Favourite latest post by previous poster

[IceSpear]

There's another Governor Bobby Jindal? (who happens to be white)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Neither. The most representative American "swing voter" is one who votes in some elections but not others.

[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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Once I had this dream where I was in this sheepskin tent on a white sand beach laying down next to an extremely hot and naked black haired white woman in her early thirties (I guess we had sex or something before then, damn why wasn't the dream about that?) and outside the tent I could hear some awkward grunting and chuckling.  Suddenly the woman wakes up and yells "NOOOOOOOOOO!" and bolts out of the tent at FULL SPEED.  I get up and put some pants on and then run off after her.  That is when I notice off in the distance Liu Kang doing Doyle McPoyle (from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) doggy style.  I get closer just to make sure I am not high or hallucinating when the woman yells "get out of him, you sick bastard!" and she pulls Liu Kang out of Doyle McPoyle and then she opens his legs and freaking stomps on his balls.  I mean she freaking stomps on them.

This dream has always puzzled me.  My friend who thinks he is a dream expert tried to say that this dream represents my sexual insecurities.  I disagree.  It seemed to be about me having a weirdass dream that included two fictional male characters doing the nasty and a random very homophobic MILF who I don't remember sleeping with.  To this day I've always wondered why the hot woman was so homophobic.

[LeBron]

B; very underrated President.

[Morning in Atlas]

I forgot to post this last week after the SuperBowl.....but since the Patriots won and he was a member of the Pats for a short time (plus I was kind of bored to), I did a #Tebowing selfie!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can we not?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Reagan by far.

But Thatcher is farther left and didn't randomly invade Grenada, and she certainly didn't sabotage any peace talks to get into power.

I'm not sure by what measure Thatcher would be "farther left" - she just happened to lead a country with a much more developed redistribution system, so she had more to work with. But she did much more damage to UK than Reagan did to America, and her neoliberalism was much more deep-rooted and articulate. Also, while Reagan was a hopeless buffoon with ridiculous ideas and policies, he doesn't strike me as a downright evil person like Thatcher.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Eminem? And Beck? What year is it? 2005?

I don't understand what the year has to do with anything. Creative fecundity lasting a decade is admirable and wouldn't be particularly confusing in any other industry.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Democrats should retaliate by building coffins to represent dead Iraq war veterans and those dead from lack of health care outside each Republican office.

Too bad so many Democrats joined with literally 99.7% of the Republicans in Congress to vote for the war, because that would be an awesome stunt otherwise.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have the feeling that the media wants a semi-competitive Democratic primary for increased viewership and ratings.  But in the end they'll be on Clinton's side.

[ElectionsGuy]

George Wallace (D): 285
Curtis LeMay (R): 253

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

F-

[RFayette]

How many Congressmen who voted against the other Iraq War in 2003 are still around?  Are any who voted against the War in 1991 still in office?

Anyone who votes against all is a true American statesman (or stateswoman).

[RR1997]

     In my experience liberalism in a significant other is a major hangup for conservative women in a way it isn't for conservative men.

This is very true. 

As Jesse Watters put it, "It doesn't matter if she's a Communist if she's hot." 

I agree.

[The Other Castro]

In other words, I have no plans

[Antonio the Sixth]

HP. Getting rid of the death penalty puts prison guards and prisoners in danger.

How does that make any sense?

[BaconBacon96]

My ideal inflation is around 0% year in year out but I will take this.

Really? I think a 2-3% inflation is actually healthy for economic expansion.

[Mr. Morden]

What in the name of God is this thing this that you've revived here. How far into the depths of hell did you go to recover this.

[ElectionsGuy]

BRTD's imaginary daughter

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Had he lived through his full four-year term (sparing us John Tyler's presidency), he would have been accounted perhaps the best Whig president ever to have ascended to the office.  Everything was in place for a transformational Whig agenda with the election of 1840.

This presumes that William Henry Harrison wouldn't have been William Henry Harrison.

But if that were the case, if Harrsion was some great transformational figure in the making I think that he would probably be successful in encouraging a more economically moderate path for that era's Democrats in appealing to voters.  After all the Van Buren's response to the Panic of 1837 was to blame the recently deceased Second Bank of grand conspiracy to bring down the system and pledge that the government would not be involved in bailing out the "corrupt" northern and urban institutions that made the Panic possible (supposedly).  We do know a little bit about his views on slavery, but being an Ohio man might have encouraged him to be more in line with the Whig mainstream by opposing war with Mexico over Texas, thus leaving the Southwest/California in Mexican hands for a little while longer.  Overall he probably wouldn't have been a great friend to the "Slave Power", but Southern Whigs would've likely still backed him as a "sane" alternative to the populist Jacksonians that were the rank and file of the Democratic Party in areas of the Deep South.  The very first thing the Congress might have done is raise tariffs substantially to improve infrascture and roads of the time and maybe even give a much needed boost shot to American industry (though would probably reveal the inherent injustices and crueliities many industrial workers faced under their wealthy owners, which might actually bring in more Democratic support in urban areas).  Really, a comparison to Ronald Reagan would be very appropriate here: A man in his late sixties, conservative politics (for the time) with a populist persona/face to it, won a mandate election, took control of congress from an unpopular liberal (for the time) administration/coalition, whose popularity wildlly varies depending on the demographics (rich industrialists/white protestant middle class would've loved him, poor farmers and lower class ethnic whites would've hated him (compare with non-whites views of Reagan)).

Ironically, this might've made an earlier Buchanan administration possible.  Buchanan after all was very moderate on tariff issues (he started his career as a Federalist), largely due to being a Pennsylvania man.  Of course, his incompetence and moderate heroism would've still made the Civil War very likely.  I have a feeling that the Civil War was pretty much inevitable since the 1820 Missouri Compromise at least.

A really excellent historical analysis, as always.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

How about Brian Williams?  He can be entertaining, he knows how to do fake reporting, and he may well be looking for a new job soon.

The Daily Show isn't actually a fake news show.

Yeah, it's actually a much more reliable news source than the main US news networks.

[IceSpear]

It truly is amazing how rarely evangelical Christians ever grapple with the two sides of the political world.  There are a few that weigh the economic message of helping the poor and downtrodden against social issues like gay marriage and abortion, but it seems to be very rare and excluisive to those who willingly engage themselves in political news and banter.  Maybe they are truly still stuck in that Cold War mentality where capitalism is always the answer and think that voting GOP really is the way to help poors.  Troubling.  I guess I find your businessman Pubies more palatable, who just admit that they are more interested in creating a freer market and better business environment and that poors gotta take care of themselves.  I mean, if evangelicals are going to buy into all this nonsense can't they at least do the "help the poors" thing?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I don't want to do fast food, because I don't think I could lift the grease pans without spilling grease all over the floor.

...wat