...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* It's really great when all of the GOP candidates attack each other. Sure does help the Democrats to look better.
* Rubio lying again. Kelly admitted on TV after the debate Cruz was correct and Rubio wrong. Rubio needs to be called out on all his lies by all the other candidates. Fat boy had his chance last night and passed
* Rubio is the Corporate Puppet and Christe doughnut is hoping to be the VP
* Politicians Talking = Lying ! They will say & do anything to get elected then if they do get in Office, all promises are thrown aside& the real politician comes out.... They are in it for themselves. Trump is a professional Bull Shytter, Cruz sounds like Joe McCarthy in the 50's, Rubio looks confused all the time & Bush is just hopeless. The rest of them should walk away now with what little dignity they have left.
* Show me a politician who WON'T say anything to get elected. We all know what they say, which some may really mean what they say, the bill gets to the floor, now it's well, you want that bill passed, you give me what I want out of it, next thing the bill is so laced.......
* The debates are disgusting to watch. Even if you completely disagree with the dems atleast they just challenge each other a bit on issues and not try to destroy each other.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz’s fellow senators tell him what they really think
By Jon Ward, January 28, 2016
Ted Cruz is notoriously detested by his colleagues in the U.S. Senate.
And on Thursday night, in the final Republican presidential primary debate before the Iowa caucuses, two of Cruz’s fellow senators let it show. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul criticized Cruz in exceptionally harsh terms, essentially calling him a self-righteous poseur, and even a liar.
In a debate that was more political event than reality TV show because of the absence of frontrunner Donald Trump, one of the most contentious portions of the back-and-forth came when the Fox News moderators introduced the issue of immigration.
Fox’s Megyn Kelly put Marco Rubio, a U.S. senator from Florida, on the spot by asking him if he had favored a path to citizenship after opposing it during his 2010 campaign for the Senate.
Rubio was on the defensive, but this is by now well-trod ground. Many Republicans who don’t support Rubio because of his role in helping to pass a comprehensive immigration bill through the Senate in 2013 have either ruled him out because of it or have made their peace with it.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, however, criticized Rubio for running away from the bill after it left the Senate and moved to the House, where it went nowhere. It was a sign that Bush, lagging in most polls for months now, feels more comfortable than when he was a frontrunner in standing his ground on the issue, since the implication of his critique was that the comprehensive immigration bill should have passed.
Rubio, however, turned out to be merely an appetizer for Kelly. Fox had played video clips of Rubio’s past statements to illustrate the issue. And it did the same with Cruz’s comments in 2013 about how he wanted the bill to pass.
He now claims he was not telling the truth then. It’s an odd assertion, but it allows him to claim that he has remained pure in opposition to immigration reform during his time in the Senate.
Rand Paul, the U.S. senator from Kentucky, expressed disgust with Cruz over this.
“What is particularly insulting, though, is that he is the king of saying, ‘Oh you’re for amnesty,’” Paul said. “Everybody is for amnesty except for Ted Cruz. But it’s a falseness, and that’s an authenticity problem. Everybody he knows is not as perfect as him.”
Rubio picked up on this line of attack, and delivered one of the sharpest critiques that any candidate has delivered against another.
“This is the lie that Ted’s campaign is built on … that he’s the most conservative guy, and everyone else is a RINO [Republican in Name Only],” Rubio said. He turned to Cruz, and said: “The truth is, Ted, throughout this campaign, you’ve been willing to do or say anything in order to get votes.”
Rubio pointed out that Cruz had worked for President George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign and had helped design his immigration program, a position more moderate than Cruz’s present stance.
“Now you want to trump Trump on immigration,” Rubio told Cruz. “But we’re not going to beat Hillary Clinton with someone who’s willing to say or do anything to win an election.”
Cruz at first mocked Rubio. “You know, I like Marco. He’s very charming, he’s very smooth,” he said.
But for the most part, Cruz seemed caught off guard by the intensity of Rubio’s attack, and responded with standard talking points about how he had upheld his promise to fight against “amnesty” — a catch-all term if there ever was one — and how Rubio had not.
National Review’s Rich Lowry tweeted afterward: “This is the debate when Rubio let his full disdain for Cruz show.”
In the aftermath of the exchange, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie scored some points and positioned himself as an outsider by making fun of the senatorial debate.
“This is why you need to send someone from outside of Washington,” Christie said. “I need a Washington-English dictionary converter.”
But Cruz and Rubio were the two candidates with the most at stake Thursday night. Cruz was the leader in Iowa for a time earlier this month, until Trump regained the lead. Rubio is third in the polls in Iowa, behind Trump and Cruz.
Cruz at one point complained to the moderators that their last four questions had essentially asked other candidates to “attack” him. But this drew mostly scorn. Many in the crowd booed. And Fox News moderator Chris Wallace raised his eyebrows.
“It is a debate, sir,” Wallace said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
"The reason Republicans and Democrats fight so vehemently is not because of ideological differences, but because they simply don’t like each other."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* 30 years of 24 /7 political propaganda from both sides is a big cause. Fox News, Oreilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc are the propaganda arm of the GOP. MSNBC, Maddow on the other side. There is a reason we are being told to vilify the other side. It makes it easier for both sides to screw the American people.
* Both sides keep flip flopping like dying fish.
* Any system which involves infringing on people's rights is not resolvable.
* They used to say NO, but now they say HELL NO!... Hard to find compromise in that.
* one party uses science and facts. one party uses only myth and rumor
* I have agreements and disagreements with both sides but the fundamental difference is Republicans pander to the wealthy and Democrats are more for the every day man.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Real Reason Republicans and Democrats Can’t All Just Get Along
By Eric Pianin, February 2, 2016
For many years, experts blamed sharp ideological difference between the two parties for the debilitating gridlock in Washington that led to government shutdowns, budget crises and strong differences over foreign policy and defense issues.
The Pew Research Center in 2014 famously issued a study concluding that Republicans and Democrats “are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive” -- than at any point in the past 20 years.
Based on extensive polling, Pew researchers discovered that Americans who consistently voiced conservative or liberal views had doubled from 10 percent to 21 percent over the past two decades. “And ideological thinking is now much more closely aligned with partisanship than in the past,” the authors of the study wrote.
Now comes a new book, Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust and the Governing Crisis, with a very different take: The reason Republicans and Democrats fight so vehemently is not because of ideological differences, but because they simply don’t like each other.
Marc J. Hetherington, author and a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, writes, “Deeply negative feelings cause more trouble than deep ideological differences would.”
“When you disagree with the other side on the issues, you can often find a middle ground. When you don’t like the other side, you don’t even talk to them…. Absent trust, any bridges that form between the two sides are made of sand.”
Hetherington postulates a political dynamic in which lawmakers more often than not reflect the views of their constituents than to try to be thought leaders and influence their voters.
This can be highly problematic, especially in the vast majority of congressional districts that are demographically and politically homogenized because of gerrymandering by Republican and Democratic-controlled state legislatures.
For sure, the clash of ideologies also explains perpetual gridlocks in Washington, not to mention the intensely bitter relations between the Obama White House and GOP-dominated Congress.
Hetherington views this visceral negativity as a troubling trend and a reflection of politicians frequently taking cues from their constituents. “Although citizens have it in their capacity to nudge officeholders toward compromise, they don’t trust their opponents enough to push their side’s representatives to compromise with those they increasingly view as the devil,” Hetherington writes.
The end result, he says, is “stagnation” and the kind of gridlock that led, for example, to a near default on U.S. borrowing in 2011, the 2013 government shutdown and former GOP House Speaker John Boehner’s forced retirement late last year in the face of a revolt by conservative Republicans who were unwilling to reach a compromise with Democrats on budget and spending issues.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* 30 years of 24 /7 political propaganda from both sides is a big cause. Fox News, Oreilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc are the propaganda arm of the GOP. MSNBC, Maddow on the other side. There is a reason we are being told to vilify the other side. It makes it easier for both sides to screw the American people.
* Both sides keep flip flopping like dying fish.
* Any system which involves infringing on people's rights is not resolvable.
* They used to say NO, but now they say HELL NO!... Hard to find compromise in that.
* one party uses science and facts. one party uses only myth and rumor
* I have agreements and disagreements with both sides but the fundamental difference is Republicans pander to the wealthy and Democrats are more for the every day man.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Real Reason Republicans and Democrats Can’t All Just Get Along
By Eric Pianin, February 2, 2016
For many years, experts blamed sharp ideological difference between the two parties for the debilitating gridlock in Washington that led to government shutdowns, budget crises and strong differences over foreign policy and defense issues.
The Pew Research Center in 2014 famously issued a study concluding that Republicans and Democrats “are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive” -- than at any point in the past 20 years.
Based on extensive polling, Pew researchers discovered that Americans who consistently voiced conservative or liberal views had doubled from 10 percent to 21 percent over the past two decades. “And ideological thinking is now much more closely aligned with partisanship than in the past,” the authors of the study wrote.
Now comes a new book, Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust and the Governing Crisis, with a very different take: The reason Republicans and Democrats fight so vehemently is not because of ideological differences, but because they simply don’t like each other.
Marc J. Hetherington, author and a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, writes, “Deeply negative feelings cause more trouble than deep ideological differences would.”
“When you disagree with the other side on the issues, you can often find a middle ground. When you don’t like the other side, you don’t even talk to them…. Absent trust, any bridges that form between the two sides are made of sand.”
Hetherington postulates a political dynamic in which lawmakers more often than not reflect the views of their constituents than to try to be thought leaders and influence their voters.
This can be highly problematic, especially in the vast majority of congressional districts that are demographically and politically homogenized because of gerrymandering by Republican and Democratic-controlled state legislatures.
For sure, the clash of ideologies also explains perpetual gridlocks in Washington, not to mention the intensely bitter relations between the Obama White House and GOP-dominated Congress.
Hetherington views this visceral negativity as a troubling trend and a reflection of politicians frequently taking cues from their constituents. “Although citizens have it in their capacity to nudge officeholders toward compromise, they don’t trust their opponents enough to push their side’s representatives to compromise with those they increasingly view as the devil,” Hetherington writes.
The end result, he says, is “stagnation” and the kind of gridlock that led, for example, to a near default on U.S. borrowing in 2011, the 2013 government shutdown and former GOP House Speaker John Boehner’s forced retirement late last year in the face of a revolt by conservative Republicans who were unwilling to reach a compromise with Democrats on budget and spending issues.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Goodbye, RWNJs!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Actually, I'll be generous to the remaining wackos of the GOP's clown show of 2016-for the sake of common decency and for having the semblance of party unity-go home and stop bothering the voters. The electorate have spoken and don't want you around. The voters have decided that your campaigns have no balance nor any hope of winning with you, period. All of you are a drag on the three way circus candidates (Trump, Cruz & Rubio.) Allow us sane and clear thinking voters have the fun with all the mudslinging and fireworks to be seen going to the NH primary. Your party will do fine with the remaining three and see,who'll be left standing come Super Tuesday. Bon Voyage!
* This article is unadulterated gloating and schadenfreude. Thank you. I enjoyed it immensely.
* With the exception of John Kasich, who sometimes seems like a decent enough guy, all of the Republican candidates are pretty unlikable. But even among that crowd - which, remember, includes Ted Freakin' Cruz - Carly Fiorina manages to stand out as exceptionally odious.
* Cruz and Rubio still in... so no, the wacko wingnuts still thrive.
* "I can’t find any record of Gilmore saying anything completely unhinged – so of course none of the media or the voters paid any attention to him." Truth. Pataki, Gilmore, and sort of Kasich (he's said just a couple of slightly crazy things) were the only ones that aren't stark raving lunatics unhinged from reality. Unfortunately that disqualifies them for trying to get ahead in the party of crazy.
* I think they forgot one. Chris Hindenburg Christie is another also-ran who couldn't hit the side of a barn with his aspirations.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bon voyage, wackos! A look back at the doomed campaigns of the GOP’s wing-nut warriors
The Iowa caucuses are now behind us, and as the endless presidential campaign rolls on to New Hampshire, we all get to play that much-beloved game: Give It Up Already!
It’s easy to play. You just stare at the lowest-polling candidates’ numbers, shake your head, and wonder what in God’s name any of these people gain by slogging through more long days of shaking the hands of every person in New Hampshire at the height of flu season, and more long nights roughing up their skin against the starchy sheets of a Holiday Inn Express. Then you remember that they are politicians running for president, so by definition they are literally insane. Then you drink something.
But in the interests of squeezing a few last laughs out of some of these characters before they return to their mansions and wait for Roger Ailes to call, let’s look at four of the lowest-polling Republican candidates and evaluate where it all went wrong.
Rick Santorum
There were actually a few bright spots for Santorum this time around after the heartbreak of finishing a distant second to Mitt Romney in the 2012 primary. For one, the joke about his Google problem was played out enough that hardly anyone mentioned it. He never polled high enough to make it out of the so-called “undercard” debates, so fewer people saw him ranting against gay marriage like one of those Japanese soldiers still living on an isolated Pacific island in the 1970s because they didn’t know World War II was over. He didn’t insult the very boring by saying he opposes welfare for “blah people.” So there’s that.
He also visited so many Pizza Ranch restaurants in Iowa that the company made him an honorary employee. Which is good, he might need a career fallback now that his political future is dead. Unless that movie studio really takes off.
The negatives? The inability to be competitive this time around has been an obvious blow to his ego, to the point where MSNBC dubbed him 2016’s “saddest candidate.” (Please note that I’m referring to the sadness of Santorum and his three supporters, so please refrain from tweeting your schadenfreude at me.) And as a relatively young man, he still has to face decades of being Rick Santorum.
Carly Fiorina
Remember when Fiorina was a thing? What a fall. It’s actually hard to say what caused it. Sure, she’s an unlikeable, demagogic, smarmy, haughty, mendacious bag of complete and utter failure, but… sorry, where was I going with this?
Oh right: But those are positive traits in a Republican primary!
Fiorina’s credentials for the presidency were always, well, non-existent. Even without standing next to Donald Trump, who is such a bullshitter that future generations will write folk songs about his skill at it, Fiorina’s business career, which she seemed to think was her calling card, was the garbage fire of CEO tenures. Once she started getting some traction in the campaign after a solid performance in the first undercard debate, former Hewlett-Packard employees couldn’t run to the press fast enough to badmouth her. And even conservatives, despite their regular paeans to business, don’t want to hear someone brag about a record that includes firing 30,000 American workers.
Fiorina will likely struggle on as long as she can in the hope of landing a Cabinet spot if a Republican wins in November. If she had any pride she wouldn’t, but again, she’s Carly Fiorina.
Jim Gilmore
The former Virginia governor is still running — even after earning 0.0 percent of the vote last night — and it is adorable. Seriously, when you’re reduced to telling reporters you hope you get even one vote in Iowa, it’s time to rethink how you’re spending your time.
I can’t find any record of Gilmore saying anything completely unhinged – or much of anything, really – over the last few months of the campaign. He never suggested he would spend his first day in office chaining cinder blocks to Vladimir Putin’s ankles and tossing him in the Potomac, or ordering the military to line up on the Texas border and shoot every migrant it sees — so of course none of the media or the voters paid any attention to him.
Maybe Gilmore is just a decent human being. Unfortunately, our presidential elections don’t reward decency.
Mike Huckabee
Unlike the aforementioned candidates, Huckabee actually did drop out of the race last night, after receiving just 2 percent of the vote in Iowa. But because he’s been such a fixture of the Republican primary scene in the past, it’s worth taking a moment to look back at his comically odious legacy.
To be honest, it’s hard to find any positives here, mostly because Huckabee is such a slavering, God-bothering, self-righteous, scam-hawking dick that I don’t really want to. Even if I felt more generous, what is there to say about this guy? He plays a mean bass? Great, he and Martin O’Malley can form a band now that their campaigns are over.
It is a little bit of a surprise that it’s ending for Huckabee this way, wheezing and sputtering like an ’84 Nissan with a bad alternator. He won the 2008 Iowa caucus and was semi-competitive for the first couple of months of primary voting, only dropping out when he realized that the Texas primary would put John McCain over the top. In 2012, despite some very early polls showing him near the top of the list as a choice for the party faithful, he chose not to run. (To be fair, Herman Cain also briefly led the polls in 2012, because Republican primary voters are weird.) As Chris Christie is also learning after passing up a 2012 run, when deciding to run for president you need to strike while the iron is hot.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Actually, I'll be generous to the remaining wackos of the GOP's clown show of 2016-for the sake of common decency and for having the semblance of party unity-go home and stop bothering the voters. The electorate have spoken and don't want you around. The voters have decided that your campaigns have no balance nor any hope of winning with you, period. All of you are a drag on the three way circus candidates (Trump, Cruz & Rubio.) Allow us sane and clear thinking voters have the fun with all the mudslinging and fireworks to be seen going to the NH primary. Your party will do fine with the remaining three and see,who'll be left standing come Super Tuesday. Bon Voyage!
* This article is unadulterated gloating and schadenfreude. Thank you. I enjoyed it immensely.
* With the exception of John Kasich, who sometimes seems like a decent enough guy, all of the Republican candidates are pretty unlikable. But even among that crowd - which, remember, includes Ted Freakin' Cruz - Carly Fiorina manages to stand out as exceptionally odious.
* Cruz and Rubio still in... so no, the wacko wingnuts still thrive.
* "I can’t find any record of Gilmore saying anything completely unhinged – so of course none of the media or the voters paid any attention to him." Truth. Pataki, Gilmore, and sort of Kasich (he's said just a couple of slightly crazy things) were the only ones that aren't stark raving lunatics unhinged from reality. Unfortunately that disqualifies them for trying to get ahead in the party of crazy.
* I think they forgot one. Chris Hindenburg Christie is another also-ran who couldn't hit the side of a barn with his aspirations.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bon voyage, wackos! A look back at the doomed campaigns of the GOP’s wing-nut warriors
Mike Huckabee is out. Rick Santorum and others won't be far behind. We wish them the worst
By Gary Legum, February 2, 2016The Iowa caucuses are now behind us, and as the endless presidential campaign rolls on to New Hampshire, we all get to play that much-beloved game: Give It Up Already!
It’s easy to play. You just stare at the lowest-polling candidates’ numbers, shake your head, and wonder what in God’s name any of these people gain by slogging through more long days of shaking the hands of every person in New Hampshire at the height of flu season, and more long nights roughing up their skin against the starchy sheets of a Holiday Inn Express. Then you remember that they are politicians running for president, so by definition they are literally insane. Then you drink something.
But in the interests of squeezing a few last laughs out of some of these characters before they return to their mansions and wait for Roger Ailes to call, let’s look at four of the lowest-polling Republican candidates and evaluate where it all went wrong.
Rick Santorum
There were actually a few bright spots for Santorum this time around after the heartbreak of finishing a distant second to Mitt Romney in the 2012 primary. For one, the joke about his Google problem was played out enough that hardly anyone mentioned it. He never polled high enough to make it out of the so-called “undercard” debates, so fewer people saw him ranting against gay marriage like one of those Japanese soldiers still living on an isolated Pacific island in the 1970s because they didn’t know World War II was over. He didn’t insult the very boring by saying he opposes welfare for “blah people.” So there’s that.
He also visited so many Pizza Ranch restaurants in Iowa that the company made him an honorary employee. Which is good, he might need a career fallback now that his political future is dead. Unless that movie studio really takes off.
The negatives? The inability to be competitive this time around has been an obvious blow to his ego, to the point where MSNBC dubbed him 2016’s “saddest candidate.” (Please note that I’m referring to the sadness of Santorum and his three supporters, so please refrain from tweeting your schadenfreude at me.) And as a relatively young man, he still has to face decades of being Rick Santorum.
Carly Fiorina
Remember when Fiorina was a thing? What a fall. It’s actually hard to say what caused it. Sure, she’s an unlikeable, demagogic, smarmy, haughty, mendacious bag of complete and utter failure, but… sorry, where was I going with this?
Oh right: But those are positive traits in a Republican primary!
Fiorina’s credentials for the presidency were always, well, non-existent. Even without standing next to Donald Trump, who is such a bullshitter that future generations will write folk songs about his skill at it, Fiorina’s business career, which she seemed to think was her calling card, was the garbage fire of CEO tenures. Once she started getting some traction in the campaign after a solid performance in the first undercard debate, former Hewlett-Packard employees couldn’t run to the press fast enough to badmouth her. And even conservatives, despite their regular paeans to business, don’t want to hear someone brag about a record that includes firing 30,000 American workers.
Fiorina will likely struggle on as long as she can in the hope of landing a Cabinet spot if a Republican wins in November. If she had any pride she wouldn’t, but again, she’s Carly Fiorina.
Jim Gilmore
The former Virginia governor is still running — even after earning 0.0 percent of the vote last night — and it is adorable. Seriously, when you’re reduced to telling reporters you hope you get even one vote in Iowa, it’s time to rethink how you’re spending your time.
I can’t find any record of Gilmore saying anything completely unhinged – or much of anything, really – over the last few months of the campaign. He never suggested he would spend his first day in office chaining cinder blocks to Vladimir Putin’s ankles and tossing him in the Potomac, or ordering the military to line up on the Texas border and shoot every migrant it sees — so of course none of the media or the voters paid any attention to him.
Maybe Gilmore is just a decent human being. Unfortunately, our presidential elections don’t reward decency.
Mike Huckabee
Unlike the aforementioned candidates, Huckabee actually did drop out of the race last night, after receiving just 2 percent of the vote in Iowa. But because he’s been such a fixture of the Republican primary scene in the past, it’s worth taking a moment to look back at his comically odious legacy.
To be honest, it’s hard to find any positives here, mostly because Huckabee is such a slavering, God-bothering, self-righteous, scam-hawking dick that I don’t really want to. Even if I felt more generous, what is there to say about this guy? He plays a mean bass? Great, he and Martin O’Malley can form a band now that their campaigns are over.
It is a little bit of a surprise that it’s ending for Huckabee this way, wheezing and sputtering like an ’84 Nissan with a bad alternator. He won the 2008 Iowa caucus and was semi-competitive for the first couple of months of primary voting, only dropping out when he realized that the Texas primary would put John McCain over the top. In 2012, despite some very early polls showing him near the top of the list as a choice for the party faithful, he chose not to run. (To be fair, Herman Cain also briefly led the polls in 2012, because Republican primary voters are weird.) As Chris Christie is also learning after passing up a 2012 run, when deciding to run for president you need to strike while the iron is hot.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... when I have elected officials trying to influence my life and my family’s life based on their religious beliefs and traditions and preferences, I have a huge problem with that."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* This is so embarrassing. Our presidential candidates are placating superstitions based on bronze age ignorance...
* It doesn't seem like to much to ask, that the person we put in charge of the Big-Red-Button-of-Armageddon should NOT be somebody who considers the End-Times/Rapture to be something toward which we look FORWARD, is it? "You're not anxious for everybody to meet your God, are ya?" seems like the FIRST question we should ask. Of EVERY candidate...!
* It's amazing that religion is high jacking this campaign. We have separation of church and state in our constitution. It's these same talkers of the constitution that would love nothing more than to make America like ISIS land, where we make policies based on religion. It's these same fanatics that say's God controls the weather and these are supposed to be smart people? It's o.k. to believe in whatever, however I live in reality and need policies that are based on fact's not ideology.
* A religious person is so stupid -- they actually believe that god simply came into existence out of NOWHERE. Actually, ... an atheist acts like a grown-up and accepts the fact that he doesn't know where everything came from (at least not yet). In contrast, a religious person acts like a 5-year old and says that since he doesn't know where everything came from, it must have been created by a magic man in the sky who loves us. Maybe you think the magic man in the sky makes your TV work as well, since I'm confident you can't explain that either.
* No, you follow the bible because you've been brainwashed to believe it and you lack the skills to think critically.
* This guy has a real problem - who goes around saying, "Hi, I'm a Catholic, Jew, Moslem, etc." Who cares? This country was founded on the basis that everyone had a right to worship, or not, as they chose. Get over yourself! This just looks like someone who wants attention.
* well.... politicians go around saying, "i'm christian".
...................................................................................................................................................................
Meet the atheist who quizzes presidential candidates about their faith
By Daniel Silliman, February 2, 2016
As presidential candidates spent weeks in Iowa, many of them let their religious flags fly high. Donald Trump brought out the Bible his mother gave him. Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton both spoke about their faith. Even Bernie Sanders, who doesn’t participate in organized religion, spoke up about his personal beliefs.
One voter wondered where all this God talk left Americans who were not religious. What about atheists and other nonbelievers? So he decided to ask the candidates.
Justin Scott, a self-employed photographer and Iowa native, spoke to every major presidential contender and more than a few of the minor ones. At pizza parlors and coffee shops, meetups and rallies, Scott asked the candidates about atheists. He asked them if they support the separation of church and state and why an atheist voter should vote for them.
Political observers parsed the answers, speculating on how they would play with various religious voters. But what about atheists?
I spoke on the phone to Scott, who lives in Waterloo, Iowa, a few hours before the caucuses began on Monday. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Why did you want to talk to the presidential candidates about the separation of church and state and atheist voters?
I went into this as an atheist activist, as a secular activist, as somebody who wants to know where candidates stand on separation of church and state.
Two years ago, I came to the realization that I am an atheist. I am completely comfortable saying I am an atheist and I felt a longing to make some kind of positive impact, whether that’s spreading the word about atheism or letting people know that I am an atheist.
I feel like just saying, “Hi. I’m an atheist” really tears down walls. A lot of people know who I am in Eastern Iowa, so it’s going to tear down the idea that you can’t be good without God.
I’m all for you having your beliefs. Go to church. Wear your cross necklace. Bring your Bible to school. I don’t care. But when I have elected officials trying to influence my life and my family’s life based on their religious beliefs and traditions and preferences, I have a huge problem with that.
What did it feel like to ask your question?
As an atheist voter, going in to some of these, you realize you’re going to be surrounded by people who disagree with you. I really felt that with Ted Cruz.
He had an event at a small coffee shop. It feels like, everyone believes in God and it’s the Christian God. The people talking ahead of Cruz, they’re going on these pro-God, pro-gun, anti-Obama rants to get the crowd into a frenzy. People are so excited. It’s like a rock concert.
Then they welcome Ted Cruz, the savior, this Christian savior, and then he gets the crowd even more riled up. It was like injecting Christian steroids into these voters. The place was just worked up.
I put my hand as high as I could reach. I said, “Mr. Cruz, I have a question for you.” I said, “Hi. I’m an atheist.”
The room went silent. It was fun!
Who did you feel answered the question best?
With Bernie Sanders, I could sense this was not a talking point. He basically said the Founding Fathers wanted there to be separation of church and state: That’s how they set this thing up. We have seen other governments mix the two, and we have seen what has happened out of that, and we don’t need that in our country.
Hillary Clinton gave a very good answer as well. The thing that I really appreciated about Hillary wasn’t so much her answer, but that she took the time and she engaged. I had a T-shirt on that said “Atheist Voter.” She had every reason to ignore me. She had every reason to keep taking selfies with voters. I said, “Secretary Clinton, I have a question for you about religious freedom in this country.” She stopped. She said, “Go ahead.” She said she supported separation of church and state.
What about the Republicans?
Donald Trump and Rand Paul both blatantly ignored my question. Would not answer it. Would not acknowledge me. Would not give me the time of day.
The very devout Christian candidates, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, took part in a dialogue. There was a genuine conversation.
I seriously felt like I could sit down with Marco Rubio and ask him, “Hey, what about this policy? What about that policy?”
My question was provocative. I asked him if he was running for commander in chief or pastor in chief. But after it was all over, I went up to him, I shook his hand. He thanked me for my question. I thanked him for his answer. We took a selfie together.
Santorum, Rubio and Huckabee — and Jeb Bush as well — were people I could really talk to. Jeb Bush was probably the Republican, out of all of them, that I could appreciate. He didn’t try to take a shot at me or my disbelief. Jeb Bush just gave me a very solid, non-preaching answer about how a Catholic and atheist could come together. He didn’t take that little dig at me.
John Kasich, he made a comment about, “Well, don’t give up on your Bible. Keep reading the Bible.” I really have a problem with that.
One reason religious groups can be politically powerful is because they’re organized. Do you see potential for the organization of a secularist voting bloc?
I’m having internal battles in my head. I want to see all the differently labeled nonbeliever groups come together. We all support this idea of keeping our government secular. We all are part of this movement that doesn’t want to have laws that are dictated by someone else’s religious belief.
We want to have a way of life that’s free from discrimination and oppression based on religious beliefs. If we found out that a law was going to discriminate against an entire group of people, we’d be mad enough. But if we found out that law was based in someone’s religious belief, that would cause all of us to slam on the brakes. We could all get involved in that.
I think these issues are really big now: religion in government, religion in public education, religion’s attempt to control reproductive rights. Even if you are a very conservative atheist, you could stand for small government and limited government power, and still say if you’re against abortion simply because your holy book says that, and I have a problem with that.
A lot of voters — even some who aren’t very religious themselves — use the authenticity of a candidate’s religious commitments to judge character. How do you think candidates should be evaluated?
Mike Huckabee told me he’d rather vote for a genuine atheist than a Christian candidate who talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. I was pretty happy with that answer.
I don’t care how deep of a believer you say you are. What I want to know is that when push comes to shove, are you using superstition and a book that was written 2,000 years ago as your guide or are you using an evidence-based approach?
I would weigh out specific issues based on, does this limit somebody’s freedom? Does this decision promote, advance or limit my freedom?
There are a lot of different ways that religious beliefs can inform or shape politics, though. If someone like Hillary Clinton supports a policy that you do and she gives a religious reason for that, does that matter to you?
Hillary Clinton has come out and been very vocal about her beliefs: “God bless Iowa” and that sort of thing.
I find it slightly annoying.
It’s tough. I don’t want to talk out of both sides of my mouth here. I’m always going to side with science and evidence. I’m pro-choice, and if Hillary were to say she’s pro-choice because God told her, part of me would have a problem with that.
At the end of the day, I would look at what is the outcome, and I would weigh out the evidence. So maybe whether or not the inspiration comes from religion doesn’t matter.
Do you think it would be possible in the foreseeable future for an open atheist to be elected president?
For a while, we didn’t think we could have an African American president. And look what happened.
I’d really like to see a secular Supreme Court justice. How amazing would it be when they are sitting there talking about where do rights come from to have someone in there saying, “Rights come from humanity and rights come from human beings and society”? It’s exciting to even think about.
I think it would just be exciting to see, in a future election cycle, just to see one of these candidates pander to the atheist vote. How funny would that be to tune in to the 24/7 news cycle and hear, “Is candidate XYZ doing enough to win the atheist vote?” That would be great.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* This is so embarrassing. Our presidential candidates are placating superstitions based on bronze age ignorance...
* It doesn't seem like to much to ask, that the person we put in charge of the Big-Red-Button-of-Armageddon should NOT be somebody who considers the End-Times/Rapture to be something toward which we look FORWARD, is it? "You're not anxious for everybody to meet your God, are ya?" seems like the FIRST question we should ask. Of EVERY candidate...!
* It's amazing that religion is high jacking this campaign. We have separation of church and state in our constitution. It's these same talkers of the constitution that would love nothing more than to make America like ISIS land, where we make policies based on religion. It's these same fanatics that say's God controls the weather and these are supposed to be smart people? It's o.k. to believe in whatever, however I live in reality and need policies that are based on fact's not ideology.
* A religious person is so stupid -- they actually believe that god simply came into existence out of NOWHERE. Actually, ... an atheist acts like a grown-up and accepts the fact that he doesn't know where everything came from (at least not yet). In contrast, a religious person acts like a 5-year old and says that since he doesn't know where everything came from, it must have been created by a magic man in the sky who loves us. Maybe you think the magic man in the sky makes your TV work as well, since I'm confident you can't explain that either.
* No, you follow the bible because you've been brainwashed to believe it and you lack the skills to think critically.
* This guy has a real problem - who goes around saying, "Hi, I'm a Catholic, Jew, Moslem, etc." Who cares? This country was founded on the basis that everyone had a right to worship, or not, as they chose. Get over yourself! This just looks like someone who wants attention.
* well.... politicians go around saying, "i'm christian".
...................................................................................................................................................................
Meet the atheist who quizzes presidential candidates about their faith
By Daniel Silliman, February 2, 2016
As presidential candidates spent weeks in Iowa, many of them let their religious flags fly high. Donald Trump brought out the Bible his mother gave him. Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton both spoke about their faith. Even Bernie Sanders, who doesn’t participate in organized religion, spoke up about his personal beliefs.
One voter wondered where all this God talk left Americans who were not religious. What about atheists and other nonbelievers? So he decided to ask the candidates.
Justin Scott, a self-employed photographer and Iowa native, spoke to every major presidential contender and more than a few of the minor ones. At pizza parlors and coffee shops, meetups and rallies, Scott asked the candidates about atheists. He asked them if they support the separation of church and state and why an atheist voter should vote for them.
Political observers parsed the answers, speculating on how they would play with various religious voters. But what about atheists?
I spoke on the phone to Scott, who lives in Waterloo, Iowa, a few hours before the caucuses began on Monday. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Why did you want to talk to the presidential candidates about the separation of church and state and atheist voters?
I went into this as an atheist activist, as a secular activist, as somebody who wants to know where candidates stand on separation of church and state.
Two years ago, I came to the realization that I am an atheist. I am completely comfortable saying I am an atheist and I felt a longing to make some kind of positive impact, whether that’s spreading the word about atheism or letting people know that I am an atheist.
I feel like just saying, “Hi. I’m an atheist” really tears down walls. A lot of people know who I am in Eastern Iowa, so it’s going to tear down the idea that you can’t be good without God.
I’m all for you having your beliefs. Go to church. Wear your cross necklace. Bring your Bible to school. I don’t care. But when I have elected officials trying to influence my life and my family’s life based on their religious beliefs and traditions and preferences, I have a huge problem with that.
What did it feel like to ask your question?
As an atheist voter, going in to some of these, you realize you’re going to be surrounded by people who disagree with you. I really felt that with Ted Cruz.
He had an event at a small coffee shop. It feels like, everyone believes in God and it’s the Christian God. The people talking ahead of Cruz, they’re going on these pro-God, pro-gun, anti-Obama rants to get the crowd into a frenzy. People are so excited. It’s like a rock concert.
Then they welcome Ted Cruz, the savior, this Christian savior, and then he gets the crowd even more riled up. It was like injecting Christian steroids into these voters. The place was just worked up.
I put my hand as high as I could reach. I said, “Mr. Cruz, I have a question for you.” I said, “Hi. I’m an atheist.”
The room went silent. It was fun!
Who did you feel answered the question best?
With Bernie Sanders, I could sense this was not a talking point. He basically said the Founding Fathers wanted there to be separation of church and state: That’s how they set this thing up. We have seen other governments mix the two, and we have seen what has happened out of that, and we don’t need that in our country.
Hillary Clinton gave a very good answer as well. The thing that I really appreciated about Hillary wasn’t so much her answer, but that she took the time and she engaged. I had a T-shirt on that said “Atheist Voter.” She had every reason to ignore me. She had every reason to keep taking selfies with voters. I said, “Secretary Clinton, I have a question for you about religious freedom in this country.” She stopped. She said, “Go ahead.” She said she supported separation of church and state.
What about the Republicans?
Donald Trump and Rand Paul both blatantly ignored my question. Would not answer it. Would not acknowledge me. Would not give me the time of day.
The very devout Christian candidates, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, took part in a dialogue. There was a genuine conversation.
I seriously felt like I could sit down with Marco Rubio and ask him, “Hey, what about this policy? What about that policy?”
My question was provocative. I asked him if he was running for commander in chief or pastor in chief. But after it was all over, I went up to him, I shook his hand. He thanked me for my question. I thanked him for his answer. We took a selfie together.
Santorum, Rubio and Huckabee — and Jeb Bush as well — were people I could really talk to. Jeb Bush was probably the Republican, out of all of them, that I could appreciate. He didn’t try to take a shot at me or my disbelief. Jeb Bush just gave me a very solid, non-preaching answer about how a Catholic and atheist could come together. He didn’t take that little dig at me.
John Kasich, he made a comment about, “Well, don’t give up on your Bible. Keep reading the Bible.” I really have a problem with that.
One reason religious groups can be politically powerful is because they’re organized. Do you see potential for the organization of a secularist voting bloc?
I’m having internal battles in my head. I want to see all the differently labeled nonbeliever groups come together. We all support this idea of keeping our government secular. We all are part of this movement that doesn’t want to have laws that are dictated by someone else’s religious belief.
We want to have a way of life that’s free from discrimination and oppression based on religious beliefs. If we found out that a law was going to discriminate against an entire group of people, we’d be mad enough. But if we found out that law was based in someone’s religious belief, that would cause all of us to slam on the brakes. We could all get involved in that.
I think these issues are really big now: religion in government, religion in public education, religion’s attempt to control reproductive rights. Even if you are a very conservative atheist, you could stand for small government and limited government power, and still say if you’re against abortion simply because your holy book says that, and I have a problem with that.
A lot of voters — even some who aren’t very religious themselves — use the authenticity of a candidate’s religious commitments to judge character. How do you think candidates should be evaluated?
Mike Huckabee told me he’d rather vote for a genuine atheist than a Christian candidate who talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. I was pretty happy with that answer.
I don’t care how deep of a believer you say you are. What I want to know is that when push comes to shove, are you using superstition and a book that was written 2,000 years ago as your guide or are you using an evidence-based approach?
I would weigh out specific issues based on, does this limit somebody’s freedom? Does this decision promote, advance or limit my freedom?
There are a lot of different ways that religious beliefs can inform or shape politics, though. If someone like Hillary Clinton supports a policy that you do and she gives a religious reason for that, does that matter to you?
Hillary Clinton has come out and been very vocal about her beliefs: “God bless Iowa” and that sort of thing.
I find it slightly annoying.
It’s tough. I don’t want to talk out of both sides of my mouth here. I’m always going to side with science and evidence. I’m pro-choice, and if Hillary were to say she’s pro-choice because God told her, part of me would have a problem with that.
At the end of the day, I would look at what is the outcome, and I would weigh out the evidence. So maybe whether or not the inspiration comes from religion doesn’t matter.
Do you think it would be possible in the foreseeable future for an open atheist to be elected president?
For a while, we didn’t think we could have an African American president. And look what happened.
I’d really like to see a secular Supreme Court justice. How amazing would it be when they are sitting there talking about where do rights come from to have someone in there saying, “Rights come from humanity and rights come from human beings and society”? It’s exciting to even think about.
I think it would just be exciting to see, in a future election cycle, just to see one of these candidates pander to the atheist vote. How funny would that be to tune in to the 24/7 news cycle and hear, “Is candidate XYZ doing enough to win the atheist vote?” That would be great.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Hey, Donald! There's that dreaded word!
....................................................................................
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Speaking of losers.......
..................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Rubio gives hope to all the over hyped underachievers who snatch defeat from the jaws of defeat. Rubio must think this a little league where everyone gets a trophy. Unless you’re winning you’re not
* I was trying to figure out why media was trying to frame rubio as a winner. Even a close 3rd is still third. That being said, wonder how trump liked being the pork in a Cuban sandwich. Repubs are too funny.
* Well, I guess he did beat expectations, so that is kind of winning? Well, if you are a repub, it must be. He could have gone the way of ol' Huckster. And he knows that he will be seeing those establishment dollars come rolling in.......
* I recommend a participation trophy for Rubio's 3rd place "win".
* As expected there are always those supporters that think 3rd place is 1st.
* I came in on Rubio speaking, listening to him I thought he won. These people are delusional. Coming in 3rd he thinks he accomplished something. Newsflash Rubio I don't think you win your home state of Florida.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Don't Let The Media And Marco Rubio Tell You He 'Won' By Finishing Third In Iowa
Third place is the second loser.
By Nick Baumann, February 1, 2016
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) finished third in the Iowa Republican caucuses on Monday. His campaign and much of the media will tell you that this means he was the real winner of the first-in-the-nation contest. Don't believe them.
College debater-turned-pro Ted Cruz, the Texas senator whom even other senators hate, won the caucuses. Famed racist and lying liar Donald Trump finished second. Rubio finished third.
The news runs on surprise. People click on stories that surprise them. Things that are expected to happen -- like Trump and Cruz fighting it out for first place in Iowa -- are less surprising. Politicians know this and take advantage of it. Politicos call this the "expectations game" -- setting expectations of your performance at a certain level so that you can do "better than expected" and be the focus of the headlines.
The spin is already happening. "This is the moment they told us would never happen," Rubio said Monday night. "They told me we had no chance." His campaign manager, Alex Conant, struck a similar tune. "This is a big night for us," Conant said. "It's probably a three-person race leaving here. If you don't want Trump or Cruz to be the nominee, you better get on board with Marco Rubio."
Reporters know they're being spun, but they go with it anyway. "It'll annoy Rubio detractors that his expectations management game worked, he overperformed, and it’ll have an impact in his coverage," Commentary's Noah Rothman tweeted Friday. Experts expect the press to be played like a fiddle. "We can call this right now: Marco Rubio will be the flavor of the week," election law expert Rick Hasen tweeted Monday.
The press doesn't have to -- and shouldn't -- take the bait. Here's a great guide to how you should really think about the results:
The pro-Rubio narrative will be that, as the "establishment" candidate who did best in Iowa, he is well-positioned to gather the full strength of the Republican establishment behind him. But Monday night's results showed just how weak that establishment is: With 99 percent of the results in, Cruz, Trump and Carson, the candidates most often described as anti-establishment, took a combined 61 percent of the vote. Everyone else combined for 39 percent.
The results also showed the weakness of "establishment" as a label. While it does describe candidates' closeness to party elites, it doesn't tell voters much about their policy positions. Trump says racist things. But like Trump, Rubio holds several positions that are well outside the mainstream of American political opinion. He believes, for example, that women who are raped and become pregnant should have to carry the pregnancy to term. Only a quarter of Americans agree with him. There's more:
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Rubio gives hope to all the over hyped underachievers who snatch defeat from the jaws of defeat. Rubio must think this a little league where everyone gets a trophy. Unless you’re winning you’re not
* I was trying to figure out why media was trying to frame rubio as a winner. Even a close 3rd is still third. That being said, wonder how trump liked being the pork in a Cuban sandwich. Repubs are too funny.
* Well, I guess he did beat expectations, so that is kind of winning? Well, if you are a repub, it must be. He could have gone the way of ol' Huckster. And he knows that he will be seeing those establishment dollars come rolling in.......
* I recommend a participation trophy for Rubio's 3rd place "win".
* As expected there are always those supporters that think 3rd place is 1st.
* I came in on Rubio speaking, listening to him I thought he won. These people are delusional. Coming in 3rd he thinks he accomplished something. Newsflash Rubio I don't think you win your home state of Florida.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Don't Let The Media And Marco Rubio Tell You He 'Won' By Finishing Third In Iowa
Third place is the second loser.
By Nick Baumann, February 1, 2016
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) finished third in the Iowa Republican caucuses on Monday. His campaign and much of the media will tell you that this means he was the real winner of the first-in-the-nation contest. Don't believe them.
College debater-turned-pro Ted Cruz, the Texas senator whom even other senators hate, won the caucuses. Famed racist and lying liar Donald Trump finished second. Rubio finished third.
The news runs on surprise. People click on stories that surprise them. Things that are expected to happen -- like Trump and Cruz fighting it out for first place in Iowa -- are less surprising. Politicians know this and take advantage of it. Politicos call this the "expectations game" -- setting expectations of your performance at a certain level so that you can do "better than expected" and be the focus of the headlines.
The spin is already happening. "This is the moment they told us would never happen," Rubio said Monday night. "They told me we had no chance." His campaign manager, Alex Conant, struck a similar tune. "This is a big night for us," Conant said. "It's probably a three-person race leaving here. If you don't want Trump or Cruz to be the nominee, you better get on board with Marco Rubio."
Reporters know they're being spun, but they go with it anyway. "It'll annoy Rubio detractors that his expectations management game worked, he overperformed, and it’ll have an impact in his coverage," Commentary's Noah Rothman tweeted Friday. Experts expect the press to be played like a fiddle. "We can call this right now: Marco Rubio will be the flavor of the week," election law expert Rick Hasen tweeted Monday.
The press doesn't have to -- and shouldn't -- take the bait. Here's a great guide to how you should really think about the results:
Emma Roller ✔ @emmarollerThe real story here is that more than half of Republican primary voters in Iowa opted for Trump -- a blowhard billionaire who has embraced open racism and is tearing the GOP apart -- and Cruz, the most loathed man in Washington. Nearly 10 percent of them voted for Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who has never held federal political office.
a handy guide for reporters ranking the most important wins tonight:
1: whoever comes in 1st
2: whoever comes in 2nd
3: whoever comes in 3rd
6:57 PM - 1 Feb 2016
The pro-Rubio narrative will be that, as the "establishment" candidate who did best in Iowa, he is well-positioned to gather the full strength of the Republican establishment behind him. But Monday night's results showed just how weak that establishment is: With 99 percent of the results in, Cruz, Trump and Carson, the candidates most often described as anti-establishment, took a combined 61 percent of the vote. Everyone else combined for 39 percent.
The results also showed the weakness of "establishment" as a label. While it does describe candidates' closeness to party elites, it doesn't tell voters much about their policy positions. Trump says racist things. But like Trump, Rubio holds several positions that are well outside the mainstream of American political opinion. He believes, for example, that women who are raped and become pregnant should have to carry the pregnancy to term. Only a quarter of Americans agree with him. There's more:
Matthew Yglesias ✔ @mattyglesiasRubio could very well be the Republican nominee. He will likely be able to sign up more major donors and score a few endorsements by citing his Iowa results. And he'll have at least one fewer opponent to worry about: Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, suspended his campaign Monday night. But Rubio's performance in Iowa doesn't mean he won anything. It just means he still has a chance.
Responsible establishment candidate Marco Rubio wants a $4 trillion tax cut, a war with Iran, a balanced budget, and to shut down mosques.
2:25 PM - 1 Feb 2016 · Washington, DC, United States
...................................................................................................................................................................
"As Trump himself likes to point out, second place is totally for losers." Guess what, Donald, that makes you a LOSER!!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I do not think the fat lady is singing yet.
* nah but the fat guy's yelling which means we're almost at the fat lady's part.
* As soon as it gets real The Donald will have to Duck.
* Not much point in trying to talk sense to low-information Trump supporters. They say things like "Iowa means absolutely nothing and i mean nothing". Of course they'd be telling everyone that Iowa means nothing had Donald won. New slogan: Thinking Hurts - Vote Trump!
* Another simple fact....Trump is a loser after claiming otherwise.
* A little crow with your morning coffee Mr. Trump? .....I hear it goes well with humble pie.
* It's dosen't matter which of the republicans get the nomination because the choices are, bad, worse and terrible.
* Trump was closer to coming in 3rd than he was coming in first, so he didn't "almost win" (lol).....what he did was "almost lost by alot".
* It seems Iowa voters were a lot smarter than Trump them credit for. Just the first of many more failures for the Donald.
* He's a loser, but he's an awesome loser! The greatest loser EVER!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump Must Be Regretting These Tweets After His Loser Finish In Iowa
Well, this is awkward.
By Nick Wing, February 2, 2016
If you haven't heard, billionaire real estate mogul and GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump likes to win. For months, he's made the promise of winning a focal point of his campaign, saying that a President Trump would win so much that Americans would get bored of winning. But on Monday, when it came time to test his mettle in the first actual competition of the primary, the Donald blew it.
Trump's second-place finish in Iowa behind Texas Sen. Ted Cruz likely came as a surprise to his staffers, who had seemingly read his strong poll numbers as a sign that victory was the only acceptable outcome. Instead, he finished just a single point above Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who came in third.
While Trump appeared gracious in defeat, anything short of first place has to sting. As Trump himself likes to point out, second place is totally for losers.
Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I do not think the fat lady is singing yet.
* nah but the fat guy's yelling which means we're almost at the fat lady's part.
* As soon as it gets real The Donald will have to Duck.
* Not much point in trying to talk sense to low-information Trump supporters. They say things like "Iowa means absolutely nothing and i mean nothing". Of course they'd be telling everyone that Iowa means nothing had Donald won. New slogan: Thinking Hurts - Vote Trump!
* Another simple fact....Trump is a loser after claiming otherwise.
* A little crow with your morning coffee Mr. Trump? .....I hear it goes well with humble pie.
* It's dosen't matter which of the republicans get the nomination because the choices are, bad, worse and terrible.
* Trump was closer to coming in 3rd than he was coming in first, so he didn't "almost win" (lol).....what he did was "almost lost by alot".
* It seems Iowa voters were a lot smarter than Trump them credit for. Just the first of many more failures for the Donald.
* He's a loser, but he's an awesome loser! The greatest loser EVER!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump Must Be Regretting These Tweets After His Loser Finish In Iowa
Well, this is awkward.
By Nick Wing, February 2, 2016
If you haven't heard, billionaire real estate mogul and GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump likes to win. For months, he's made the promise of winning a focal point of his campaign, saying that a President Trump would win so much that Americans would get bored of winning. But on Monday, when it came time to test his mettle in the first actual competition of the primary, the Donald blew it.
Trump's second-place finish in Iowa behind Texas Sen. Ted Cruz likely came as a surprise to his staffers, who had seemingly read his strong poll numbers as a sign that victory was the only acceptable outcome. Instead, he finished just a single point above Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who came in third.
While Trump appeared gracious in defeat, anything short of first place has to sting. As Trump himself likes to point out, second place is totally for losers.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrumpHagen, a professional golfer who tallied 11 victories at major tournaments, the third most all time, knew a thing or two about winning. And Trump is apparently pretty fond of his view on anyone who takes home silver.
“No one remembers who came in second.” - Walter Hagen
12:55 PM - 30 Dec 2013
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrumpTaking the Dale Earnhardt view of competing -- that “second place is just the first loser” -- sounds great when you're ahead. But when the votes get counted and you end up in second, well, you look like a pretty big loser. And if you don't believe me, just check out loser.com.
“No one remembers who came in second.” – Walter Hagen
1:53 PM - 17 Jun 2014
Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the others who are leaving are saying it plainly: They simply don’t want to be in Washington anymore. ... sounding a familiar trope: The gridlock is simply too paralyzing." So, who's fault is that? Not the Democrats!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Of course, they will have been in congress 6 years, enough to be vested in the pension plan.
* Exactly. They say bullshit in order to get elected, then get to do practically nothing for 6 years besides collect their taxpayer salary and bonify their pensions, then decide to retire early. Easiest freaking job in the world and the conservatards that vote for them are none the wiser.
* After all the chaos and crisis's they pushed on the country contributing to a dysfunctional government they are leaving. As it turns out they were the problem. It should have happened sooner, now if they'll take Ted Cruz with them.
* Rats leaving the ship they ate holes in.
* I am so sick of this I could explode. Redistricting / Gerrymandering. to divide (a state, school district, etc.) into political units that give one group an unfair advantage. The rebublicans win the house only because of this. Which means they are not truly elected by the majority. They are elected by a minority. This is not For the people by the people, it is cheating and it should be on everyones minds and it is not.
* Republicans are more fond of a dictatorship more than anything else. When they get to power, they don't choose to fix the problems a Americans face. It's all about a bait-and-switch to consolidate power for their party.
* What were their accomplishments? Stomping their feet and throwing temper tanturms and roadblocks to any possibility of compromise. Good riddance.
* Don't forget shutting down the government, too.
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP class of 2010 is deserting the House
By Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan
They came to Washington from places like Frog Jump, Tennessee; Sherwood, Wisconsin; and Kinderhook, New York, looking to turn Congress on its head.
The House Republican class of 2010 — 63 farmers, small-business owners and state legislators — made John Boehner speaker, drove Democrats into the political wilderness and drastically changed the trajectory of Barack Obama’s presidency.
But now, much of that class is leaving the House behind.
In the past few months, 12 of the 45 remaining members of that historic class have announced they’ll forgo election in November, marking a substantial exodus of the lawmakers that gave the GOP the majority. When the next Congress is sworn in in January 2017, the class will be just half the size it was when it was sworn in in 2011.
Thanks to redistricting, there is little likelihood Democrats can win back the House, even if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is the Republican presidential nominee.
However, the rapid turnover of such relatively junior members is important, and is telling on several fronts. Serving in Congress simply isn’t as much fun as it used to be. Even as this Republican majority turns the corner toward greater productivity, it still faces intraparty battles and has had to contend with a president of a different party. The exodus of junior members also gives more influence to the leadership. Experience matters on Capitol Hill, and the more new members there are, the more powerful the leadership becomes. And then there’s fundraising. The constant dollar dash is tiresome for members. They work all day and raise money all night.
Two dozen departures seems drastic, but Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, is not surprised.
“They came here on a mission, not to make a career. They came here to make a difference,” Walden said in an interview on Monday. “In nearly every case, they feel they have, and they’re ready to go return to their [previous] lives, go back and do something else.” Walden also noted that “40 percent of the class had never held office” before being elected to Congress.
Of course, they’re all leaving for different reasons. Reps. Joe Heck of Nevada, and Marlin Stutzman and Todd Young of Indiana are all running for Senate. Should they win, they’ll join Cory Gardner of Colorado and James Lankford of Oklahoma, also members of the 2010 class who’ve escaped the House for the Senate.
But the others who are leaving are saying it plainly: They simply don’t want to be in Washington anymore. The most recent retirement came Monday, when Tennessee Rep. Stephen Fincher, the farmer from Frog Jump, said he wouldn’t run again in November. He was nearly certain to win — in 2014, he won with more than 70 percent of the vote. He said in a statement he “never intended to become a career politician.”
Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), a roofer from Green Bay, announced that he was retiring on Saturday, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family. He briefly toyed with a run for governor, but said he would not run against the incumbent, Gov. Scott Walker. Ribble said with a new president coming in, he feels like he’s achieved what he came to D.C. to do.
“We all came in with some stated objectives, frankly,” Ribble said Monday evening in an interview. “One of those was to capture the majority. We were the class that turned it over … And to restrain discretionary federal spending. And we’ve been able to do that.”
He did add that his phone has been ringing off the hook since announcing his retirement. As it turns out, there are lots of Wisconsin-based businesses looking for his services.
For some, an easy transition could be in store. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) is retiring, but his brother Brian is now running to replace him.
Others are sounding a familiar trope: The gridlock is simply too paralyzing. Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) said he was unhappy with the bitter partisanship that has taken hold in Congress, complaining that it had prevented members from being able to work across the aisle to find solutions to serious policy problems.
“Can I look back and say we collectively accomplished something of substance, and was it time to come home?” Rigell said in an interview with The Virginian-Pilot. “We have separated ourselves into groups that truly don’t reflect where the American people are.”
“I don’t know if there is a trend per se,” said Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.), who announced in November that he was leaving Capitol Hill at the end of this term. “For me, it’s just personal. I basically term limited myself when I got into it … I truly believe some members are here too long.”
Nugent, a sheriff in Hernando County before he was elected to the House, noted that serving in Congress can be tough on lawmakers’ personal lives, despite the public perception that Congress is never working.
“I missed one of my grandkid’s first birthday parties,” the 64-year-old Nugent said in an interview Monday. “Got to go to one, didn’t get to go to the other one within a month’s time just because the way the [House] schedule worked out. I’ve been in public service between law enforcement and [Congress] for 40 years. It’s time. Your priority has to be family first.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Of course, they will have been in congress 6 years, enough to be vested in the pension plan.
* Exactly. They say bullshit in order to get elected, then get to do practically nothing for 6 years besides collect their taxpayer salary and bonify their pensions, then decide to retire early. Easiest freaking job in the world and the conservatards that vote for them are none the wiser.
* After all the chaos and crisis's they pushed on the country contributing to a dysfunctional government they are leaving. As it turns out they were the problem. It should have happened sooner, now if they'll take Ted Cruz with them.
* Rats leaving the ship they ate holes in.
* I am so sick of this I could explode. Redistricting / Gerrymandering. to divide (a state, school district, etc.) into political units that give one group an unfair advantage. The rebublicans win the house only because of this. Which means they are not truly elected by the majority. They are elected by a minority. This is not For the people by the people, it is cheating and it should be on everyones minds and it is not.
* Republicans are more fond of a dictatorship more than anything else. When they get to power, they don't choose to fix the problems a Americans face. It's all about a bait-and-switch to consolidate power for their party.
* What were their accomplishments? Stomping their feet and throwing temper tanturms and roadblocks to any possibility of compromise. Good riddance.
* Don't forget shutting down the government, too.
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP class of 2010 is deserting the House
By Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan
They came to Washington from places like Frog Jump, Tennessee; Sherwood, Wisconsin; and Kinderhook, New York, looking to turn Congress on its head.
The House Republican class of 2010 — 63 farmers, small-business owners and state legislators — made John Boehner speaker, drove Democrats into the political wilderness and drastically changed the trajectory of Barack Obama’s presidency.
But now, much of that class is leaving the House behind.
In the past few months, 12 of the 45 remaining members of that historic class have announced they’ll forgo election in November, marking a substantial exodus of the lawmakers that gave the GOP the majority. When the next Congress is sworn in in January 2017, the class will be just half the size it was when it was sworn in in 2011.
Thanks to redistricting, there is little likelihood Democrats can win back the House, even if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is the Republican presidential nominee.
However, the rapid turnover of such relatively junior members is important, and is telling on several fronts. Serving in Congress simply isn’t as much fun as it used to be. Even as this Republican majority turns the corner toward greater productivity, it still faces intraparty battles and has had to contend with a president of a different party. The exodus of junior members also gives more influence to the leadership. Experience matters on Capitol Hill, and the more new members there are, the more powerful the leadership becomes. And then there’s fundraising. The constant dollar dash is tiresome for members. They work all day and raise money all night.
Two dozen departures seems drastic, but Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, is not surprised.
“They came here on a mission, not to make a career. They came here to make a difference,” Walden said in an interview on Monday. “In nearly every case, they feel they have, and they’re ready to go return to their [previous] lives, go back and do something else.” Walden also noted that “40 percent of the class had never held office” before being elected to Congress.
Of course, they’re all leaving for different reasons. Reps. Joe Heck of Nevada, and Marlin Stutzman and Todd Young of Indiana are all running for Senate. Should they win, they’ll join Cory Gardner of Colorado and James Lankford of Oklahoma, also members of the 2010 class who’ve escaped the House for the Senate.
But the others who are leaving are saying it plainly: They simply don’t want to be in Washington anymore. The most recent retirement came Monday, when Tennessee Rep. Stephen Fincher, the farmer from Frog Jump, said he wouldn’t run again in November. He was nearly certain to win — in 2014, he won with more than 70 percent of the vote. He said in a statement he “never intended to become a career politician.”
Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), a roofer from Green Bay, announced that he was retiring on Saturday, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family. He briefly toyed with a run for governor, but said he would not run against the incumbent, Gov. Scott Walker. Ribble said with a new president coming in, he feels like he’s achieved what he came to D.C. to do.
“We all came in with some stated objectives, frankly,” Ribble said Monday evening in an interview. “One of those was to capture the majority. We were the class that turned it over … And to restrain discretionary federal spending. And we’ve been able to do that.”
He did add that his phone has been ringing off the hook since announcing his retirement. As it turns out, there are lots of Wisconsin-based businesses looking for his services.
For some, an easy transition could be in store. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) is retiring, but his brother Brian is now running to replace him.
Others are sounding a familiar trope: The gridlock is simply too paralyzing. Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) said he was unhappy with the bitter partisanship that has taken hold in Congress, complaining that it had prevented members from being able to work across the aisle to find solutions to serious policy problems.
“Can I look back and say we collectively accomplished something of substance, and was it time to come home?” Rigell said in an interview with The Virginian-Pilot. “We have separated ourselves into groups that truly don’t reflect where the American people are.”
“I don’t know if there is a trend per se,” said Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.), who announced in November that he was leaving Capitol Hill at the end of this term. “For me, it’s just personal. I basically term limited myself when I got into it … I truly believe some members are here too long.”
Nugent, a sheriff in Hernando County before he was elected to the House, noted that serving in Congress can be tough on lawmakers’ personal lives, despite the public perception that Congress is never working.
“I missed one of my grandkid’s first birthday parties,” the 64-year-old Nugent said in an interview Monday. “Got to go to one, didn’t get to go to the other one within a month’s time just because the way the [House] schedule worked out. I’ve been in public service between law enforcement and [Congress] for 40 years. It’s time. Your priority has to be family first.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... Sarah Palin has this in common with Roman orators: She loves to talk trash." Hmmm, trash from "trash"?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Palin is not difficult to understand. Like any demagogue, she plays to the fear, ignorance and hatred of her followers.
* Isn't it possible that Ms. Palin is simply following the practice of many politicians of verbalizing a stream of consciousness? It's consistent with Mr. Trump's apparent aversion to speaking in full sentences, instead spewing catch phrases of a few words, repeated almost endlessly. This is politics in the twenty-first century, reflecting the view that voters don't understand grammatically expressed concepts.
* Maybe we should all agree that she has invented a new language and call it Lipstick on a Pig Latin.
* I think Sarah tries desperately to sound knowledgeable and sophisticated and the result is part amusing and part pitiful. I've often wondered how many in her audiences understand any of it.
* Palin is the revenge of the D students.
* Oh, thank you. This has been my first good laugh over all this Trump campaign nonsense; up until now nothing but flat dismay. Excellent Palin translation indeed!
* Sarah is to eloquence what Trump is to humility.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sarah Palin’s English
By Anna North, February 2, 2016
Sarah Palin has been mocked a lot for the way she talks, especially in her strange and rambling endorsement speech for Donald Trump. But her speeches on the campaign trail aren’t simple; they are actually incredibly complicated.
Her unusual style was on display at a Trump rally on Monday afternoon in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “When both parties, the machines involved, when both of them hate you,” she said at one point, “then you know America loves you and we do love he who will be the next president of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump!”
Let’s break that last part down: “We” love not just Donald Trump, or even just Donald J. Trump, but “he who will be the next president of the United States of America.”
Mrs. Palin relies heavily on this particular kind of dependent clause. “He is one who would know to negotiate,” she said of Donald Trump in her speech endorsing him on Jan. 19. Later in that speech, she spoke of “our own G.O.P. machine, the establishment, they who would assemble the political landscape.”
Mrs. Palin is also a big fan of the participial phrase. “And that blank check too,” she said on Monday, “making no sense because it’s led us to things, oh gosh, to pay the bills then, we have had to uh, print money out of thin air.”
In this case “making no sense” and everything that follows appear to modify “blank check”; though it can be a little hard to tell with Mrs. Palin, the participial phrase seems to function as an adjective. Elsewhere in her speech Mrs. Palin got more sophisticated.
“Politics being kind of brutal business,” she said, “you find out who your friends are, that’s for sure.”
Here, “politics being kind of brutal business” defines the circumstances under which the action occurs. It looks like a construction that will be familiar to anybody who took Latin in school: the ablative absolute.
An ablative absolute in Latin is a particular kind of clause that, according to one definition, “modifies the whole sentence as an adverb modifies the action of a verb.” An example, courtesy of The Latin Library: “His verbis dictis, Caesar discedit.” Translation: “With these words having been said, Caesar departs.”
In fact, a lot of what Sarah Palin says sounds like it’s been poorly translated from the Latin. With her “he who” and “one who,” she’d sound almost Ciceronian if it weren’t for the holes in her logic and the way those complicated sentences sometimes dribble off into vaguely sinister, possibly offensive nonsense.
Maybe Mrs. Palin or her speechwriters think the convoluted sentence structure makes her sound smart. Maybe they think it makes her sound heroic, like the orators of the past. Or maybe all those extra clauses are just a really good way to load up a sentence with praise — or insults. Here’s Mrs. Palin using both a dependent clause and a participial phrase to attack President Obama on Jan. 19:
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Palin is not difficult to understand. Like any demagogue, she plays to the fear, ignorance and hatred of her followers.
* Isn't it possible that Ms. Palin is simply following the practice of many politicians of verbalizing a stream of consciousness? It's consistent with Mr. Trump's apparent aversion to speaking in full sentences, instead spewing catch phrases of a few words, repeated almost endlessly. This is politics in the twenty-first century, reflecting the view that voters don't understand grammatically expressed concepts.
* Maybe we should all agree that she has invented a new language and call it Lipstick on a Pig Latin.
* I think Sarah tries desperately to sound knowledgeable and sophisticated and the result is part amusing and part pitiful. I've often wondered how many in her audiences understand any of it.
* Palin is the revenge of the D students.
* Oh, thank you. This has been my first good laugh over all this Trump campaign nonsense; up until now nothing but flat dismay. Excellent Palin translation indeed!
* Sarah is to eloquence what Trump is to humility.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sarah Palin’s English
By Anna North, February 2, 2016
Sarah Palin has been mocked a lot for the way she talks, especially in her strange and rambling endorsement speech for Donald Trump. But her speeches on the campaign trail aren’t simple; they are actually incredibly complicated.
Her unusual style was on display at a Trump rally on Monday afternoon in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “When both parties, the machines involved, when both of them hate you,” she said at one point, “then you know America loves you and we do love he who will be the next president of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump!”
Let’s break that last part down: “We” love not just Donald Trump, or even just Donald J. Trump, but “he who will be the next president of the United States of America.”
Mrs. Palin relies heavily on this particular kind of dependent clause. “He is one who would know to negotiate,” she said of Donald Trump in her speech endorsing him on Jan. 19. Later in that speech, she spoke of “our own G.O.P. machine, the establishment, they who would assemble the political landscape.”
Mrs. Palin is also a big fan of the participial phrase. “And that blank check too,” she said on Monday, “making no sense because it’s led us to things, oh gosh, to pay the bills then, we have had to uh, print money out of thin air.”
In this case “making no sense” and everything that follows appear to modify “blank check”; though it can be a little hard to tell with Mrs. Palin, the participial phrase seems to function as an adjective. Elsewhere in her speech Mrs. Palin got more sophisticated.
“Politics being kind of brutal business,” she said, “you find out who your friends are, that’s for sure.”
Here, “politics being kind of brutal business” defines the circumstances under which the action occurs. It looks like a construction that will be familiar to anybody who took Latin in school: the ablative absolute.
An ablative absolute in Latin is a particular kind of clause that, according to one definition, “modifies the whole sentence as an adverb modifies the action of a verb.” An example, courtesy of The Latin Library: “His verbis dictis, Caesar discedit.” Translation: “With these words having been said, Caesar departs.”
In fact, a lot of what Sarah Palin says sounds like it’s been poorly translated from the Latin. With her “he who” and “one who,” she’d sound almost Ciceronian if it weren’t for the holes in her logic and the way those complicated sentences sometimes dribble off into vaguely sinister, possibly offensive nonsense.
Maybe Mrs. Palin or her speechwriters think the convoluted sentence structure makes her sound smart. Maybe they think it makes her sound heroic, like the orators of the past. Or maybe all those extra clauses are just a really good way to load up a sentence with praise — or insults. Here’s Mrs. Palin using both a dependent clause and a participial phrase to attack President Obama on Jan. 19:
And he, who would negotiate deals, kind of with the skills of a community organizer maybe organizing a neighborhood tea, well, he deciding that, “No, America would apologize as part of the deal,” as the enemy sends a message to the rest of the world that they capture and we kowtow, and we apologize, and then, we bend over and say, “Thank you, enemy.”I honestly am not sure what’s going on in this sentence. What I do know is that Sarah Palin has this in common with Roman orators: She loves to talk trash.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, February 1, 2016
"This country's political alignment is missing one thing, and it's a big thing — a party that represents the moderately traditionalist values of the country's majority."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Who needs a civil war? We can just have a vote for independence, like the Scots. They voted to stay together (for a while). But that doesn't mean a vote for two separate countries could not happen here. The Red states really are a different country from the blue states, and both groups would be a lot more productive if they just got a nice, friendly, democratic divorce.
* Agree. It really is striking how the establishment of both parties have split between the conventional neoliberals (Hillary, Jeb, Kasich, Rubio) and the populists (Trump, Cruz and Sanders). We could very well end up with an election where the choice is between a populist right and populist left candidate and, in that case, I would very much bet on the populist right.
* Cruz is NOT a populist. Harvard, Yale, Princeton and married to Goldman banker. Yeah...he is the worst kind of demagogue. He does not even believe what he is saying. He is an actor and not a very good one.
* If he believed what he preaches, he'd lack the requisite intelligence to have succeeded in ivy league schools. Unfortunately he has the ability to lead, but lacks the intelligence to know where to go. Trump and Sanders know where and its the same place.
* I'm not entirely sure I want the "average" American running the country.
* Yes, I'd rather have the average private-sector employed American over any of the career government apparatchiks or Wall Street neoliberals, no doubt about it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A Political Realignment 10 Years in the Making
By Salena Zito, Janaury 31, 2016
Questioning authority, especially our political leadership, is part of America's ethos, according to Bruce Haynes.
“From the Boston Tea Party and Whiskey Rebellion, to Black Lives Matter and the March for Life, the history of America is replete with movements protesting the policies of our governments,” says the founding partner of Purple Strategies, a bipartisan political consulting firm in Washington.
You can argue that seeing Americans frustrated or even angry with government is not just a cultural norm; it is healthy in a vibrant democracy.
“After all, it's only when people give up on being heard ... that the danger of violence exists,” said Haynes.
Being mad signals that our system is working in a responsive way, and elections are a means to express that frustration.
Populist anger on both sides of the aisle, Haynes explained, is a polarization that is primarily cultural and economic, clashing with a political system that seems ill-equipped to bridge the gap.
“On the right there are a group of people — less educated, lower-income secular voters — who feel socially displaced by the speed and force of economic and cultural globalization,” he said. They are juxtaposed with those on the left who do not believe economic and cultural changes are happening fast enough.
Both groups feel betrayed by mainstream political leaders, either for not opposing change or for not driving change hard and fast enough. And the “tyranny” they are revolting against has two potential sources — corrupt leaders or a corrupt citizenry.
The former abuses power. The latter turns licentious and disorderly.
Tyrants often step in to quell disorder — or, as James Madison famously put it, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty, as well as by the abuses of power.”
In this election cycle, we've pretty much put the cart before the horse. We mock the folks flocking to Donald Trump, because we never acknowledged their frustrations.
The political class only seemed to notice people's frustration this summer as both Trump and Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, began running circles around the establishment candidates.
Well, I've been reporting that frustration from locales across the country since 2005. (Yes, people have been building to this moment for 10 years.) A cursory look at the “wave” midterm election cycles from 2006 through 2014, the “change” presidential election of 2008, and the total realignment of state legislative majorities, provides sufficient evidence of America's frustration with government.
This country's political alignment is missing one thing, and it's a big thing — a party that represents the moderately traditionalist values of the country's majority.
America doesn't need two secular, cosmopolitan parties.
Trump's secret is that he has found an unoccupied space to practice politics. Call it the politically incorrect, moderately traditionalist, main-street economics zone, where winners and losers exist (just as in the real world) and it is not a crime to believe unabashedly in American greatness.
Trump has stoked xenophobic fears and used his crass showmanship to mark out this territory. His tactics of strong demagoguery make it completely understandable to lament his success.
Yet, in order for our political system to work, people must feel as if they have real choices that can make a difference — and they haven't felt that way for some time.
This election cycle began with Americans being told that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton were the inevitable choices. Many people just snapped.
Haynes argues that this is why people looked outside the political system to independent-minded candidates like Trump and Sanders. “If that fails, they will seek to change the system,” he said.
What we don't need are two parties or candidates perceived to be standard-bearers of the secular elites who are economically comfortable.
What we do need is someone who represents a middle-class that holds traditional values and believes all things are achievable, especially if government doesn't drag us down.
That kind of disruption in our political alignment doesn't happen overnight.
Remember, it took the Republican Party 36 years — starting with the 1820 Missouri compromise, followed by several disruptive movements and fractured elements — before it pulled together as a united party, agreed on a unifying platform and elected Abraham Lincoln as president.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Who needs a civil war? We can just have a vote for independence, like the Scots. They voted to stay together (for a while). But that doesn't mean a vote for two separate countries could not happen here. The Red states really are a different country from the blue states, and both groups would be a lot more productive if they just got a nice, friendly, democratic divorce.
* Agree. It really is striking how the establishment of both parties have split between the conventional neoliberals (Hillary, Jeb, Kasich, Rubio) and the populists (Trump, Cruz and Sanders). We could very well end up with an election where the choice is between a populist right and populist left candidate and, in that case, I would very much bet on the populist right.
* Cruz is NOT a populist. Harvard, Yale, Princeton and married to Goldman banker. Yeah...he is the worst kind of demagogue. He does not even believe what he is saying. He is an actor and not a very good one.
* If he believed what he preaches, he'd lack the requisite intelligence to have succeeded in ivy league schools. Unfortunately he has the ability to lead, but lacks the intelligence to know where to go. Trump and Sanders know where and its the same place.
* I'm not entirely sure I want the "average" American running the country.
* Yes, I'd rather have the average private-sector employed American over any of the career government apparatchiks or Wall Street neoliberals, no doubt about it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A Political Realignment 10 Years in the Making
By Salena Zito, Janaury 31, 2016
Questioning authority, especially our political leadership, is part of America's ethos, according to Bruce Haynes.
“From the Boston Tea Party and Whiskey Rebellion, to Black Lives Matter and the March for Life, the history of America is replete with movements protesting the policies of our governments,” says the founding partner of Purple Strategies, a bipartisan political consulting firm in Washington.
You can argue that seeing Americans frustrated or even angry with government is not just a cultural norm; it is healthy in a vibrant democracy.
“After all, it's only when people give up on being heard ... that the danger of violence exists,” said Haynes.
Being mad signals that our system is working in a responsive way, and elections are a means to express that frustration.
Populist anger on both sides of the aisle, Haynes explained, is a polarization that is primarily cultural and economic, clashing with a political system that seems ill-equipped to bridge the gap.
“On the right there are a group of people — less educated, lower-income secular voters — who feel socially displaced by the speed and force of economic and cultural globalization,” he said. They are juxtaposed with those on the left who do not believe economic and cultural changes are happening fast enough.
Both groups feel betrayed by mainstream political leaders, either for not opposing change or for not driving change hard and fast enough. And the “tyranny” they are revolting against has two potential sources — corrupt leaders or a corrupt citizenry.
The former abuses power. The latter turns licentious and disorderly.
Tyrants often step in to quell disorder — or, as James Madison famously put it, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty, as well as by the abuses of power.”
In this election cycle, we've pretty much put the cart before the horse. We mock the folks flocking to Donald Trump, because we never acknowledged their frustrations.
The political class only seemed to notice people's frustration this summer as both Trump and Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, began running circles around the establishment candidates.
Well, I've been reporting that frustration from locales across the country since 2005. (Yes, people have been building to this moment for 10 years.) A cursory look at the “wave” midterm election cycles from 2006 through 2014, the “change” presidential election of 2008, and the total realignment of state legislative majorities, provides sufficient evidence of America's frustration with government.
This country's political alignment is missing one thing, and it's a big thing — a party that represents the moderately traditionalist values of the country's majority.
America doesn't need two secular, cosmopolitan parties.
Trump's secret is that he has found an unoccupied space to practice politics. Call it the politically incorrect, moderately traditionalist, main-street economics zone, where winners and losers exist (just as in the real world) and it is not a crime to believe unabashedly in American greatness.
Trump has stoked xenophobic fears and used his crass showmanship to mark out this territory. His tactics of strong demagoguery make it completely understandable to lament his success.
Yet, in order for our political system to work, people must feel as if they have real choices that can make a difference — and they haven't felt that way for some time.
This election cycle began with Americans being told that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton were the inevitable choices. Many people just snapped.
Haynes argues that this is why people looked outside the political system to independent-minded candidates like Trump and Sanders. “If that fails, they will seek to change the system,” he said.
What we don't need are two parties or candidates perceived to be standard-bearers of the secular elites who are economically comfortable.
What we do need is someone who represents a middle-class that holds traditional values and believes all things are achievable, especially if government doesn't drag us down.
That kind of disruption in our political alignment doesn't happen overnight.
Remember, it took the Republican Party 36 years — starting with the 1820 Missouri compromise, followed by several disruptive movements and fractured elements — before it pulled together as a united party, agreed on a unifying platform and elected Abraham Lincoln as president.
...................................................................................................................................................................
An energy revolution in America would let us take the lead in global action.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Climate change is one of those problems that is not susceptible to a single technological solution. There isn't going to be magic. Dr. Krugman has the right idea. We're only going to reduce the impact of this problem successfully by mostly making good decisions, and mostly avoiding bad ones over a VERY LONG period of time. A small example of that would be, oh, say the President appointed a FEMA director that was egregiously incompetent, followed by a large and powerful hurricane striking a low lying city. Hekuva job, Brownie!
* Even if Sanders gets in, I don't think he can stop the collapse of this empire and the eventual collapse of civilization onto the end of our species--more is at stake than anyone is willing to say. The rails are set and the train is racing toward a cliff. All Sanders can do is act as brakemen, not a switch man, and only for a short while. Clinton would lean on the throttle but either way, the train will wreck. The financial engineers driving, Krugmen among the stokers, only see the fire box and not what's dead ahead--more coal!
* Inefficient? After the initial outlay for turbines and maintenance it's all gravy. What does the wind and the sun cost? Battery tech is better every day soon a homeowner will be able to store their own power on cloudy days. Don't worry about those poor utility companies they're doing fine thank you and when they don't...good riddance.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Paul Krugman: Nothing less than the fate of the world is at stake in this election
In his New York Times column Monday, economist Paul Krugman argued that the only thing at stake in the next election is “the fate of the planet,” given that the past 8 years of Democratic support has driven the price of renewable energy sources down, whereas even 4 years of a Republican administration would no doubt drive it right back up.
Contrary to the orthodoxy spouted at the GOP debates — most notably by Marco Rubio, who insisted that any environmentally friendly policy would be “devastating for our economy” — “things are actually much more hopeful…thanks to remarkable technological progress in renewable energy.”
Krugman cited statistics from the investment firm Lazard that indicate that the price of producing electricity via wind power has fallen 61 percent since 2009, while the cost of doing so via solar power has fallen 82 percent over the same period. He continued, asking,
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Climate change is one of those problems that is not susceptible to a single technological solution. There isn't going to be magic. Dr. Krugman has the right idea. We're only going to reduce the impact of this problem successfully by mostly making good decisions, and mostly avoiding bad ones over a VERY LONG period of time. A small example of that would be, oh, say the President appointed a FEMA director that was egregiously incompetent, followed by a large and powerful hurricane striking a low lying city. Hekuva job, Brownie!
* Even if Sanders gets in, I don't think he can stop the collapse of this empire and the eventual collapse of civilization onto the end of our species--more is at stake than anyone is willing to say. The rails are set and the train is racing toward a cliff. All Sanders can do is act as brakemen, not a switch man, and only for a short while. Clinton would lean on the throttle but either way, the train will wreck. The financial engineers driving, Krugmen among the stokers, only see the fire box and not what's dead ahead--more coal!
* Inefficient? After the initial outlay for turbines and maintenance it's all gravy. What does the wind and the sun cost? Battery tech is better every day soon a homeowner will be able to store their own power on cloudy days. Don't worry about those poor utility companies they're doing fine thank you and when they don't...good riddance.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Paul Krugman: Nothing less than the fate of the world is at stake in this election
A GOP victory could set the state of the world back a decade, if not more
By Scott Eric Kaufman, February 1, 2016In his New York Times column Monday, economist Paul Krugman argued that the only thing at stake in the next election is “the fate of the planet,” given that the past 8 years of Democratic support has driven the price of renewable energy sources down, whereas even 4 years of a Republican administration would no doubt drive it right back up.
Contrary to the orthodoxy spouted at the GOP debates — most notably by Marco Rubio, who insisted that any environmentally friendly policy would be “devastating for our economy” — “things are actually much more hopeful…thanks to remarkable technological progress in renewable energy.”
Krugman cited statistics from the investment firm Lazard that indicate that the price of producing electricity via wind power has fallen 61 percent since 2009, while the cost of doing so via solar power has fallen 82 percent over the same period. He continued, asking,
So what will it take to achieve a large-scale shift from fossil fuels to renewables, a shift to sun and wind instead of fire? Financial incentives, and they don’t have to be all that huge. Tax credits for renewables that were part of the Obama stimulus plan, and were extended under the recent budget deal, have already done a lot to accelerate the energy revolution. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which if implemented will create strong incentives to move away from coal, will do much more…Read the rest at the New York Times…
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Pacific NW represents "the 'clustering' of like-minded Americans around politics and culture." It doesn't include much in the line of religion.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* ... Being non-religious is not the same as lacking belief in gods Having no religious affiliation does NOT mean someone is an atheist. A person may reject religious dogma without also rejecting belief in supernatural creator-controller-beings. Having said that..... rejecting religious dogma, IMO, is certainly a step (a small step) in the right direction. Now we need to see more people taking that "giant leap [guided by logic and reason] for mankind."
* Be it a lack of religous affiliation or outright athiesm, this is another point in favor of the northwest as my retirement destination.
* Don't y'all mean; "imaginary deity" free city?
* Interesting. The best educated populations are in Portland and Seattle. Hmmm....
* The upshot is that atheism does not undermine morality, but atheists' conception of morality may depart from traditional theistic conceptions. Rather than condemning atheism, we might work to build institutions that promote charity more effectively among those who do not participate in organized religion, and we might try to develop secular foundations for morality to help guide people who do not consider God to be the source of moral rules. Both these efforts would serve atheists and theists alike.
* Good news. The sooner we all become agnostics at the very least the better.
...................................................................................................................................................................
This is the atheist capital of America
Seattle, San Francisco and Portland, Ore. have the lowest rate of religious affiliation
By Quentin Fottrell, January 31, 2016
If you don’t believe in God, you might want to move to the Pacific Northwest.
Portland, Ore., San Francisco, Calif. and Seattle, Wash. are tied on a 2015 list of metropolitan areas with the most religiously unaffiliated residents (37%), according to the nonpartisan and nonprofit Public Religion Research Institute’s American Values Atlas, a survey of 50,000 people. Seattle and San Francisco have more religiously unaffiliated people than the previous year (33%), while Portland has less religiously unaffiliated residents than 2014 (42%). Las Vegas and Denver were next on the list with 29%.
On the other end of the spectrum, Charlotte, N.C. was the metropolitan area with the fewest people without any religious affiliation (16% in 2015 versus 17% the previous year), followed by Dallas, Texas and Milwaukee, Wisc. (17% in 2015) and Houston (18%) and Kansas City (19%).
Some important caveats: The AVA survey didn’t specify that a certain percentage of these metro areas were atheists. While many people who don’t believe in God may not attend religious services, there are (of course) faith traditions such as Unitarian Universalism that welcome and include humanists and atheists; many people who might not believe in God may just as likely go to church for spiritual reasons too, or merely because they like it.
Why the regional differences? “Portland is quirky and different, and very attractive to people who may not feel comfortable in other social environments, particularly with a stigma against those who are atheists,” says Daniel Cox, research director at the Public Religion Research Institute. In fact, “The Big Sort,” a 2008 book by Bill Bishop, documented the “clustering” of like-minded Americans around politics and culture. While 93% of people said they would vote for a Catholic for president and only 6% say they would not, 58% said they would vote for an atheist while 40% said they would not, a nationwide 2015 Gallup survey found.
“The strong religious culture in the South reflects a variety of factors, including history, cultural norms and the fact that these states have high Protestant and black populations — both of which are above average in their self-reported religious service attendance,” according to a separate Gallup survey of over 177,030 U.S. adults last year on church attendance. And 10 of the 12 states with the highest self-reported religious-service attendance are in the South, along with Utah and Oklahoma. (Utah ranked as No. 1 because of the 59% Mormon population there, and Mormons have the highest religious attendance of any major religious group in the U.S.)
This was not the case in the Pacific Northwest. A 2004 book, “Religion and Public Life in the Pacific Northwest: The None Zone,” found that there was no influx of one major denomination there, so religious groups, spiritual environmentalists, and secularists “must vie or sometimes must cooperate” with each other to address the region’s pressing economic, environmental and social issues. “A clearly recognizable religious reference group functions as a social mirror, alongside or against which an individual can define himself or herself. The Pacific Northwest has neither,” the writers concluded, adding, “Most people who come into the region do not come seeking to replicate what they left behind.”
Overall, one-fifth of the U.S. population has no religious affiliation whatsoever, studies show. Some 17% of Americans said they had no religious affiliation, according to research published last year by polling firm Gallup, up from 16% the year before and 10% a decade ago, and up from 1% in the 1950s. The Gallup polling concludes that 38% of people identify as Protestant, 0% as Christian, 23% as Catholic, 2% as Jewish and 2% as Mormon, 6% gave “other” as an answer, while another 4% gave no answer to the question.
How Americans feel about religious groups also varies, influenced in part by the religious demographics of the rest of the population, according to a 2014 survey of over 10,000 adults by Pew Research Center. On a rating from zero to 100 — where zero reflects the coldest, most negative possible rating and 100 the warmest, most positive rating — Jews received 63%, the most positive rating, followed by Catholics, at 62%, and evangelical Christians, at 61%. Buddhists received a 53% rating, while Hindus received a more neutral 50% and Mormons 48%. Atheists and Muslims received just 41% and 40%, respectively.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* ... Being non-religious is not the same as lacking belief in gods Having no religious affiliation does NOT mean someone is an atheist. A person may reject religious dogma without also rejecting belief in supernatural creator-controller-beings. Having said that..... rejecting religious dogma, IMO, is certainly a step (a small step) in the right direction. Now we need to see more people taking that "giant leap [guided by logic and reason] for mankind."
* Be it a lack of religous affiliation or outright athiesm, this is another point in favor of the northwest as my retirement destination.
* Don't y'all mean; "imaginary deity" free city?
* Interesting. The best educated populations are in Portland and Seattle. Hmmm....
* The upshot is that atheism does not undermine morality, but atheists' conception of morality may depart from traditional theistic conceptions. Rather than condemning atheism, we might work to build institutions that promote charity more effectively among those who do not participate in organized religion, and we might try to develop secular foundations for morality to help guide people who do not consider God to be the source of moral rules. Both these efforts would serve atheists and theists alike.
* Good news. The sooner we all become agnostics at the very least the better.
...................................................................................................................................................................
This is the atheist capital of America
Seattle, San Francisco and Portland, Ore. have the lowest rate of religious affiliation
By Quentin Fottrell, January 31, 2016
If you don’t believe in God, you might want to move to the Pacific Northwest.
Portland, Ore., San Francisco, Calif. and Seattle, Wash. are tied on a 2015 list of metropolitan areas with the most religiously unaffiliated residents (37%), according to the nonpartisan and nonprofit Public Religion Research Institute’s American Values Atlas, a survey of 50,000 people. Seattle and San Francisco have more religiously unaffiliated people than the previous year (33%), while Portland has less religiously unaffiliated residents than 2014 (42%). Las Vegas and Denver were next on the list with 29%.
On the other end of the spectrum, Charlotte, N.C. was the metropolitan area with the fewest people without any religious affiliation (16% in 2015 versus 17% the previous year), followed by Dallas, Texas and Milwaukee, Wisc. (17% in 2015) and Houston (18%) and Kansas City (19%).
Some important caveats: The AVA survey didn’t specify that a certain percentage of these metro areas were atheists. While many people who don’t believe in God may not attend religious services, there are (of course) faith traditions such as Unitarian Universalism that welcome and include humanists and atheists; many people who might not believe in God may just as likely go to church for spiritual reasons too, or merely because they like it.
Why the regional differences? “Portland is quirky and different, and very attractive to people who may not feel comfortable in other social environments, particularly with a stigma against those who are atheists,” says Daniel Cox, research director at the Public Religion Research Institute. In fact, “The Big Sort,” a 2008 book by Bill Bishop, documented the “clustering” of like-minded Americans around politics and culture. While 93% of people said they would vote for a Catholic for president and only 6% say they would not, 58% said they would vote for an atheist while 40% said they would not, a nationwide 2015 Gallup survey found.
“The strong religious culture in the South reflects a variety of factors, including history, cultural norms and the fact that these states have high Protestant and black populations — both of which are above average in their self-reported religious service attendance,” according to a separate Gallup survey of over 177,030 U.S. adults last year on church attendance. And 10 of the 12 states with the highest self-reported religious-service attendance are in the South, along with Utah and Oklahoma. (Utah ranked as No. 1 because of the 59% Mormon population there, and Mormons have the highest religious attendance of any major religious group in the U.S.)
This was not the case in the Pacific Northwest. A 2004 book, “Religion and Public Life in the Pacific Northwest: The None Zone,” found that there was no influx of one major denomination there, so religious groups, spiritual environmentalists, and secularists “must vie or sometimes must cooperate” with each other to address the region’s pressing economic, environmental and social issues. “A clearly recognizable religious reference group functions as a social mirror, alongside or against which an individual can define himself or herself. The Pacific Northwest has neither,” the writers concluded, adding, “Most people who come into the region do not come seeking to replicate what they left behind.”
Overall, one-fifth of the U.S. population has no religious affiliation whatsoever, studies show. Some 17% of Americans said they had no religious affiliation, according to research published last year by polling firm Gallup, up from 16% the year before and 10% a decade ago, and up from 1% in the 1950s. The Gallup polling concludes that 38% of people identify as Protestant, 0% as Christian, 23% as Catholic, 2% as Jewish and 2% as Mormon, 6% gave “other” as an answer, while another 4% gave no answer to the question.
How Americans feel about religious groups also varies, influenced in part by the religious demographics of the rest of the population, according to a 2014 survey of over 10,000 adults by Pew Research Center. On a rating from zero to 100 — where zero reflects the coldest, most negative possible rating and 100 the warmest, most positive rating — Jews received 63%, the most positive rating, followed by Catholics, at 62%, and evangelical Christians, at 61%. Buddhists received a 53% rating, while Hindus received a more neutral 50% and Mormons 48%. Atheists and Muslims received just 41% and 40%, respectively.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump's "campaign is an experiment in modern marketing, not an expression of his political worldview." He obviously doesn't believe what he says.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* If there is one thing he is a master of, it's staging and self-promotion. Big media are just the current suckers in his grift.
* For me this just clinches it. I was on the fence between thinking Donald Trump was crazy or crazy like a fox. Now I know it's the latter. He still doesn't know policy worth a damn, and I have no idea what he really thinks about most policy issues, versus what he's just saying to get elected, but he's not crazy. Which makes him marginally better than Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and others.
* The whole gop/t-bagger campaign is a fraud and a huge con job. None of them has offered anything in the way of a solution or explanation on any of the issues that are out there today's. It's been nothing but repeal, replace, deny, block, round up, arrest, deport, discriminate. Vote for garbage, get garbage back.
* The one good thing that has come from this freak show, is that the haters have outed themselves, thanks to the Dumpster. He gave them a voice, and they howled their ugly beliefs for all the world to hear. They can no longer hide behind their insincere smiles and coded phrases, and they can't pretend it never happened. Shun them, fight them in state and local gov't, keep them from being the angry, hateful face of America. Of course, if the Dumpster wins, all bets are off.
* I saw Trump's maneuvers with media coverage from the get go; he never had to pay for a damn thing. His obnoxious and outrageous ' straight talk' - which is anything but straight, BTW - would get him media coverage, and with it, a degree of adulation. Now: it is up to the voters to keep this piece of crap as far away from the WH as possible.
* yeah I agree it's a Captain Obvious moment but I found it refreshing to read someone who does state the obvious, unlike 99.9% of the rest of the media. Nobody wants to call Trump on the con he is running because it would eat into the bottom line. The real crime here is the moral turpitude and cowardice of the media in milking the same rubes that Trump is conning. Haven't read enough think pieces on the complicity of ratings-driven programming. It's all so deeply corrupt it is sickening.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump is a fraud: Report confirms the billionaire’s presidential bid is a long and calculated con job
Everything Trump has done during the campaign is designed to dupe the media into funding his marketing strategy
By Sean Illing, February 1, 2016
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign feels whimsical, like a practical joke or publicity tour gone awry. But it turns out the Donald is running a long con. A new report in Politico suggests Trump has been plotting this stunt for years, and he knew exactly what he had to do to succeed.
According to the report, Trump was approached two years ago by GOP operatives who wanted him to run for governor of New York. To their surprise, he declined but added that they would be useful when he ran for president. “I’m going to walk away with it and win outright,” Trump told the group, “I’m going to get in and all the polls are going to go crazy. I’m going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. I know how to work the media in a way that that they will never take the lights off of me.”
Trump knew all along that his celebrity and media savvy were sufficient to support his campaign. Although they didn’t believe him, Trump told the Republicans in that room in 2013 that he would dominate the race without spending much on paid advertising. From the report:
The biggest takeaway from the report is that Trump is indeed a professional huckster. And whatever else he is, he’s not stupid. He doesn’t believe half the absurdities he utters on the campaign trail either. As the report makes clear, everything he’s done and said was designed to dupe the media into funding his marketing strategy.
Trump’s a TV man; he understands the landscape. He knows interesting is preferable to informed or reasonable or lucid. Which is why he eschews talking points or scripts and instead riffs on stage like a stand-up. Trump’s free-wheeling approach means he could say literally anything at any moment, and that’s the kind of thing people want to watch. The bit about Mexicans being criminals and rapists, for example, was entirely improvised during Trump’s announcement speech, and while it was an egregious thing to say, the sheer craziness of the remarks won him a week’s worth of headlines and catapulted his campaign.
“Trump didn’t foresee the furor his Mexico comments would generate; it was a reaction that built slowly and broke into a fever pitch,” Eli Stokols and Ben Schreckinger write. “But even if he didn’t predict what exactly would kick off the media frenzy, he had planned all along to offer the media a candidacy it couldn’t resist covering.” This is what Trump has done from the beginning: say something offensive, watch the media pounce, and allow the saturated coverage to fuel his insurgent campaign.
Trump’s strategy is nearly perfect. On the one hand, he’s tapped into a vein of resentment in the country, and in a way no serious politician could. And on the other hand, he’s free to say whatever he wants, no matter how controversial, because doing so breathes more oxygen into his campaign. Even more advantageous, he’s entered the race at an ideal time. The public — for good reasons — no longer trusts Washington. Trump is a hack who can’t fix anything, but people make bad decisions when they’re anxious or angry, and Trump is offering them an alternative to the status quo. This is what demagogues do, and it usually works.
As a candidate, Trump appears uncontainable. His risk tolerance is unmatched, and that gives him a freedom no other candidate enjoys. He can offend anyone, promise anything, and circumnavigate the entire process without ever having to apologize. Not apologizing, as the Politico writers note, only bolsters “a candidate who appeals to voters fed up with political correctness and establishment niceties.” It also forces the other candidates to play his game, to react to the tone he sets and the issues he raises.
Everything Trump does has to be seen in the broader context of his media-centric strategy. No one should ask if Trump believes what he says; it’s impossible to know. If he does believe something he says, it’s a happy coincidence, because his campaign is an experiment in modern marketing, not an expression of his political worldview.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* If there is one thing he is a master of, it's staging and self-promotion. Big media are just the current suckers in his grift.
* For me this just clinches it. I was on the fence between thinking Donald Trump was crazy or crazy like a fox. Now I know it's the latter. He still doesn't know policy worth a damn, and I have no idea what he really thinks about most policy issues, versus what he's just saying to get elected, but he's not crazy. Which makes him marginally better than Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and others.
* The whole gop/t-bagger campaign is a fraud and a huge con job. None of them has offered anything in the way of a solution or explanation on any of the issues that are out there today's. It's been nothing but repeal, replace, deny, block, round up, arrest, deport, discriminate. Vote for garbage, get garbage back.
* The one good thing that has come from this freak show, is that the haters have outed themselves, thanks to the Dumpster. He gave them a voice, and they howled their ugly beliefs for all the world to hear. They can no longer hide behind their insincere smiles and coded phrases, and they can't pretend it never happened. Shun them, fight them in state and local gov't, keep them from being the angry, hateful face of America. Of course, if the Dumpster wins, all bets are off.
* I saw Trump's maneuvers with media coverage from the get go; he never had to pay for a damn thing. His obnoxious and outrageous ' straight talk' - which is anything but straight, BTW - would get him media coverage, and with it, a degree of adulation. Now: it is up to the voters to keep this piece of crap as far away from the WH as possible.
* yeah I agree it's a Captain Obvious moment but I found it refreshing to read someone who does state the obvious, unlike 99.9% of the rest of the media. Nobody wants to call Trump on the con he is running because it would eat into the bottom line. The real crime here is the moral turpitude and cowardice of the media in milking the same rubes that Trump is conning. Haven't read enough think pieces on the complicity of ratings-driven programming. It's all so deeply corrupt it is sickening.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump is a fraud: Report confirms the billionaire’s presidential bid is a long and calculated con job
Everything Trump has done during the campaign is designed to dupe the media into funding his marketing strategy
By Sean Illing, February 1, 2016
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign feels whimsical, like a practical joke or publicity tour gone awry. But it turns out the Donald is running a long con. A new report in Politico suggests Trump has been plotting this stunt for years, and he knew exactly what he had to do to succeed.
According to the report, Trump was approached two years ago by GOP operatives who wanted him to run for governor of New York. To their surprise, he declined but added that they would be useful when he ran for president. “I’m going to walk away with it and win outright,” Trump told the group, “I’m going to get in and all the polls are going to go crazy. I’m going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. I know how to work the media in a way that that they will never take the lights off of me.”
Trump knew all along that his celebrity and media savvy were sufficient to support his campaign. Although they didn’t believe him, Trump told the Republicans in that room in 2013 that he would dominate the race without spending much on paid advertising. From the report:
“’You can’t run for president on earned media,’ one attendee recalled telling Trump. The billionaire looked up, and paused for a long moment. ‘I think you’re wrong,’ Trump said. ‘Are you going to do all those little events at the Pizza Ranches?” another person asked, referring to the Iowa fast food franchises that are a staple of presidential campaign stops. ‘Maybe a little,’ Trump replied. ‘But it’s really about the power of the mass audience.’”Trump was right. The ability to control the narrative, to dominate the coverage, is all it takes. Trump’s amorality coupled with his gift for self-promotion has turned the Republican presidential race on its head. He’s made the race about him, and anytime he isn’t the main story, he lurches back into the headlines with an outrageous comment about women or Muslims or Mexicans or disabled people – anything to win the news cycle.
The biggest takeaway from the report is that Trump is indeed a professional huckster. And whatever else he is, he’s not stupid. He doesn’t believe half the absurdities he utters on the campaign trail either. As the report makes clear, everything he’s done and said was designed to dupe the media into funding his marketing strategy.
Trump’s a TV man; he understands the landscape. He knows interesting is preferable to informed or reasonable or lucid. Which is why he eschews talking points or scripts and instead riffs on stage like a stand-up. Trump’s free-wheeling approach means he could say literally anything at any moment, and that’s the kind of thing people want to watch. The bit about Mexicans being criminals and rapists, for example, was entirely improvised during Trump’s announcement speech, and while it was an egregious thing to say, the sheer craziness of the remarks won him a week’s worth of headlines and catapulted his campaign.
“Trump didn’t foresee the furor his Mexico comments would generate; it was a reaction that built slowly and broke into a fever pitch,” Eli Stokols and Ben Schreckinger write. “But even if he didn’t predict what exactly would kick off the media frenzy, he had planned all along to offer the media a candidacy it couldn’t resist covering.” This is what Trump has done from the beginning: say something offensive, watch the media pounce, and allow the saturated coverage to fuel his insurgent campaign.
Trump’s strategy is nearly perfect. On the one hand, he’s tapped into a vein of resentment in the country, and in a way no serious politician could. And on the other hand, he’s free to say whatever he wants, no matter how controversial, because doing so breathes more oxygen into his campaign. Even more advantageous, he’s entered the race at an ideal time. The public — for good reasons — no longer trusts Washington. Trump is a hack who can’t fix anything, but people make bad decisions when they’re anxious or angry, and Trump is offering them an alternative to the status quo. This is what demagogues do, and it usually works.
As a candidate, Trump appears uncontainable. His risk tolerance is unmatched, and that gives him a freedom no other candidate enjoys. He can offend anyone, promise anything, and circumnavigate the entire process without ever having to apologize. Not apologizing, as the Politico writers note, only bolsters “a candidate who appeals to voters fed up with political correctness and establishment niceties.” It also forces the other candidates to play his game, to react to the tone he sets and the issues he raises.
Everything Trump does has to be seen in the broader context of his media-centric strategy. No one should ask if Trump believes what he says; it’s impossible to know. If he does believe something he says, it’s a happy coincidence, because his campaign is an experiment in modern marketing, not an expression of his political worldview.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Too bad that Bessie didn't drop some messy cow pies on the Republicans!
....................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)