Octopus Overlords

Reality is supposed to be fairly boring for most of us as well. The artificial drama in any reality tv show doesn't mean that reality is suddenly a fascinating mesh of intrigue and beautiful people skinning dipping in a hottub.

While I would prefer young people become more interested in the governance of their country, I would prefer EVEN MORE that young people stay the hell away from the governance of their country if they're only interested when clowns turn it into a circus. Unless of course this gets them involved and then their critical thinking skills kick in, but so far I haven't seen much evidence of that.

Lack of critical thinking skills is not directly correlated with age.

But they drove for THIRTY whole minutes. If that's not a commutededication to a movement, I don't know what it is.

YellowKing wrote: It boggles the mind that after eight years of Obama, this is the best and brightest America has to offer to be the next leader of the free world.

I expect that America will look back more fondly on the Obama administration in another 8 years.

YellowKing wrote: No matter who wins, there's nobody up there that can heal the rancor and division that has seized the country for more than a decade. In fact, it's probably the opposite - whoever wins will probably be so polarizing they wind up throwing even more fuel on the fire.

The question that interests me is whether the parties are driving division or reflecting it.

Hillary Clinton is probably the one person whom the right hates more than Barack Obama. So, yeah. I do not think she would waste her first six years trying to reach compromises.

Trump, OTOH, is a my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy irrespective of party affiliation. He could be a unifying figure in that way -- both sides will detest him.

Speaking of which, what's this kerfuffle about tweeting Megyn Kelly cheesecake pictures? More to the point, why has no one here linked to said pictures?

I still can't figure out what percentage of people go to Trump rallies because they support him and what percent go for entertainment value.

Trump’s New Pro-Veterans Website Directs All Donations To Trump’s Personal Foundation

After ducking the final Republican presidential debate heading into next week’s Iowa caucuses, GOP front-runner Donald Trump announced that he would hold his own pro-veterans event during the debate to raise money for veterans. Trump even set up a special website to solicit donations to help veterans.

There’s only one problem: 100% of the money raised on the site goes directly to Donald Trump’s personal non-profit foundation, according to a disclosure listed at the bottom of the page.

According to the domain registry information for Trump’s site, the domain was not registered until Thursday morning. The firm that registered the domain, Florida-based Parscale Media, also designed Trump’s official presidential campaign website.

Trump’s personal non-profit foundation, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, does not have a history of donating much money to veterans or to veterans’ causes. According to a recent analysis of the organization’s spending history by the Weekly Standard, Trump’s non-profit donated more money to the Clinton Foundation than it did to veterans causes.

(I have to wonder how much money Clinton's Foundation donated to Trump's Foundation. Do they fund each other in a loop, like some sort of eternal funding yoyo? )


Of course, since Trump will single-handedly fight and destroy North Korea, China and Iran, I guess he kind of counts as a vet-to-be, right?

So the $50 question-how were the ratings for the debate vs. whatever that thing was that Trump was doing?

I'm guessing not too bad or Trump would be blabbing about it all over town.

YellowKing wrote: It boggles the mind that after eight years of Obama, this is the best and brightest America has to offer to be the next leader of the free world.

Obama is a tough act to follow. He's actually intelligent AND cares about social issues. He guided us out of a recession and employment is back up. I agree, it does suck that we can't find someone as good to follow him.

hepcat wrote:

YellowKing wrote: It boggles the mind that after eight years of Obama, this is the best and brightest America has to offer to be the next leader of the free world.

Obama is a tough act to follow. He's actually intelligent AND cares about social issues. He guided us out of a recession and employment is back up. I agree, it does suck that we can't find someone as good to follow him.

Dude you obviously didn't memorize your conservative talking points. You have had since 2008 to get them down. Shame on you.

Back on topic, is anyone else really frightened by the rising sentiment among Trump supporters that Fox News is not conservative enough and therefore cannot be trusted? Truly scary. They are actually turning on Rupert Murdock, a man who dedicates his life to pushing conservatism in the US. At this point the GOP is literally tearing itself apart and the moderate Republicans should be terrified with what is happening to their party. Granted it has been happening since the Tea Party became popular, but at some point the party has to split.

Kraken wrote:

YellowKing wrote: No matter who wins, there's nobody up there that can heal the rancor and division that has seized the country for more than a decade. In fact, it's probably the opposite - whoever wins will probably be so polarizing they wind up throwing even more fuel on the fire.

The question that interests me is whether the parties are driving division or reflecting it.

I'm of the impression that media AND politicians are driving it. The media because hey, ratings, and politicians because working their constituents into a lather gets them out and voting, and voting for the people who tweaked their outrage the most.

I'd say it's less about division and more about emotion, and it just so happens that divisive emotion gets people not only voting but voting for your side.

I don't think the average person sits around all day hating people until they are told to. Sometimes overtly and sometimes covertly (i.e. don't you hate all those leeches on welfare, well it's the Dems fault versus the Dems hate you and want to tax you to death, you should hate them back).

There are a number of conservative positions that I can respect even if I don't support, and there are a number of conservative positions that I respect and could support. Unfortunately the frothy mouth hatred stuff makes it impossible for me to consider a conservative candidate. A more moderate conservative could draw from the middle but no one seems to care about the middle. I assume because there aren't that many people in the middle these days (which could be the natural outcome of divisive politics in the first place).

tgb wrote:So the $50 question-how were the ratings for the debate vs. whatever that thing was that Trump was doing?

I'm guessing not too bad or Trump would be blabbing about it all over town.

Fox's debate. But it was the second lowest rated debate of the season. So Trump is certain to take credit for hurting the channel's total viewership.
Fox News Channel's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m. Eastern, according to Nielsen.
By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined.

link

(IIUC, the numbers of ratings tend to get corrected a bit after a few days, so it might not be set in stone)

The ratings history, from what I can tell, were:

Debate 1: 24 million
Debate 2: 23.1 million
Debate 3: 14 million
Debate 4: 13.5 million
Debate 5: 18.2 million
Debate 6: 11 million
This Debate: 12.5 million

Scraper wrote:
Back on topic, is anyone else really frightened by the rising sentiment among Trump supporters that Fox News is not conservative enough and therefore cannot be trusted? Truly scary.

No, I think that might be the most amazing news from this whole thing. Well, at the minimum it's something to smile about.

Defiant wrote:

Fox's debate. But it was the second lowest rated debate of the season. So Trump is certain to take credit for hurting the channel's total viewership.

Maybe, but I think debates would start to lose their viewership as more of them happen by natural attrition. How many times can you watch the same people spout the same things over and over again. The fact that the debate was not a half or a quarter of the viewership of previous debates means to me that Trump's absence had no impact and might have even brought in a few viewers.

Speaking of debates, this one was better.

TheMix wrote:I'm still trying to process Palin's comments.

This may help

Defiant wrote:

TheMix wrote:I'm still trying to process Palin's comments.

This may help

Thank you. I needed a good laugh.

Der Spiegal calls Trump the most dangerous man in the world.

The Germans know a thing or two about authoritarian regimes.

But his candidacy ceased to be amusing long ago. Trump's demands are too extreme for that, and his view of the world and humanity too dangerous. And the chances are too great that he will be named as the Republican presidential candidate. Some polls show that Trump even stands a realistic chance of winning the White House in a possible face-off with Hillary Clinton. The combination of his views and the possibility that he could soon hold the planet's most powerful office make him the most dangerous man in the world at the moment.

For a long time, neither Republican Party officials nor the media recognized the true dimensions of the movement that Trump was forming. They continued to poke fun at him, even as he was creating a revolutionary mood on the right margin of society. Now it could be too late, and Trump could be the one getting the last laugh.

Like it or not, it is time to take Donald John Trump seriously. So what can be said about the character of this man who is determined to capture the White House?

Yeah, when the Germans are calling you too authoritarian, you might want to dial it back a notch or two.

I'm wondering how he is going to react if the trend that we see now tonight culminates with Cruz winning? Probably shrug it off but it will likely finally dent that air of invulnerability he has been riding.

tgb wrote:Yeah, when the Germans are calling you too authoritarian, you might want to dial it back a notch or two.

Not-so-Secret Hitler

On a personal level, I find Cruz's Dominionist religiosity more threatening than Trump's cult of personality. But Trump is far more electable than Cruz and hence more dangerous. There's no way Cruz will get anywhere near the presidency, whereas I can easily see Trump clobbering Clinton. Cruz cannot draw beyond his evangelical/tea party base, but Trump can lure authoritarians out of all the woodwork.

Looks like tonight is really Rubio's night. I'm no fan, but he's certainly a hell of a lot better than Cruz or Trump. Go Iowa!

Kraken wrote:On a personal level, I find Cruz's Dominionist religiosity more threatening than Trump's cult of personality. But Trump is far more electable than Cruz and hence more dangerous. There's no way Cruz will get anywhere near the presidency, whereas I can easily see Trump clobbering Clinton. Cruz cannot draw beyond his evangelical/tea party base, but Trump can lure authoritarians out of all the woodwork.

After tonight, you should consider Rubio in the discussion as well - he's gone to #2 behind Hillary for the likely presidential winner after tonight for all the oddsmakers.

Kraken wrote:On a personal level, I find Cruz's Dominionist religiosity more threatening than Trump's cult of personality.

Victory is life!

Kurth wrote:Looks like tonight is really Rubio's night. I'm no fan, but he's certainly a hell of a lot better than Cruz or Trump. Go Iowa!

He denies climate change is real, is against abortion even in the case of rape or incest, wants war with Iran, and has the most ridiculously irresponsible tax plan of any of the candidates. In other words, a moderate in today's GOP.

Kurth wrote:Looks like tonight is really Rubio's night. I'm no fan, but he's certainly a hell of a lot better than Cruz or Trump. Go Iowa!

He denies climate change is real, is against abortion even in the case of rape or incest, wants war with Iran, and has the most ridiculously irresponsible tax plan of any of the candidates. In other words, a moderate in today's GOP.

Captain Caveman wrote:He denies climate change is real, is against abortion even in the case of rape or incest, wants war with Iran, and has the most ridiculously irresponsible tax plan of any of the candidates. In other words, a moderate in today's GOP.

But he's not a complete and utter asshole (like Cruz) or clinically insane (like Trump).

RunningMn9 wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:He denies climate change is real, is against abortion even in the case of rape or incest, wants war with Iran, and has the most ridiculously irresponsible tax plan of any of the candidates. In other words, a moderate in today's GOP.

But he's not a complete and utter asshole (like Cruz) or clinically insane (like Trump).

I agree, which is why he's the only one of the three who has a legitimate shot at the presidency. That's also what scares me about him-- with these positions and a Republican House and Senate to greenlight his agenda, it'd be a turbulent four years.

Captain Caveman wrote:I agree, which is why he's the only one of the three who has a legitimate shot at the presidency. That's also what scares me about him-- with these positions and a Republican House and Senate to greenlight his agenda, it'd be a turbulent four years.

The bigger danger is that he would greenlight their agenda. It's hard to imagine a President Rubio vetoing anything an R-R congress sends his way.

I can't imagine that either and turbulent is right - it'd be an interesting shit show as the filibuster bullshit would ramp up to new levels of hysteria.

Holman wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:I agree, which is why he's the only one of the three who has a legitimate shot at the presidency. That's also what scares me about him-- with these positions and a Republican House and Senate to greenlight his agenda, it'd be a turbulent four years.

The bigger danger is that he would greenlight their agenda. It's hard to imagine a President Rubio vetoing anything an R-R congress sends his way.

You're right about this. I get the feeling that Rubio's more extreme positions are more temporary posturing for the primary season, one in which adopting a bit of Trump-esque posturing is beneficial. Kind of akin to Romney and his "self-deportation" talk that softened once the general election came along. That's my hope anyway. But the extreme positions of the Republican Congress are definitely not temporary, and Rubio certainly wouldn't go against his own party if legislation reached his desk. Repealing Obamacare would only be the beginning. The 63rd time the House voted on this would be the charm.

I do wonder whether divided government is just much less likely in today's age of partisanship. I have no data on this, but I'm guessing split-tickets are becoming less common as more rigid partisanship takes hold. What this means is that if Rubio carries the front of the ticket, there's almost zero chance the Democrats gain in the House or Senate, and a lot would have to change for Democrats to pick up seats in the off-year election 2 years later as their voters tend to be less involved in non-Presidential elections.

Like, in this century we've already survived a R-R-R and D-D-D stint, no?

If history serves, it won't be a tumultuous four years. It will be a tumultuous two years, and then the R party will get its ass kicked out of Congress. Same as the last two times. And we lived through those.

RunningMn9 wrote:Like, in this century we've already survived a R-R-R and D-D-D stint, no?

If history serves, it won't be a tumultuous four years. It will be a tumultuous two years, and then the R party will get its ass kicked out of Congress. Same as the last two times. And we lived through those.

Living through an administration is a pretty low bar to set.

Also, bear in mind that Republicans have a structural advantage in Congress, at least in the near term. First, the structure of the states and the Senate is such that rural areas / states (which lean conservative) get disproportionate representation.

Second, the GOP wave in the 2010 election (which hit at the state level as well as the federal level) meant that the GOP disproportionately got to control the gerrymandering following the 2010 census, which gives the GOP a current advantage in the House as well. Note, for example, that democratic candidates got more votes collectively than republican candidates in the 2014 election but the GOP didn't come close to losing the chamber.

On top of that, as has been noted typically democratic voters are less likely to vote in mid-terms.

To sum up, I would not count on the 2018 mid-terms to curb a Rubio - Ryan agenda over the next four years.

Scott Brown to endorse Trump ahead of NH primary.

Weird.

Captain Caveman wrote:Scott Brown to endorse Trump ahead of NH primary.

Weird.

That is odd. Brown styled himself as a Massachusetts Republican, which is definitely inconsistent with being a Trump Republican. Maybe Brown thought he had more to gain from endorsing Trump (who was in significant need of a NH boost).

I will also say that while I wasn't in Massachusetts for Brown's 2010 senate run, I was there for his 2012 campaign, and he really came across to me as a meathead during that campaign.

"Let the motherf--king business guy run it like a f--king business."

Lol. Who's going to protect the US from it's creditors when it files Chapter 11? Straight to Chapter 7?

How long do you think it would take Trump to bankrupt the US if he treated it like one of his businesses?

For a businessman he doesn't seem to fully appreciate the idea of ice cream gloves.