StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) I think Trump is riding a wave of anti establishment. I think Trump says foolish things. I STILL can't take Trump seriously as a possibility of becoming the President of the United States. I think people that would vote for him are fools. ...and I think there are a LOT of fools in our general population. ---- I'm not sure if you're being stupid on purpose or what. I think you can think he's a fool, people are fools for taking him seriously, AND ALSO believe he's going to do well BECAUSE of those fools. If this still isn't clear to you, the above line applies. Maybe that's where the difference is here and we're talking past each other. "Taking him seriously" to me means "thinking he is not a joke candidate and actually has a shot at winning the nomination," not thinking his ideas and demagoguery have any serious merit.

Trump is almost definitely going to win the nomination and you think he'll do pretty well in the general election, but others are fools for discussing him as a serious candidate. OK.

Weren't you also telling people here how they were fools for taking Trump seriously a couple of months back?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 12:33 PM) Yeah, I thought that post was a great one, but I think you are severely underscoring those WTA states, with a lot of them being states where Trump is heavily favored. With no one exiting, I see it pretty unlikely Trump loses a good chunk of those states. I also think "winner" momentum is a real thing. I hope to hell you are right, but at this point, I have given up most any hope possible around a quality candidate. I have decided I'm going to have to give Cruz more attention and start to dig more on him to see if their is more than meets the eye. I just think so much of what is wrong in Washington is everyone holing up to their party alliances and no one being willing to actually broker a deal and do real legislation, etc. I see Cruz as a president who will usher a gigantic standstill (unless the repubs have control everywhere, which with what is happening now, I find far more unlikely). Now if someone can actually somehow just get Trump by the jugular and dominate from here on out and win normally, that would clearly allow the party to get back in control of things (but at this point, outside of murder, Trump seems unstoppable). The problem with this is that Cruz is not the guy who will allow the GOP establishment to take back control. He's hated by the GOP and many of his fellow Senators. He had been planning on running on the track that Trump is since he won his senate seat. Cruz doesn't even work well with other Republicans, let alone with Democrats.

https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/5D3256FBC1...fWCZaWT7vKWrnR0

There are some interesting thoughts in there, but he seems to be over-pathologizing and the basis for some of his statements/conclusions seem pretty questionable. This seems to leave "academics" as a group without agency and with no political concerns beyond some narcissistic desires. Also, I'm left wondering what exactly that last sentence is referring to. What were Democrats delusional about in the 70's and 80's? The support for this is a link to a blaze.com article about a survey from www.247wallst.com from 5 1/2 years ago. You can find their latest survey fairly easily here. As they note in their explanations, this is a very difficult thing to even measure, and not everything is directly driven by governmental policy choices (North Dakota has been leading their surveys for several years, but that's entirely thanks to the oil extraction boom). For example, California was 49th in the 2012 survey linked by Cowen; it was 21st in the 2015 survey. California was one of the most heavily impacted states from the housing market collapse, and so you see a larger swing. In the most recent survey, 4 out of the top ten states as ranked by www.247wallst.com are run by Democrats compared to 2 of 10 in the dated survey Cowen linked. He also ends by declaring a push for a $15 minimum wage to be signs of delusion, so edit: I used to read MR off and on, but for whatever reason there's a pretty strong "race realist" contingent there in the comments section. Really off-putting.

the first amendment is completely irrelevant here

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 1, 2016 -> 08:53 PM) That was New Hampshire. Trump won there handedly

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 1, 2016 -> 07:11 PM) A super pac has been created for nothing more than to stop Donald Trump. Absolutely amazing to upset the powers at be like this. He must be doing something right. Not sure how that actually follows, but okay.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 1, 2016 -> 03:06 PM) It's a step. In the very least, it's taking out influence on the the biggest companies out there. His billion dollar real estate company and its tie ins aren't even close to 1 percent of the money involved involved in Washington. As I said, it's unforunate it is taking a billionaire himself to ignore corporate bribery, but that's where we are now. But it's only "taking out influence" of one specific person's campaign. If anyone other than self-financing billionaires aided by absurd amounts of free media coverage who were already a household name wants to run, they're going to need to take donations, and "independent" SuperPACs will still be set up.

It is not actually any step though? Down that road lies rule exclusively by billionaire oligarchs.

Trump will not get rid of corporate influence, that influence will just be from Trump companies instead. Plus, there are still 535 Senators and Representatives and then all of the state houses.

E-mails: Snyder could have declared Flint emergency sooner Emails Suggest Governor's Top Aides Knew Flint Water Was Bad Over a Year Ago

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 1, 2016 -> 08:04 AM) It comes back to campaign money. Every word from another candidates mouth aside from Bernie is calculated to get more money from someone. Well not someone, rather something. I'd rather have a flip flopper than that. Flipping on your positions can often be more honest than not. Whether that applies to Trump remains to be seen. I still find him more genuine than the rest, aside from Bernie. He doesn't just "flip-flop," though. He explicitly lies about things he's said, done and seen. Always against the Iraq war, saw thousands of Muslims cheering in the streets from his apartment on 9/11, etc. What is it that you find genuine about him?

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 1, 2016 -> 07:48 AM) He doesn't want to talk about David Duke at every single interview. Otherwise you're just giving Duke more publicity than he could ever possibly deserve, thanks to the media playing right into it. Thankfully the distrust in American media is extremely high, as it should be, and everyone has seen through the bulls*** except a few. He clearly disavowed the first time he was asked. That should be enough. Stop giving Duke airwaves. Move on. That's absolutely not the same thing. Trump wasn't saying "move on" or "I've already addressed that"--that would be understandable. He instead changed to "who is this David Duke you speak of??"/"my microphone was bad, I didn't hear the question." He was back-pedaling his disavowal. It's not bulls*** to ask the guy who's had strong support from white nationalists all along (and who had no trouble denouncing David Duke years ago!) if he'll explicitly reject that sort of support a couple of days after it was announced in a one-on-one interview.

And what did he say when Jake tapper asked him about it? A bunch of feigned ignorance about white supremacists and who David duke even is and some pathetic excuse about his microphone . It's not grasping at straws when he's refused to clearly distance himself from white supremacists over and over, and specifically in this case backpedalled from his initial disavowal. It's not bulls***, it's yet another instance perfectly in line with his white nationalism populist campaign. It's been racist since day one, and it's had open, vocal support from white supremacists and neo nazis the whole time.

Trump has black students thrown out of his campaign rally. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presid...k-students-from And no, he hasn't really disavowed David duke of the large number of white supremacists and neo nazis supporting him. In fact he is more likely to retweet neonazi "facts" than he is to disavow them.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 29, 2016 -> 11:01 AM) Trunp has campaigned on this, oddly. Whether he'll do is another question. His vp won't be a dem but there's a chance his cabinet might be. Well see. Obama's had some Republicans in his cabinet. Nobody but the political press cares about that sort of thing as bmags said above.

Given how much more ideologically separated the parties are these days compared to say 30-40 years ago, voting straight ticket makes sense if that's where your ideology lies. If someone is very strongly conservative, where's the scenario where they would rationally consider voting for a Democrat over a Republican?

I'm suddenly reminded of a steady stream of articles from Silver about how there was no way Trump would ever win the nomination.

Trump's numbers keep rising, above 40% now.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 08:54 AM) Stating that he isn't opposed to a 90% top marginal tax rate is pretty radical. Look, I like Bernie the person. I think he is a man of his convictions and he truly means well. But, I vehemently oppose most of his ideologies. If he had Hillary's political leanings, I, a Republican, would gladly vote for that candidate this fall since it appears the GOP is going to be nominating an idiot. We had a 90% top rate for a while in the past. It would also have zero chance of passing with a Republican controlled house anyway.

Yeah, the reason he gets lumped in with the right wing extremists despite being a fairly run of the mill new deal Democrat is the terrible "the truth lies in the middle" narrative. "moderate" shifts with how the electorate shifts, so there's nothing inherently good (or bad!) about holding positions in-between the current party ideologies. Supporting moderation of moderation sake rewards increasingly rigid ideological extremism. See :the very idea of even considering a presidents SC nominee is being presented as the moderate position rather than the minimally acceptable position.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) Trump actually got around 40% from Hispanics, women and evangelicals in NV, There were a total of 100-200 Hispanic GOP caucus voters in Nevada. That's not really representative of GOP Hispanics in general let alone the general population.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 03:09 PM) Conversely, she'll come off as the stiff, boring, entrenched politician that she is (an image she can't shake and is a problem even with liberal voters) while Trump continues to beat the more fun, outgoing, anti-establishment drum, a drum that is resonating despite all the dumb stuff he says. Either way, it'll be fun to watch. I dunno, sort of the exact opposite thing happened in Round 9837 of Benghazi hearings last October. Bringing up Bill Clinton getting a blow job 20 years later doesn't exactly seem like an effective political tactic. There's a decent sized core of people who want a schoolyard bully, but I don't see how that would get you to 270 EV's. Well yeah, if a bunch of Democrats don't turn out to vote, whoever the Republican nominee is has a shot. If there's a major terrorist attack or economic crash in September or October, they have a shot. Trump is funneling a lot of anger from the electorate right now. Racism is definitely a key part of that, but it's not the only type.