Favourite latest post by previous poster

[Mechaman]

Guys, you could never hold elected office in your life and still be part of the "Establishment." It's all about who you're cozy with. The point (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing because I know next to nothing about Lankford) is that he's been close to the House leaders who are generally regarded as Establishment forces.

Thank you. It's really not that hard to see.

Yes, someone had to say it.

And why is that a bad thing? Why is it not okay to be close to House leaders for sake of actually, I don't know, getting $#!@ done, but it's perfectly okay to be close to the leaders of the Tea Party-Industrial Complex that exercises far more influence over Republican policymaking than anything that spineless chump Boehner does?

Is T.W. Shannon some lone wolf with no connections to anyone? Do you think he doesn't have his own closed-door meetings with people he owes favors to and will owe more favors to once the election's over and the checks have been cashed?

Please tell me just what far away planet you live on where that kind of "Establishment" is perfectly acceptable to you but James Lankford's isn't.

Lankford panders to the interests of the Congressional Republican leadership. Shannon panders to the interests of the Oklahoma Republican establishment, thus making him the outside voice....technically.

[Mechaman]

Rand Paul states historical facts, tea party is outraged

[Mechaman]

Currently watching some HBO, and I gotta say easy FS vote right here!  Naked women making out with each other is one of the things that makes America truly great!  Vote FS if you agree!

[Mechaman]

Daschle was a terrible Senator and I'm glad he lost.

[Mechaman]

Wow, this is actually a pretty good one:

I found the Nolan trilogy...okay. Certainly a lot to praise in all three films, but they each fundamentally suffer from both the Hollywood version of "realism" as Einzige pointed out and from the obvious fact that said "realism" conflicts with the man in the rubber bat suit being the protagonist.

[Mechaman]

Colleen Hanabusa would be the worst member of the senate

[Mechaman]

Agree, as in all illegal (non-violent) immigrants should be granted amnesty immediately.

[Mechaman]

Where is the "douche" option?

[Mechaman]

Allow me to repost my treatise on Florida Democratic Logic. Surely explains why the DNC needs to cut all funding off of from the state party if they lose this race (and until they get their sh*t together), and my thoughts on this race and the party itself.

So, a rare swing district opens up... Republicans were essentially set to nominate David Jolly, a DC lobbyist, legal counselor to Bill Young, and vehicular killer with little ties to the district. Normal logic would say to run a good candidate who represents the Tampa Bay area and spends their time there, like a county commissioner or an attorney who made a surprise run at the seat last cycle.

But Florida Democrats follow a different type of logic. Florida Democrats' logic would be that running a lazy, failed candidate who lost to a slimy criminal and doesn't even live in the district would result in a pickup, and pouring obscene amounts of money into the race would flip this seat into her hands.... so thirty minutes ago, I watched the worst-case scenario unfold: Florida Democrats, one again, screwed the pooch.

Same thing with Rick Scott: normal logic would say to run a clean, honest candidate against a shady businessman who treats the state second to his old business this November to ensure a win, like one of the many Democratic mayors. Florida Democrat logic would be to run an ex-Republican who only turned Democratic to win back the office that he left in his last failed run. Now, my fears are starting to cook up again: same sh**t happens again, Crist loses to Scott, and Florida continues down the road of becoming the Hospital Corporation of America's business subsidary.

Fing classic

[Mechaman]

What's your dad, Satan, like?

[Mechaman]

As a social sciences student, I have realized how much the cancer of economic thinking has spread throughout this field of study. What I hate, more than the ideological framework in itself (which is an interesting perspective in itself), is the smug, self-satisfied and downright authoritarian belief held by its proponents that their economic rationality is the only rationality, that they got it all figured out, and that everybody else is just unable to see the truth because their judgment is clouded by silly things like norms and values ...

It's this delusion of grandeur that makes homo economicus theory one of the most dangerous ideas of the 21st century.

I'm sorry, Antonio, but please get off your high horse. Don't be so combative unless you can describe a set of norms that predicts annualized quaterly GDP growth within 0.3 percentage points.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Just because you can predict GDP growth doesn't mean you have found the explanation to every single human or social phenomenon ever.

I firmly believe that the main reason non-economists hate on economics is because they fundamentally misunderstand what it is. They think it's psychology. They think that economics is trying to answer the question "Why did I buy that banana today?" But it isn't. It's trying to answer questions like "Why does X number of bananas get sold every day in the US?" Or "Why is the price of a banana X dollars?"

Economic models don't explain every single human ever because it's not supposed to do that.

You're missing the point. Nobody is attacking economists for doing their job as economists (I mean, there would be some legitimate criticism to voice against how some economists have been doing their job in the past 30 years, but that's besides the point). The problem is that a few economists - but also an awful lot of non-economists - have decided that the conceptual tools and theoretical framework of modern microeconomics can be applied to every social science, from sociology to politics, to psychology etc. Basically, you can do away with "subjective" notions like ideology or socialization and examine everything in terms of interest maximization, rational choice and game theory. That is a very dangerous trend.

[Mechaman]

Two things:

1) I have been to the Leslie/Clay, KY area before. Why have these counties always voted Republican while Appalachia has seen massive shifts? I have been to areas of Appalachia before that have been part of the shifts and cannot identify what has caused these differences.

2) How does Waukesha County, WI fit into this picture? I can't imagine a time that it would have been voting Democratic.

1) I think I can address this with a DRA shot:



The area (generally) in blue has been historically very Republican since the Civil War. The area (generally) in red is the area that Democrats have done really well in historically and is trending heavily Republican now. The two areas are similar demographically and culturally, but pretty different politically. As for what's causing the red to shift, its probably a combination of energy policy, not being culturally liberal, and other stuff like that.

2) Waukesha County only got its Republican strength starting in the 50's and 60's. Unlike the Chicago suburbs, it has gotten more Republican over the past 20 years. If you can find the 'how has your county voted' thread (or something along those words), you can see that Waukesha actually was about 50/50 in who won in presidential races before '52.

[Mechaman]

They wouldn't have a baby, because Wendy would abort it.

[Mechaman]

Well, I just finished season 2, so it seems like the -real- stuff is about to begin.

Besides a few good episodes like "Q who", the season's ending was pretty dull. The last episode in particular was an utter mockery. It's easy to see they had to rush in to complete it.

But anyway, now I'm looking to be impressed.

[Mechaman]

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

I assume you refer to Article 1, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

First of all, one could make the argument that, in States where popular initiatives are recognized, the people itself constitutes one branch of the "legislature". Since the US Constitution contains no precise definition of the term, the legislature has to mean "those who hold legislative power". If the State Constitution recognizes a right for the people to legislate directly through initiatives or referendums, then the people voting for these initiatives are functionally equivalent to elected representatives voting on a bill.

If the power to alter electoral regulation is vested in the holders of legislative power in a given State, then it follows that citizens have the same right as their representatives to enact electoral regulations. Secondly, the exercise of the power must always come with the possibility to delegate such power to a different body. If the people, in their quality of legislators, resolve to grant their redistricting power to a nonpartisan commission, they are merely exercising their Constitutional right to its full extent.

[Mechaman]

To be on "Greece's side" at this point, given the ever increasing idiocy their new government produces, is a pretty good indicator of insanity. And being on "Greece's side" in the way it's meant in this poll is even worse for the Greek people than the alternative.

You mean continued austerity is better than trying (somewhat erratically) to restore some semblance of humane living conditions for the most destitute? I'm sorry to say that, but it's just baffling to see how much you Northern Europeans are deluded.