2016 Presidential Race

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:58 am

The Sybian wrote:Kristol and Krauthammer are the absolutely worst. Just looking at their smug faces makes me violent. I recently heard a comedian or somebody talk about how certain people just have faces you want to punch. They fit the bill perfectly even before they speak. They are both dead wrong on just about every prediction they make, and they continue confidently projecting with such confidence and arrogance, while belittling anyone who disagrees.

So they're Mel Kiper?

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:38 am

The Sybian wrote:Kristol and Krauthammer are the absolutely worst. Just looking at their smug faces makes me violent. I recently heard a comedian or somebody talk about how certain people just have faces you want to punch. They fit the bill perfectly even before they speak. They are both dead wrong on just about every prediction they make, and they continue confidently projecting with such confidence and arrogance, while belittling anyone who disagrees.

Don't forget about Dick Morris...Between him and Kristol, I don't think they've every been right about anything, ever. And we can blame Kristol for inflicting Sarah Palin on the rest of us.

But when it comes to punchable faces....there is one that stands head and shoulders above everyone else...

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:46 am

Dick Morris was 100% right about one big thing.

Every one of Bill Clinton's advisers, including his wife, as well as every talking head on tv, told him he had to resign, that impeachment was unwinnable, that the nation would never forgive him if he did not leave office immediately.

Every adviser except one. Dick Morris. Morris told Bubba to stay and fight. And that he could/would win.

Dick made the correct call of the decade. Against the unified conventional wisdom. He has been kicking himself ever since.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:33 pm

Krauthammer looks like one of the villains from Dick Tracy. Or maybe all of them combined. I'm not sure.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:03 am

How many minutes can you make it through?

Moreta · Post by **Moreta** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:05 am

Two and a half; I made it that far only because I was listening while driving home from work so I couldn't stop it until I was in my driveway.

I'm not sure which of those Mensa members bothers me more.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:04 pm

I won't even hit play.

Post by **brian** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:35 pm

Have I mentioned how much I love John Dingell?

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:49 pm

1:10

He makes me laugh, but she makes me nauseous.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:55 pm

brian wrote:Have I mentioned how much I love John Dingell?

I imagine that it won't surprise you to know that I have the opposite view. I don't think history will be kind to Dingell when the story of the tragic decline of the American auto industry and America's ineffective response to climate change is fully told.

Many will find him charming. I've spent hours with him in small groups so I understand his personal appeal. That's quite a separate matter from what he's done on the massively important issues above.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:58 pm

Yeah, his staunch advocacy for the unions, no matter what, hasn't helped his state, imho.

Post by **brian** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:43 pm

sancarlos wrote:Yeah, his staunch advocacy for the unions, no matter what, hasn't helped his state, imho.

If Dingell had somehow decided to shit on the unions Michigan wouldn't be in any better shape. In fact it would probably be worse. Like a Midwestern Mississippi.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 7:36 pm

John Dingell was perhaps the one person best situated to bring together unions, auto company management, and federal government support to both deal with climate change and, earlier, the advance of Japanese auto companies. No doubt this would have been very challenging. But he had immense power in Congress, and was vital to both union leadership and management. Too, his wife was an auto company heiress and auto company lobbyist.

Instead of following this path, Dingell did his best to keep auto companies from having to change in order to deal with climate change or the competitive threat of the Japanese. He prevented regulatory changes which would have influenced the Big Three and the unions to move faster on technology changes.

This alternative path would have posed greater risk, and short term costs, for all involved. But failing to take that path has led to a terrible outcome for the industry, it's current and future workers, unemployment in the USA, the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan, and levels of gases implicated in climate change. Dingell was the master of the deal that enhanced short term gains. For example, by using regulatory means to thwart the advance of Japanese auto companies. Or by protecting the compensation and retirement benefits of the oldest Big 3 workers at the expense of the future workers. Not to mention causing there to be fewer of those future workers, at the expense of under-employed Americans and the local economies that suffer from this.

Just my opinion. But I have been a close observer of everything I've written about above. I've consulted to several firms in the auto industry, know auto union officials personally, and served as chair of a unit of a major environmental group working on climate change.

In my view, John Dingell was a tremendous politician. Almost alone among his peers, he had the talent and political position to really get big things done.

But unfortunately Dingell's vision was the traditional political vision of making deals for the short-term advantage of those who kept him in office (both auto unions and managements). Apart from this goal, this has proved a disaster.

Dingell's lack of vision kept him from using his high-level political position and skills to try to solve a pair of historically significant challenges. Instead he caused enormous long-term damage to the interests of workers, management, share-holders, regional economies (with Detroit first on that list), and ultimately the global climate.

History will put him high on the list of those who blew our shot at dealing with the auto industry and climate change. It's because I think so highly of John Dingell's abilities and his unique position that I will probably put him higher than most.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 7:44 pm

brian wrote:
sancarlos wrote:Yeah, his staunch advocacy for the unions, no matter what, hasn't helped his state, imho.
If Dingell had somehow decided to shit on the unions Michigan wouldn't be in any better shape. In fact it would probably be worse. Like a Midwestern Mississippi.

Perhaps you are joking, as this is actually the case. It's now routine for people in Michigan to use the term "Michissippi" to talk about our various woes. It's a one-word statement of a particular point of view, whether it's about education, the economy, or our political system.

I know very few people who want their kids to remain in Michigan, even if they were likely to end up i none of the better places (economically, culturally, educationally) in the state (e.g., Oakland County, Grand Rapids, Traverse City, Ann Arbor). Ultimately there is no escaping the rolling disaster that is coming our way. Michigan's future prospects are an important factor in why my oldest daughter is going to college in California rather the University of Michigan, where she would have a nearly equal chance of getting a superb education at 80% lower cost, all included.

howard · Post by **howard** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:46 pm

So, do you happen to know about Dingell's role in leading investigations into a couple of big name medical scientists back in the 80s, David Baltimore (for academic fraud) and Robert Gallo (for stealing the discovery of the AIDS virus and the antibody blood test for it.) I couldn't make heads or tails of it at the time, if it was a witch hunt, good congressional oversight and investigation, or just grandstanding.

(Baltimore did resign, so I guess there was fire causing that smoke. He is one of the singularly most important scientist of our time that no one knows about.)

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:06 pm

I followed the Baltimore case and drew the same, obvious, conclusion. But I know so little that I am not confident that it was the right one. Some people are driven from their high-level jobs even if largely innocent of personal wrong-doing, as they take responsibility for what was done on their watch.

What did Baltimore do that made him such an important scientist? Must be more than lending his name to a major east-coast town, or advances in indelible ink.

I know nothing about Gallo beyond what you say. Is he also guilty of making criminality bad wine in California?

The level of suspicious, non-reproducible academic research in medicine (and now also psychology) is certainly troubling. Now that I read a lot of this stuff, I have become quite leery of assuming that even research published in a top journal is solid.

This isn't just about academic fraud leading to unearned professional advancement. Though that is certainly bad and there is a lot more of this than is believed to be the cases in my view.

Worse is that pharmaceutical firms have spent many billions pursuing leads suggested by academic work that turns out to be impossible for the corporate researchers to replicate. That's an enormous waste of resources. But there aren't many rewards in academia for replication work, and few researchers are ever busted for cheating. So on we go.

By the way, I easily grant that John Dingell did some good things while in Congress. He was there for a long time, and had a lot of clout -- he had the ability to do more than just defuse attempts at reforming the auto industry or addressing climate change (and not by just the auto industry).

howard · Post by **howard** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:18 pm

I first realized how possible, even easy, academic fraud in medicine was with that first Baltimore incident. If it could happen in his lab, geez, it could happen anywhere. That began my skepticism (some would call it cynicism) regarding medical research.

Many years ago it had become so bad, I stopped reading medical literature completely. The revelation of how utterly corrupt it is is now occurring, but total corruption was reached years ago. But, why should medical science be any less corrupt than the rest of America?

Baltimore (well, his lab assistants, well, his wife's graduate student) discovered reverse transcriptase, an enzyme that some weird little RNA viruses use to make DNA from RNA.

This discovery unlocked the era of genetic engineering. All laboratory gene cloning and sequencing flowed directly, within just a few years, from this discovery.

eta: Yeah, your daughter is entering a world just as corrupt as wall street, but w/o the paycheck. It has to shake out and reform someday; hopefully it will happen early in her career, or that she will be an agent for return to credibility and honesty.

Post by **brian** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:18 pm

DC47 wrote:
brian wrote:
sancarlos wrote:Yeah, his staunch advocacy for the unions, no matter what, hasn't helped his state, imho.
If Dingell had somehow decided to shit on the unions Michigan wouldn't be in any better shape. In fact it would probably be worse. Like a Midwestern Mississippi.
Perhaps you are joking, as this is actually the case. It's now routine for people in Michigan to use the term "Michissippi" to talk about our various woes. It's a one-word statement of a particular point of view, whether it's about education, the economy, or our political system.

I know very few people who want their kids to remain in Michigan, even if they were likely to end up i none of the better places (economically, culturally, educationally) in the state (e.g., Oakland County, Grand Rapids, Traverse City, Ann Arbor). Ultimately there is no escaping the rolling disaster that is coming our way. Michigan's future prospects are an important factor in why my oldest daughter is going to college in California rather the University of Michigan, where she would have a nearly equal chance of getting a superb education at 80% lower cost, all included.

Yeah Michigan is as bad as Mississippi. Cool story, bro.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:04 am

There's a lot of data showing how Michigan is moving to the level of Michissippi on multiple measures. But I kind of like this:

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:26 am

I know a couple of people in western Michigan, and they are voting for Trump, gurrrunteed.

I'll drink, and fish, and hunt, and drive through mud wit 'em, but god are they ignurunt when it comes to politickin'

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:30 am

Perhaps the best summary of how a state stands economically is the poverty rate. Here's the intro to the Wikipedia article on this topic, with the 2014 data for the bottom ten in terms of poverty rate, including unrelated children.

List of U.S. States by Poverty Rate

This article is a list of the 50 United States of America (U.S.) states, also including the District of Columbia, ordered by poverty rate. 2014 statistics are not identical to official poverty rates because they include children not counted in the official numbers (see Revised Tables link below). ... All data are from the United States Census Bureau.

51. Michigan 27.6%
50. Mississippi 23.2%
49. Arizona 21.3%
48. New Mexico 19.6%
47. Arkansas 19.1%
46. Georgia 18.5%
45. Washington D.C. 18.0%
44. Texas 17.4%
43. Kentucky 17.1%
42. North Carolina 17.0%

--------------------------------

"Yeah Michigan is as bad as Mississippi. Cool story, bro."

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:23 pm

Is it too early to think about 2020 in light of Kanye's speech at the VMAs last night? (Via Barstool)

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 2:14 pm

Make?

Again?

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:18 pm

Unrelated, but kind of funny.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... rump-tower

That's the heart of downtown. And what a fugly building it is too.

(Realize that Trump merely licensed his name, but get ready for the late night comedians to make a connection between what's on top of the Trump Tower and what's on top of Trump.)

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:24 pm

Seriously though...Bernie Sanders. Is that a thing that could happen?

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:27 pm

Jerloma wrote:Seriously though...Bernie Sanders. Is that a thing that could happen?

I'm going to say no. Hillary has lined up all the important Democratic mucky mucks, all the money, and all the influence. Barring the proverbial dead man or live boy, you can book it.

Post by **brian** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:33 pm

sancarlos wrote:
Jerloma wrote:Seriously though...Bernie Sanders. Is that a thing that could happen?
I'm going to say no. Hillary has lined up all the important Democratic mucky mucks, all the money, and all the influence. Barring the proverbial dead man or live boy, you can book it.

Yeah, to give an idea Hillary has more endorsements now in 538.com's endorsement tracker than Obama had AFTER he won the nomination. Sorry to say but Bernie has at best about a 2 or 3 percent shot.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:37 pm

And does the GOP have a shot?

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:42 pm

brian wrote:
sancarlos wrote:
Jerloma wrote:Seriously though...Bernie Sanders. Is that a thing that could happen?
I'm going to say no. Hillary has lined up all the important Democratic mucky mucks, all the money, and all the influence. Barring the proverbial dead man or live boy, you can book it.
Yeah, to give an idea Hillary has more endorsements now in 538.com's endorsement tracker than Obama had AFTER he won the nomination. Sorry to say but Bernie has at best about a 2 or 3 percent shot.

While these are both significant advantages for Hillary, she has pretty brutal favorable/unfavorable polling numbers for a putative frontrunner. I don't think Sanders has much of a shot but I'm surprised more Democrats haven't tested the waters. If a candidate with a moderate reputation were to emerge as the clear alternative to Hillary, I think he or she would have a great shot.

Post by **brian** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:44 pm

Jerloma wrote:And does the GOP have a shot?

Sure, of course. Depends on a lot of factors. If you assume Hillary is the Dem candidate, I'd put her at about a 60-40 favorite over the GOP field at a whole (I'd handicap it differently for different guys at this point).

If the economy stays relatively strong through next November, obviously the odds improve. McCain probably had a 60-40 shot to beat Obama until the economy went in the crapper in September 2008.

It's just a lot of noise right now on both sides. No one casts a real vote that decides anything on either side for another five months. The fun house is just getting started.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:46 pm

brian wrote:
sancarlos wrote:
Jerloma wrote:Seriously though...Bernie Sanders. Is that a thing that could happen?
I'm going to say no. Hillary has lined up all the important Democratic mucky mucks, all the money, and all the influence. Barring the proverbial dead man or live boy, you can book it.
Yeah, to give an idea Hillary has more endorsements now in 538.com's endorsement tracker than Obama had AFTER he won the nomination. Sorry to say but Bernie has at best about a 2 or 3 percent shot.

I'll hold onto that sliver for whatever it is worth. It might not be everything, but it's a step in the right direction for once. This is the first time in my adult life that someone has actually spoken to what I believe in. Financial steps that make common sense. Treating people as equals even though they're different or (gasp!) believe something I don't. Treating the overall mass of people in this country like their goddamn human beings.

I didn't buy the Obama lines. I didn't buy the Bush lines before that.

I'm legitimately worried that if we don't take this step now, we will never get back to this point again. Both sides will work to close every single crack that someone like Bernie has managed to worm through to garner any national attention.

We might be there already. I don't want to give up. As someone who has a future and a family (both my own current family and the one I'd like to make) I need this. I need people like me to stand up and make me give a crap about the place I live. I'm not proud of this country. But we're the sum of our parts and I do believe that there are far more good parts than bad, its just that the bad ones tend to be the loudest and the richest and the most corrupt.

I know everyone says this and it's a knee-jerk thing to say, but if there isn't a movement towards progressive thoughts and actions in this country, I have legitimate thoughts about finding a new place to start the next chapter of my life. I have no grounding here. I have nothing to hang a hat on to say "that's why I'm proud to be from here". Do any of us?

(Sorry for the rambling stream of consciousness there. Just wanted to write for a bit)

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:50 pm

brian wrote:
Jerloma wrote:And does the GOP have a shot?
Sure, of course. Depends on a lot of factors. If you assume Hillary is the Dem candidate, I'd put her at about a 60-40 favorite over the GOP field at a whole (I'd handicap it differently for different guys at this point).

If the economy stays relatively strong through next November, obviously the odds improve. McCain probably had a 60-40 shot to beat Obama until the economy went in the crapper in September 2008.

It's just a lot of noise right now on both sides. No one casts a real vote that decides anything on either side for another five months. The fun house is just getting started.

Aren't we silly not to believe that whomever controls the legislature at this point has all the influence over this? Isn't it suspicious that Fast-tracking of TPP was pushed through at this juncture, with much opposition from sitting Dems (Obama Excluded)? Because the early results will net a short term gain for economic figures and the GOP can stand behind those numbers and say "We pushed for that" and use it as leverage?

Just spitballing here. The "economy" will do what those in power tell it to do.

Post by **brian** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:51 pm

Joe K wrote:
brian wrote:
sancarlos wrote:
Jerloma wrote:Seriously though...Bernie Sanders. Is that a thing that could happen?
I'm going to say no. Hillary has lined up all the important Democratic mucky mucks, all the money, and all the influence. Barring the proverbial dead man or live boy, you can book it.
Yeah, to give an idea Hillary has more endorsements now in 538.com's endorsement tracker than Obama had AFTER he won the nomination. Sorry to say but Bernie has at best about a 2 or 3 percent shot.
While these are both significant advantages for Hillary, she has pretty brutal favorable/unfavorable polling numbers for a putative frontrunner. I don't think Sanders has much of a shot but I'm surprised more Democrats haven't tested the waters. If a candidate with a moderate reputation were to emerge as the clear alternative to Hillary, I think he or she would have a great shot.

While you're right, I think those numbers have pretty much bottomed out and aren't really indicative of where she'll be at this time next year (short of one of the most mis-managed campaigns in modern history).

She's been attacked on the right (really attacked, like more than their usual attacks on the Clintons) for about three straight years since Benghazi and not really done anything to defend herself besides a few news conferences here and there. It's a calculated strategy, but ultimately I think the right one. Trust me, you're going to be seeing a LOT about Hillary Clinton in the next 13+ months. Putting herself out there right now like Sanders has done is not the right move. Her campaign people have wisely decided to not respond to the attacks and it's taken a hit, but she should be able to carry easily the democratic base next fall and I think will surprise people with her numbers amongst Republican women (depending on the GOP candidate). When it's all said and done the electoral math still favors the Democrats, especially if the GOP continues it's un-wise demonizing of Latinos (that'll kiss Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and possibly even Florida goodbye).

Post by **brian** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:53 pm

BSF21 wrote:
brian wrote:
Jerloma wrote:And does the GOP have a shot?
Sure, of course. Depends on a lot of factors. If you assume Hillary is the Dem candidate, I'd put her at about a 60-40 favorite over the GOP field at a whole (I'd handicap it differently for different guys at this point).

If the economy stays relatively strong through next November, obviously the odds improve. McCain probably had a 60-40 shot to beat Obama until the economy went in the crapper in September 2008.

It's just a lot of noise right now on both sides. No one casts a real vote that decides anything on either side for another five months. The fun house is just getting started.
Aren't we silly not to believe that whomever controls the legislature at this point has all the influence over this? Isn't it suspicious that Fast-tracking of TPP was pushed through at this juncture, with much opposition from sitting Dems (Obama Excluded)? Because the early results will net a short term gain for economic figures and the GOP can stand behind those numbers and say "We pushed for that" and use it as leverage?

Just spitballing here. The "economy" will do what those in power tell it to do.

Not really how it works. It certainly didn't play out that way in 2008.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:27 pm

Huckabee aligning himself with that white trash bigot in Kentucky makes me queasy. And all the rhetoric of Obama sticking his nose in the Trayvon Martin issue from the right, yet this shit slides?

Unfuckingreal.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:48 pm

Johnnie wrote:Huckabee aligning himself with that white trash bigot in Kentucky makes me queasy. And all the rhetoric of Obama sticking his nose in the Trayvon Martin issue from the right, yet this shit slides?

Unfuckingreal.

Because JESUS! Christians are oppressed, black people are not.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 8:51 am

"Planned Parenthood using our tax-payer dollars to dismember babies, sell their organs across the country."

Fucking Jindal. I can't even put it in words at the moment.

(quote is in the video with Joe Scarborough)

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal ... nald-trump

But watch out - because he's getting ready to take on Trump! You know he is, because he announced it in advance. Tune in Thursday morning for Jindal's speech at the National Press Club.

(I can not wait to hear Trump slap down this piece of shit)

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 9:11 am

Pruitt wrote:"Planned Parenthood using our tax-payer dollars to dismember babies, sell their organs across the country."

Fucking Jindal. I can't even put it in words at the moment.

Pretty much every Republican candidate is saying the same thing. I just heard alltime dumbass Louis Gohmert compare Planned Parenthood to some Bible verse about boiling babies. For old times sake, Jon Stewart on Jindal's campaign announcement.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/2n06t ... ll-the-way

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:24 pm

If you have a "Reagan" drinking game you will die before the first five minutes are up.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:51 pm

When Trump first appeared at the top of the GOP polls, I thought it must be simply due to his name recognition. But, now as we get further along, and with him seemingly entrenched at the top of that heap, I am absolutely baffled to explain his appeal.

I know some smart people who are conservative, and they all agree he is a buffoon. My own father who once was a Republican functionary, recognizes him as a no-talent assclown (worse than Michael Bolton). I don't know where his support comes from, or why. There aren't THAT many xenophobic, misogynistic, bigoted ass-kissers of celebrity, are there?