Chicago. Point taken is that it really depends on where you live in Illinois, and with COL lower in MS, your standard of living is higher there than in Chicago.

Quote
As for your point about Texas, I think this is a pointless argument to begin with. States' economic fortunes really don't have a lot to do with what party is in power.

Texas *was* poor. Now, after 20 years of Republicans, it's not. Detroit *was* rich. Now, after 40 years of Democrats, it's a hole.

It takes time for economic effects to turn around poor places and make them rich. California, despite all it's natural advantages is no longer in the lead.

Quote
West Virginia is going to be poor no matter who is in charge.

I disagree with that. West Virginia has natural assets that could make it extremely wealthy.

Quote
Texas' oil and gas isn't going to vanish from underneath the ground depending on election results. When you have free movement of labor and capital within a country, it's going to naturally gravitate to rich, growing areas. West Virginia is a s***hole because it's easier for smart, ambitious people to just go somewhere else than it is to stay and try to make the state wealthier.

And Texas, again, it was a poor state. Now it's not.

Quote
But my point was that what you are doing for poor people is a separate issue from economic growth. Your poor black woman in Chicago isn't going to benefit all that much from economic growth if she's not qualified to do any of the high-skilled jobs it accompanies and doesn't own any stock in companies that are going to be doing well. You can have a state with high GSP growth and high per capita income and still have her not be significantly better off. Georgia is a good example of that paradox: plenty of Fortune 500 companies and wealthy suburbs, and plenty of people in inner Atlanta and rural areas who derive little to no benefit from any of that.

My point is that the people in power do make a difference. And that institutional advantages between the North and the South continue, though they are a lot less today than in the 60s.

I foresee a time when the industrial base of America moves south. We are well on that way today.
 

  
 


Texas wasn't some underdeveloped backwater prior to the Republicans sweeping statewide offices there in 1994. Like most of the country, its per capita income grew considerably during the 20th century. Coming to the realization that there was something under the ground that could fetch a high price significantly changed our destiny, which, before that, seemed to be growing things above ground that didn't generate as much income (namely cotton and wheat).

Do you really think Republicans could have stopped globalization from happening? Do you think they could have stopped the Big Three carmakers from being so shortsighted in designing cars that people didn't want?

As for West Virginia, get your head out of the sand. Their only natural asset is a diwndling supply of coal that is uneconomical. Their human capital is virtually nonexistent. Their geography is completely inappropriate for heavy industry - too many mountains for road and rail transport and too far from major cities. If it weren't for Robert Byrd's pork barrel projects, the place would be even more of a wasteland than it is.
19  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Free black population by state, 1860 on: May 01, 2016, 10:36:29 pm
In 1860, there was actually a referendum in New York about black voting. Voters were asked whether they supported removing property qualifications for voting in that state. Even as Lincoln won the state, the question was defeated easily. Of course, white voters had no property qualifications whatsoever, or even tax requirements. Seems unfair, doesn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_black_suffrage_referendum,_1860

I also plugged that $250 into an inflation calculator- it comes out to about $6,600 today. How prohibitive would that be?

If you required someone to prove they own at least $6,600 of assets, you'd be disenfranchising a lot of black people. It's sad but it's true.
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CA: Harris uses AG's office for political witch hunts on: May 01, 2016, 10:33:41 pm
She went after my friends at AFP with hilariously bad results for her in the end.

AFP?

Americans for [Keeping the Benefits of] Prosperity [Confined to the One Percent].

FTFY
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: For Republican and independent voters who lean right: Facing the Trump reality on: May 01, 2016, 10:28:04 pm
Quote
We could just as easily flip that around and ask why Louisiana and Mississippi are such beacons of human development despite the steady hands of Bobby Jindal and Phil Bryant.

The interesting part is that Texas just recently crossed into the upper half of states by GDP per capita. First southern state to do so.

Quote
If I were a poor black woman, I'd much rather live in Chicago than in the Mississippi Delta.

Of Chicago's 800 census tracts, 40 percent have deep poverty rates above the city average. Nearly two-thirds of tracts with above average rates have predominately black populations, including tract 3504, which includes the Dearborn Homes public housing project in Bronzeville. The tract has the highest deep poverty rate in the city, about 50 percent of its residents.

 In 2015 terms, that is $5,885 a year for an individual or less than $12,125 for a family of four.

Mississippi's poverty rate is only about 23 percent, about half that of these districts.

So you're going to compare the poorest parts of Chicago to Mississippi as a whole?

As for your point about Texas, I think this is a pointless argument to begin with. States' economic fortunes really don't have a lot to do with what party is in power. West Virginia is going to be poor no matter who is in charge. Texas' oil and gas isn't going to vanish from underneath the ground depending on election results. When you have free movement of labor and capital within a country, it's going to naturally gravitate to rich, growing areas. West Virginia is a s***hole because it's easier for smart, ambitious people to just go somewhere else than it is to stay and try to make the state wealthier.

But my point was that what you are doing for poor people is a separate issue from economic growth. Your poor black woman in Chicago isn't going to benefit all that much from economic growth if she's not qualified to do any of the high-skilled jobs it accompanies and doesn't own any stock in companies that are going to be doing well. You can have a state with high GSP growth and high per capita income and still have her not be significantly better off. Georgia is a good example of that paradox: plenty of Fortune 500 companies and wealthy suburbs, and plenty of people in inner Atlanta and rural areas who derive little to no benefit from any of that.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: For Republican and independent voters who lean right: Facing the Trump reality on: May 01, 2016, 09:24:40 pm
Quote
The dog whistling and "Faith, Family, Freedom" rhetoric is the dog food to hide the pill for the GOP voters.

Same avatar, 180 degree politics. Wink

There's a reason conservatives were successful against the party of Amnesty, Acid and Abortion. And it's not because of racism but because of convictions for conservativism.

If Democrats were that great for minorities, why are things so bad in Detroit, or Chicago?

We could just as easily flip that around and ask why Louisiana and Mississippi are such beacons of human development despite the steady hands of Bobby Jindal and Phil Bryant.

If I were a poor black woman, I'd much rather live in Chicago than in the Mississippi Delta.
23  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Zac Goldsmith. on: May 01, 2016, 09:12:47 pm
Named Goldsmith and married to a Rothschild, it's like he's trying to be a caricature for anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ted Cruz refuses to answer if he'll support Trump on: May 01, 2016, 08:57:58 pm
Quote
But why do you think Ted Cruz is a better alternative? Even more voters have rejected Cruz than have rejected Trump. His negatives are worse than every GOP candidate other than Trump and are worse than Hillary's.

Very good question. One, his support is higher than Trump. That should be reason alone to support Cruz over Trump.

Two, I'm not a Cruz supporter. I came over to Cruz because I believed he was the best candidate standing. I was somewhat reluctant, but seeing the walking disaster that is Trump, I really had no choice. I looked at the data, and after South Carolina realized what was happening with Rubio and how Rubio couldn't win.

So.. Thus Cruz.

For me the convictions matter most. Is Cruz a conservative? Yes. I believe a conservative can win, and we've had two losing elections with folks who were 'winners', who, surprise, surprise, lost in November. It's time for a red-meat Conservative.

Trump is just more of the same with the additional disaster that he's a democrat.

Quote
At least Trump can claim to have brought a bunch of disaffected white people into the GOP column.

At the cost of every prolifer out there. We're all sitting it out if Trump is the nominee. We have no reason to vote GOP if Trump changes the platform.  

If there are enough "red-meat conservatives" in America to get a majority of the vote in November, why weren't there enough "red-meat conservatives" in the GOP primary to stop Donald Trump?

You are really misreading the country if you think people voted against Mitt Romney because he wasn't conservative enough.

And why would pro-lifers be upset with a man who wants to punish women for having abortions?!
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Cruz: Boehner's 'Lucifer' comment shows that "I'm the real outsider" on: May 01, 2016, 08:23:43 pm
Quote
Mike Lee and Rand Paul are both just as conservative/principled/contrarian as Cruz is, but they have friends. They aren't universally hated the way Ted Cruz is.

If you were applying for a new job and everyone at your current job had nothing but bad things to say about you, do you really think you'd get the job or that you deserve the job?

Depends on the person and why. If I were interviewing Cruz, being hated by the worthless employees who were fired at their previous job for poor performance, I'd see it as an asset that they blamed Cruz for 'showing them up'. Some work environments are toxic.

Yes, I agree. Some work environments are toxic. I'd hate to have to work with a man who orchestrated a government shutdown when he didn't get his way and who calls people names to their face. That sounds like a very toxic place to work indeed, and I feel for his 99 coworkers.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 269


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines