Board Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About davos

  • Rank
    can't stop the signal
  • Birthday 10/29/1975

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Madison, WI

Recent Profile Visitors

6,683 profile views
  1. US Elections 2016: Why we can't have nice things

    Trump hoped to break the blue wall. It was thought that he could make inroads with blue collar whites in rust belt/midwest states. A lare part of this demographic has a history of voting Demcratic due to labour issues but is rather angry. It seemed possible that he might be in good position in OH, and make states like PA, MI, and WI competative. This does not appear to have materialized. Despite Trump being a radically different candidate in a most unsettled cycle, it's appearing more likely by the day that in the end the electoral map and party coalitions are going to remain remarkably similar to those from the prior 4 elections.
  2. I've only seen one Ohio poll conducted after the debate. Yes, it shows a 5 point lead for Trump but I'm waiting for that to be backed by other polls before I accept that the debate and it's aftermath are not going to improve Clinton's position there.
  3. US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

    While I agree that this is a very strong argument for not being complacent, I would also point out that the comparison doesn't hold up very well. The framers of the constitution were terrified of populism. The archaic and much lamented electoral college was one of the safe guards they put in place to limit such movements. While I hate this part of US democracy, in this case it makes the election extraordinary difficult for Trump. Not only does the electoral map at present favor a democratic candidate but the whole system rewards organization, a stron ground game, and strategic thinking. These are elements the Clinton campaign excels at while Trump's is singularily lacking in. Added to that, the US is a more diverse nation ethnically than the UK. Additionally, the Brexit referendum was a single issue vote, while the Presidential election is held in concert with a very large number of other elections. Very different dynamic. Basically, the US differs enough from the UK that while both the Brexit vote and Trump may pull from the same well of disatisfaction and racism, that the outcome is quite likely to be rather different.
  4. Attempted Coup in Turkey

    If the coup is well and truly over, I expect that Erdogan will use it as pretense to be done with what little democracy remains in Turkey. A failed coup played right into his hands.
  5. Attempted Coup in Turkey

    This was my first thought. A Civil War in Turkey would make the already fucked situation in Syria and Iraq significantly worse. The potential for this to spiral out of control is very real.
  6. Police killed at Dallas protest

    *mod hat* We've drifted way off topic here. While tangentially related, a discussion on gun control could continue on for pages with barely a mention of the events in Dallas. In light of the twin tragedies of the past few days, gun issues are certainly relevent. If you wish to focus on that topic, take it to another thread. Keep this thread for discussion of the Dallas shootings.*/mod hat*
  7. U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

    Basically, HRC did some dumb things. While the possibility exists that she may have made some incorrect statements under oath, it appears likely that this was an oversight rather than intentional deception ( or at least that defense is readily available and would be very hard to convincingly disprove). HRC Yes, what she did showed poor judgement. If this was any other SoS, though, the odds that this would have been more than a minor issue with a short life-span in the public eye are almost non-existent. It would have made news on and off for a bit, some hearings would have been held leading no-where except possibly to some revisions of the current rules so this situation wouldn't happen again. Since it was HRC, we have had to live through several years of controversy, hearings, and investigation. I do not like either HRC or Bill Clinton, but the long history of those who oppose them using public resources and treasure to try to destroy has long gotten very old.
  8. UK Politics: The Vote

    "Morbo congratulates our gargantuan cyborg president. May death come quickly to his enemies"
  9. Favorite music!

    *mod hat* wrong forum. Discussion of music belongs in the entertainment forum. Closing this thead */mod hat*
  10. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    I have a hard time using the events of FDR's administration to support the notion that the the current inequality crisis can be readily corrected. There are several elements that convince me that our current situation is not readily comparable to that in 1933. One, there were a lot more people out of work. It was a catastrophic situation. IIRC correctly, when FDR took office, the unemployment rate was somewhere around 25%. What we have now, is much less an unemployment crisis, than a case of endemic underemployment and depressed wages. While an increasing number of people are falling into an economically marginalized netherworld just above poverty but excluded from a shrinking middle class, it also doesn't create the sense of urgency that FDR was able to channel to create dramatic change. Two, we now don't have the counterbalance of a powerful communist nation to make the ruling elites feel genuinely threatened. The existence of the Soviet Union and the communist movements it inspired created in real threat of revolution in the early 1930's US. While, we now know that the USSR was a despotic nightmare, that wasn't common knowledge at the time in the US. The existence of an alternate system and the reality of a communist revolution in a major European country in recent memory, put pressure on the powers that be to make changes to prevent upheaval. There is ample reason to believe that if the 1932 election had not produced a bloodless revolution, that a bloody one would not have been far behind. The new deal happened because the elites didn't want to be facing angry mobs and firing squads. While alternatives to the US system still exist, they don't have the backing of a major nation and have been systematically repressed for many years. There is no leverage to pry concessions out of the elites. While change is achievable, its a much different and more difficult situation from that which FDR faced.
  11. US Election: It's a post-TrumpDay world

    I'm seeing the same thing from multiple sources. No good way left for the GOP establishment to deny Trump the nomination.
  12. Where to start with Rush

    I've been aware of Rush (the band) for many years and have always told myself I should give them a listen. I know a lot of people who's tastes I like that also like them. I also am to understand that this is a band that one can form an educated opinion on without putting some effort into listening to them. This is a problem as they have a rather massive catalog with several stylistic shifts along the way. Its also my understanding that, as is the case with many prolific artists, that they have several efforts that are not up to their usual standards. As know that there are several Rush fans that frequent these forums, my questions is this: where does the neophyte best put their effort to get a handle on what this band is about? Advise would be most welcome.
  13. U.S. Elections: We're All Qualified To Post Here

    Since they are using the public election apparatus, in states where primaries are conducted, the party has to abide by applicable state an federal election law in the conduct of that primary. Since the Caucuses are private events that do not utilize the public election apparatus, they bypass election laws and can be conducted however the party sees fit (though if they are conducted in public buildings, which they often are, I am not sure if those are provided to the party gratis or if they have to pay a rental fee for their use). Their is, to my understanding, not a legal issue with how the caucuses are conducted in regards to access and fairness because they are private events. the parties can ignore the results of the primaries. They could decide to chose their nominee by casting lots or reading the entrails of a goat sacrificed in the darkest rituals under the light of a full moon. I suspect if they just willy-nilly disregarded the how process prior to the election that they would be sued under various grounds. I suspect that the rules parties have established for how their nomination works could be regarded as a contract and would give both the candidates and those who voted in the primary/caucuses some grounds to fight them in court (though I am not a lawyer. If I am wrong on this count i'm sure our board legal minds will tell me). They are also restricted by what is politically possible. Yes, they have the freedom to chose their nominee by whatever selection process they chose, there would be serious political ramifications for changing the process drastically mid-stream. The nomination process in the US is a strange beast and really stands out compared to the rest of the democratic world. In many other countries the candidates are selected at party meetings without the complex preamble of primaries. This is a large part of the reason that the US presidential election process seems to go on for so long. What is in essence an internal party contest is conducted at great length in each state in the US, while in most countries this would occur without significant involvement of the general public
  14. US Politics: Scalia Dead at 79

    It's hard to understate how significant Scalia's passing at this juncture is, at least from the view point of US politics. Suddenly, Obama, who has largely seemed to settle into the role of place-holder, now faces making a vital set of decisions and to reenter battle with a quite hostile senate. At a time when the focus of the media and politically aware people was on the campaign trail, Washington suddenly jumps back to the fore. How this fight unfolds will in turn have potentially shaping influence on the course of the primaries and presidential election. It's very difficult to see how this all plays out. It is certain, though, that the game has just changed signficantly.