White Walker Texas Ranger Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 5 minutes ago, James Arryn said: You agree political dynasties exist, and I've never argued they are yet uniform...though I think we can agree they're becoming more prevalent? But that they exist at all is kinda the point. The number one factor that determines a person's wealth is not intelligence or hard work or w/e, it's the income they were born into. Over 2/3 of the Fortune 500 were born into better economic standing than 95% of the population. Not a coincidence. Wealth has always translated indirectly to power, but it is increasingly becoming direct, and we are seeing more of the same rules apply in terms of principle advantage/privilege. We might be on the verge of the same 2 names being President for 6 of the past 8 presidential terms...and the alternative is a billionaire. We aren't what we think we are. Elections are inherently oligarchic. You have to possess money, connections, personal charisma, and savvy political mind in order to even have a chance. The ancient Athenians understood this, and for real democracy, they knew leaders had to be selected by lot. Note that I'm not advocating real democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jo498 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said: The ancient Athenians understood this, and for real democracy, they knew leaders had to be selected by lot. They also knew that they had to get rid of some power hungry people by ostracism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/my_goal_is_to_destroy_the_republican_party_former_reagan_adviser_bruce_bartlett_explains_his_vote_for_donald_trump/ “My goal is to destroy the Republican Party”: Former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett explains his vote for Donald Trump The GOP is "just a coalition of cranks, and racists and bigots and religious kooks" that will lose big with Trump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 It's funny to see a former Reagan advisor complaining about the crappy state of the GOP, since Reagan built that coalition. He's like the guy who first hacked out a trail to settle in some pristine wilderness spot, and now wants to move because other people have copied his idea and the place ain't as pristine as it used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 12 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: It's funny to see a former Reagan advisor complaining about the crappy state of the GOP, since Reagan built that coalition. He's like the guy who first hacked out a trail to settle in some pristine wilderness spot, and now wants to move because other people have copied his idea and the place ain't as pristine as it used to be. There goes the neighborhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Just popping in to say that I've seen elementary school class presidential elections A LOT more organized than what I experienced this Tuesday. Literally voted with crayon. CRAYON!!!!! The caucus process is fucking ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: There goes the neighborhood. "Yeah! They don't unite cranks, racists, bigots, and religious kooks under the banner of a plutocrat-serving charismatic faux tough guy like they did in MY day!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 24 minutes ago, aceluby said: Just popping in to say that I've seen elementary school class presidential elections A LOT more organized than what I experienced this Tuesday. Literally voted with crayon. CRAYON!!!!! That's awesome. Where did they even get crayons? One would think pens or pencils would be cheaper. Probably raided an elementary school classroom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 2 hours ago, Ormond said: Precisely. Nothing is better for feeding the extreme narcissist's desire for "constant admiration" and "feeling superior to others" than a run for the Presidency like Trump's. Ego-feeding is the main point. As long as he is winning most contests, the fact that he's also getting a lot of criticism is negated by the admiration he gets from the crowds and poll figures. The huge majority of people with narcissistic personality disorder don't have the pre-existing celebrity and money to make running for President effective as an ego-feeder. Unfortunately for the rest of us, Trump does. Yes, and you know how well those narcissistic personalties can cope with disappointments. So assuming the general election will not turn out in Trumps favor, and he actually gets blown out of the water, I am not sure that venting his anger on twitter to seek appreciation there will be enough to cover that narcissistic wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 3, 2016 Author Share Posted March 3, 2016 I'm gonna be really amused if Hillary Clinton wins an election where she's going up against a republican and a rich independent breaking away from republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 14 minutes ago, Altherion said: That's awesome. Where did they even get crayons? One would think pens or pencils would be cheaper. Probably raided an elementary school classroom... It was held in an elementary school gym. I voted on a torn piece of paper with crayon and had to write in the name. Something tells me the accuracy of this voting method is questionable at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Mitt Romney gave his anti-Trump speech, and it was a pretty blistering one. But I suspect all it did is make anti-Trump Republicans nod their heads and drive Trump voters even further into Trump's fleshy embrace, because Mitt Romney is the last person you should send out to quell an anti-establishment revolt. Mostly this just illustrates the total leadership vacuum in the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 4 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Mitt Romney gave his anti-Trump speech, and it was a pretty blistering one. But I suspect all it did is make anti-Trump Republicans nod their heads and drive Trump voters even further into Trump's fleshy embrace, because Mitt Romney is the last person you should send out to quell an anti-establishment revolt. Mostly this just illustrates the total leadership vacuum in the GOP. Romney is the worst messenger to pick for a "let's not do this" on Trump. Trump already took the airwaves to say that Romney should have won the 2012 election easily, but he was too worried about playing by the rules and not offending anybody. I expect that Trumps popularity goes up whenever Romney attack him, just like when Obama attacks him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 10 minutes ago, aceluby said: It was held in an elementary school gym. I voted on a torn piece of paper with crayon and had to write in the name. Something tells me the accuracy of this voting method is questionable at best. Did you find that it represented you and your constituents better than straight voting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 11 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Mitt Romney gave his anti-Trump speech, and it was a pretty blistering one. But I suspect all it did is make anti-Trump Republicans nod their heads and drive Trump voters even further into Trump's fleshy embrace, because Mitt Romney is the last person you should send out to quell an anti-establishment revolt. Mostly this just illustrates the total leadership vacuum in the GOP. No shit. Romney might as well be Marie Antoinette yelling "let them eat cake!" into the mic for all the good this is going to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Romney may actually be doing more harm than good to his cause. The CNN article has no comments, but here's an equivalent Yahoo one. I read through the first 50 comments or so and while not all of them were pro-Trump, practically every single one (with maybe one exception) was anti-Romney. It's weird how desperate the Republican elites look right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I find it very in keeping with Romney's "Papa will fix" attitude that he thought his speech would substantially change any minds. Sadly, all it most likely did was confirm for sane people what they already knew and drive Drumpf supporters more firmly into his racist, bigoted camp. ETA: with that said, it may be the best speech I've ever heard him give. Certainly seems more honest and heartfelt than I remember him sounding in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 15 hours ago, BloodRider said: Two things: 1) IMHO, Why anyone changed their mind should also not matter, so long as they don't change back. I am not a mind reader. When someone ascribes motives to someones change of mind, then why is it always the most malicious attribution? More to the point, why should we even care? If the actions come along with the words, what is the fucking difference? 2) I see a lot of consternation about flip-flopping, and this too I do not get. Especially when it is not really flip-flopping so much as it is flipping then staying. Or more nuanced description perhaps is I don't care so long as the flopping is in the right direction, like along a specrum towards a better goal. I think it is completely unrealistic to expect folks to eat the whole pie in one sitting. What I think of as flip-flopping is someone telling one group of people what they want to hear one day, then saying the complete opposite the next. Then back to the first story when speaking to another group. Etc. Having a slowly evolving opinion is how people change their damn minds, and not allowing people to change is how you get years of Jim Crow. Basically, I think a lot of people have bought the Repub party line that flip-flopping and mind changing is inherently bad. And it baffles me that they can not see how conservative that concept is. It is literally in the definition of "small c" conservatism/ Also: Tywin, I just quoted you as a continuation of the conservation. I am not ascribing these views to you. I am speaking more generally. 1. For me, the why absolutely matters. If a politician changes their public position on an issue for political expediency without actually changing how they view the issue, how can anyone expect them to do anything on the issue other then vote differently to maintain appearances? Any advocacy they'd do on the issue would be fake. And if that politician is some rank and file Congressman, I get it, who cares. But the leader of your party? You say who cares if the actions come with the words? I fear HRC is just rhetoric on a number of issues, so that's why I care. 2. If we use your definition of flip flopping (which isn't the actual definition), it's still easy to see why some Democrats/liberals have reservations about HRC. It's why, for example, the calls for her to release her transcripts from her Wall St. speeches has been getting louder. There is nothing wrong with an elected official changing their mind on an issue, even a key issue. But when a pattern begins to emerge in which a politician changes positions on several issues and it seems to be a reaction to changing poll numbers, I think it's fair to question their motives and if they're changing their positions based on principles or securing votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Kilmore Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, aceluby said: It was held in an elementary school gym. I voted on a torn piece of paper with crayon and had to write in the name. Something tells me the accuracy of this voting method is questionable at best. What MN district were you in? I was up in North Saint Paul/Maplewood. We met in the high school, had pens, a ballot box and everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 11 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said: What MN district were you in? I was up in North Saint Paul/Maplewood. We met in the high school, had pens, a ballot box and everything. Uptown area in Minneapolis. The ballot box was literally a cardboard box with an obvious knife cutout with 'Ballot Box' written above it in sharpie I have never thought my vote meant so little. ETA: Missed some of the details.... here's what it looked like: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.