mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Soap Box (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Your Once and Final Supreme Double Impeachee (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=20560)

davar55 2015-10-21 19:35

Your Once and Final Supreme Double Impeachee
 
... will not be Joe Biden. Or Donald Trump.

Who else will it not be?

science_man_88 2015-10-21 20:08

[QUOTE=davar55;413269]... will not be Joe Biden. Or Donald Trump.

Who else will it not be?[/QUOTE]

Probably depends on what Americans want to happen. Do they want a president that honors agreements ? do they need one that will get along with the soon to be new Canadian PM Trudeau Jr. ?

Brian-E 2015-10-21 21:02

[QUOTE=science_man_88;413274][...]do they need one that will get along with the soon to be new Canadian PM Trudeau Jr. ?[/QUOTE]
I hate to break this to you, but they may not have even heard of him.

science_man_88 2015-10-21 21:06

[QUOTE=Brian-E;413279]I hate to break this to you, but they may not have even heard of him.[/QUOTE]

I partially thought about that might not even know his father PET.

kladner 2015-10-21 21:26

[QUOTE=Brian-E;413279]I hate to break this to you, but they may not have even heard of him.[/QUOTE]

I am delighted at the degree of change in the Canada elections. Farewell, Harper! Don't let the door hit ya! Off with you to your lucrative, post-public-office, corporate position. :razz:

EDIT: And I hope we will have a president who will try to cooperate with our neighbor's leadership.

I don't hold much hope for the US Congress, however.

Uncwilly 2015-10-21 23:20

[QUOTE=Brian-E;413279]I hate to break this to you, but they may not have even heard of him.[/QUOTE]
He writes/draws Doonesbury, no:question:

Brian-E 2015-10-22 23:12

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;413293]He writes/draws Doonesbury, no:question:[/QUOTE]
You're quite right. Clearly the new US president will have to be someone who can talk intelligently about cartoons.

flagrantflowers 2015-10-23 00:11

[QUOTE=Brian-E;413395]You're quite right. Clearly the new US president will have to be someone who can talk intelligently about cartoons.[/QUOTE]

Or be an intelligible cartoon.

firejuggler 2015-10-23 06:02

"Our" president? Sorry, we are not all living in the US of A or even in Canada or even on the southern part of the continent. Unless you consider yours as the president of the world.

davar55 2015-10-23 09:42

[QUOTE=firejuggler;413426]"Our" president? Sorry, we are not all living in the US of A or even in Canada or even on the southern part of the continent. Unless you consider yours as the president of the world.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I forgot that the US of A wasn't the only constitutional democracy in the world currently
involved in an interesting election cycle to find a new president, and including at least one
really poor choice (cartoon is an appropriate word). Oh, we are. :smile:

only_human 2015-10-26 22:10

[URL="http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616984/guatemala-election-jimmy-morales"]Guatemala just elected a comedian with zero political experience to be president[/URL]
[QUOTE]Before the campaign, Morales was well-known as a television comedian. In his most famous political sketch, he played a Guatemalan cowboy who — irony alert — becomes the country's president.

Morales parlayed his high name recognition to become a public face of the anti-corruption protests, using social media and other platforms favored by the demonstrators to ally himself with the cause.[/QUOTE]

blip 2015-10-26 23:00

[QUOTE=davar55;413432]Sorry, I forgot that the US of A wasn't the only constitutional democracy in the world currently
involved in an interesting election cycle to find a new president, and including at least one
really poor choice (cartoon is an appropriate word). Oh, we are. :smile:[/QUOTE]
No: Argentina, Poland (ok, they elected a new parliament), Guatemala, Côte d’Ivoire, Tansania, Burkina Faso, Somaliland are also on the list.

kladner 2015-10-26 23:52

[QUOTE=only_human;413866][URL="http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616984/guatemala-election-jimmy-morales"]Guatemala just elected a comedian with zero political experience to be president[/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Morales's TV show focused on running characters, often ones portrayed as being stupid. The content of the show has been criticized for its portrayals of [URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/26/jimmy_morales_wins_guatemalan_presidential_election.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top"]women and LGBTQ Guatemalans[/URL]. One of his running characters is a [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/19/jimmy-morales-used-to-do-black-face-comedy-hes-now-poised-to-be-guatemalas-president/"]black man played by Morales in blackface[/URL]. [/QUOTE]

What could possibly go wrong?

davar55 2015-10-27 13:17

[QUOTE=blip;413879]No: Argentina, Poland (ok, they elected a new parliament), Guatemala, Côte d’Ivoire, Tansania, Burkina Faso, Somaliland are also on the list.[/QUOTE]

Well at least OUR cartoon candidate is leading his party's polls. :smile:

only_human 2015-10-27 16:52

[QUOTE=davar55;413945]Well at least OUR cartoon candidate is leading his party's polls. :smile:[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/quotes[/url]
[QUOTE][Dr. Emmett Brown is doubting Marty McFly's story about that he is from the future]
Dr. Emmett Brown: Then tell me, future boy, who's President of the United States in 1985?

Marty McFly: Ronald Reagan.

Dr. Emmett Brown: Ronald Reagan? The actor?
[chuckles in disbelief]
Dr. Emmett Brown: Then who's vice president? Jerry Lewis?
[rushing out and down a hill toward his laboratory]
Dr. Emmett Brown: I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady!

Marty McFly: [following Doc] Whoa. Wait, Doc!

Dr. Emmett Brown: And Jack Benny is secretary of the treasury.

Marty McFly: [outside the lab door] Doc, you gotta listen to me.

Dr. Emmett Brown: [opens the door to the lab] I've had enough practical jokes for one evening. Good night, future boy!
[closes the door leaving Marty outside][/QUOTE]

davar55 2015-11-13 15:44

[QUOTE=only_human;413975][URL]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/quotes[/URL][/QUOTE]

Is every quote from BTTF a gem?

only_human 2015-11-13 22:19

[QUOTE=davar55;416064]Is every quote from BTTF a gem?[/QUOTE]
Nah, I draw on them all. Some lines just stick with a person, especially good closing lines. e.g. Billy Wilder's tombstone epithet.

For this thread's context, there are plenty of election related movies to choose from. Idiocracacy, Moon over Parador, Dave, Wag the Dog, ...

A comedian recently joined the US presidential election race. The show will go on and on and on. Sometimes a spoonful of humor helps the mendacity go down.

davar55 2015-11-14 02:45

[QUOTE=only_human;416114]Nah, I draw on them all. Some lines just stick with a person, especially good closing lines. e.g. Billy Wilder's tombstone epithet.
For this thread's context, there are plenty of election related movies to choose from. Idiocracacy, Moon over Parador, Dave, Wag the Dog, ...
A comedian recently joined the US presidential election race. The show will go on and on and on. Sometimes a spoonful of humor helps the mendacity go down.[/QUOTE]
One oughta try optimism instead of mild cynicism (or did I misread?).
The clown won't win the election.

We can discuss honesty some time ...

only_human 2015-11-18 05:07

Why is it that when a politician parts their hair someone else takes a haircut?

xilman 2015-11-18 19:02

[QUOTE=only_human;416502]Why is it that when a politician parts their hair someone else takes a haircut?[/QUOTE]
¿Que?

only_human 2015-11-18 19:17

[QUOTE=xilman;416564]¿Que?[/QUOTE]
Just random noise on my part. Colitis trouble was keeping me up and I couldn't sleep. I was whinging about politics in the devils' thread and internally musing on Sarah Palin and Trump match-ups (almost indistinguishable from my colitis discomfort) and her recent murmurs of political availability and on his hair and her hair too, actually, and thus I threw down a pointless and elliptical comment here.

xilman 2015-11-18 19:30

[QUOTE=only_human;416567]Just random noise on my part. Colitis trouble was keeping me up and I couldn't sleep. I was whinging about politics in the devils' thread and internally musing on Sarah Palin and Trump match-ups (almost indistinguishable from my colitis discomfort) and her recent murmurs of political availability and on his hair and her hair too, actually, and thus I threw down a pointless and elliptical comment here.[/QUOTE]Ah.

The girl with colitis goes by.

only_human 2015-11-18 19:43

[QUOTE=xilman;416569]The girl with colitis goes by.[/QUOTE]Très bien, with diamonds too.

[URL="http://www.salon.com/2008/09/27/russia_palin/"]“As Putin rears his head”[/URL]
[QUOTE]“As Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.”[/QUOTE]

xilman 2015-11-18 20:36

[QUOTE=only_human;416570]Très bien, with diamonds too.[/QUOTE]

Scintillate, scintillate, globule vivific,
Fain would I fathom thy nature specific.
Loftily poised in the æther capacious,
Strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous.


Sorry. Strong tendency to go off at a tangent today.

davar55 2015-11-19 14:23

Hairs to The Donald and the Sarah. I kinda like her, but not on a ticket.
And if he were to win, everyone's hair would be on edge.
Hair's to his going back to firing everyone. Hair hair.

davar55 2015-11-23 20:25

As per the OP, the next prez will not be Biden or The Donald.
It will also not be Carson. That would be just wrong, based on
the debates.

davar55 2015-11-25 20:25

Our next president will, in addition to Biden, Trump, and Carson, also not be Kasich.
His debate presence was very unacceptable.

Who's next?

davar55 2015-11-27 07:52

Now that Biden is out of the race, Trump has imploded,
Carson and Kasich have proven themselves unacceptable,
Perry and Walker and Jindal are gone,
(have I Ieft out anyone else?)
who's the next prez-not-to-happen?

davar55 2015-11-27 08:05

[QUOTE=xilman;416575]Scintillate, scintillate, globule vivific,
Fain would I fathom thy nature specific.
Loftily poised in the æther capacious,
Strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous.

Sorry. Strong tendency to go off at a tangent today.[/QUOTE]

Nice contribution. Here's one of my own:

Facetiously subversionary,
Questionably excursionary,
Climbed sequoia,
Lost eunoia,
Equivocally delusionary.

kladner 2015-11-27 12:22

[QUOTE=davar55;417367].....
(have I Ieft out anyone else?)
who's the next prez-not-to-happen?[/QUOTE]

Shrub, Cruz, Rubio.

davar55 2015-11-28 16:35

[QUOTE=kladner;417385]Shrub, Cruz, Rubio.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, we should only eliminate them one at a time.
I think Cruz is out next. Vote among these?

only_human 2015-11-28 16:38

[QUOTE=davar55;417508]To be fair, we should only eliminate them one at a time.
I think Cruz is out next. Vote among these?[/QUOTE]
The only question in my mind is how long Hitler will stay in the race.

davar55 2015-11-28 16:46

When the polls collapse for him, and he stops getting any acclamation,
(when his supporters come to their senses), someone will give him a
good talking to. And if he doesn't fire himself, the media will.

only_human 2015-11-28 16:53

[QUOTE=davar55;417510]When the polls collapse for him, and he stops getting any acclamation,
(when his supporters come to their senses), someone will give him a
good talking to. And if he doesn't fire himself, the media will.[/QUOTE]
Maybe not, if Democrats want to take a page from Rush Limbaugh's dirty tricks department, lots of them could change parties, if required, and vote for him in the primary. Then the Democrats would have a tragically flawed opponent for the main election. But then, anyone might win on any given election Tuesday; no outcome is completely certain and kids love to play with matches.

xilman 2015-11-28 17:03

[QUOTE=davar55;417368]Nice contribution. Here's one of my own:

Facetiously subversionary,
Questionably excursionary,
Climbed sequoia,
Lost eunoia,
Equivocally delusionary.[/QUOTE]Sorry, I don't recognize it. Don't explain (yet) because I want to continue to think about it.

Mine[sup]*[/sup] is notable not least because it was set to music by Mozart and a widely know parody was written by Lewis Carrol

Paul

[sup]*[/sup]I didn't write it, merely quoted it.

kladner 2015-11-28 17:23

[QUOTE=only_human;417509]The only question in my mind is how long Hitler will stay in the race.[/QUOTE]

The campaign is ended. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law"]Godwin's Law[/URL] (or a corollary) prevails.

[QUOTE]"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely"]approaches 1[/URL]"[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law#cite_note-Godwin94-2"][2][/URL][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law#cite_note-Godwin95canonical_version-3"][3][/URL]—​that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler"]Hitler[/URL] or [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism"]Nazism[/URL].[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]There are many [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corollary"]corollaries[/URL] to Godwin's law, some considered more [URL="http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)"]canonical[/URL] (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law#cite_note-Godwin95canonical_version-3"][3][/URL] than others.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law#cite_note-GL_FAQ-1"][1][/URL]

For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that [U]once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished a[/U]nd whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate"]debate[/URL] was in progress.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law#cite_note-8"][8][/URL] [U]This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.[/U][/QUOTE]

only_human 2015-11-28 18:17

[QUOTE=kladner;417521]The campaign is ended. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law"]Godwin's Law[/URL] (or a corollary) prevails.[/QUOTE]
I did it deliberately knowing about the law so an exception may or may not apply for me depending if one strictly believes that one must expressly say they are posting while cognizant of Godwin's Law to avoid invoking it.

For those that like the semantics of deliberately invoking a law to avoid invoking it:
[url]https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DonMcArthur/posts/anEBm7KyqH9[/url]
"From Sweden oddly mesmeric: 'all posters except posters about posters being prohibited are prohibited .'"

For your added reading pleasure...
[url]http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/[/url]
[QUOTE]The story of Gödel's citizenship hearing had been much repeated over the years. What was known was that on 5 December 1947, Kurt Gödel went to his citizenship hearing in Trenton, New Jersey. The examiner was Judge Philip Forman. As his witnesses, Gödel brought his two closest friends, Oskar Morgenstern and Albert Einstein. Gödel was granted citizenship, and took his oath on 2 April 1948. Those were the reliably established facts.

Afterwards, Morgenstern told many people that he and Einstein had had their hands full preventing the brilliant, but politically naive, Gödel from derailing his citizenship chances. No account directly from Morgenstern or anyone else at the hearing had survived, but hearsay versions circulated widely. The hearsay versions show considerable variation, but their burden is something like the following:

Gödel, in his usual manner, had read extensively in preparing for the hearing. In the course of his studies, Gödel decided that he had discovered a flaw in the U.S. Constitution -- a contradiction which would allow the U.S. to be turned into a dictatorship. Gödel, usually quite reticent, seemed to feel a need to make this known. Morgenstern and Einstein warned Gödel that it would be a disaster to confront his citizenship examiner with visions of a Constitutional flaw leading to an American dictatorship.

Arriving in Princeton, the trio had no idea who the examiner would be. They happened to run into Judge Forman. Forman was a friend of Einstein's -- when Einstein became a citizen, Forman had administered the oath. How lucky this was became apparent almost immediately during the questioning. Forman happened to remark how fortunate it was that the US was not a dictatorship, which Gödel took as a cue to explain his discovery. A surprised Forman exchanged glances with Einstein and Morgenstern, cut Gödel off, and forced-marched the hearing through to a successful conclusion.
The History, and the Legend

Nobody seems to know what Gödel's proof was. Many versions of the hearing that circulated featured invented dialog.[/QUOTE]

davar55 2015-11-28 19:08

Maybe it's best we don't know Godel's dictatorship "proof". If valid,
a simple variant might fold the internet today. Bad idea.

only_human 2015-11-28 19:11

[QUOTE=davar55;417536]Maybe it's best we don't know Godel's dictatorship "proof". If valid,
a simple variant might fold the internet today. Bad idea.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's time to cut out the middleman and directly elect a corporation as president.

davar55 2015-11-28 19:11

[QUOTE=xilman;417513]Sorry, I don't recognize it. Don't explain (yet) because I want to continue to think about it.
Mine[sup]*[/sup] is notable not least because it was set to music by Mozart and a widely know parody was written by Lewis Carrol
[sup]*[/sup]I didn't write it, merely quoted it.[/QUOTE]

This is the first place I've released it. It's only informally copyrighted; all I ask is attribution.

davar55 2015-11-28 19:12

[QUOTE=only_human;417537]Maybe it's time to cut out the middleman and directly elect a corporation as president.[/QUOTE]

Ha ha. A male corporation or a female one?

only_human 2015-11-28 19:19

[QUOTE=davar55;417539]Ha ha. A male corporation or a female one?[/QUOTE]
Any that can build a fence and make the trains run on time.

[url]http://youtu.be/WINDtlPXmmE[/url]
Network - Mad as Hell Scene
Length 2:13
[YouTube]WINDtlPXmmE[/YouTube]

Longer version
length 4:59
[url]http://youtu.be/q_qgVn-Op7Q[/url]
[YouTube]q_qgVn-Op7Q[/YouTube]

davar55 2015-11-29 17:15

[QUOTE=only_human;417540]Any that can build a fence and make the trains run on time.
...[/QUOTE]

OK, your wish is ... oops, I can't do that. :smile:

only_human 2015-11-29 18:29

[QUOTE=davar55;417634]OK, your wish is ... oops, I can't do that. :smile:[/QUOTE]
Where is Mussolini when we need him?

davar55 2015-11-29 18:33

[QUOTE=only_human;417653]Where is Mussolini when we need him?[/QUOTE]

Trains, casinos, - big difference. But both became fascists in their own ways.

only_human 2015-11-29 18:59

[url]http://youtu.be/ZngGIw5ONWE[/url]
[YOUTUBE]ZngGIw5ONWE[/YOUTUBE]

davar55 2015-11-29 22:06

Yeah, I suppose he's a cuddly bigot, too. Maybe I over blew the comparison to Mussolini.
Apologies to the Donald. May you ease yourself out of the running.

only_human 2015-11-29 22:11

[QUOTE=davar55;417678]Maybe I over blew the comparison to Mussolini.
Apologies to the Donald. May you ease yourself out of the running.[/QUOTE]No, you were fine. My reference to trains was a deliberate reference to Mussolini although I don't think he was actually that good for train scheduling. I was just trying to bring up fascism as a reference to businesses controlling government. Anything after that canard was fair game.

davar55 2015-11-29 22:58

[QUOTE=only_human;417680]No, you were fine. My reference to trains was a deliberate reference to Mussolini although I don't think he was actually that good for train scheduling. I was just trying to bring up fascism as a reference to businesses controlling government. Anything after that canard was fair game.[/QUOTE]

Well, fascism, like communism, but also like socialism, are all contraries to capitalism.
They all involve central government's over-restricting freedoms and violating individual
rights, whereas capitalism, to the extent it is realized, promotes freedom.
But enough of politics and economics in this thread.

Who's going to be the next one to drop out of the race for prez?

only_human 2015-11-30 07:26

[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/29/1453681/-This-is-fascism-and-we-should-say-it-clearly-while-we-can[/url]

kladner 2015-11-30 07:50

[QUOTE=only_human;417735][URL]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/29/1453681/-This-is-fascism-and-we-should-say-it-clearly-while-we-can[/URL][/QUOTE]
+1 :sad:

davar55 2015-12-03 21:14

What was the original title for this thread?

only_human 2015-12-03 21:22

[QUOTE=davar55;418135]What was the original title for this thread?[/QUOTE]
The title was: [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=20560"]Our Next President ...[/URL] The first post:
[QUOTE=davar55;413269]... will not be Joe Biden. Or Donald Trump.

Who else will it not be?[/QUOTE]

Uncwilly 2015-12-09 02:04

For some reason the Twilight Zone episode "[URL="http://www.tv.com/shows/the-twilight-zone/watch/hes-alive-12691/"]He's Alive[/URL]" currently comes to mind.

only_human 2015-12-11 20:15

Watch Donald Trump Dodge a Bald Eagle
[url]http://time.com/4141783/time-person-of-the-year-runner-up-donald-trump-eagle-gif/[/url]

Time taunts Trump with bald eagle blooper reel
[url]http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/262619-time-taunts-trump-with-bald-eagle-blooper-reel[/url]
[QUOTE]Watch Donald Trump dodge a bald eagle,” the outlet invited its readers, providing a link to an elusive video featuring the billionaire businessman being forced to duck as the country’s national bird attempts to take flight[/QUOTE]

ewmayer 2015-12-12 02:10

Ah yes, that worthy MSM organ, [i]Time[/i] ... this was linked today on NC:

[url=trofire.com/2015/12/09/bernie-sanders-wins-poll-for-time-person-of-the-year-gets-removed-from-finalists-david-pakman-show/?PageSpeed=noscript]Bernie Sanders Wins Poll for TIME Person of the Year, Gets Removed from Finalists[/url] - David Pakman Show - The Ring of Fire

And we would be remiss to omit linkage to The Onion's latest on the The Donald, who confounds so many pundits because they fail to grasp that his utterances, even the truly vile ones, nonetheless don't seem to be hurting his polling numbers [i]because they reflect what a large percentage of Americans really feel[/i]:

[url=www.theonion.com/article/will-be-end-trumps-campaign-says-increasingly-nerv-52002]‘This Will Be The End Of Trump’s Campaign,’ Says Increasingly Nervous Man For Seventh Time This Year[/url] - The Onion

davar55 2015-12-12 06:25

Does anyone really support Carson or Kasich?

They both failed miserably in most of the debates.

kladner 2015-12-12 06:35

[QUOTE=only_human;418964]Watch Donald Trump Dodge a Bald Eagle
[URL]http://time.com/4141783/time-person-of-the-year-runner-up-donald-trump-eagle-gif/[/URL]

Time taunts Trump with bald eagle blooper reel
[URL]http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/262619-time-taunts-trump-with-bald-eagle-blooper-reel[/URL][/QUOTE]

I thought it tried to bite him, in the short loop I first saw.

only_human 2015-12-12 10:36

[QUOTE=kladner;419025]I thought it tried to bite him, in the short loop I first saw.[/QUOTE]
That would be a grave error for the bird because he is surrounded by an invincible wall of lawyers.

davar55 2015-12-12 20:56

[QUOTE=only_human;419045]That would be a grave error for the bird because he is surrounded by an invincible wall of lawyers.[/QUOTE]

Trump is, too. :smile:

only_human 2015-12-12 21:23

[QUOTE=davar55;419092]Trump is, too. :smile:[/QUOTE]
Except for alimony litigation.

davar55 2015-12-13 03:43

[QUOTE=only_human;419098]Except for alimony litigation.[/QUOTE]

Now who would want to divorce a Trump? Unfathomable.

xilman 2015-12-16 18:32

[QUOTE=xilman;417513]Sorry, I don't recognize it. Don't explain (yet) because I want to continue to think about it.

Mine[sup]*[/sup] is notable not least because it was set to music by Mozart and a widely know parody was written by Lewis Carrol

Paul

[sup]*[/sup]I didn't write it, merely quoted it.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, still don't recognize it. What's the original?

firejuggler 2015-12-18 19:57

a touch of fun
[youtube]qUGT30gGtiI[/youtube]

only_human 2015-12-18 22:28

[QUOTE=firejuggler;419606]a touch of fun
[url]http://youtu.be/qUGT30gGtiI[/url]
[youtube]qUGT30gGtiI[/youtube][/QUOTE]
Nice voice. Amazing how different if feels.

davar55 2015-12-19 15:31

[QUOTE=xilman;419438]Sorry, still don't recognize it. What's the original?[/QUOTE]

My poem WAS (IS) an original.

xilman 2015-12-19 19:56

[QUOTE=davar55;419646]My poem WAS (IS) an original.[/QUOTE]Ah, that explains my confusion.

davar55 2015-12-20 18:30

[QUOTE=xilman;419673]Ah, that explains my confusion.[/QUOTE]

Could you extemporize about that poem?
I'd love to hear how you interpret it.

:smile:

Getting back to the OP:

The next president will also not be Graham.

Who should (or will) drop out next, and when?

Still awaiting the nation's acceptance of the OP's political correctness...

The clown must leave the field.

After the NH primary, with the two worst candidates winning,
it appears the whole country needs a wake-up call.



:lightbulb:

Christie has endorsed Trump, thereby committing political self-immolation.

Trump is the worst of the pack.

only_human 2016-02-26 20:18

Fox on Fox redux.
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vicente-fox-f-bomb_us_56d08ad2e4b03260bf769d03"] Donald Trump Demanded An Apology From Vicente Fox. This Is What He Got Instead.[/URL]
[QUOTE]Trump, no stranger to using f-word in public, demanded that Fox say sorry, suggesting that a former president should be held the same standard as a man who is currently running for office.

On Friday morning, the Fox Business Network gave Fox opportunity to apologize to Trump on live TV.

It did not go well, as Fox instead chose to repeat himself loud and clear. Watch Maria Bartiromo's face as Fox winds up and lets it rip.[/QUOTE]

kladner 2016-02-26 23:06

[QUOTE=only_human;427507]Fox on Fox redux.
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vicente-fox-f-bomb_us_56d08ad2e4b03260bf769d03"] Donald Trump Demanded An Apology From Vicente Fox. This Is What He Got Instead.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Donny, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Trump could be appalled by mere words, especially ones he himself uses.

ewmayer 2016-02-27 02:18

[QUOTE=kladner;427525]Donny, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Trump could be appalled by mere words, especially ones he himself uses.[/QUOTE]

I suspect the loudly-taking-offense-ploy is simply part of Trump's standard blusterous, browbeat-your-detractors-into-submission repertoire. If it works a goodly fraction of the time - and it seems to - great, otherwise move on to the next tactic or issue. Assuming Trump is really taking such stuff personally is a mistake IMO, it is a form of underestimating the man, and by now it should be eminently clear that that is both an all-to-easy and a dangerous thing to do.

IMO the best guiding metaphor for Trump's public persona is pro wrasslin'.

ewmayer 2016-02-27 02:30

[url=https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign/]TV Pundits Praise Hillary Clinton On Air, Fail to Disclose Financial Ties to Her Campaign[/url] | The Intercept

kladner 2016-02-27 03:18

[QUOTE=ewmayer;427544][URL="https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign/"]TV Pundits Praise Hillary Clinton On Air, Fail to Disclose Financial Ties to Her Campaign[/URL] | The Intercept[/QUOTE]
Golly! I am so glad to learn that the system is all above board and honest. The meeting of crony capitalism with crony politics ought to have a name.

Huh? OH Yeah. It does. Just ask that Italian guy......Benito...

xilman 2016-02-27 09:34

[QUOTE=kladner;427546]Golly! I am so glad to learn that the system is all above board and honest. The meeting of crony capitalism with crony politics ought to have a name.

Huh? OH Yeah. It does. Just ask that Italian guy......Benito...[/QUOTE]Benito. That name rings a bell. Wasn't he a journalist?

only_human 2016-02-27 20:10

[QUOTE=xilman;427566]Benito. That name rings a bell. Wasn't he a journalist?[/QUOTE]
Not a very ethical one if he didn't disclose that his publishing and political start benefited from MI5's contribution of [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy"]"£100 a week from the autumn of 1917 for at least a year to keep up the pro-war campaigning – equivalent to about £6,000 a week today."[/URL]

ch4 2016-02-27 21:45

[QUOTE=ewmayer;427543]I suspect the loudly-taking-offense-ploy is simply part of Trump's standard blusterous, browbeat-your-detractors-into-submission repertoire. If it works a goodly fraction of the time - and it seems to - great, otherwise move on to the next tactic or issue. Assuming Trump is really taking such stuff personally is a mistake IMO, it is a form of underestimating the man, and by now it should be eminently clear that that is both an all-to-easy and a dangerous thing to do.

IMO the best guiding metaphor for Trump's public persona is pro wrasslin'.[/QUOTE]

IMO one pundit may have nailed it a while back by proposing that what Trump has been doing is not a political campaign, but a marketing test.

ewmayer 2016-02-27 22:29

[QUOTE=ch4;427626]IMO one pundit may have nailed it a while back by proposing that what Trump has been doing is not a political campaign, but a marketing test.[/QUOTE]

And the difference between those 2 things is...? [url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224]Matt Taibbi's latest piece[/url] (which I linked either here or nextdoor in Electile Dysfunction, but re-link here) nails it w.r.to the media and the marketing aspect:

"No one should be surprised that [trump is] tearing through the Republican primaries, because everything he's saying about his GOP opponents is true. They really are all stooges on the take, unable to stand up to Trump because they're not even people, but are, like Jeb and Rubio, just robo-babbling representatives of unseen donors."

kladner 2016-02-27 23:24

Sanders rally in Chicago
 
A friend went, but I didn't.
Bear in mind that [URL="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bernie-sanders-chicago-rally-met-0226-20160225-story.html#"]this [/URL]is the Tribune. They only engaged in a moderate amount of patronizing sneering.

ch4 2016-02-28 00:20

[QUOTE=ewmayer;427632]And the difference between those 2 things[/QUOTE]

... has been lessening for four decades since the Kochs, [i]et al.[/i] began their visionary transformation of America into a plutocracy.

firejuggler 2016-02-29 19:19

I do not like Trump.
[youtube]DnpO_RTSNmQ[/youtube]

only_human 2016-03-05 23:11

George Takei:
[QUOTE]Overheard: "Every Trump sentence has words. Sometimes three words. Or two. And they're great sentences. Terrific sentences. That I can tell you. Believe me. They're great. With the best words. Terrific repeated words. Not very big words. Every Trump sentence has words.[/QUOTE]

h/t Adam Liss: "It seems that words are among the many aspects of Trump that are not, in fact, [I]Yuge[/I]."

[I]The Onion[/I] (for now):
[URL="http://www.theonion.com/article/gop-statisticians-develop-new-branch-math-formulat-52463"]GOP Statisticians Develop New Branch Of Math To Formulate Scenarios In Which Trump Doesn’t Win Nomination[/URL]

[url]https://mobile.twitter.com/DeepDrumpf[/url]
[QUOTE]I'm a Neural Network trained on Donald Trump transcripts. [/QUOTE]

davar55 2016-03-06 11:16

There are now six remaining main party candidates
for the US presidency. All have flaws, that's the human
condition. But some flaws are more equal than other flaws...

Putting aside the Donald for a moment ... because his
flaws are IMO not denumerable (i.e. RealLy infinite)...

We can only decide by a POE argument who we choose.

Again IMO we must exclude from possibility the socialist Bern
and the theologic Teddy. Their rhetoric is either anti-capitalism
in Bernie's case (and we know where I stand on that) or
anti-freedom-and-tolerance on the social issues in Ted's case.

For the Dems that leaves only Hil. And boy is she a flawed choice.

The Reps are left, with only John and Marco still standing.
John keeps touting his quality governorship, but his policies
for the country don't scale up. Marco talks the talk, but is a
big question as to whether he walks the walk.

A third party candidate would just splinterize the nation.
It's too late for a new candidate in either party.
A write-in might require fifty million voters to win, and
that's a mite implausible to actually succeed.

So we're left with realism versus idealism.
Two unreal realists are leading for their respective
party nominations. The Dems will either support
the Hil or go over the deep end with the socialist.
The Reps will either support the Don or push on to
a contested convention. Maybe that;s best - after
the first round of voting, if no one wins a majority,
they can nominate ANYONE. Perhaps a new name
will come out of somewhere and none of the
present crop will be chosen.

only_human 2016-03-10 21:29

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporter-punches-protester-in-face-at-north-carolina-rally_us_56e1761ce4b0b25c9180dd44"]Trump Supporter Punches Protester In Face At North Carolina Rally[/URL]
[QUOTE]Asked why he punched the protester, McGraw told Inside Edition, "Number one, we don’t know if he’s ISIS."

"We don’t know who he is, but we know he’s not acting like an American," McGraw went on. "The next time we see him, we might have to kill him." [/QUOTE]

ewmayer 2016-03-11 01:45

This story got a lot of MSM sound-bitage at the time - don't recall seeing any of the 'erm, turns out that was not in fact an Il Duce quote' corrigenda there:

o [url=http://gawker.com/how-we-fooled-donald-trump-into-retweeting-benito-musso-1761795039]How We Fooled Donald Trump Into Retweeting Benito Mussolini[/url] | Gawker

My initial take was that it was a funny prank - I wholeheartedly approve of such exploits, don't get me wrong, assuming the attribution of whatever quote, meme, saying, aphorism, bromide is used is in fact correct. Here it appears the [url=http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/02/28/the-lion-and-the-sheep/]quote in question was not in fact by Il Duce[/url] - i.e. this was not a prank but a smear attempt by Gawker. (And some good broader notes by David Stockman in that Antiwar.com piece.)

o [url=http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003525.html]Jokes About the Democratic Party[/url] -- From 2011, but not like anything has changed with respect to the 2 major parties and their "establishment-backed" candidates.

"The Republican vision is that 20 white male billionaires will own everything and rule the world with an iron whip. The Democratic vision is completely different, in that not all the billionaires will be white men."

o [url=http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency]Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, A Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency[/url] | Current Affairs [quote]Trump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities. This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.[/quote]
And don't forget the miracle of the cattle futures!

o Lastly, nice [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/sanders-upset-win-in-michigan-as-clinton-blows-another-20-point-lead.html]upset win by Bernie in Tuesday's Michigan Dem primary[/url]. In last night's Dem debate in Florida I notice he *finally* had a ready response to team HRC's 'artful smear' to the effect of him 'opposing government help for the troubled U.S. automakers' in 2008; I just wish he'd slammed the door shut on that BS a long time ago. I mean, really, “Mrs. Clinton’s allegation is once again a big lie containing the tiniest sliver of truth, distorted into its opposite. She knows full well – and the Senate record will bear this out – that while I supported a credible rescue plan for the automakers, I was firmly against it being bundled with a much larger bailout for the corrupt banks which have donated so much money to her campaign” — how hard is that, or something to similar effect? Especially from someone who is not exactly a novice campaigner (albeit at the senator-form-the-great-state-of level, rathr than the presidential level), and who should have known going in to a debate in *Flint* of all places, that she would very likely attempt such a typically-underhanded ploy, given that she has trotted out the same 'talking point' on multiple occasions. Better late than never I guess, but he has been far too slow and too mild in taking her to task for such obviously-dirty tactics, IMO. I wonder how many delegates it has cost him.

Xyzzy 2016-03-11 16:23

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/11/donald-trumps-baffling-explanation-for-violence-at-his-campaign-rallies/[/url]

[QUOTE]This was the actual employment of language and logic used to justify cross-burnings, lynchings and all manner of illegal, extra-judicial and inhumane behavior in U.S. history. This is what has been said to support attempted genocides, ethnic expulsions and some of the most shameful political acts around the globe. This is the actual route by which bigotry has, in the course of human history, become accepted practice and policy. This is the way that entire groups have been terrorized, demonized and oppressed.[/QUOTE]

ewmayer 2016-03-14 00:01

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;428769][url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/11/donald-trumps-baffling-explanation-for-violence-at-his-campaign-rallies/[/url][/QUOTE]

Some good points in there, but the author makes very bold claims about "coded racial language" which he then jumps through some real rhetorical/logical hoops to support. AFAICT "big powerful dudes" doesn't connote "Mexicans" in most people's minds, so he must mean blacks, right? Except the auhor then notes "It is also true that some of the protesters assaulted at Trump rallies have been white people who don’t agree with Trump’s ideas." Weak tea supporting those histrionics, IMO.

Plus, consider the source -- WaPo is arguably the nation's 2nd-most-influential establishment propaganda organ, behind the NYT. They seem to have little problem with the "racially charged" practices of pink-misting hundreds of thousands on brown people all over the globe, nor in Hillary's depiction (during Bill's presidency) of black men as "superpredators", nor in the colossal government-abetted wave of white-collar economic crime and violence which has led to a literal [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/11/stunning-rise-in-death-rate-pain-levels-for-white-middle-aged-less-educated-whites.html]public-health crisis among the same demographics[/url] which are driving the Trump campaign. Because punching someone is way more evil than robbing him of his life's savings and job prospects and driving him into an early grave. An NC reader [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/links-31116.html#comment-2562321]further noted[/url]:
[i]
Trump is a symptom of a world of terror Tuesdays, mass surveillance, and a terrible economy. If the Muslims aren’t out to get us, why does the government need to spend all that money in domestic surveillance? American exceptionalism blinds people to the obvious answer, but “responsible” Washington is awash in stories of ISIS threats.
...
Didn’t CNN waffle between lamenting anti-muslim rhetoric at last night’s debate and fear mongering about Islam with no sense of irony? Fear has been pushed for so long it will be rejected or embraced beyond the intent.
[/i]
Related: [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/links-31316.html#comment-2563525]On-the-ground perspective[/url] on the much-MSM-hyped "near riot" in Chicago the other day (this is just one of a half-dozen similar "I was there" reports I've run across in the blogosphere, all of which tell a similar story).
[quote]It is incredibly frustrating to see confusion and misinformation being spread on this board as concerns the events in Chicago the other night.

I watched it unfold in real-time on Faux Noise, and I must say it was an incredible experience to hear Faux’s reporter on the ground comment over and over that the crowd was peaceful and well-mannered, all to extended overhead video confirming his experience on the ground.

It was obvious that police were calm and had to put out next to no effort to keep the Trump supporters and protesters separated on opposite sides of the street.

When the few people who did get too close to the opposing sides, caused some tension, they were mostly separated by police and other members of the crowd.

All the while Faux’s live commentator on the ground kept reporting the peacefulness on the scene, Greta Van Susteren kept up a constant stream of comments that went counter to the pictures on the screen, and implored the camera team to find conflict which eventually was accomplished by one camera pulling in very tightly to frame small disturbances as if they represented the situation in general.[/quote]

=====================

More on the establishment propaganda angle -- this is the same oligarch-owned WaPo which was noted to have run 16 negative (at least in the headline sounding that way) article on Bernie Sanders in a 16-hour period following the Michigan Dem debate. They apparently got enough flak from their readers about this that they felt compelled to issue an official denial containing more logical contortions:

[url=[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/has-the-washington-post-been-too-hard-on-bernie-sanders-this-week/]Has The Washington Post been too hard on Bernie Sanders this week?[/url]
[quote]It is important, of course, that a newspaper's opinion and analysis pieces reflect a range of perspectives. Overall, I can confidently say The Post's do. But if you're going to take a one-day sample — on a day when Sanders was coming off a debate performance that was widely panned — you're going to find a lot of opinion and analysis that reflects that consensus.[/quote]
Widely panned by whom? By the usual establishment propaganda organs, naturally.

And completing our turn toward the Dem-side campaign issues: [url=http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/03/10/rigged-democracy-nearly-10-of-democratic-party-superdelegates-are-lobbyists/]Rigged Democracy – Nearly 10% Of Democratic Party Superdelegates Are Lobbyists[/url].

kladner 2016-03-14 14:34

Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump
 
[URL="http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/02/25/why-hillary-clinton-cannot-beat-donald-trump/"]A link[/URL] from Ernst's last link. There are some enticing ideas offered on Sanders' behalf.
[QUOTE]This morning, I read a fantastic article by Nathan J. Robinson in[I] Current Affairs[/I] titled: [URL="http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency"]Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency[/URL]. Several months ago, I would have disagreed with this statement, but today I think it’s entirely accurate.

One thing Clinton supporters remain in complete denial about (other than the fact most Americans who don’t identify as Democrats find her to be somewhere in between untrustworthy and criminal), is that [B]a significant number of Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary.[/B] Forget the fact that I know a few personally, I’ve noticed several interviews with voters who proclaim Sanders to be their first choice but Trump their second. Are they just saying this or do they mean it? I think a lot of them mean it.
[/QUOTE]

only_human 2016-03-16 01:41

Things losers say...

This morning:
[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/15/politics/marco-rubio-campaign-florida-utah/index.html"]Marco Rubio vows: I'm going to Utah 'irrespective' of Florida results[/URL]
[QUOTE]"All of these polls are out of control. They're crazy. They're way out of whack," he said in the same interview. "I can't guarantee a win today. I'm telling you we expect to win tonight, but we are not 20 points behind him. That's absurd, and I think we're going to prove that here in the next few hours. So I wouldn't listen to any of that."

Rubio argued on Fox News that networks "are going to ask their pollsters for their money back."

"Polls this election cycle are horrifying," he added, suggesting many have been inaccurate. "And I quite frankly think a lot of people are going to be embarrassed tonight."[/QUOTE]

This evening:
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-ends-2016-campaign_us_56143762e4b0b134ad66b478?t0y93s5naryv3rf6r"]Marco Rubio, Once The 'Republican Savior,' Bows Out Of GOP Presidential Race[/URL]
[QUOTE]The senator, once hailed as the "Republican savior" for his initial efforts to broaden the GOP to immigrants and young people, suffered an embarrassing defeat in his home state of Florida on Tuesday, one that effectively closed off any path to the required number of delegates needed to secure his party's nomination later this summer.

Rubio finished in second place, far behind real estate mogul Donald Trump. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) followed in third place, with Ohio Gov. John Kasich coming in last.

"After tonight, it is clear that while we are on the right side this year, we will not be on the winning side," Rubio said during a press conference in Florida. "While this may not have been the year for a hopeful and optimistic message about our future, I still remain hopeful and optimistic for our country."[/QUOTE]

kladner 2016-03-16 02:25

The fall of Rubio is small comfort for the rest of the results. :picard:

davar55 2016-03-16 20:17

Back to the OP:

I was right about Biden...
So I was at least 50% right.

Since there are now five realistically possible candidates,
I now have an 80% chance of having been 100% right.

Right?

only_human 2016-03-16 22:03

[QUOTE=davar55;413269]... will not be Joe Biden. Or Donald Trump.

Who else will it not be?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=davar55;429350]Back to the OP:

I was right about Biden...
So I was at least 50% right.

Since there are now five realistically possible candidates,
I now have an 80% chance of having been 100% right.

Right?[/QUOTE]
I think Nate Silver's job is safe.

When watching movies I'm pretty good at guessing that when the music turns strident either a monster will jump out or a red herring will smack you in the face.

The music is turning strident. Protestant prurient prudishness dictates that the first girl that has sex is the first victim. I don't think this is quite that kind of movie but I'm pretty sure that we aren't visiting Camp Chippewa.
[QUOTE]At camp, Wednesday is cast as Pocahontas in Gary's saccharine Thanksgiving play. When she refuses to participate, she, Pugsley and Joel are forced to watch upbeat Disney and family films. Afterwards, Wednesday feigns cheerfulness and agrees to the play. During the performance, she stages a coup, capturing Amanda, Gary and Becky, setting the camp on fire and sending it into chaos. As she, Joel and Pugsley escape, Wednesday and Joel share a kiss.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://youtu.be/2VbYZDohsHk[/url]
[YOUTUBE]2VbYZDohsHk[/YOUTUBE]

only_human 2016-03-17 23:19

Salon:
[URL="http://www.salon.com/2016/03/17/the_night_the_rolling_stones_fired_donald_trump_keith_richards_once_pulled_a_knife_to_get_the_gop_frontrunner_out_of_atlantic_city_venue/"]The night the Rolling Stones fired Donald Trump: Keith Richards once pulled a knife to get the GOP-frontrunner out of Atlantic City venue[/URL]
1989:
[QUOTE]Even in the late-‘80s, however, The Stones didn’t want to be associated with Trump. So they cut a deal with him, stipulating he wouldn’t be involved in any promotional capacity outside of Atlantic City and, amazingly, wouldn’t be allowed at the show itself. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Again to the dressing room. Again word that Trump is promoting. This time guitarist Keith Richards offered his help:

“Keith pulls out his knife and slams it on the table and says, ‘What the hell do I have you for? Do I have to go over there and fire him myself? One of us is leaving the building – either him, or us.’”

“One of two things is going to happen,” Cohl told Trump. “You’re going to leave the building and, at 6:40, The Rolling Stones are going to speak on CBS News, or you’re not going to leave the building and I’m going to go on and do an interview to explain to the world why the pay-per-view was canceled”

Then, while literally telling Donald Trump “You’re fired,” Cohl noticed Trump’s “three shtarkers he’s with, in trench coats, two of them are putting on gloves and the other one is putting on brass knuckles.”

Cohl signaled his head of security, who “got 40 of the crew with tire irons and hockey sticks and screwdrivers,” effectively sending off Trump and his goons.

“And that was the night I fired Donald Trump,” Cohl concluded.[/QUOTE]

ewmayer 2016-03-18 00:34

@Ross: Ah, but that was from when The Donald was young and impetuous ... he and his mooks have gone, like, 110% legit since then. :) In any event, one can draw all kinds of interesting metaphors for U.S. foreign policy under a Trump presidency from that story.

===========================

o [url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/gaius-publius-when-trump-talks-trade-voters-listen.html]Gaius Publius: When Trump Talks Trade, Voters Listen[/url] | naked capitalism -- Quotes widely from an excellent March 7 piece by [i]The Guardian[/i]'s Thomas Frank.

Side note: Harking back to last week's events in Chicago, [url=http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/16/it-okay-kick-people-out-campaign-rallies-depends]here is the ACLU on the legality of rally protests[/url]. Long story short: If the campaign rents the forum for said rally, they may not discriminate based on any of the usual race/religion/gender/etc, but they may bar protesters (though only based on actual *behavior*), i.e. the latter's right to protest applies only in a public venue.

o [url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315]How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders[/url] | Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
[quote][NYT reporter Jennifer] Steinhauer's article as originally published told a story about how effective Sanders has been at getting amendments passed. It's more or less the same story I wrote back in 2005, an essentially positive take that even Sanders liked enough to publicize.

The new ['editor-enhance' online] version, though, reads very differently. In it, Sanders is described as a "small-ball" legislator whose career has been spent doing unimportant little things. The focus of the piece is now less on the what of his legislative victories than on the where: the margins.

This is a substantively different message than the first piece, and certainly not flattering.[/quote]
And [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/links-31716.html#comment-2566063]an NC reader adds[/url]:
[quote]Not only did the New York Times‘ heavy editorial hand transform a pro-Sanders article into a hit piece, it also solicited a contrasting op-ed celebrating Clinton’s “bold agenda, hidden in plain sight.” The front-page tagline for this article calls her “bipartisan” governing style “highly effective.” The body of the article, however, never bothers to cite a single example of this “highly effective” governing style delivering a legislative accomplishment of any kind:

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/opinion/campaign-stops/clintons-bold-vision-hidden-in-plain-sight.html[/url][/quote]

o [url=http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2016/03/15-voter-anger-explained-muro-kulkarni?rssid=LatestFromBrookings]Voter anger explained—in one chart[/url] | Brookings Institute
[quote]The Rust Belt geography of the nation’s anger suggests another, perhaps deeper, explanation for the populist rage that has driven Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders victories in primaries from New Hampshire to Michigan.

According to these data, globalization, offshoring, and automation have since 1980 liquidated nearly 7 million manufacturing jobs in U.S. communities—more than one-third of U.S. manufacturing positions—as manufacturing employment plunged from 18.9 million jobs to 12.2 million. Moreover, as the chart depicts, while the trend is longstanding, it actually accelerated in the 2000s.[/quote]
NC's Lambert Strether adds, quite on-pointedly, "This process has been going on for many years. So where the hell were you, Brookings?" Kinda like NYT head neolib shill and Econ faux-belist Paul Krugman recently "discovering" that not all of the promises made about so-called free-trade deals actually pan out as promoted. NC reader 'fresno dan' thankfully gives a [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/links-31516.html#comment-2564580]blow-by-blow exposé[/url] of the depth of hypocrisy attendant to Krugman's political-winds-sensing opportunistic volte-face.

o [url=http://www.moonofalabama.org/images4/bushclinton.jpg]An interesting image[/url] from the jocose "ain't it great to be an elite insider"-ness that was Nancy Reagan's funeral - reader-suggested captions/word-bubbles welcome!

[One NC reader suggested [i][adding] a thought bubble to HRC #1-trusted aide/confidante Huma Abedin standing in the background. “Get your hands off my woman!”[/i], but that is in far too poor taste for us to dignify via repetition here. And Hillary has things to answer for vis-a-vis *Libyan* politics, not a word that simply happens to sound similar. My own off-the-top-of-the-noggin effort is Dubya saying "us unindicted war criminals got to stick together, girl! And who did your hair this hour?"]

o Spotted in the wild of the Interwebs: " If Trump succeeds in destroying the current incarnation of the repub party, he will have done more good for this country than any other politician in 50 years."

only_human 2016-03-18 00:57

[QUOTE=ewmayer;429448]
o Spotted in the wild of the Interwebs: " If Trump succeeds in destroying the current incarnation of the repub party, he will have done more good for this country than any other politician in 50 years."[/QUOTE]
On this I agree. The mainstream GOP so far seems to be unable to follow their own prescription to get a larger/younger/more diverse demographic under their big tent driving ever more dangerous machinations. Something has to give.

[QUOTE][URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-voters-aversion-to-foreign-sounding-names-cost-him-delegates/"]Trump Voters’ Aversion To Foreign-Sounding Names Cost Him Delegates[/URL]
By DAVID WASSERMAN

If Donald Trump somehow falls three delegates short of reaching the magic 1,237 delegates needed for the Republican nomination, he may be haunted by an obscure outcome from the primary voting in Illinois on Tuesday. There’s clear evidence that Trump supporters in Illinois gave fewer votes to Trump-pledged delegate candidates who have minority or foreign-sounding names like “Sadiq,” “Fakroddin” and “Uribe,” potentially costing him three of the state’s 69 delegates.

This pattern appears to be a phenomenon unique to Trump’s supporters.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]A FiveThirtyEight analysis of the dozen highest vote differentials within district-level Trump slates reveals a startling pattern: In all 12 cases, the highest vote-getting candidate had a common, Anglo-sounding name. But a majority of the trailing candidates had first or last names most commonly associated with Asian, Hispanic or African-American heritages. Of the 54 Trump delegate candidates in the state, two of the three worst-trailing candidates were the only two Trump candidates with Middle Eastern-sounding names.[/QUOTE]
[YOUTUBE]OemqVWi_R0k[/YOUTUBE]

only_human 2016-03-24 23:35

Attack of the killer swans
 
[URL="http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/nate-silver-donald-trump-prediction"]Nate Silver Explains How Everyone Got Trump Wrong - Donald Trump was the “black swan” event nobody saw coming.[/URL]
[QUOTE]Like most everyone else, he dismissed Trump’s chances back in 2015, sticking to his predictions even as the lurid orange spoiler climbed higher and higher in the polls. Silver has since admitted he misjudged the extent of the billionaire’s populist appeal—although, he argued, Trump’s candidacy could just as easily have failed to reach escape velocity if a few more states hadn’t broken his way, or if the media hadn’t covered him so much.

“But instead, we are seeing the Republican party on the verge of falling apart,” he told Kafka. “I know those are strong words, but to have a nominee who is at odds with every institution that had power in the party before, I just—you know—there’s almost no recent precedent for it in American history, and I don’t know enough pre-World War II history to say if there was a distant precedent for it, but that is pretty substantial.”

If Trump can secure the nomination, Silver now believes Trump has a 25 to 30 percent chance of winning the general election—a possibility he acknowledges was difficult at first for him to recognize. “I guess one reason I kind of thought, well, this is very unlikely to happen, because if it happens, it’s going to be so incredibly consequential,” said Silver. “And now that it’s happening, it’s incredibly consequential for the Republican Party.”[/QUOTE]

ewmayer 2016-03-25 23:02

[QUOTE=only_human;430000][URL="http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/nate-silver-donald-trump-prediction"]Nate Silver Explains How Everyone Got Trump Wrong - Donald Trump was the “black swan” event nobody saw coming.[/URL][/QUOTE]

Nate Silver has a curious definition of "everyone". The question is, given how egregiously wrong he has been at every step of Trump's "improbable rise", why should anyone pay attention to his latest (mis)reading of the chicken entrails?

====================

[url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article68042192.html]America to Establishment: Who the hell are you people?[/url] | McClatchy
Now that [i]The Onion[/i] has been bought out by the establishment, its headlines/articles are rapidly becoming lame, so we must rely on the 'serious' media to bring us Onionesque headlines.

[url=http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/22/live-arizona-primary-coverage-presidential-preference-election/82096726/]Arizona primary: Maricopa County had one polling site for every 21,000 voters[/url] | AZ Central

[url=http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hillarys-rigged-primary-victories-showing-world-presidents-selected-elected/]Hillary’s Rigged Primary Victories are Showing the World Presidents are Selected — Not Elected[/url] | Free Thought Project

[url=http://qz.com/647064/americas-obsession-with-social-media-is-undermining-the-democratic-process/]America’s obsession with social media is undermining the democratic process[/url] | Quartz
If by "undermining the democratic process" one means "undercutting the power of the corporate-owned propaganda outlets collectively known as the MSM", that is. And speaking of corporate-owned propaganda outlets...

[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-cant-stop-saying-nasty-things-about-women-it-could-cost-him/2016/03/24/51a0ee82-f1d7-11e5-85a6-2132cf446d0a_story.html]Donald Trump can’t stop saying nasty things about women. It could cost him.[/url] | WaPo

As a female reader commented acerbically, 'Will wonders never cease! The republican party has discovered “misogyny,” and THEY DON’T LIKE IT!'

And of course supporters of Establishment slimeball Ted Cruz publicizing nude photos of Trump's latest E.European catalog-bride wife (I say that without intending to disparage ... if that is your preference and you can afford to shop in the high end of that market, go for it - no evidence that he mistreats her, after all) from her younger modeling days? Not misogynistic in the least, just an honest effort to make the electorate aware of crucial facts relevant to Trump's qualifications for the highest office in the land.

It is thus eminently fitting that Mr. Cruz now finds himself hoist on his own anointed-by-God-and-morally whiter-than-white petard, with his very own Bill Clintonesque "[url=theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/24/the-national-enquirer-runs-story-of-multiple-ted-cruz-affairs/#]bimbo eruption[/url]". Pass the :popcorn: - this is gonna be such fun. :)

only_human 2016-03-26 03:29

[QUOTE=ewmayer;430067]Nate Silver has a curious definition of "everyone". The question is, given how egregiously wrong he has been at every step of Trump's "improbable rise", why should anyone pay attention to his latest (mis)reading of the chicken entrails?[/QUOTE]
His prognostication is limited because he fails to propitiate and appease with Bernt Offerings:
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/20-reasons-sanders-voters-are-justifiably-angry_b_9544744.html"]A Dozen Reasons Sanders Voters Are Justifiably Angry at the Media Right Now[/URL]
[QUOTE]3. The final word on electoral math, FiveThirtyEight.com, has Sanders at about 90% of his “delegate target” for winning the nomination via pledged delegates.

By way of comparison, that figure for Trump — the presumptive Republican nominee — is 96%. What’s striking about this figure is that Sanders is at 90% in this measure with the half of the nominating process that’s most favorable to him yet to come. Meanwhile, as of today Clinton is at her lowest point ever in this measure — 110% — and dropping fast. Things will get worse if, as anticipated, Clinton gets swept by Sanders in this weekend’s Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Moreover, the projections FiveThirtyEight.com has made for how Sanders will perform in future caucuses are, in retrospect, laughable. The website presumes Sanders, if he wins these caucuses, will win them (and their delegates) at a 55% to 45% clip. The problem is, not only does the structure of caucuses make such close results unlikely, in actual fact Sanders has been winning caucuses by between 35 and 50 points. Indeed, FiveThirtyEight.com has been so foolhardy about Sanders’ performance in caucuses that just this past Tuesday the website’s founder (and the nation’s top polling expert), Nate Silver, predicted that, in a best-case scenario, Sanders would lose 1 net delegate to Hillary Clinton after the votes in Arizona, Idaho, and Utah.

Instead, he gained 18 net delegates.

And his “delegate-target percentage” rose, after three relatively small states had voted, from 86% to 89%.

And the only news that came out of that “Western Tuesday” voting was: Hillary Clinton won Arizona.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://youtu.be/Oo_6Fb5k2lo"]BURNT OFFERINGS (1976) trailer[/URL]
[YOUTUBE]Oo_6Fb5k2lo[/YOUTUBE]


All times are UTC. The time now is 06:44.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.