politics
Last Post 06/05/2017 09:01 AM by Cosmic Kid. 187 Replies.
Author Messages
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/01/2016 06:37 PM
In the old VN forum, we used to stray to off-cycling topics in the same manner that we discussed various issues while riding (as long as we were riding at an easy pace). Today the Iowa caucuses are in progress. They may have as much significance as Ground Hog's Day tomorrow, but they're the first official measure of developments in the long ongoing presidential campaign. I can't vote in Iowa since I live in New York, but I would vote for Hillary (yes, I am a registered Democrat) over Bernie for two reasons: I have met Hillary and am tremendously impressed by her, and Bernie simply is not a Democrat. I am not in lock-step with Hillary's positions, but I prefer her approach over Bernie's (aka Larry David), and I do have a significant issue with his approach to gun safety. On the Republican side, I find the Donald, Ted, and Marco quite scary. Carly just lies. Ben ignores facts. If Christie cites 9/11 once more, I'll puke. Kaisich is the only reasonable one, but I have more disagreements with his positions (women's rights, unions) than with Hillary's. smokey
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/01/2016 07:22 PM
I prefer Bernie for the reason that he is idealistic. And the ideas he feels strongly about and pursues are mine also. He is the least political of anyone in the race - I like that. I trust that. As far as trust in a politician goes, which ain't far in todays world.

But Bernie has me excited, and hopeful. The first time in my life, and also the most concerned time in my life, as far as our country and the world's future.

Agreed on the Republican side. F*cking scary. Kasich is the only reasonable one, and his values don't coincide with mine in any way.

I keep waiting for Trump to say "just kidding - this was a social experiment to see how f#cking gullible the American electorate is, and you all are far beyond gullible."

Of course, that's my opinion ; )
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
02/01/2016 07:41 PM
Huck - how did I put it again on my FB page...As the daily headlines show, south of the 49th there's 320 million stuck in a supersized combination of Big Brother, Survivor and the Apprentice.

The fact that Bernie is having a good run at it is cause for hope though. "Because its 2016" if you know what I mean.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/01/2016 09:40 PM
If this crop of candidates is the best we can do, we are well and truly fooked.

Trump is a neo-fascist con man, Cruz is a Tea Party wet dream, Hillary is more conservative than liberal and Bernie is an old man tilting at windmills.

Thankfully, my vote won't matter....IL (and its electpral votes) will go to the Dem nominee, whoever i vote for. Therefore, i'm vpting 3rd party.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/01/2016 09:55 PM
I'll take tilting at windmills over the alternatives...

Positive forward thinking has much greater overall potential in the end than the status quo and the hate/blame mongering right.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/01/2016 10:08 PM
If Bernie were to win, i can't imagine him getting any policies through...certsinly not with the current make-up of Congress. We will be gridlocked for 4 more years.

i admire Bernie's honesty and sincerity....i just don't think he cwn be an effectice POTUS.

The sad reality is that among the existing candidates, Hillary is the one who would be most effective in the White House....she knows how to work Capitol Hill and get things done.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/01/2016 10:09 PM
But at least Cruz won tonight, not Trump.

(i cwn't tell you how frighteneing that sentence is....)
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/01/2016 10:15 PM
"But at least Cruz won tonight, not Trump. "

I can't either ; )
Dale

Posts:951

--
02/02/2016 07:52 AM
"But at least Cruz won tonight, not Trump. "

In some regards I'd rather see Trump win as he's got the best shot of loosing the November election, but I hear you. It's like the choice of being mauled by a tiger or eaten by a crocodile.

I'll vote Sanders regardless if he gets the nomination... won't be the first time I've written in a name.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/02/2016 08:29 AM
I actually think Cruz will be easier to defeat in November than Trump. Trump is running a populist, anti-establishment campaign. That has the potential to catch fire and spread outisde of the GOP base.

Cruz's widespread appeal, IMO, is limited. He is a Tea party, evangelical candidate. i don't see how that appeals to the critical, undecided voter.

Unfortunatley, the GOP has become a joke as a national party. The party of Ike and Goldwater is long gone, hijacked forever by social conservatives and neo-cons. A true conservative could never be nominated by the GOP today....
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/02/2016 08:37 AM
The pundits say Rubio and Clinton are by far the most electable, makes sense to me. Both are smart and have experience. Clinton is too facile with lies. Rubio seems reasonable but when he was governor of FL he was very tea party, inflexible and unwilling to work with the other side.
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/02/2016 09:01 AM
A big win for Bernie last night, despite the tally total.

Shows he has credibility - and we all know that so many in this country need to be told what they're buying is cool - supporting Bernie is starting to look cool.

On the right, Cruz scares me the most. Not as an opponent, but as a human being, a president. He is so far right and has no desire whatsoever to work with anyone thinking otherwise. And please, don't tell me that once he is in office he would compromise ; )

At least, despite being a despicable human being, Trump is malleable to the winds, and I could see him compromising/negotiating, but still most likely not with the best interest of this country or with the best outcome.

Yes, I LOVE Bernie.

Not ignorant to the fact that the odds are stacked against him, but he is the only one that makes me hopeful for the future.
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/02/2016 09:15 AM
More concisely, I meant to say that Bernie's showing in Iowa gives a kind of socially acceptable permission to admit your support for a candidate such as Bernie.

Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/02/2016 09:18 AM
The problem is that Trump has ZERO idea how the government works...."When I am elected President, I am going to make Apple manufacture their goods in the US".

Really? How you gonna do that, Donald?

And that is not even touching his fascist tendencies.....
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/02/2016 09:39 AM
He's certainly got some doozies...

And enough folks to lock stride with those doozies. Sad.
Nick A

Posts:525

--
02/02/2016 10:24 AM
In my youth, I was pretty bleeding heart liberal. Come Bill Clinton, I was turned off by the BS, that I became "non-partisan", or whatever it may have been called in the state in which I was living. I even voted for Ross Perot, twice. I re-registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the primaries for Obama. That being said, I like our current Republican mayor here in Albuquerque. In other words, I'm a registered Democrat, but hardly "left wing". However, I am supporting Bernie Sanders. I've worked in big corporations, I've worked at the VA ("big government"), lived in New York City, Washington DC, and rural Colorado. My heart and ideals are to the left, but I also know what happens when things are over-regulated in a top down fashion. It's as if we need the swings to the left and the right. That being said, we've "swung" pretty right from about 1980 to 2008. I think it's absolutely effing ridiculous that we don't have universal health care. I worked at the VA, and am not a fan of "government run" health care, that is when the doctors are employed by the government. This is what they have in England. However, in Canada (and many, many other countries), the government simply pays the bills. They even call it Medicare. In other words, Medicare for all. I would think if you were truly pro-business, you would want this. Why do you want to deal with insurance company premiums as a business owner? If you are a citizen, why do you want to pay MORE for the same health care? If you are a pundit in favor of small business, well, it's a lot easier to start a business, or be self employed when you don't have to deal with this. Maybe you're just rich and selfish, don't care about others, and want better health care than the rest. Go for it! You can still pay out of pocket. Yes, rich people live better. So be it.

Nobody thought Obama had a shot at first either. Sanders has been in politics for a long time, so I do think he knows how to get things done. Even if he got elected for just one term, and we all were covered by Medicare, that would be monumental.

Nick
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/02/2016 10:42 AM


A lot of the trump fans have the same dream, just substitute Trump for Bernie.

ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
02/02/2016 10:50 AM
Informal surveys of people I know finds that people feel mostly the same way, that the repub candidates are crazy and dangerous (and I'm not just talking about folks in the WA state democratic bubble). Why don't the polls reflect this? It's mind bending to me.

But then I talked to my sister who lives in Des Moines. Told me she would caucus for Cruz but she had to work. The crazy repubs somehow look sane to a lot of people.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/02/2016 10:52 AM
Magical thinking. "He says what I want to hear".
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/02/2016 11:33 AM
"He says what I want to hear"

Of course. Who is going to go for somebody who says they stand for things that the person voting is against?

I like what Bernie says. Very much. And unlike many other candidates of both sides - he has been saying these things for a long time. He believes in them, which helps me to believe in him.

Do you think Trump believes half the sh*t he says?

And I don't like what Cruz and many of the Republicans say - so why would my vote go there?
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/02/2016 11:37 AM
Edit: Actually I am disgusted as a human being by what candidates such as Cruz and Trump say, and how they say it.

And even more upset by the electorate that thinks that type of rhetoric is acceptable - while at the same time claiming to hold Christian values.

It's a f*cking sharp sword to be swing around.
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
02/02/2016 11:58 AM
Huck, be consoled that only about 50% of repubs in Iowa voted for the dip$4it#1 and dip$4it#2.
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
02/02/2016 12:01 PM
It is good to bear in mind that if we'd transpose these candidates to any election around the world outside US, only Sanders and O'Malley would stand a snowball's chance in hell of being viable. Clinton would be off to right outfield and the rest would be send to the madhouse.

Good to see Sanders doing well last night (and really, coin tosses???) but he'll need to do well in NH to build momentum and even then it will be a tall order to go all the way. The fact that he's viable is huge kudos to what Obama has managed to achieve. Ultimately though Sander's not subscribing to the American exceptionalism mantra that seems to be a prerequisite for any candidate for office will be the sword he is going to fall on.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/02/2016 12:42 PM
Posted By Orange Crush on 02/02/2016 12:01 PM
It is good to bear in mind that if we'd transpose these candidates to any election around the world outside US, only Sanders and O'Malley would stand a snowball's chance in hell of being viable. Clinton would be off to right outfield and the rest would be send to the madhouse.


An excellent point, OC....anywhere else in the world (OK, maybe not Russia ), and Hillary would be a Center-Right candidate and not a "liberal".

Our overall political spectrum is much narrower, and more skewed to ther ight, than the rest of the world.

Not passing judgement on that....just a simple statement of fact.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Dale

Posts:951

--
02/02/2016 01:23 PM
If Norway were next door I'd move there in a minute. I'd be happy to have their brand of socialism and get away from the Ayn Rand oligarchy crony military centered pseud-regligious capitalism we'd had crammed down our throats over the past 50 years.

While I'm on my rant... any candidate who uses the term "carpet bomb" understands neither carpet nor bombs and learned nothing from Viet Nam and General Curtis LeMay who was going to "bomb them into the stone age." Hey Curt, how'd that work out? Would 'ja mind calling Ted the Cruz Missile and have a chat with him? Fookin' chicken hawks anyway.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/02/2016 01:32 PM
Well, that is just it....Norway (or any of the much-esteemed Scandinavian countries) is not a socialist society, it is a Social Democracy.

I've opined on this many times before (although maybe not here) that neither capitalism or socialism can stand on its own....they both need each other to survive. Socialism does not provide the economic growth necessary for a sustainable economy (profit is NOT a dirty word), and capitalism, left to its own devices will collapse under its own weight as it grinds down the workers until they revolt.

You need to economic growth of capitalism tempered with the social aspects of Socialism to even things out....to what degree each society slides on that scale is up to them. Scandanavian countries skew farther to the left, US further to the right.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Dale

Posts:951

--
02/02/2016 01:42 PM
Yup, I lived in Norge for a couple of years and loved the freedoms, the safety net, education-- vocational as well as collegiate, land access along with the number of small to mid-sized businesses that allowed for a solid economy. Pure socialism and pure capitalism are both losers.
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/02/2016 02:29 PM
I don't think that many voters in favor of Bernie are thinking we are going towards some pure form of socialism, nothing near that, just a reasonable safety net for the citizens of a first world country and economy.

As opposed to those hoping to continue the enrichment of the upper, upper classes. And that ain't capitalism either. It's a manipulation of those capitalistic venues.

The oddest thing is how many idiots vote against there own better interests. It's as if they think they are going to be a member of the one percent in their next life.

But, I guess, you throw Jesus in there, and it makes everything more palatable.

Evangelicals for Trump ; )

Shows me their true colors and IQ...
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/02/2016 03:54 PM
The oddest thing is how many idiots vote against there own better interests.


The greatest con job in the history of US politics....through a bullschitt concoction of nationalism, religion and social conservatism, the GOP has figured out how to get people to consistently vote against their best interests.

There were demographic groups that once would have been strongholds for Democrats, but are now firmly locked into the GOP.

Utterly amazing....and brilliant (at least from an effectiveness POV)
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
02/02/2016 04:11 PM
CK - brilliant except that this strange marriage between the GOP have's and have not's has started blowing up in GOP elite's face big time. Couple interesting articles written about this recently.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/

Irrespective of the election's ultimate outcome, I think between the GOP revolt and the struggle for direction of Democratic party we're seeing a bit of a rewrite of the political landscape which may open up space for a third party.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/02/2016 07:04 PM
sorry, I just do not buy into Bernie's vision. How is he going to finance all of his initiatives? I do not see him building a coalition that can get anything done. Hillary is much more practical and knows the ropes. I really think she can get more done even with an antagonistic Congress. Again, I am not lock-step in tune with her views, but I am more in line with hers than any of the other candidates.
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/02/2016 07:29 PM
Nobody asked you, Smokey.

Start your own thread ; )
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/02/2016 07:57 PM
for me, winter sucks for cycling. I stop outdoor road after the first salt application and wait for the spring rains to wash off the salt. I used to run, but now jog, and use the trainer while watching videos. The grandson (two months old today!) is a most pleasant distraction. Various thoughts run through my head while on the trainer, including these on politics, and sometimes they come out to be shared with my cycling buddies, none of whom I've actually met. It's been a civil discourse, something that seems foreign to the top tier of Republican candidates.
[Oh, "their" not "there" own interests, but who am I to criticize? It's just the internet.]
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
02/02/2016 08:13 PM
Posted By smokey 52 on 02/02/2016 07:57 PM

[Oh, "their" not "there" own interests, but who am I to criticize? It's just the internet.]


Shhh. I was going to point that out but English is not my first language :-)

As to who would pay for it all; what Bernie preaches is not some pipe dream. It is real and exists in many parts of the world. Its simply a matter of having the right priorities.
Nick A

Posts:525

--
02/02/2016 08:51 PM
The Democratic party had ugly ties to southern racists, and used them to win elections. Johnson lost them when he did the right thing vis a vis civil rights, and Reagan gladly scooped them up. When your politics is driven by irrational fear, it's easy to make irrational decisions, even when in regard to your own self interest.

N
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/02/2016 09:05 PM
I think smokey is right....Hillary stand the best chance of being an effective President. She knows the system, the games and what is required to get things done better than anyone else. Don't think how this can be disputed....

That said, I think she has a pathological aversion to the truth...I simply don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth (see recent 25moh vs. 35mph statements).

But after the gridlock imposed on the government for the last 8 years, perhaps an "establishment" president is what we need....but I can't vote for her.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Dale

Posts:951

--
02/02/2016 09:38 PM
The sad thing is regardless of the president we have a congress bought and paid for by Billionaires, Inc and due to gerrymandering the GOP has a stranglehold in many areas. Not that the Dems are pure as the driven snow, many of them are tools of the 1%
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
02/03/2016 12:27 AM
http://www.thebeaverton.com/national/item/2412-slow-canadian-takeover-of-u-s-going-according-to-plan
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/03/2016 06:22 AM
Thanks OC. The Beaverton has maple leaf similarities to The Onion, which just got bought by Univision, maybe in support of La Conspiración de Trump.
Dale, speaking of billionaires, did you notice that Mikey Bloomberg is considering making a third party bid if (Trump or Cruz) and Bernie get the nominations?
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/03/2016 07:30 AM
Bloomburg?!?!!
He can't get nominated as a Repub or probably even as a Dem because he's too close to the center.
If he runs as an independent, a Cruz-level wacko could win the whole thing. Don't do it!
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/03/2016 10:11 AM
I'd likely vote for Bloomberg if he ran Independent. But again, as noted, IL will go to the Dem candidate no matter what I do. I vote for the Dem, I am just a lost voice in the general clamor. I vote GOP and my vote doesn't count (fanks, Electoral College!).

At least if I vote 3rd party, I can make a (extremely) small statement about the state of current party politics.

Now, if I was in a swing state......fook, I dunno. If trump or Cruz were the GOP candidate, I'd likely have to hold my nose and vote for whomever the Dem candidate was. Neither one of those bozos are fit to be President.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/03/2016 04:17 PM
Somebody yell at someone, please...

This is much too civil for politics on a forum ; )
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/04/2016 04:34 PM
Keep in mind that whoever started this thread described it as simulating discussions during a group ride. In my various groups, I have never seen someone intentionally ride another cyclist off the road. Civility should not be a surprise.
Back on topic: I saw Bernie (feel the Bern, not the BS) on CBS News this morning. One of his topics was the high cost of pharmaceuticals in the US compared to Europe and Canada. He should realize that the US market subsidizes global pharmaceutical development. Price is part of the approval process in Europe, not in the US. US NIH and university grants help with discovery, not development, where the real costs are. I worked in R&D in the pharma industry (not marketing, which really does need reform).
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/04/2016 04:46 PM
Yeah, I think your last sentence highlights part of the problem re: high costs in the US....marketing. BILLIONS are spent marketing new drugs (don;t even get me started on naming them).

All of which is designed to do one thing....get consumers to ask their doctors to prescribe a new drug for them.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/04/2016 08:01 PM
It wasn't always legal for pharma to advertise directly. Thank congress for that.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/05/2016 11:44 AM
lsd: Actually, it was an FDA guidance that clarified requirements for direct-to-consumer ads in 1999. (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070065.pdf).
Congress is to blame for allowing supplements to be sold and marketed without any FDA oversight unless the products start harming people. People complain about the high cost of pharmaceuticals, then spend billions on products without any safety or efficacy studies. go figure.
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
02/05/2016 11:56 AM
Are drug prices high because of advertising? I would have thought they were high to maximize profits.

It is crazy these days, I still read paper magazines and each drug ad is at least 4 pages long.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/05/2016 01:19 PM
Posted By ChinookPass . on 02/05/2016 11:56 AM
Are drug prices high because of advertising? I would have thought they were high to maximize profits.


Is it the sole reason? Of course not, however It is absolutely a component of it...you have to cover those advertising costs. And when you are spending billions of dollars on it (as an industry), yup...we are paying for it.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
02/05/2016 02:02 PM
Yes! So if the government is subsidizing medicines or requiring insurance to pay for medicines, it should have a hand in the control of prices. Both for the drugs and for the insurance.

The anti-regulation folks would argue that govt should do none of the above. To me, it's kind of an either-or. Regulate or don't. Don't do it half way. And if no regulation, don't be upset if the drug industry takes advantage of its position.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/05/2016 03:02 PM
Litigation is another component in high cost of drugs. SOTUS upheld a liability case against Wyeth in a suit brought by a woman who sued when she lost use of her arm after a phenergan (anti-nausea) injection. She lost her livelihood since she was a professional pianist. The basis of the liability against Wyeth was that the federally controlled label was not modified for use in Vermont to warn against injection into an artery. This was an intra-venous drug, not designed for arterial injection. The doctor was at fault, but the pharma company got sued.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/05/2016 03:10 PM
I've gotta find the stats, but there has been evidence presented that shows the overall cost of litigation in cases like those described above is actually a very small piece of health care costs. The insurance lobby has sold us a bill of goods in that regard.....

I'll see if I can dig it up, but I was shocked when I read it.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
02/05/2016 04:28 PM
Big pharma is like big oil, they'll milk us any way they can.

Anyone catch Martin Shkreli's pathetic performance yesterday?

And why is it that as WADA concluded a decade ago about tenfold the amount of EPO is pumped into the market than medically needed?
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/05/2016 05:59 PM
CK: Litigation includes patent infringement, not just liability suits. If a generic launches early, the innovator's recourse is through litigation, not regulatory agencies. FDA only determines if generics meet the minimum (in my opinion lax) requirements, not if they meet patent terms. Courts decide that. Most of the current drug shortages are due to innovators dropping the product (no longer profitable) while generics do not meet production quality standards.
OC: Once when my wife asked why gasoline costs so much, my answer was simply, "They want our money." These companies are not non-profit. The Onion had a good piece on Shkreli uniting Rs & Ds, but his actions point to a real issue: Many drugs are undervalued, including lots of the generics involved in shortages.
Back on original topic, this is one of my concerns about Hillary. When she was my NY US Senator, she spoke about re-importing drugs from Canada. If you want price control, then implement price control. Bernie does not assuage any of these concerns when he rants about expensive drugs.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/06/2016 01:16 AM
CK, that "data" is flawed, but is heavily promoted by the trial lawyers, who are doing very well with the status quo. I'm in the medical field and I can assure you that "defensive medicine" accounts for a substantial chunk of total dollars spent.
Trial lawyers, drug companies and insurance companies got a complete pass in the ACA - a tactical decision to get the bill passed, but the price to us consumers is very high.
Dale

Posts:951

--
02/06/2016 08:12 AM
^ When Missouri capped punitive damages several years ago in an effort to decrease health care costs I didn't see a slowing down of my insurance rate increases... they stayed the same as neighboring states. 'Sup with that?
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/06/2016 07:12 PM
I spent some time on the trainer, so I guess I can post on a cycling site again. The Republican candidate debate is about to start. One observation I have is that the fact-checking for the Democrats involves nuances whereas the fact-checking for the Republicans involves whoppers.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/06/2016 07:14 PM
Watermoccasin- insurance reform is similar to gun safety reform: it needs a consistent national approach, even if administered by states.
Gonzo Cyclist

Posts:568

--
02/07/2016 03:28 PM
all I can say is.........."Is it over over yet?"
My wife had a good one this morning, she's a Bernie fan, but she did say, "He's 74, how is he the new "Fresh Face" of politics?"

I remember a few years back, some of my old MTB riding partners got into it, big time about a presidential race, to the point where we almost had to separate them, and then they would not ride together again for a few years, and these guys have been friends for over 40 years, crazy.....
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/07/2016 10:58 PM
A Canadian, a Cuban and a White Supremacist walk into a bar. Bartender looks up and says "What can I get you, Senator Cruz?"

Thank you....i'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip the wait staff.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
huckleberry

Posts:501

--
02/08/2016 03:23 PM
"One observation I have is that the fact-checking for the Democrats involves nuances whereas the fact-checking for the Republicans involves whoppers." - Smokey

My feelings exactly.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/08/2016 03:35 PM
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
02/09/2016 11:18 AM
jabba may have outdone himself last night with his pu**y taunt. he'll never be president.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/09/2016 01:01 PM
DT is not politic or polite. Last night was no different. Previously he alluded that M Kelly was unreasonable because she had her period and that B Obama schlonged H Clinton. His followers love his crudeness, something I just don't understand. In NH, people cheered when he repeated the comment on Cruz to the audience.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/09/2016 01:43 PM
Yeah, smokey is correct....unfortunately. Like him, I simply can't understand it.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
02/09/2016 04:41 PM
stumbled on this by pj o'rourke
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35521558
There's more but this is spot on:
John Kasich is the very popular conservative governor of Ohio, a not-very-conservative state.
Ohio is a microcosm of American conflicts - labour v management, nativists v immigrants, blacks v whites, Occupy Cincinnati v the 1%. They all hate each other, but they don't hate John.
Kasich beat an incumbent Democratic governor and was re-elected by a landslide. Before that he served nine terms shovelling important manure in the Augean stables of the House of Representatives - 18 years on the House Armed Services Committee and six years as chairman of the House Budget Committee.
No wonder he's so far behind. Republicans are in no damn mood for competent, experienced politicians with broad popular appeal.


My in-laws live in Dayton and are split, one a dem, the other a repub and they both like Kasich.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/09/2016 05:04 PM
If Kasich were the GOP nominee, I would take a strong look at him.

But there is not way that will happen....he is a conservative, not a neo-con.

Love me some PJ O'Rourke. Saw him speak once at our alma mater (I was still a student) and ended up having a beer with him uptown after. His take on why Santa Claus is a Democrat and God is a Republican is hilarious.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/09/2016 09:25 PM
With just over half of the precincts in NH reporting (population just over a million), both Bernie and Hillary each have more votes than Donald. The population in my area, mid-Hudson Valley NY, is just over three million, and our votes on April 19 might mean doodilly-squat.
thinline

Posts:238

--
02/10/2016 08:48 AM
Many years ago, when Bernie was first running for Congress, he introduced the band I was playing in at the time in front of a packed house at a bar in Burlington, VT. I have a video of it! I figure, if he wins I can wrangle a cabinet position out of it. Minister of wide smooth shoulders or some such.

I have also wondered about his ability to be effective if elected. But, if he actually did win, I think it would result in very long coattails and we would see a significant shift in the makeup of Congress so ya never know. Having watched Bernie since his first run for Mayor of Burlington as a journalism major at Saint Michael's College in Winooski, VT, I can say he is the real deal. He means what he says and he really, truly does care about the average person. It ain't just talk.

If Hillary wins, I see more of the last several years. She may be the one person more hated by Republicans than Obama. They would oppose her proposals just because. Just like with Obama. I remember hearing a Republican voter being interviewed on NPR in 2012. She was asked what the most important thing was in the upcoming election. She said getting the economy back on track and beating Obama. The reporter asked her to pick one. She said beating Obama. Really?
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
02/10/2016 10:41 AM
Minister of wide smooth shoulders

good one, Thinline!
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/12/2016 11:40 AM
Now DT is picking on the Pope. Maybe he can get the Vatican to pay for the wall across the northern border of Mexico.
Nick A

Posts:525

--
02/13/2016 05:09 PM
Great book called The Political Brain, that talks a lot about how folks' decisions can be influenced by emotion rather than reason.

Nick
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/13/2016 08:24 PM
With Scalia's death it now goes to 11.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/13/2016 09:27 PM
I find it sad that Harry Reid (a buffoon if ever there was one) wasted no time in politicizing his death and the opening on the court.

But the Party of "No" has all but promised that they will not hold a confirmation hearing for any Obama nominee.

Pathetic.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/13/2016 11:12 PM
Back to the humorous side with some memes that made me laugh. Are you out there thinline?
(the Bernie meme refers to old school leather stuff, think Ben and his 79 Mooney + wonky/nerdy. Ms. Clinton's meme is about a posh upscale hotel at a posh upscale resort, but out of touch with the real freeheelers.)
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/13/2016 11:15 PM
And one more:
Nick A

Posts:525

--
02/14/2016 09:34 AM
I think I've read all of the posts. Has anyone mentioned the eery similarity between Donald Trump and Idiocracy?

PS: Good memes.

N
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/14/2016 09:47 AM
What happened to Scalia? Was he out hunting with Dick Cheney?
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/14/2016 02:31 PM
No way Cheney would have taken out Scalia....Ginsberg, however.....
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
02/15/2016 11:24 AM
Before switching on our movie on Saturday we stumbled upon the Repub debate. Mesmerizing and hard to switch off.

Kinda like our two 12yr olds going after each other when sugar levels are low.
Nick A

Posts:525

--
02/15/2016 04:31 PM
I watched it for the first time, this last time as well! I was done skiing, and too tired to do anything but watch bad TV, and it sure fit the bill. We had to turn it off because it got my wife to riled up.

It really, really was like The Jerry Springer Show.

Nick
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
02/16/2016 10:29 AM
The scotus thing heightens the nonsense factor of this campaign. Civil political discourse is circling the drain. It's sad. Esp when you consider it's very likely that the next pres will get to nominate 2-3 new justices. Both sides are technically right to their side of the fight. And both sides risk a lot by choosing their strategy. This could all go very wrong for the repubs in the small likelihood that the senate could flip (or go to 50/50) and the dems keep the presidency. Can't really fillibuster for 5 years.
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
02/16/2016 11:16 AM
Some good analyses below from our guys in Washington

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-supreme-court-neil-macdonald-1.3447962

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/antonin-scalia-us-supreme-court-boag-analysis-1.3448944

Gotta love this part...

If, as Christians believe, Jesus Christ someday reappears, strolling down from Bethany toward Jerusalem's Golden Gate, conservative Americans would probably hail him as a Republican, but on reflection, not really fit to serve on the Supreme Court.

He might not be enthusiastic enough about guns, his ideas on wealth redistribution are just plain socialism, he likely wouldn't be keen on injecting criminals with lethal chemicals, he'd no doubt urge clemency for all the millions of illegal immigrants doing America's scut work and, as a Jew, he might even have a compromise view of abortion.
79pmooney

Posts:1756

--
02/16/2016 09:46 PM
If, as Christians believe, Jesus Christ someday reappears, strolling down from Bethany toward Jerusalem's Golden Gate, conservative Americans would probably hail him as a Republican, but on reflection, not really fit to serve on the Supreme Court.


A probably non-white young male from the middle east in humble attire calling himself Jesus? True conservatives would be fighting to be the first to hand him deportation papers. "But I'm Jewish" isn't going to help.

Chinook, that "scotus thing" - isn't that mixing politics with bicycle seats?

Ben
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/17/2016 04:34 AM
Chinook, I agree. Surely Dem. strategists are comparing options:
Nominate a moderate who has the best chance of Senate consent this year,
or take a chance by nominating a liberal. If the liberal is rejected, the fiasco may hurt the Repubs next fall and if Hilary wins will ease confirmation of her liberal nominees. (But if she loses, the court gets a conservative rather than a moderate).
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/18/2016 11:38 AM
Now the pope is challenging the trump's christian values: better to build bridges, not walls.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/18/2016 11:47 AM
Trump fires back at the pope! You can't make this stuff up.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/18/2016 12:28 PM
No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith.


Uh, Donny....I think that is exactly what a religious leader is supposed to do. But never mind that, given your statement above, please explain your recent tweet where you question Ted Cruz's claims that he is an Evangelical Christian?

Seriously...who the hell is supporting this idiot? I have yet to meet anyone that actually is, but clearly (too) many are.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
02/18/2016 12:59 PM
All this is pure entertainment gold! Watching these folks put the noose around their own necks day after day.

As long as the voters sober up and pick qualified leader by November.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/18/2016 03:51 PM
Does anyone else think this feels like a real-life article from The Onion ?
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/18/2016 07:00 PM
Seriously...who the hell is supporting this idiot? I have yet to meet anyone that actually is, but clearly (too) many are.


Which idiot? You mentioned two.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/18/2016 07:32 PM
LOL....well spotted, smokey. In this case, I was referring to Donald.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/18/2016 07:40 PM
Chinook,
If people do sober up, how many qualified leaders are in the running? I only note two, and neither is a Republican. IMHO, Kasich is the closest Republican to be qualified, but he still misses. I still like Hillary, even though she is not perfect.
smokey
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/19/2016 06:49 AM
My brother just heard Colin Powell speak. He chose not to run in 2000 because his wife wasn't up to the absurdly invasive scrutiny the self important press applies. Think of it: no Iraq invasion. As for right now, we do need a foreign policy, which has been a weak spot for the current pres.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/20/2016 07:11 PM
lsd: I used to respect Colin Powell. He once related a story (maybe on 60 Minutes?) of getting stopped in his VW bug while driving in the south and getting grief from the policeman because of his bumper sticker, and since then of avoiding public discussions of politics. I lost most of my respect for him when he presented the blurry pictures to support the false claim of WMDs in Iraq. As much as I dislike the Donald, I do agree with his take on the lies surrounding the Iraq invasion. However, the Donald has his own bevy of lies with respect to opposing that war.

I cannot understand the Republicans in NH and SC who think the Donald is qualified to run for president, but of course you need to evaluate the other Republican choices.
Dale

Posts:951

--
02/20/2016 09:57 PM
Bush is out... same problem I would have faced had I run-- name recognition
Gonzo Cyclist

Posts:568

--
02/23/2016 12:16 PM
Best Comment yet for ol' Donny boy - "Nessun cristiano" I loved it, thought Trump's head was going explode!!

Well smokey, not really surprised by Trump's popularity, "W" proved that any moron can be elected in this country, TWICE!!
The stupidity of the American public is astounding
79pmooney

Posts:1756

--
02/25/2016 01:01 AM
Gonzo, the black senator from New York said a few years back that GWB was proof of the fallacy of white supremacy. My take is that the rest of the world is quite aware that we, the American people, get to choose the man to be the most powerful in the world. And witness.

Ben
Nick A

Posts:525

--
02/25/2016 12:59 PM
Creo que debo estudiar mi epanol mejor.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/25/2016 01:20 PM
Ben,
"the black senator from New York"

Did you mean Congressman? Rangel? The senators I remember without looking it up are Schumer, Gillebrand, Clinton, Javits, Keating, D'Amato, & Kennedy.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/26/2016 07:14 PM
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. or WTF? Christie endorsed Trump? Money talks, and nobody walks. or drives across the GWB if Chris is pissed. but there may be a VP or cabinet post available.
Ben, I left out Moynihan in the list of NY US senators. I guess I should look it up on Wiki to see if I left others out.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/26/2016 08:33 PM
Christie endorsed the Donald *after* selling his donor list to Rubio.
You can't make this stuff up!
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/26/2016 08:35 PM
Essay from former Clinton cabinet member and leftie gadfly Robert Reich. I'm not a fanboy, but this essay makes sense and helps me make sense of what is going on:

"The End of the American Political Establishment?

Step back from the campaign fray for just a moment and consider the enormity of what’s already occurred.

A 74-year-old Jew from Vermont who describes himself as a democratic socialist, who wasn’t even a Democrat until recently, has come within a whisker of beating Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucus, routed her in the New Hampshire primary, and garnered over 47 percent of the caucus-goers in Nevada, of all places.

And a 69-year-old billionaire who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican Party has taken a commanding lead in the Republican primaries.

Something very big has happened, and it’s not due to Bernie Sanders’ magnetism or Donald Trump’s likability.

It’s a rebellion against the establishment.

The question is why the establishment has been so slow to see this. A year ago – which now seems like an eternity – it proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoe-ins.

Both had all the advantages – deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers, all the name recognition you could want.

But even now that Bush is out and Hillary is still leading but vulnerable, the establishment still doesn’t see what’s occurred. They explain everything by pointing to weaknesses: Bush, they now say, “never connected” and Hillary “has a trust problem.”

A respected political insider recently told me most Americans are largely content. “The economy is in good shape,” he said. “Most Americans are better off than they’ve been in years. The problem has been the major candidates themselves.”

I beg to differ.

Economic indicators may be up but they don’t reflect the economic insecurity most Americans still feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience.

Nor do the major indicators show the linkages Americans see between wealth and power, crony capitalism, declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and a billionaire class that’s turning our democracy into an oligarchy.

Median family income is lower now than it was sixteen years ago, adjusted for inflation.

Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top.

These gains have translated into political power to rig the system with bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, trade deals, and increasing market power – all of which have further pushed down wages and pulled up profits.

Those at the very top of the top have rigged the system even more thoroughly. Since 1995, the average income tax rate for the 400 top-earning Americans has plummeted from 30 percent to 18 percent.

Wealth, power, and crony capitalism fit together. So far in the 2016 election, the richest 400 Americans have accounted for over a third of all campaign contributions.

Americans know a takeover has occurred and they blame the establishment for it.

There’s no official definition of the “establishment” but it presumably includes all of the people and institutions that have wielded significant power over the American political economy, and are therefore deemed complicit.

At its core are the major corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; the billionaires who invest directly in politics; and the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers.

Arrayed around this core are the deniers and apologists – those who attribute what’s happened to “neutral market forces,” or say the system can’t be changed, or who urge that any reform be small and incremental.

Some Americans are rebelling against all this by supporting an authoritarian demagogue who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. Others are rebelling by joining a so-called “political revolution.”

The establishment is having conniptions. They call Trump crazy and Sanders irresponsible. They charge that Trump’s isolationism and Bernie’s ambitious government programs will stymie economic growth.

The establishment doesn’t get that most Americans couldn’t care less about economic growth because for years they’ve got few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

Most people are more concerned about economic security and a fair chance to make it.

The establishment doesn’t see what’s happening because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. It also doesn’t wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in bringing all this on.

Yet regardless of the political fates of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, the rebellion against the establishment will continue.

Eventually, those with significant economic and political power in America will have to either commit to fundamental reform, or relinquish their power.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/29/2016 07:37 PM
The Repugnants seem to be playing a game of limbo: How low can you go? and, Can we make the bar any lower? Kasich and Carson are sitting out the game and getting ignored. DT never heard of the KKK or white supremacists, MR talks about pissing pants, and TC infers that the Donald has a small penis because he has small hands. It is really getting disgusting.
Happy Super Tuesday!
smokey
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
02/29/2016 08:37 PM
The coronation of King Donald begins tomorrow.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224

Against Clinton he can continue to use same tactics and he might just pull it off. He'd have a much harder time against Sanders cause on economy and trade they're actually aligned.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/29/2016 09:17 PM
The pundits say only a handful of purple states will be in play for the general election in November, and all the money and other resources will be devoted to these swing states. I reside in one of them, Virginia. Our primary is part of super Tuesday tomorrow. The robocalls we've had lately will be nothing compared to next fall. Count your blessings if your state is a foregone conclusion.
Nick A

Posts:525

--
03/01/2016 08:41 AM
Not only Reich, but many pundits are making a comparison between Trump and Sanders. I disagree. It may be true that Sanders is a further left (viable) candidate then we've had in a while, but he represents a form of political philosophy that has existed, off and on, in stable democracies around the world. Trump doesn't represent a right wing philosophy, he's a "cult of personality".

I tend to see the big picture, and generally don't cry that the sky is falling whenever "the other" candidate gets elected. However, I have a real sense of anxiety about Trump, that I haven't had about any (viable) presidential candidate since I started voting 1984.

In regard to Cristie. Maybe it's because I'm an ex-New Yorker, but that endorsement stinks to high heaven. Crisitie with his "bridge-gate", as it relates to real estate development, and Trump the real estate guy? I smell something putrid there.

Nick
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
03/01/2016 12:13 PM
Latest poll:
Either dem stomps Trump
Rubio would have an edge over Clinton.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
03/01/2016 02:18 PM
Posted By Frederick Jones on 02/29/2016 09:17 PM
The pundits say only a handful of purple states will be in play for the general election in November, and all the money and other resources will be devoted to these swing states. I reside in one of them, Virginia. Our primary is part of super Tuesday tomorrow. The robocalls we've had lately will be nothing compared to next fall. Count your blessings if your state is a foregone conclusion.


Well, this si the way it has been for a number of years now.....states like OH, FL and PA decide what happens for the entire nation.

Thankfully, my vote won't "count"....IL will go for the Dem nominee, whoever it is. I personally don't care for Hillary and I hate the thought of having to hold my nose and cast my vote for her should Donald be the GOP nominee.

Now I can vote for whomever I iwsh and not worry about it....which will likely be a third-party candidate.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Dale

Posts:951

--
03/01/2016 03:45 PM
Posted By Cosmic Kid on 03/01/2016 02:18 PM
Now I can vote for whomever I wish and not worry about it....which will likely be a third-party candidate.

Which is what I did last time... wrote in Jon Huntsman, but his stated endorsement of whichever republican gets the nomination precludes me from doing that a second time.

I'll either write in Bernie or hold my nose and vote for Billery.
The thought of another goose-stepping spellbinder sweeping into office is disturbing.
SideBySide

Posts:428

--
03/01/2016 04:33 PM
Personally, I would vote for any major candidate from either party from 1980 on before I voted for T.

I will vote for whoever runs against him because his cult disturbs me so much. I would not vote third party on the off chance that enolugh people feel the same and that allows hime to win.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
03/02/2016 02:25 PM
Tweet from Nate Silver @ FiveThrityEight:

Super Tuesday Winners:
Democratic Primaries: Hillary Clinton
Republican Primaries: Hillary Clinton

Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
03/02/2016 02:54 PM
Immigration Canada website is overloaded. Coincidence I think not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/02/the-real-winner-of-super-tuesday-is-canada/
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
03/03/2016 10:48 PM
More from the "You can't make this stuff up" files:
C. Jenner likes Ted Cruz.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2016/03/03/caitlyn-jenner-like-ted-cruz/81284380/

The US has to be the laughing stock of the Western World right now, but it may yet come out OK. Ask me in a year or so.
Nick A

Posts:525

--
03/03/2016 10:52 PM
Interesting (and depressing), in depth anslysis of the rise in authoritarianism:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
03/03/2016 11:35 PM
Yep

People here are scared, and when we get scared, we do things we later regret. Like the Aliens and Sedition Act President John Adams signed. Or FDR's internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. After 9/11 we did it again with the Iraq invasion and Guantanamo.
Before I get off my soapbox, I'll rant at the US press, who insist upon invading every personal crevasse of any serious candidate, whether or not it has anything to do with his or her ability to hold office. These self appointed inquisitioners denied us Colin Powell as Pres, and no doubt routinely keep other minimally flawed but otherwise potentially great and otherwise non-psychotic candidates from seeking high office. Where did the 4th estate go wrong?
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
03/06/2016 10:19 AM
*warning - personal brag below*

Help is on the way for the 4th Estate...my daughter just committed to Indiana for their Ernie Pyle Journalism Scholars program (only 16 kids accepted). She was also named the Illinois Journalist of the Year by the IL Journalism Education Association.

Needless to say, we are pretty proud of her!! I watched Spotlight with her last night and she LOVED it. Next up - All the President's Men .
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Dale

Posts:951

--
03/06/2016 04:09 PM
From one female journalists dad to another, congrats!
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
03/06/2016 04:09 PM
Wow, great news, Congratulations!
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
03/06/2016 05:40 PM
Posted By Dale Dale on 03/06/2016 04:09 PM
From one female journalists dad to another, congrats!


Jeez...another shard experience for us! Did your daughter go to Mizzou? It was neck and neck between IU and Mizzou for us.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Dale

Posts:951

--
03/06/2016 06:19 PM
Was going to go to MU but went to MSU (then Southwest Missouri State) on a full ride academic scholarship and to be close to her little sister.

She worked for a local paper then Gannett before retiring to be a full time mom and part time blogger.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
03/06/2016 07:20 PM
Wow...full ride. Very impressive. We got a decent chunk of change from IU (and Mizzou). Was looking like Mizzou, but then IU came up with an extra $5K / year and sealed it.

IU was her first choice, so that worked out great!
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
03/07/2016 12:46 PM
Congrats and it is huge that your daughter has picked a direction and is charging forward.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
03/07/2016 02:03 PM
Thanks, CP....I just wish it was in a field that wasn't....you know...dying!

She is full-fledged, old school...wants to do print journalism. Has zero interest in broadcst, etc. We watched Spotlight this weekend and she absolutely LOVED it.

(and if you haven't sen it, you should check it out...highly recommended!)
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
03/07/2016 03:15 PM
Yeah, I started out in college wanting to be a journalist. About halfway through the first semester, I saw where that was going and switched majors. Still, I think if you are passionate, you can find a way to make just about anything work. I figured out right away, that I wasn't passionate. Our son is hedging on his major right now, arguing that he should go one way with more job prospects and more defined career, when we can tell that is heart is in an entirely different place. He's probably not going to get rich, but he'll be a lot happier if he sticks with what he loves.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
03/07/2016 03:53 PM
Oh yeah...I definitely agree. I have 3 liberal arts majors, all of which qualified me to work retail for the rest of my life. But I have managed to do OK for a career.

And passionate she is....she LOVES journalism. And she is really driven, so I really have zero concerns for her. She is gonna be successful no matter what she decides to do in life.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Dale

Posts:951

--
03/07/2016 08:59 PM
Yup, my daughter loves print as well and not at all interested in doing radio or TV. She likes the way a story can develop in print. Loved Spotlight, as did I.


The only down side to that is my fear of being severely judged when I send a text or email knowing my grammar and punctuation is marginal at best. The plus side of the ledger is I get a proof reader when I submit formal proposals and such.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
03/08/2016 06:22 AM
Kids these days. Don't they want to get rich and take care of their parents in their old age?
The daughter is an editor with MLA (the people who write the style rules of writing, among other things).
The son is a public defender in an upstate NY county.
I guess we count riches in a way besides money.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
03/08/2016 09:59 AM
Help make Canada safe.

http://www.brickingitforcanada.com/
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
smokey52

Posts:250

--
03/09/2016 04:22 PM
I don't understand the concept of an open primary. If you are not a member of a political party, why should you have any say in its candidates? Bernie took Michigan with the support of non-Democrats.
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
03/09/2016 04:51 PM
I don't understand the concept of voters having to be registered with parties; its pretty much unheard of in rest of world. In Canada I just vote. Simple.

Sanders is on track to finish within 5 percentage points of Clinton by the time primaries are over. If he can build further momentum he could still take this. It shows the appeal of his message (he'd be a shoe in anywhere else in world) and the limited appeal of the Clinton machine.

Funny CK.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
03/09/2016 06:29 PM
US presidential primaries are a 20th century invention. Before that, parties' candidates were picked by party bosses in smoke filled rooms. Primaries were created for many reasons, including to be more democratic.
How much choice do Canadians have about who the PM candidates are? They are picked by their own parties from among the legislature, no? Or is that just the UK?
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
03/09/2016 06:57 PM
Party leaders get picked by party. Voter input is at the general election ballot box, if the party mucked up picking their leader they do poorly in election (see Liberals for about a decade). Enter Trudeau who is dining w Obama tonight and they win by a landslide. So the party is served by having a good sense of what voters want.

This is pretty much how its done everywhere. In theory the US system is more democratic, in practice not so much. Both Repub and Democratic brass is very busy making sure their candidates win (the Repubs had a secret meeting yesterday w Carl Rove) so suddenly the voters feel disenfranchised. If party brass simply picks the leader then at least there's no illusion of democracy.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
03/09/2016 07:38 PM
Disenfranchisement is the go-to explanation for the (embarrassing) Trump phenomenon. Screwed by the Wall Street 0.01 percenters (the Obama administration Justice Dept. indicted no one, nada, zero, zilch for the financial melt down WTF he was bought off), blue collar manufacturing jobs gone and never coming back in the name of more cheap crap at Walmart, and social status of working blue collar middle class gone. I get their anger. It began with Reagan, amplified 10 fold by Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" (= What's good for my Wall Street Friends is good for me), and cast in stone by Reagan and W's Supremes (Corporations are people with all the associated rights; money = free speech and can and by golly should flow enencombered into the political process). This will be corrected eventually, but it will take at least a generation.
Our idiot 7th Pres. Andrew Jackson, the first populist Pres, installed racist mf Taney as Chief Justice of the Supremes. Taney's crowning achievement was the Dred Scott decision. We fix things eventually but not always in a timely manner and not always the easy way.

This sort of disaffection has been proposed for Bernie's success, too, but I see his Vision as positive rather than reactive and hateful, and Hillary's substantial negatives boost his candidacy, so the analogy breaks down.
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
03/09/2016 08:07 PM
I agree that Bernie has a solid message and vision and this is why people vote for him. But those voters feel to some degree disenfranchised by their party who has been making life hard on Sanders.

Hillary doesn't have a message other than its my turn and that's her problem.

For all his faults, Trump has very efficiently exposed the Repub party for what it is and poked the balloon. He's running a smarter strategy than you'd think. The only one that scares me more than him is Cruz. He's a nut, period.

And it didn't start with Reagan, in actuality the first swing to right was under Carter (that surprised me too). There was an ABC, anyone but Carter movement because the Democrats at the time were scared of the swing to right the party would see under him and whether that would be electable after many decades of progressive policies. That swing to right endures unless Sanders can break it.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
03/09/2016 08:10 PM
Good post.
Especially regarding Cruz. He's super smart, but also a scary nut job. Similar to the jihadists: tear it down in order to build a better shining future to prepare for the second coming.

Sanders vs. Cruz would be a wild choice of opposites.
Of course with the current Congress Bernie would be shut down like Obama.
The next census in 2020 will shake up Congress a lot. But until then, and how many reactionaries they can pack onto the Supreme Court . . .
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
03/23/2016 09:19 PM
Arizona - really? Banana Republic!
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
03/24/2016 01:40 PM
Arizona - really? Banana Republic!

Yup and no matter who eventually occupies the oval office, there's going to be a lot of people convinced that their world will end.

I'm also withdrawing my statement that Trump will never be president. Who the hell knows anymore?!

The recent trend of big repubs jumping on the Trump or Cruz bandwagons is just plain weird.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
03/25/2016 06:17 AM
Gail Collins (NYTimes) has some insight on the Republican responses: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/opinion/the-republicans-sin-of-endorsement.html?_r=0
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
03/25/2016 08:51 AM
We all better start getting used to the term "President Trump".

God help us all.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Nick A

Posts:525

--
03/25/2016 02:50 PM
OC: I *think* that the two party system exists in the US because of the historical timing. We had one of the earlier, modern, sustained democracies. The concept of a parliamentary style government didn't get developed until the 1800's, when many other country's adopted it.

Also, for everyone, the ongoing stories about voting day shenanigans is troubling. Voters falling of of lists, lack of polling places in seemingly targeted areas, etc., etc. All thanks to the Supreme Court saying that the voting rights act was a quaint non-necessity in this day in age. Well at least five of them. Yeah, impartial court my a$$.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
04/11/2016 11:11 AM
for the first time in many years, the NY primary has significance. Of course, that means we are getting inundated by ads -- both Republican and Democratic. blecch
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
04/11/2016 12:10 PM
When you say it has significance, I am getting quite confused about that these days. Seeing voting results, then seeing pledged delegates, then superdelegate counts... In our caucus, our precinct went 2-1 by a coin flip. Then I see an article about the repubs where only 10% of the voting delegates are linked to voters. It's confusing because both parties are insinuating that the other has a corrupt process yet neither seems very tightly coupled to votes.
79pmooney

Posts:1756

--
04/11/2016 12:44 PM
CP, I was a registered Democrat for years. Voted (actually wrote in my "preference") in the caucus when I lived in Seattle. This was my first election in a caucus state. Asked what happened from there. (This was in someone's house, not a public place at all.) I was told that the preferences would be counted up and delegates chosen of those who stayed to go to the district caucus in a few days. I asked what happened if one of the candidates had no one stay. Well, that delegate went to another candidate.

So I stayed to ensure my preference (I' call him "A") would get a delegate. Preferences were tallied up. A had nearly 2/3s, B nearly 1/3. Our neighborhood was allotted three delegates. Well, of the three of who stayed, two were for B. So, despite the clearly written intention of the Democrats of our neighborhood to support A, B got 2/3s of the delegates.

I went to the district caucus. Here there was a smaller majority for A, a stronger B but a small but clamoring group that wanted to go on to the state level as "uncommitted delegates". They dragged out the proceedings so that what should have been done in half a day went late into the afternoon. Finally, the A delegates and B delegates started talking, agreeing that despite our differences, we should vote together as a block to prevent the uncommitted getting a large enough percentage of the total to be recognized. (I think they needed 10%) And finally we A and B delegates were talking about those uncommitted delegates not being remotely what the people we were representing intended.

Final tally came. The uncommitted block missed by one vote. I was glad I came but completely disgusted by what I saw and knew I would never be a member of a party again. Not until things changed a lot.

I feel like I am not participating fully in our elective process and shirking some of my responsibility as a citizen, but at the same time, I cannot be part of something that corrupt by design.

Ben
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
04/11/2016 01:21 PM
That's a good story Ben and sums up the current phase of this process pretty well. Changing the process will take a revolution since the current system is so entrenched and has so much mass behind it. It was pretty clear from the caucus that the Sanders folks want a revolution but I don't think there are enough folks committed enough to make that happen. (and by the way, to you college students out there, we have elections regularly, not just once every 4 years).

Even if all were fair, we each get only one vote and that is not terribly significant. If you really want to make some difference, you have to be committed and involved on a level that is much greater than I have the talent or interest to be. But to not use your opportunities to vote is inexcusable.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
04/11/2016 06:17 PM
Ben, CP-
Your experience points to a big difference between primary selection (15 minutes in a voting booth) versus caucus selection (discussion ad naseum). Of course, placement on the primary ballot is quite the process too. In our Congressional district in NY, HC has 6 of 6 delegates listed on the ballot. BS (IMO an apt acronym) has only 4.
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
04/12/2016 10:28 AM
I'd like to see non-partisan primaries and elimination of the nominating conventions. If we had one round of primaries, select the top 2, then have a general election, I think we would see more candidates engaging the issues and drawing in the independent voters. We might get less extreme candidates driving the primary process.

That's my utopian thought for the day.
79pmooney

Posts:1756

--
04/12/2016 01:45 PM
CP, I have trouble with that. "But to not use your opportunities to vote is inexcusable." Yes, but to participate in the system, especially at the primary/caucus level is to give my blessing to a corrupt system.

I do vote in the finals, always, even knowing that there is real corruption at that level. (GW Bush and the Florida elections where newly registered blacks were turned away because their names matched names on lists of convicts and their votes tossed into the trash. Those results allowed to stand by the brother of the winning candidate. And the Supreme Court blessing the proceedings. That was a third world election if there ever was one! No impartial observer would ever have let that stand.

Ben
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
04/13/2016 10:48 AM
I get that Ben. The thing that surprised me about the caucuses is that they were run by very idealistic volunteers, not big business or lobbyists, etc. The system may be rigged and dominated by money and big business and all that but just sitting out and not participating at all to me sounds like throwing a silent temper tantrum. Whether or not to participate in something you don't believe in but which at it's core is what most societies covet is definitely a conundrum.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
05/01/2016 07:40 PM
BHO sparkled at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Larry Wilmore not so much.
Good grief, it looks like the Donald will achieve the Repugnant nomination.
Nick A

Posts:525

--
05/02/2016 01:53 PM
Maybe I'm low brow, but I thought Larry Willmore was funny.

Nick
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
05/03/2016 08:32 PM
Hello President Clinton.

Bill can look forward to spending the next 4-8 years in the White House Interns' lounge, just, you know, seeing if he can help.
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
05/04/2016 11:00 AM
yeah, Bill Clinton may be joining Bill Carter in the list of embarrassing presidential relatives.

Congrats GOP! Great choice! rah rah trump and all that.
Nick A

Posts:525

--
05/04/2016 03:04 PM
Will they be bringing back Billy Beer?
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
05/04/2016 04:28 PM
The Punk Columnist put it all in perspective

http://www.laweekly.com/music/henry-rollins-bend-over-america-here-comes-president-trump-5841096

In a nation of hundreds of millions of people, there is one man born to lead. A man who stands head and shoulders above the rest. A lone alpha who burns incandescent in a vast wasteland of darkness.

When asked to serve in Vietnam, he said no and took a deferment. He took a few of them, actually, because he is his own man.

He got married. The merger didn’t work. She was fired. So was the next one. It’s business, not personal — like America!

He has overcome adversity. Like bankruptcy. And with an almost Michelangelo-like genius, he conquered the K2 challenge of his hair.

He is what America needs. A man with so much self-confidence that, if you put him in the Oval Office, some of it will no doubt trickle down to you.

He has one about Clinton too: http://www.laweekly.com/music/henry-rollins-while-you-were-at-coachella-i-was-stuck-behind-clintons-motorcade-6869048
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
05/04/2016 05:01 PM
Both parties loathe and detest the other's candidate so this primary campaign process was a total success. We will all be moving to Canada until this is all cleared up, say, by November.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
06/07/2016 05:57 PM
The last big primaries are underway. The Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico helped Hillary get the magic number, along with a bunch of supers. Republicans are waking to the nightmare of an undisciplined candidate who has taken their nomination.
I am happy to get out on my bike.
SideBySide

Posts:428

--
06/07/2016 07:40 PM
Canada? I'm moving to Mexico, and lobbying to build a wall to keep the Trump supporters out.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
08/12/2016 06:23 PM
Can you believe how crazy this is all turning out? The Democrats chose a Democrat instead of a socialist, and the Republicans chose a loonie. Phelps, the two Simones, and K. Armstrong provide a bit of relief.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
08/13/2016 09:31 AM
To add insult to injury, 2016 is a leap second year (one second added to keep the clocks right). Isn't this year long enough already?
Nick A

Posts:525

--
08/15/2016 10:55 AM
I had almost forgotten about this thread. It's almost as if the nomination of Trump has just sucked the life out of us. Well, maybe not "almost". Truly scary stuff.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
08/16/2016 07:14 AM
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Orange Crush

Posts:2014

--
08/16/2016 08:52 PM
Good for Mary. Of course she could have moved to Canada.

longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
08/17/2016 11:11 AM
Local Richmonder. Great gesture.
smokey52

Posts:250

--
11/08/2016 04:44 PM
finally. today is the decider day.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
11/09/2016 02:43 AM
Eight years ago, we elected the first African-American to the Presodentcy.

Yesterday we elected a man who was endorsed by the KKK.

We are well and truly fooked.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
smokey52

Posts:250

--
11/09/2016 07:10 AM
Britain voted to leave the EU. We voted to leave our senses.
Dale

Posts:951

--
11/09/2016 08:14 AM
Adult daughters text last night summed it up, "I'm scared right now."

I went 1-8 voting yesterday.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
11/09/2016 09:25 AM
No excuses for the repubs now. Will they truly govern, or just fight culture wars?
Spud

Posts:481

--
11/09/2016 10:36 AM
ChinookPass

Posts:809

--
11/10/2016 12:16 PM
We've had the blackwater presidency. Now we have the breitbart presidency. Goody for us.

Has any checked to see that Hab is ok? Though he was probably a Sanders guy.
Dale

Posts:951

--
11/10/2016 01:36 PM
Hab is a FB friend... was Sanders but firmly in Clintons camp. I think he's been talked off the ledge but it's still dicey

79pmooney

Posts:1756

--
11/10/2016 03:46 PM
Am I the only one who looks at that photo and thinks Sarah Palin? (I've never seen her on TV or heard one word she has spoken, so she may be as bright as all get out. This isn't a judgement.)

Ben
Nick A

Posts:525

--
11/13/2016 02:23 PM
My level of disappointment and fear is beyond words. We've elected the KKK endorsed candidate for President of the United States. Not sure how you spin that.

Nick
smokey52

Posts:250

--
02/10/2017 07:26 PM
Did anybody really think it would come to this?
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/10/2017 07:59 PM
Shows how much the Dems have lost track. To my liberal friends who decried W, I would say "look who the Dems picked to run against him. Weak candidates. And ignoring a large part of the base , the working class who aren't interested in culture wars, just want a good paying job. 2016 deja vu, sorry Hillary Lovers, but she had too much baggage and zero connection with blue collar folks. Bernie could have clobbered Trump, but the fix was in and Clinton was a lock from day one. voila another Republican in the White House, and a scary one at that.
Dale

Posts:951

--
02/10/2017 09:12 PM
If Warren does not get picked in 2020 I will be convinced the Dems are not interested in regaining the White House and are only there to enrich their inner circle.

LSD, I concur that Bernie would have mopped the floor with Trump.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
02/11/2017 11:57 AM
Warren would be a horrific choice in 2020....2016 showed us misogyny is still prevalent and the country in in too critical a position to risk running with Warren.

In addition, she as already been effectively knee-capped with the Native American ancestry issue and often comes across as shrill rather than defiant.

Don't get me wrong....I have nothing against Warren. I just think she would be a poor choice in 2020.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/11/2017 12:12 PM
And she is too far from the mainstream. Who might the Dems pick? Who has the charisma and chops. Cory Booker?

Depends on who is the Repub, too. I'll give even odds Pence will be president before 2020 and will running for re-election.
steelbikerider

Posts:61

--
02/11/2017 04:02 PM
I'll post at the risk of getting shut down. Booker doesn't have a chance, America will not elect another black president for a long time. Obama received a lot of votes because he was black, enough to make a difference if you look at the turnout compared to Clinton. It was also cool for a young person to vote Obama instead of McCain or Romney. The only chance for a Democrat to win a national election is a young minority person from a red state(Castro brothers in TX for example). Someone new has to pick up the mantle and have a principled, consistent and calm opposition to Trump instead of relying on the same attacks and yelling as in the past. The Dems seem to be locked into the past as much as the Reps, just different issues that appeal to their core, neither side is truly addressing the future. I usually vote mostly Republican, wrote in a candidate this year as a protest and might have voted for Bernie simply because he seemed to be the one candidate who truly believed what he was saying.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
02/11/2017 06:34 PM
Like.
So the Dems need a white male with balls.




PS: Clinton was IMHO an extraordinary weak Presidential candidate. She had no personal connection with most of the electorate, was saddled with her and her husband's heavy baggage, got rich cozying up to the big corporations and Wall Street firms that cause the Great Recession,  has a grating voice, did not provide a real vision for why she was running, etc. etc. Bozo the clown could have beaten Trump. But the Dems had decided before the campaign it was Hilary's turn, and that was that.
Believe me I'm not Trump fan, and did not vote for him and would not even if a gun was held to my head, but he does get credit for connecting with a good chunk of the electorate and ending two political dynasties, Bush and Clinton.
I wish Hilary had stayed in the Senate. She was a very good Senator - smart, aware, willing to work with her rivals. The senate needs more people like her.
Habanero

Posts:118

--
02/20/2017 09:25 AM
Spot on critique, particularly about trump ending the bush and clinton dynasties. I'm usually not one for Monday morning quarterbacking, but I'll make an exception and say that Bernie Sanders would have clobbered trump. The democratic party would be wise to take as many pages as possible from Sanders' playbook.
Habanero

Posts:118

--
02/20/2017 10:26 AM
Chinook - I am ok. Took some time away from media which helped. That said I am still shocked at the state of affairs in this country. It simply makes no sense.
Nick A

Posts:525

--
06/01/2017 06:40 PM
Is it time to revive this one? I'm just sad, angry, and all kinds of other things. And it's almost constant. Written the day of so-called withdrawal from Paris accords. I'm not generally a Chicken Little, and I wasn't all crazy with W, like some people. But this. His shear stupidity is frightening.

Nick
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
06/01/2017 08:22 PM
American Exceptionalism devolves to American Isolationism. This, along with torpedoing the trans pacific partnership will accelerate China's ascension to the most influential country on the planet. The 21st century eventually belongs to China, in no small part thanks to American Exceptionally Dumbism. The Trump base and conspiracy theorist speech writer Steve Bannon will have their political orgasms tonight while Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, and Reagan are spinning in their graves.
longslowdistance

Posts:1498

--
06/01/2017 08:29 PM
If Tillerson resigns after urging Trump to do the right thing, my respect for him would increase 100 fold.
Dream on.
If Colin Powell resigned rather than go before the UN shilling flimsy info justifying the subsequent Iraq invasion, I'd respect him now, too. Being a good soldier is not always in the interest of the American people or people of the world.
SideBySide

Posts:428

--
06/02/2017 09:34 PM
I think LSD is right, China will be the new leader. I don't think us pulling out will be as bad as.some think. Most people believe climate change is real. Individuals, cities and states will keep us moving forward. It will have a bigger impact on developing countries that cannot afford green power. My wife and I just signed up for our local green power program. I hope enough others do too.
Nick A

Posts:525

--
06/05/2017 08:12 AM
My angst isn't even so much about this latest stupidity. It's all of the stupidity, and the frightening, substantial minority that eat it up. Well said LSD. I'm most disappointed by those that know better, but go along for political reasons.

N
Cosmic Kid

Posts:2182

--
06/05/2017 09:01 AM
Posted By Nicholas Arenella on 06/05/2017 08:12 AM
My angst isn't even so much about this latest stupidity. It's all of the stupidity, and the frightening, substantial minority that eat it up. Well said LSD. I'm most disappointed by those that know better, but go along for political reasons.

N


This.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!


---
Active Forums 4.1
NOT LICENSED FOR PRODUCTION USE
www.activemodules.com