Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 27, 2016, 07:26:12 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94929 Posts in 2312 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2016 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] Print
Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 72691 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7918


« Reply #1200 on: April 27, 2016, 10:33:55 AM »

Didn't Menken say something about the people deserving the government they voted for , , , in spades?

If all the laws applied to all the people equally, if we chose tax rates, tax burdens, rules and regulations same for all, voting would require discipline.  When 51% can vote for rules that apply to the other 49% and benefit only them, like the so-called rob Peter to pay Paul, .

Imagine if we had founded our country under principles like limited government and equal protection under the law with individual rights that the congress and the executive shall not infringe on, none of which could ever be violated without the approval of massive super-majorities of the people and of the states ...   oh, skip it, and make sure you file your new 1095.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36841


« Reply #1201 on: April 27, 2016, 10:49:27 AM »

Really weak numbers for Cruz yesterday and strong ones for Drumpf.  Yes Drumpf was expected to win, but averaging nearly 60% is strong, no way about it.  I'm smelling momentum building for Trump that will get him the nod on the first ballot.

Fuck you very much John Kasich.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5450


« Reply #1202 on: April 27, 2016, 02:39:00 PM »

MY post of April 25:

*Our side never ceases to give the left ammunition.   I dunno.  So what if we keep a database of muslims.  The government has no problem keeping databases of my religion race and back ground.  Does anyone think they don't already keep a database of far right groups.  Nazi Germany my ass.  And I am tired of hearing about Koch.  He can take his money and shove it.  He wants Trump to come to HIM and deal.  With his 'threats' that he may support Hillary. *

And today from Brieibart Trump's response to Koch.  Trump's response to Koch is right on the mark!  I couldn't agree more on this point:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/27/donald-trump-charles-koch-dont-need/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36841


« Reply #1203 on: April 28, 2016, 08:14:24 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/TGNetworknews/videos/509880665885480/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36841


« Reply #1204 on: April 28, 2016, 08:30:26 AM »

second post

By Rodger Baker

Stratfor strives to provide impartial geopolitical analysis and forecasts that identify critical trends in global and regional affairs, explaining the world's complexities in a simple but not simplistic manner. Through the years we have always sought to adhere to these core underlying principles, with mixed success. Remaining "unbiased" in part means staying out of politics, avoiding policy prescriptions (or proscriptions), and addressing issues not from a good/bad or right/wrong approach but rather from a view of effective/ineffective. It means at times stepping away from the emotions of issues, examining deeper compulsions and constraints, and observing how leaders and global actors modify their behavior based on the shifting circumstances in which they find themselves.

It is a difficult endeavor and one that draws various accusations from our readers. We are accused of seeing the world through Cold Warrior lenses, of not caring about human rights and human dignity, of promoting some form of old-school realpolitik. At times, this underpinning philosophy draws equal accusations of being liberal shills, of being too centered on the United States, and of justifying the behavior of dictatorial or repressive regimes. At our best, we garner equal quantities of impassioned responses from all sides of an issue. Criticism is not something we shy from, particularly if our mandate is to ease back the curtains of perception and reveal, as best as possible, the underlying realities of a very complex world system.

For a company accused of being too focused on the United States, we also often receive criticism from our readers for failing to write enough about it. It has been noted more than once that we largely steer clear of covering U.S. politics or even presidential elections. In the grand scheme of geopolitics, over time the role of individuals is largely washed out — to be overly simplistic, the individuals rarely matter. This is, of course, not true, but it is a way to look beyond the subjective desires of leaders and instead to examine the objective realities they face, the circumstances that shape and constrain their options, the structure of the system in which they work, and the upbringing and background that color the way they see and interpret information and make decisions.

In some ways one could argue that, on a broad global scale, the difference in individual presidents, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama to whoever succeeds him, has only minimal implications. Bush did not enter the White House with the intent to invade Afghanistan (it is highly unlikely that any U.S. president could conceive of a worse place for a maritime power to find itself). Obama did not enter the White House intending to be engaged in a conflict in Syria. One could perhaps argue that Franklin Roosevelt did intend to enter the war in Europe. But his initial comments, along with those of Woodrow Wilson ahead of U.S. involvement in World War I, gave little sense that this was the direction in which he was headed. Wilson sought to focus on domestic political issues; Roosevelt led an increasingly isolationist nation. World events placed stark choices before them. Bush had September 11. The Syrian civil war, the overall fight against terrorism and the rebalancing of the Middle East placed Syria on Obama's agenda, despite his grand proclamations of a Pacific pivot, which even at the end of his presidency looks a whole lot more modest than envisioned.

Geopolitics can help us understand the implications and pressures on different states, and the way those may limit or compel certain responses. But geopolitics is predictive of broad trends, not of final decisions. We strongly reject the idea of geopolitical determinism, but we also reject the idea that politics is somehow so fundamentally different from other fields that the human agent is supreme. Few completely reject Adam Smith's assertion of an invisible hand in economics; we argue that geopolitics helps us identify elements of a hidden hand in international politics. The narrower the time frame, the more discrete the geography and the more immediate the decision, the less geopolitics explains. But there are other analytical and collection tools to help account for that. Given our broad mandate to use geopolitics to explain the flow of the world system, rather than looking at individuals as unrestrained decision-makers, we seek to understand the circumstances and environment in which they operate. We don't call elections, but we do seek to identify the forces that shape the processes and the realities that will face the officials who rise to power, through whatever means.
Bias, Intentional or Otherwise

So more immediately, we are asked why we do not address the current U.S. presidential election. The first answer is that the contest is not yet at the election stage. We are watching the intraparty competition play out on the way to the nomination. This is politics at its most basic level: a component of a geopolitical approach, but only a component. Perhaps there is room at this stage to read from the primaries some of the broader undercurrents shaping society that will continue to play a role once a president is elected. But frankly, the market is saturated with assessments of the minutiae of day-to-day campaigning. If we are to help our readers understand the world system, there is only so much that we could add to that daily flow of information, assertions and assessments of the current campaigners — and little at this stage yet rises to broader significance.

Perhaps more directly, we do not cover the U.S. election at the same day-to-day depth as the general news media or political commentators not only because we are not political commentators but also because, for the most part, our staff lives in the United States. And this is where the risk of bias materializes. We are designed to be a neutral, nonpartisan service. On U.S. politics (as opposed to policy), it is hard to maintain that nonpartisan approach. Just by living here, we have a stake in the outcome of the analysis that could taint our perceptions. This is not insurmountable — one does not avoid bias by denying its existence but rather by recognizing openly and honestly what that bias is.

Bias is not always intentional. Intentional bias is the easiest to overcome, since it is the most obvious. On the other hand, subconscious bias requires more intense searching to discover. Bias is a natural result of numerous factors: Upbringing, family life, personal experiences, faith, education, friends and location all shape the individual and the way the individual sees things. We often argue here that one piece of information in five hands is of greater value than five pieces of information in one hand, thanks to the variety of perspectives that can be brought to bear. This is why Stratfor's analytical staff is multinational in composition. Techniques such as acknowledging and identifying bias, using alternative viewpoints in the analytical process, and clearly laying out assumptions as differentiated from facts all serve to help overcome bias. Perhaps the best individuals we could use to cover the U.S. election, then, would be foreign nationals living abroad, able to observe the process through less invested eyes.
A Dispassionate View

If we were to apply our process to the U.S. election, as divested of outcome and involvement as we are with other countries, it would perhaps be jarring to our U.S. readership (and perhaps our foreign readership as well). We would discuss the struggles within the opposition conservative party. With no viable centrist candidate, it is instead torn between a strong right-wing fringe candidate with a reputation among his own party in Congress for being uncooperative and an outsider businessman/media star who has openly donated to both parties in years past and who favors provocative statements (perhaps even intentionally provocative, given his extensive media experience). We would talk about the clashes within the ruling liberal party between an establishment candidate, the spouse of a former president and potentially the first woman to assume the U.S. presidency, and an avowed socialist who, despite his age, has drawn heavily on youth support.

We would look at a nation that is still recovering from a massive economic downturn, one that rocked the world. A country where the financial institutions that contributed to the crisis not only appear to have avoided punishment but also are once again thriving, exacerbating the gap between the status of economic recovery overall and the public's perception of economic stability. It is a country that, not necessarily seeing a strong economic recovery for the middle class or blue-collar labor, is now turning against immigration (once again — this has been a fairly typical cycle since nearly the nation's foundation).

It is a country that has been heavily engaged in overseas conflict for well over a decade, where support for the seemingly interminable, distant war is flagging. A country not only facing an imprecisely defined opponent (is terrorism a thing, an ideology or a group of people?) but also seeing the resurgence of peer rivals (Russia and perhaps China). It is a country dealing with a fracturing Europe, long the center of a global alliance structure. A country coming to grips with the unrequested, but no less real, shift of the global center of gravity from the North Atlantic to the North American continent. It is a country that appears to have a global responsibility but that, after years of extensive involvement, has come to question that duty.

It is a country with a changing population that, like those in Japan, South Korea and even China, is grappling with the changed significance of a college education. Meanwhile, a large segment of the population is soon heading for retirement. It is a country undergoing a new round of internal debates over just what social justice means in the "American" context; each expansion in the concepts of freedom and personal rights is considered by some as advancement and by others as further deviation from a known "ideal." It is a country that, consistent with its relative security, has the leisure to debate morality but also to question whether equality and individual freedom are achievable or even desirable at their extremes.

In short, it is a country that, on the largest scale, is now emerging as the center of the global system. On a narrower scale, it is a country ending a cycle of heavy international military engagement and shifting back toward, if not isolationism, at least the pursuit of (or reliance on) a balance-of-power strategy to manage the world system without policing it. It is a country that is coming out of a major economic crisis and seeing its labor market change with shifting technology. Although the shifts have led to new business methods and economic activity, they have also brought job losses in some sectors. It is a country that, like many other places in the world, is struggling with national identity at a time when globalization appears relevant and desirable.

What we see, then, is not yet the U.S. election, but instead the stage for that election. The process is less about the candidates than about the system that has allowed these individuals, as opposed to others, to rise to prominence. We see not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders, or even John Kasich. Instead, we see the way these individuals — the systems in which they operate and the undercurrents of society — lead to this broader debate on a national level. What any of them will do as president will be a much different story. We can see the space into which they will emerge and how that might constrain their options. But a president does not exist in a vacuum. There is a Cabinet, a Congress, the courts, a society and the international system. It is not that the individual doesn't matter but rather that the individual will exist in a space that he or she largely does not control. Looking at the candidates, then, if we were to get partisan at all, it would be to find the ones most able to adapt and to act in a rapidly changing environment.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5450


« Reply #1205 on: April 28, 2016, 06:11:47 PM »

I am thinking Trump will win in November against Hillary.   undecided

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13600


« Reply #1206 on: April 30, 2016, 08:31:38 AM »



http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/04/Kirk-2016-copy.jpg
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5450


« Reply #1207 on: April 30, 2016, 11:01:35 AM »

GM,
Pretty good article in this month's Scientific American on the production of Star Trek.  I cannot seem to find it now to post.
Did you know that the studio that finally accepted and wanted to do the series was Desilu?  Lucille Ball was a big backer of the series that no one else wanted.  It was after her divorce with Desi.

Roddneberry thought about having a female second in command but in those days having a female command a 22 century space ship was too dangerous and controversial.  Now it would be the opposite. 

There was a lot of power feuding between Nimoy and Shatner.  Nimoy actually became more popular that Shatner and the latter hated it.  They fought the first season or two over who would get to read crucial lines.

The show lost money but because it went into 60+ countries and became one of the biggest syndicated show, as well as a franchise that if it went just another 6 months cash would have been rolling in.  Instead it was cancelled after only 3 seasons.

The evolution of the transporter came about by  the fact that it was cheaper than trying to film a ship or craft landing on the surface of the planet, and of got characters to where you wanted them in a hurry saving time and boredom.

Part of the reason so many aliens were simply variations of humans was because it was cheaper.

I generally liked Star Trek but didn't love it.  I actually liked Lost in Space more.  Dr Smith used to crack me up.  Plus I had a crush on Angela Cartwright (Penny).

The brother of a childhood friend of mine had a one line cameo in the first Star Trek movie.



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13600


« Reply #1208 on: April 30, 2016, 11:37:45 AM »

#Invalid YouTube Link#

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-1qas-CL14


My favorite take on sci fi fandom.

Yes, this is off topic, but gotta distract from the nightmare of this election.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5450


« Reply #1209 on: April 30, 2016, 12:19:26 PM »

'Revenge of the Nerds'

From this site, I like the pick up line, "you make my software into hardware":

https://www.quora.com/What-do-women-think-of-men-who-are-nerds-or-geeks

I know off topic.  grin
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7918


« Reply #1210 on: May 04, 2016, 10:05:04 AM »

We are left with Trump and Clinton and the rest of our short lives to contemplate what went wrong when America was at the tipping point.

Proven wrong by the electorate, I still stand by most of what I said before this started, and have learned almost nothing from the ordeal.

1.  Hillary: shouldn't have run - for all the reasons stated early and often.  But there was no credible Dem alternative.
2.  Bernie: over-performed.  He never had a chance and yet stole the youth vote, moved HRC to the left and nearly took it.
3.  Trump: is Trump.  What is his appeal and how could he have been countered?  These are the mysteries for the ages.  He should have been countered and dismissed, two contradicting strategies, and someone else more thoughtful and qualified needed to match his charisma and excitement, which I don't see so I can't answer.
4.  Cruz: over-performed too.  He has never had to win over the center.  He didn't start with Presidential level charisma.  He never brought people to his side during the fights in the Senate.  He won the niche he entered and took it further than anyone could have expected.
5.  Rubio:  This one hurts.  He started with the best chance to make a new game of this.  Pretty much everyone agrees he has amazing talent.  He won the early debates but never turned it into a movement.  He lacks accomplishments and fell a little short.  The crowded field and the stumble in NH cost him valuable momentum.  Where he almost won Virginia, he needed a win.  The Florida loss was fatal.  In the crucial debate, he needed to recognize his adversary was a prosecutor on a suicide bombing mission aimed at taking take him out and shift gears quickly on the fly.  He didn't.  I never liked his campaign slogan, A New American Century.  Too vague, too packaged, too much like a Clinton or Obama campaign - although those were two, two-term Presidents.  Had flaws in his abortion approach and in his tax plan.  He never touted his main strengths, the ability to reach people outside of the far right or to tout that he was polling best in the general election.  He never fully confronted or overcame his weaknesses, gang of 8 in particular, and no Eisenhower-like accomplishments.  Rubio was hated by the far right.  That doesn't work.  Polling well with moderates just made that distaste stronger.  He should have never let his support for that immigration 'solution' go that far.  His support should have been qualified and his podium appearances with the enemy avoided.  Can't walk that back now.
6.  Others.  Start with the two-term Governors.  How come Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) never ran?  Scott Walker:  Was not fully ready for national issues and the first debate.  Was not funded for the long haul.  Still young.  Bobby Jindal.  Smart but didn't connect.  Had popularity problems at home right while the campaign was heating up.  Christie: Thank God he didn't win.  Jeb:  Had a lot going against him and then under-performed.  Shouldn't have entered the race without being ready to light up the stage.  Rick Perry:  Never overcame the false start of the previous cycle.  He should have had a line ready for when he forgets his lines. He never was ready for the national stage.  Outsiders, Fiorina and Carson: did better than expected, but took wind out of others' sails while doing so.  Santorum, Huckabee:  Their time had passed, they split the conservative vote further, shouldn't have entered.  When you see the miserable list of mere mortals who have won the nomination and won the Presidency, it makes all these people think, why not me?  But why should it be you if you have nothing new to offer.
7. Lastly, Kasich.  Never had charisma, plugs that as a strength.  Became a RINO(?)  Still in?  

Out of all the what ifs, the only interesting one to me was what if Rubio had gained steam instead of stumbled?  Would that have been enough to carry Florida?  Probably not.  The fight between Cruz and Rubio was ugly and neither one had a knockout punch.  Cruz and Rubio would have fought each other to the end and handed the nomination to Trump.  
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 10:11:55 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5450


« Reply #1211 on: May 04, 2016, 10:27:16 AM »

"He never fully confronted or overcame his weaknesses, gang of 8 in particular, and no Eisenhower-like accomplishments.  Rubio was hated by the far right."

In my opinion his stance on immigration is what did him in.  I recall Levin stating he did "great damage" to his credibility with his immigration cave in.  And it remains to be seen if he can repair that.  Not only did he never change his immigration stance he solidified it. 

I don't know if it is too late to be strong on immigration.  Yes I know close the borders blah blah blah.  But what about the 15 million who are here illegally?  And they will be working hard to bring in their relatives etc.  So we just say let bygones be bygones?  I know, win their hearts and minds with conservatism.  Yeah right.  They ain't going to leave their beloved Democrats using tax money to buy their votes or those of their kids if they can't vote.

That said I would have preferred him to Trump.  Having him is like playing Russian Roulette.  Sooner or later the gun will go off.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 325


« Reply #1212 on: May 04, 2016, 11:33:42 AM »

"I don't know if it is too late to be strong on immigration. "

I know what my answer is...  It's never too late and if you're letting someone tell you it is, those people need to go. Just the way it is. Oddly, you never hear these types of things happening in other more colourful countries, because they'll kill you or deport you....take your pick. The US should be no different.


"Having him is like playing Russian Roulette.  Sooner or later the gun will go off. "

I'm ok with that.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 09:49:11 PM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5450


« Reply #1213 on: May 04, 2016, 11:41:40 AM »

DDF you make my point. 

Not that I disagree with you.

Immigration is very important to you and me.  It was a big reason to be on Trump's side.  But for me it is not an issue that makes it all or none for the Presidency for me.
I don't want the whole ship to go down because of it.  Too many other important things at stake.  I Trump personality is a big issue I cannot ignore or approve of.

I am not willing to play Russian Roulette with the future of this great country.  At this point in my view is to support Trump and HELP him do all the right things, as much as we can and as much as he will let us.  Many who know states he does listen........

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13600


« Reply #1214 on: May 05, 2016, 01:46:52 PM »

https://politicallyshort.com/2016/05/03/americas-last-election/

8 months.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 325


« Reply #1215 on: May 05, 2016, 02:51:32 PM »


With any luck, I'll be in Croatia, disarming mines. Wake me up when it's over.

Obama, Trump, Trump, Sanders....Clinton....


I look here, on this very forum, and see people so much more capable (and deserving) of the presidential nod..... and then, I realize, Mexico and other places aren't such bad places to be.

The problem isn't even Obama, Hilary (who I find particularly distasteful) or any one else..... it's the people that fervently support them. There is only ONE WAY to solve that....and that is that they have to go.... you cannot live with cancer; yet, we still attempt to, in the name of freedom.

Dude....
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5450


« Reply #1216 on: May 05, 2016, 02:56:24 PM »

"With any luck, I'll be in Croatia,"

Ah those Eastern European girls!

OTOH I was stunned when I was in Mexico on a singles cruise some decades back at how beautiful the Mexican seniorittas are!  I felt like a hot chilli pepper.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7918


« Reply #1217 on: May 09, 2016, 07:44:32 PM »

Maybe you have to be a Dem to realize what a perfect story or phonyness all the way through that this is. Warren delays to endorse either Hillary or Bernie, then shuns Hillary to endorse Sanders after she starts to win, then goes back to Hillary with the street-cred to help bring Sanders voters to Hillary.  Now she auditions for the role of Veep by attacking Trump. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/07/elizabeth-warren-going-on-trump-attack-for-dems.html

Add Newt or Rudy to the Trump ticket and we will have 4 people in their 70s fighting for the youth vote.

But only one Cherokee.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36841


« Reply #1218 on: May 10, 2016, 10:42:02 AM »

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2036.htm
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5450


« Reply #1219 on: May 10, 2016, 02:16:01 PM »

Trump and the RNC should be on the airplane to see Putin this evening!

Would that be ironic.  The Hill who used the server to hide everything in the end gets screwed by its contents being made public.

How bout we swap Ukraine for San Fransisco?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36841


« Reply #1220 on: May 10, 2016, 03:17:33 PM »

No way should Trump do ANYTHING that smacks of collusion.  As it is, some tongues are already wagging over his kind words for Putin, his apparent acceptance of the Russians in the Middle East, and his convention manager having worked for the former head of Ukraine now in exile in Moscow.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36841


« Reply #1221 on: May 10, 2016, 05:14:27 PM »

second post

http://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/LA-Presidential-Executive-Summary.pdf
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13600


« Reply #1222 on: May 10, 2016, 05:30:42 PM »


So, Hillary in an Ooompa-Loompa costume beats Hillary?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5450


« Reply #1223 on: May 10, 2016, 06:19:21 PM »

Kerry is on the airplane as well as Sid Blumenthal offering up Ukraine to the Reds.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13600


« Reply #1224 on: May 10, 2016, 11:25:16 PM »

Kerry sold out America for less.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36841


« Reply #1225 on: May 12, 2016, 12:30:52 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsxXty6vEBA
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36841


« Reply #1226 on: May 17, 2016, 05:56:40 PM »

http://spartianlifestyle.com/2016/05/08/breaking-democrat-icon-jim-webb-endorses-donald-trump-over-hillary/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36841


« Reply #1227 on: May 23, 2016, 04:30:54 AM »

Some of you may remember the ditty I developed during my 1992 Congressional run: "People think backwards.  They choose the position that makes the emotional statement they wish to make about who they are, then they learn the facts and reasons to justify it.  This is why people do not change their minds when confronted with superior knowledge of the facts and/or superior logic.

The following piece from Pravda on the Hudson makes quite a similar point:
=========================================================



Bernie Sanders is widely credited with pulling Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party to the left on major issues like health care, trade, financial regulation and the minimum wage. Now he says he will battle all the way to the convention on behalf of “people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change.” But the premise animating that battle — that Mr. Sanders’s surprising success in the primary race is because of his liberal policy positions — may be familiar and comforting, but it is greatly exaggerated.

The notion that elections are decided by voters’ carefully weighing competing candidates’ stands on major issues reflects a strong faith in American political culture that citizens can control their government from the voting booth. We call it the “folk theory” of democracy.

When candidates surpass expectations, observers caught up in the folk theory believe that they have tapped some newly potent political issue or ideology. Thus, many analysts have argued that Mr. Sanders’s surprising support signals a momentous shift to the left among Democrats.

But wishing does not make it so. Decades of social-scientific evidence show that voting behavior is primarily a product of inherited partisan loyalties, social identities and symbolic attachments. Over time, engaged citizens may construct policy preferences and ideologies that rationalize their choices, but those issues are seldom fundamental.

That is one key reason contemporary American politics is so polarized: The electoral penalty for candidates taking extreme positions is quite modest because voters in the political center do not reliably support the candidates closest to them on the issues. (Mitt Romney is just the most recent presidential candidate to lose despite being perceived by most voters as closer to their ideological views than his opponent on a spectrum running from “extremely liberal” to “extremely conservative.”)

The most powerful social identities and symbolic attachments in this year’s Democratic race have favored Mrs. Clinton, not Mr. Sanders. She has been a leading figure in the Democratic Party for decades, a role model for many women and a longtime ally of African-Americans and other minority groups. For many primary voters, that history constitutes a powerful bond, and their loyalties are propelling Mrs. Clinton to the nomination despite her limitations as a candidate.

Mr. Sanders, on the other hand, is a sort of anti-Clinton — a political maverick from lily-white Vermont whose main claim to fame has been his insistence on calling himself an independent, a socialist, anything but a Democrat. That history has made him a convenient vessel for antipathy to Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic establishment and some of the party’s key constituencies. But it is a mistake to assume that voters who support Mr. Sanders because he is not Mrs. Clinton necessarily favor his left-leaning policy views.
Continue reading the main story
From Our Advertisers

Exit polls conducted in two dozen primary and caucus states from early February through the end of April reveal only modest evidence of ideological structure in Democratic voting patterns, but ample evidence of the importance of group loyalties.

Mr. Sanders did just nine points better, on average, among liberals than he did among moderates. By comparison, he did 11 points worse among women than among men, 18 points worse among nonwhites than among whites and 28 points worse among those who identified as Democrats than among independents.

It is very hard to point to differences between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders’s proposed policies that could plausibly account for such substantial cleavages. They are reflections of social identities, symbolic commitments and partisan loyalties.

Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump’s success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders’s support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men.

More detailed evidence casts further doubt on the notion that support for Mr. Sanders reflects a shift to the left in the policy preferences of Democrats. In a survey conducted for the American National Election Studies in late January, supporters of Mr. Sanders were more pessimistic than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters about “opportunity in America today for the average person to get ahead” and more likely to say that economic inequality had increased.

However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. It is quite a stretch to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party.

Mr. Sanders has drawn enthusiastic support from young people, a common pattern for outsider candidates. But here, too, the impression of ideological commitment is mostly illusory. While young Democrats in the January survey were more likely than those over age 35 to call themselves liberals, their ideological self-designations seem to have been much more lightly held, varying significantly when they were reinterviewed.

Moreover, warm views of Mr. Sanders increased the liberalism of young Democrats by as much as 1.5 points on the seven-point ideological scale. For many of them, liberal ideology seems to have been a short-term byproduct of enthusiasm for Mr. Sanders rather than a stable political conviction.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

Perhaps for that reason, the generational difference in ideology seems not to have translated into more liberal positions on concrete policy issues — even on the specific issues championed by Mr. Sanders. For example, young Democrats were less likely than older Democrats to support increased government funding of health care, substantially less likely to favor a higher minimum wage and less likely to support expanding government services. Their distinctive liberalism is mostly a matter of adopting campaign labels, not policy preferences.

Abraham Lincoln promised Americans “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” a notable departure from the republican system set up by the architects of the Constitution. In the 150 years since Lincoln, the ideal of government “by the people” has reshaped Americans’ democratic aspirations and their political practices — for example, in the Progressive Era introductions of direct primary elections and referendums and initiatives. It has also altered the way journalists and analysts see and describe electoral politics.

But that ideal makes sense, descriptively and normatively, only if citizens understand politics in terms of issues and ideologies and use their votes to convey clear policy signals that then determine the course of public policy. Americans’ commitment to the folk theory of democracy may make them wish that elections worked that way. But in the case of Bernie Sanders, as so often, belief in the folk theory is an act of faith, not realism.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36841


« Reply #1228 on: May 23, 2016, 04:36:03 AM »

second post

MEXICO CITY — Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico, was recently stuck in Mexico City traffic, overcome with frustration — not by the congestion, but by something that was irritating him even more: Donald J. Trump. He grabbed his phone, turned the lens on himself and pressed record.

“Ha! Donald,” Mr. Fox said, holding the phone perhaps a little too close to his face. “What about your apologies to Mexico, to Mexicans in the United States, to Mexicans in Mexico?”

In short order, the 15-second clip was on Mr. Fox’s Twitter feed — another salvo in a personal campaign against the American presidential candidate that has included television appearances, radio interviews and a fusillade of hectoring Twitter posts.

Mr. Fox’s voice is among a growing, if uncoordinated, chorus of influential Mexicans worried about what a Trump victory could mean for the complex relationship between the United States and Mexico — not to mention the impact Mr. Trump’s presidential bid may have already had.

The voices have included at least two former Mexican presidents, top government officials, political analysts, academics, editorial writers and cultural figures.

President Enrique Peña Nieto likened the candidate’s language to that of Hitler and Mussolini in an interview with Mexico’s Excelsior newspaper. And he recently shuffled his diplomatic corps in the United States, replacing Mexico’s ambassador to Washington and installing new consuls general around the country, in part to strengthen his administration’s response to the rise of Mr. Trump and what it reflects about American sentiment toward Mexico.

While many leaders around the world are worried about how Mr. Trump’s campaign, win or lose, could shape American foreign policy, the concerns are particularly pointed in Mexico and throughout the Mexican diaspora because of the exceptionally close geographic, economic, demographic and cultural ties between the two countries.

The two countries are now enjoying one of the more harmonious periods in a turbulent history. But many in Mexico fear that the friendship would rupture should Mr. Trump win the election and follow through on his threats to undo the North American Free Trade Agreement, force Mexico to pay for the construction of a wall between the countries by interrupting remittances and deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, about half of whom are Mexican.

“His threat is cataclysmic, I think, for Mexico,” Enrique Krauze, a Mexican historian and literary magazine editor, said in an interview. “What it would mean for bilateral trade, in social terms, in the tearing of families, in the trauma, the collective panic, the opening of old wounds.”

He added: “I can use one of Trump’s favorite words. Yes, this is huge. It’s a huge danger.”

Mexican critics of Mr. Trump say he has already damaged the image of their country and of the Mexican people with his espousal of views that many regard as xenophobic. At a rally to kick off his campaign in June, the Republican candidate suggested that many Mexican immigrants were drug traffickers and rapists.

Mexican officials, concerned about negative impressions of Mexico in the United States, have been rolling out a strategy to improve the image of their country and show how the relationship between the two nations has been of “mutual benefit,” said Paulo Carreño, the newly appointed under secretary for North America in Mexico’s Foreign Ministry.

The strategy includes “cultural diplomacy,” grass-roots activism and the deployment of Mexican community and business leaders living in the United States, he said.

As part of the strategy, the Peña Nieto administration shook up its diplomatic corps in the United States last month: The Mexican ambassador to Washington, Miguel Basáñez Ebergenyi, who had been in the job less than a year, was abruptly replaced by Carlos Sada Solana, a veteran diplomat. In addition, 26 consulates changed leadership.

A statement from the Foreign Ministry announcing Mr. Sada’s appointment emphasized his experience “protecting the rights of Mexicans in North America, as well as defending the interests of Mexican abroad.”
Photo
Vicente Fox, a former Mexican president. His voice is among a chorus of influential Mexicans worried about what a Trump victory could mean for the relationship between the United States and Mexico. Credit Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

In addition, a few high-level government officials have reacted publicly to Mr. Trump, including Humberto Roque Villanueva, the Interior Ministry’s under secretary for population, migration and migratory affairs. He told the newspaper El Universal this month that the Mexican government was analyzing “how to confront what we would call the Trump emergency.”

“I believe Mr. Trump speaks off the top of his head and doesn’t have a clear idea about financial matters or international accords,” he added. “We live in a globalized world. The United States would have to return to a kind of Middle Ages to prohibit remittances or charge tariffs that aren’t charged in other parts of the world.”

In general, however, the administration has mostly refrained from commenting on the candidate.

That has frustrated many Mexicans, who have called on the government to come to the defense of Mexico and push back at Mr. Trump more forcefully.

“They can package that in the traditional Mexican nonsense: We don’t interfere in elections,” said Jorge Castañeda, a former foreign minister. “The real reason is that they have no idea what to do, so the default option is to do nothing.”

Instead, most of the Mexican agitation against Mr. Trump has come from the general public. At the beginning of his campaign, many Mexicans viewed Mr. Trump with a mixture of alarm and amusement. But the amusement has mostly fallen away.

“Why should we worry?” Mr. Krauze asked, rhetorically. “I couldn’t think of a reason not to worry, no?”

In the fall, Mr. Krauze and Carmelo Mesa-Lago, an emeritus professor of economics and Latin American studies at the University of Pittsburgh, drafted a letter denouncing Mr. Trump’s campaign. Sixty-seven prominent Latinos — academics, scientists, writers and filmmakers in the United States, Spain and Latin America — signed it.

“His hate speech appeals to lower passions like xenophobia, machismo, political intolerance and religious dogmatism,” the letter said.

In recent months, Mr. Castañeda has been pushing a pro-Mexico social media campaign with the hashtag #ImProudToBeMexican. Aiming at an American, English-speaking audience, he has uploaded videos to Facebook and a campaign website extolling the diversity of the Mexican diaspora and its contributions to the United States.

Explaining the American focus of this lobby, he said: “I don’t want to convince Mexicans how nasty Trump is, because everyone knows that. That’s a done deal.”

Mr. Fox’s drumbeat of harangues against Mr. Trump began in February when he declared in a television interview, using a forceful expletive, that Mexicans would not build the candidate’s proposed wall. He escalated from there, chiding Mr. Trump with language that sometimes devolved into schoolyard churlishness.

He called the candidate “a false prophet,” “dictator” and “loser.” He posted a selfie taken against the backdrop of a beach with this message: “Trump, this beautiful Cancun. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.” He posted photos from his wife’s birthday party, taunting Mr. Trump: “What do you know about love? Or you just know about hating. How sad!”

This month, Mr. Fox expressed contrition for some of his comments in an interview with Breitbart News and apologized to Mr. Trump. But amid blowback from Mexicans on social media and elsewhere who accused him of weakness, he resumed his badgering, posting photos on social media of a Trump-brand tie made in China and a Trump-brand jacket made in Mexico — evidence, he said, of the candidate’s hypocrisy.

Mr. Fox said in a telephone interview from his home in Guanajuato State that he was motivated to attack Mr. Trump by what he called “pure love for that great nation, the United States.”

“I don’t understand why the American public is buying this,” he continued, pain in his voice. “We are partners, we are neighbors, and we should be friends. He’s dividing not only American society, but he’s dividing two nations.

“Why does he pick on Mexico?”
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13600


« Reply #1229 on: May 23, 2016, 05:08:39 AM »

Is Vicente Fox a secret Trump supporter?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7918


« Reply #1230 on: May 23, 2016, 11:55:16 AM »

Right out of the Harry Reid playbook, force the release by telling a bald faced lie: Hillary says Trump pays no federal income tax:

“If you’ve got someone running for president who’s afraid to release his tax returns, because it will expose the fact that he pays no federal income tax, I think that’s a big problem,” the former secretary of state said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”  (HuffPost)

Wouldn't this type of attack hurt her??

On the one hand:  I can't run for public office because I would hate the scrutiny and yet this guy is a complete public figure and runsfor the highest office without disclosing anything he doesn't want to.

On the other hand:  
Larry Elder last week on why Trump won't release his taxes:
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2016/05/19/heres-why-trump-tap-dances-on-taxes-n2165155
In a nutshell, the biased media botched their handled of the Romney tax return release so badly that there is no way a person in the position of Trump or Romney should ever give them a shred of material to work with ever again.

If I were Trump, my story now would be that she is the career politician, she and her cronies wrote the tax code.  He is the outsider; he opposes this tax code.  His tax return tells how her laws applied to his business and his private data.  If she has a problem with that, why didn't she reform these bad laws when she was in the White House for 8 years, the Senate for two terms and then again in the executive branch another four years?
« Last Edit: May 23, 2016, 11:57:31 AM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13600


« Reply #1231 on: May 23, 2016, 12:06:08 PM »

If I were Trump, I'd say I will release my taxes as soon as Hillary releases her transcripts from her speeches to Goldman Sachs.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13600


« Reply #1232 on: May 23, 2016, 12:26:26 PM »

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFwTioiGhQj/

He takes the fight to Hillary, he might well win.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5450


« Reply #1233 on: May 25, 2016, 10:43:35 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/clinton-versus-trump-pred_b_9848032.html?yptr=yahoo
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7918


« Reply #1234 on: May 25, 2016, 11:42:24 AM »


Spoiler:  Clinton 347; Trump 191

Logic:  Demographics.

Author:  A novelist

As they say in sports, a lot of game left to be played. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13600


« Reply #1235 on: May 25, 2016, 11:47:24 AM »


Hillary it utterly unpleasant to see, listen to, or be around. Even her supporters deep down know how evil and corrupt she is.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5450


« Reply #1236 on: May 25, 2016, 02:56:57 PM »

"Even her supporters deep down know how evil and corrupt she is

but do they care?   Not enough obviously.   cry
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7918


« Reply #1237 on: May 25, 2016, 06:13:34 PM »

"Even her supporters deep down know how evil and corrupt she is

but do they care?   Not enough obviously.   cry

Everyone knows, but I guess by definition, her supporters don't care.  Still [lack of] enthusiasm matters in politics.  Nobody is excited to support her.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13600


« Reply #1238 on: May 25, 2016, 06:19:59 PM »

"Even her supporters deep down know how evil and corrupt she is

but do they care?   Not enough obviously.   cry

Everyone knows, but I guess by definition, her supporters don't care.  Still [lack of] enthusiasm matters in politics.  Nobody is excited to support her.

Hey, the free shit army won't get it's free shit without her. Kind of like her and Bill, it's a marriage of convenience.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!