U.S. Election - Onward to New Hampshire

[A Prince of Dorne]

5 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Well, I've been doing some research on Kasich and I no longer find him at all appealing. In the crowd he's with, maybe. But he's very anti-union, pro-privatized prisons, and anti-planned parenthood.

Among various other issues, those are just the most time-effective to communicate.

And that's why we don't vote based on debates.

I agree that votes should not be cast based on debates. Debates are typically a complete sham.

On the three items you mentioned: anti-union isn't so bad, unions deserve some heat for the way they've been operating the past 20 years. Privatized prisons, I'll pass on that, not a good idea. Planned parenthood, I just wish they would stop talking about it. I really couldn't care less

[Inigima]

5 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Well, I've been doing some research on Kasich and I no longer find him at all appealing. In the crowd he's with, maybe. But he's very anti-union, pro-privatized prisons, and anti-planned parenthood.

Among various other issues, those are just the most time-effective to communicate.

And that's why we don't vote based on debates.

We've known from the beginning that many of Kasich's positions are horrifying. He just looks like the reasonable guy in the room next to the rest of this clown shoes primary. That's been the consensus since the beginning, among non crazy people.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Interesting, and what does that subjective standard do to with the equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments?  

What if the attorney and accountant Tracker mentions have spent their whole carerres doing pro-bono work for the less fortunate but had the potential to make big money?  Should they be pushed to late retirement like other professionals because they had the potential to make big money or should they be judged on their actual incomes?

1) this probably belongs in the politics thread instead of election, since it is a general comment

2) I didn't take his comment to be about income, but rather physical labor which tends to be much harder on a body then office work.

[lokisnow]

 

Agreed.  A safety net should help people based on their needs, not their date of birth as many entitlement reformers would like.

Interesting, and what does that subjective standard do to with the equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments?  

What if the attorney and accountant Tracker mentions have spent their whole carerres doing pro-bono work for the less fortunate but had the potential to make big money?  Should they be pushed to late retirement like other professionals because they had the potential to make big money or should they be judged on their actual incomes?

He wasn't suggesting a career test or an income test. What he was obliquely referring to is that attorneys as a caste tend to be healthier in old age, like their jobs, and live longer. Since attorneys tend to be the people who are elected and are staffed by lawmakers and socially circulate with the above, this caste generally make the laws about social security. Since all of the above is true, most attorneys feel fine at 62, 65 or 68 or even 70, they see absolutely no reason why they should retire when life is great and more importantly everyone they know feels the same way. the attorney caste has minimal to no contact with the lower castes that either hate their job and cannot wait to retire or are employed in careers that are physically debilitating over a cumulative time of forty plus years and literally cannot wait to retire because they can't survive the era from 62 to 68 while working. So since the attorney caste has no contact with lower castes and the attorney caste has no desire to retire on time or early they tend to put little or negative value on retirement and tend to think that what is true for their own life must be true for everyone else. Thus the attorneys and dc critters all support raising the retirement age even though it is a massive and cruel disaster to do so for the vast majority of the country.

[IheartIheartTesla]

11 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

This from Mark Joseph Stern sheds some light on Bernie Sanders and his gay rights record.

This article from the same author explains why Hillary isn't a gay right icon

[Inigima]

Please enjoy this annotated clip of the GOP debate introductions. I know I did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/what-happened-in-that-awkward-intro-at-the-gop-debate/2016/02/06/66718416-cd3d-11e5-b9ab-26591104bb19_video.html

[Martell Spy]

Bernie Sanders and Larry David Form a Dynamic Comedy Duo on ‘Saturday Night Live’

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/07/bernie-sanders-and-larry-david-form-a-dynamic-comedy-duo-on-saturday-night-live.html

[Altherion]

11 hours ago, Triskan said:

But part of the point about Christie savaging Rubio isn't about experience.  It's that he shows very little thinking and just repeats himself.  Christie attacked him on this, and Rubio responded by repeating the very same line that generated the attack.  It looked devastating to me from an optics perspective.

Yes. It's actually even worse than that: he used that same line 3 or 4 times (depending on how much you value minor variations). That might actually hurt -- I don't think anybody cares about most of the attacks at these debates, but responding like an answering machine seems to cross a line.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Interesting, and what does that subjective standard do to with the equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments?  

What if the attorney and accountant Tracker mentions have spent their whole carerres doing pro-bono work for the less fortunate but had the potential to make big money?  Should they be pushed to late retirement like other professionals because they had the potential to make big money or should they be judged on their actual incomes?

 

He wasn't suggesting a career test or an income test. What he was obliquely referring to is that attorneys as a caste tend to be healthier in old age, like their jobs, and live longer. Since attorneys tend to be the people who are elected and are staffed by lawmakers and socially circulate with the above, this caste generally make the laws about social security. Since all of the above is true, most attorneys feel fine at 62, 65 or 68 or even 70, they see absolutely no reason why they should retire when life is great and more importantly everyone they know feels the same way. the attorney caste has minimal to no contact with the lower castes that either hate their job and cannot wait to retire or are employed in careers that are physically debilitating over a cumulative time of forty plus years and literally cannot wait to retire because they can't survive the era from 62 to 68 while working. So since the attorney caste has no contact with lower castes and the attorney caste has no desire to retire on time or early they tend to put little or negative value on retirement and tend to think that what is true for their own life must be true for everyone else. Thus the attorneys and dc critters all support raising the retirement age even though it is a massive and cruel disaster to do so for the vast majority of the country.

Tell that to my friend who died at 69 two months ago having retired a whole month before he passed.  Predetermining retirement ages based on profession seems, to me, to be a prima facia violation of the equal protection clauses.

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

This article from the same author explains why Hillary isn't a gay right icon

Trust me...in these threads I have learned that Clinton is a terrible, two-faced rogue on gay rights. I thought it was interesting that Sanders himself hasn't always been a friend to the gay community either.

[Jace, Extat]

4 hours ago, A Prince of Dorne said:

I agree that votes should not be cast based on debates. Debates are typically a complete sham.

On the three items you mentioned: anti-union isn't so bad, unions deserve some heat for the way they've been operating the past 20 years. Privatized prisons, I'll pass on that, not a good idea. Planned parenthood, I just wish they would stop talking about it. I really couldn't care less

 

4 hours ago, Inigima said:

We've known from the beginning that many of Kasich's positions are horrifying. He just looks like the reasonable guy in the room next to the rest of this clown shoes primary. That's been the consensus since the beginning, among non crazy people.

Yeah, I've watched a couple of the Rep debates, and I'd never really heard from him before (maybe coincidence, probably because the circus was on Trump) so I hadn't done my research on him yet. Kinda sucked, 'cause I did like him in the debate ('cause he seemed reasonable in that crowd), and then when I was reading through a couple of sources on his experience it looked pretty great. Long history in congress, head of budgeting committee under Clinton, known for bipartisanship, ect. But his policies are socially backwards at best.

Oh, and he worked for Lehman Brothers and collected a half-million dollar bonus in 2008. That's an automatic fail for me on a moral grounds. Which is really a shame, because it's been a while since I felt any kind of optimistic interest for a Republican candidate.

But like you said, Prince, the debates are mostly worthless outside of entertainment value.

[Martell Spy]

Well, he's going to say it some more and more I guess. I think it's fair to say Obama has taken control of his mind. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Marco Rubio Says He'll Keep Using The Same Obama Attack Line Over And Over Despite Being Mocked

People dressed as robots are following him around at a town hall in New Hampshire.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-robot_us_56b77927e4b08069c7a7a21c?utm_hp_ref=politics

[TerraPrime]

11 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Well, I've been doing some research on Kasich and I no longer find him at all appealing. In the crowd he's with, maybe. But he's very anti-union, pro-privatized prisons, and anti-planned parenthood.

Among various other issues, those are just the most time-effective to communicate.

And that's why we don't vote based on debates.

That's the bare minimum a politician needs to run as GOP - anti-union, anti-abortion, pro-gun. Bonus if you're anti-gay. You're not going to find a viable GOP candidate who will deviate from those values.

[Jace, Extat]

23 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

That's the bare minimum a politician needs to run as GOP - anti-union, anti-abortion, pro-gun. Bonus if you're anti-gay. You're not going to find a viable GOP candidate who will deviate from those values.

Which is a damn shame.

[ThinkerX]

Quote

 

Been giving something a bit of thought lately.  Past year or so, I have made it a point to read the 'comments' sections of the various political articles.  Probably a couple hundred articles by now, with comments hitting the five digit range.   I see these comments as a sort of 'true poll.'  I get a great many telephone pollsters calling me, and I have noticed the polls tend to have heavy slants and a limited range of acceptable answers - the response I want to give simply is not there.  I view the 'comments' to the articles as sidestepping that.

Put bluntly, Trump has a lot of crossover appeal because of his stance on immigration.  It is a major mistake to assume that democrats support a path to citizenship simply because the republican base is opposed.  Yes, you can make the argument that undocumented immigrants benefit the economy overall and that the total job count has increased.  That, however, is not what 'working' people see.  They live in a world of stagnant income.  They see their jobs taken by immigrants, legal or otherwise.  This applies to both working class republicans and democrats.  The establishment candidates - including the likes of Cruz and Rubio - are all deliberately blind to this  Same goes for Clinton.

Likewise, the ACA is becoming less and less popular among working class democrats.  Very high premiums and deductibles for little actual benefit.  Major changes are required here as well, and in the past Trump has supported sane solutions. 

These concerns won't show up in the partisan primary process, but should Trump somehow secure the nomination, will play a major role in the general election. 

 

[Red Hermit]

8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Interesting, and what does that subjective standard do to with the equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments?  

What if the attorney and accountant Tracker mentions have spent their whole carerres doing pro-bono work for the less fortunate but had the potential to make big money?  Should they be pushed to late retirement like other professionals because they had the potential to make big money or should they be judged on their actual incomes?

 

I apologize for being too vague with my previous comment, although it was interesting to see the different interpretations.  The idea of raising the Social Security age for younger generations seems to operate on the assumptions that they will be healthier and better off financially at older ages, but given the poor job market and rising inequality I have my doubts.  I'm concerned about the possibility of a situation where younger, poorer generations are subsidizing wealthier, older generations while the former are having their prospects of retirement diminished by a combination of poor economic conditions during their working age and a welfare policy that is biased against them based on their date of birth.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Been giving something a bit of thought lately.  Past year or so, I have made it a point to read the 'comments' sections of the various political articles.  Probably a couple hundred articles by now, with comments hitting the five digit range.   I see these comments as a sort of 'true poll.'  I get a great many telephone pollsters calling me, and I have noticed the polls tend to have heavy slants and a limited range of acceptable answers - the response I want to give simply is not there.  I view the 'comments' to the articles as sidestepping that.

Put bluntly, Trump has a lot of crossover appeal because of his stance on immigration.  It is a major mistake to assume that democrats support a path to citizenship simply because the republican base is opposed.  Yes, you can make the argument that undocumented immigrants benefit the economy overall and that the total job count has increased.  That, however, is not what 'working' people see.  They live in a world of stagnant income.  They see their jobs taken by immigrants, legal or otherwise.  This applies to both working class republicans and democrats.  The establishment candidates - including the likes of Cruz and Rubio - are all deliberately blind to this  Same goes for Clinton.

Likewise, the ACA is becoming less and less popular among working class democrats.  Very high premiums and deductibles for little actual benefit.  Major changes are required here as well, and in the past Trump has supported sane solutions. 

These concerns won't show up in the partisan primary process, but should Trump somehow secure the nomination, will play a major role in the general election. 

 

I'm sorry, Thinker, but comments sections on Internet articles are definitely NOT a "true poll." They are a sorry substitute for polling because they are not random samples! People who write comments on those sites are a rare breed of individuals who are interested enough in the particular author or the particular issue to end up on the site and then to comment. They are just not representative of the entire American voting population, so cannot be used to estimate how the "average person" thinks or feels. 

I understand that telephone polls are far from perfect (some of them aren't even real polls but disguised ads for certain candidates or positions), but the polls which do attempt to get a random sample are much better indications of the average opinions of the whole country than the comment sections on any internet site are. 

[Bonesy]

High profile Clinton supporters continue to insult the fuck out of young women. This should go well.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/07/rebuke-swift-after-albright-declares-special-place-hell-women-who-dont-vote-clinton?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

[ThinkerX]

3 hours ago, Ormond said:

I'm sorry, Thinker, but comments sections on Internet articles are definitely NOT a "true poll." They are a sorry substitute for polling because they are not random samples! People who write comments on those sites are a rare breed of individuals who are interested enough in the particular author or the particular issue to end up on the site and then to comment. They are just not representative of the entire American voting population, so cannot be used to estimate how the "average person" thinks or feels. 

I understand that telephone polls are far from perfect (some of them aren't even real polls but disguised ads for certain candidates or positions), but the polls which do attempt to get a random sample are much better indications of the average opinions of the whole country than the comment sections on any internet site are. 

I disagree.  It was the sheer bias in the telephone pollsters that prompted my current approach. I suspect I plagued by pollsters because I retain a landline - a near essential for polling.  Very few other people I know bother with landlines and appear to miss the bulk of the pollsters. Extrapolate this out, and even random calls to landlines are likely to produce a distorted picture.

I would also point out that the 'upstart candidates' this time around (Trump and Sanders)  have attained their current status through internet campaigning (and free publicity for Trump.)   Hence, internet candidates, internet research.  The nature of the game is changing at a fundamental level.

[Gertrude]

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

Yes. It's actually even worse than that: he used that same line 3 or 4 times (depending on how much you value minor variations). That might actually hurt -- I don't think anybody cares about most of the attacks at these debates, but responding like an answering machine seems to cross a line.

My parents are republicans and talking with my mother - who tends to be more emotionally swayed than my father - can't stand that about Rubio. She calls him a wind-up doll. I do think it's something that can hurt, but we're Iowans and we've already had our say.