Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote:

Kraken wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I don't worry about dictatorship, at least not for a long time. I worry about our divided government's ability to actually function in a polarized political environment (which I doubt is going away any time soon). I worry about all the policy harms that are likely to ring up unaddressed (by either liberal or conservative-oriented solutions) as a result, such as (say) global warming.

So what happens if a chronically dysfunctional republic elects an aggressively authoritarian leader?

Oh, dictatorship could happen eventually, especially since there will be long-term temptation among presidents of all political stripes to use increasingly creative executive powers in order to get anything done. It will take a long time to break down democratic norms built up over centuries, however, and the extreme difficulty of amending the constitution would make it very difficult for any would-be dictator to overcome term limits.

But given enough time it could happen, just not for a long time. On the upshot, after a few decades or so of dictatorship we'd probably wind up with a functional parliamentary system.

Kurth wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

hepcat wrote:Yeah, earlier I was going to say that Kasich was the only repub that seemed capable of finding a middle ground in the political process...then I read about that.

He's still the sanest GOP contender, it's just a "land of the blind" type situation there right now.

But he's so inspiring that "many women left their kitchens" to campaign for him!.

Apparently I was duped by dishonest editing. It's not as bad in context.

Yep. Bullshit dirty pool right there. The GOP now desperately needs every vote and poll tic it can get to go Rubio's way. Kasich is roadkill, and that's sad, because he'd actually be a decent president, IMO.

It's funny. I note some of the posts above that seem to write him off because of his stupid move to defund Planned Parenthood, but I'm not going to kill him for that. As already pointed out, it's more symbolic than anything given the paltry funding PP is getting in OH right now. And in the end, we're not going to have anyone from an opposition party who we agree with in everything. That's the whole point of having more than one.

If you're a single issue voter on funding for Planned Parenthood, I guess I can understand. But every issue can't be a single issue.

Scraper wrote:I'm with you on the single issue. PP won't kill Kasich for me, he would most likely still get my vote over Hillary. When it comes down to it Kasich panders to the right, but he is still more middle of the road than any of the other candidates on most issues.

the right/i] might as well go with the hard right.

I have no idea what Kasich's track record is like. The right like to paint Snyder as not hard nosed right, but rather as an accountant and if Kasich is anything like that, I wouldn't let the current Congress anywhere near him.

I simply don't know enough about Kasich and I don't trust either side to tell me.

LordMortis wrote:

Scraper wrote:I'm with you on the single issue. PP won't kill Kasich for me, he would most likely still get my vote over Hillary. When it comes down to it Kasich panders to the right, but he is still more middle of the road than any of the other candidates on most issues.

If the left can show Kasich to be a wolf in sheep's clothing then the right/i] might as well go with the hard right.

I have no idea what Kasich's track record is like. The right like to paint Snyder as not hard nosed right, but rather as an accountant and if Kasich is anything like that, I wouldn't let the current Congress anywhere near him.

I simply don't know enough about Kasich and I don't trust either side to tell me.

Isgrimnur wrote:Dull doesn't motivate turnout. Our system is driven by emotion over logic. And Trump is raw emotion distilled.

Kraken wrote:The Globe's editorial page today urged independents to take a Republican ballot and vote for Kasich. They had already endorsed Hillary and they consider her inevitable (even though MA is one of the states Sanders hopes to win on Super Tuesday), so they reasoned that voting against Trump is the most effective thing an independent can do.

Their logic is logical if one is willing to concede the nom to Clinton. The Globe happens to be the unofficial mouthpiece of the Dem establishment so their "don't waste your vote on Sanders" stance is predictable.

Isgrimnur wrote:That's where the parties and donors come in. I like to think that they have some semblance of logic behind the curtain. They may not be able to hand-pick a candidate, but they can certainly get their thumb on the scale.

Here’s a part of the political calendar that nobody in the Republican Party seems to have noticed: This spring, just as the GOP nomination battle enters its final phase, frontrunner Donald Trump could be forced to take time out for some unwanted personal business: He’s due to take the witness stand in a federal courtroom in San Diego, where he is being accused of running a financial fraud.

GreenGoo wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:That's where the parties and donors come in. I like to think that they have some semblance of logic behind the curtain. They may not be able to hand-pick a candidate, but they can certainly get their thumb on the scale.

If only the men behind the curtain would save the American public from themselves!

Trump's rise is a de facto argument for reducing the voice of average citizens in the political system. And that's just....unpleasant. I'm starting to see the appeal of oligarchies. And that makes me uncomfortable.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:That's where the parties and donors come in. I like to think that they have some semblance of logic behind the curtain. They may not be able to hand-pick a candidate, but they can certainly get their thumb on the scale.

If only the men behind the curtain would save the American public from themselves!

Trump's rise is a de facto argument for reducing the voice of average citizens in the political system. And that's just....unpleasant. I'm starting to see the appeal of oligarchies. And that makes me uncomfortable.

I find your lack of faith in the system.......disturbing.

Seriously, I find it comical how much you guys think a Trump or Cruz becoming POTUS would be so catastrophic. I mean I hate Hillary but I just think it would make for a shitty near term future. All this talk of being a threat to democracy or our ways of living/governing ourselves is laughable.

El Guapo wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:That's where the parties and donors come in. I like to think that they have some semblance of logic behind the curtain. They may not be able to hand-pick a candidate, but they can certainly get their thumb on the scale.

If only the men behind the curtain would save the American public from themselves!

Trump's rise is a de facto argument for reducing the voice of average citizens in the political system. And that's just....unpleasant. I'm starting to see the appeal of oligarchies. And that makes me uncomfortable.

I find your lack of faith in the system.......disturbing.

Seriously, I find it comical how much you guys think a Trump or Cruz becoming POTUS would be so catastrophic. I mean I hate Hillary but I just think it would make for a shitty near term future. All this talk of being a threat to democracy or our ways of living/governing ourselves is laughable.

Oh, I don't think either would be any more than a shitty near term future (though I am somewhat uncomfortable about giving either nuclear weapons). The stuff about the threat to our democracy isn't from either of them, but my general worry about what's going to play out in the coming century if our government continues to be largely unable to function when in divided control.

Rip wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:That's where the parties and donors come in. I like to think that they have some semblance of logic behind the curtain. They may not be able to hand-pick a candidate, but they can certainly get their thumb on the scale.

If only the men behind the curtain would save the American public from themselves!

Trump's rise is a de facto argument for reducing the voice of average citizens in the political system. And that's just....unpleasant. I'm starting to see the appeal of oligarchies. And that makes me uncomfortable.

I find your lack of faith in the system.......disturbing.

Seriously, I find it comical how much you guys think a Trump or Cruz becoming POTUS would be so catastrophic. I mean I hate Hillary but I just think it would make for a shitty near term future. All this talk of being a threat to democracy or our ways of living/governing ourselves is laughable.

Oh, I don't think either would be any more than a shitty near term future (though I am somewhat uncomfortable about giving either nuclear weapons). The stuff about the threat to our democracy isn't from either of them, but my general worry about what's going to play out in the coming century if our government continues to be largely unable to function when in divided control.

It is a problem that will fix itself. It takes a while but the ship always rights itself when it must. At some point, if required, I'm sure people will start oiling up the guillotines.

El Guapo wrote:

Rip wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:That's where the parties and donors come in. I like to think that they have some semblance of logic behind the curtain. They may not be able to hand-pick a candidate, but they can certainly get their thumb on the scale.

If only the men behind the curtain would save the American public from themselves!

Trump's rise is a de facto argument for reducing the voice of average citizens in the political system. And that's just....unpleasant. I'm starting to see the appeal of oligarchies. And that makes me uncomfortable.

I find your lack of faith in the system.......disturbing.

Seriously, I find it comical how much you guys think a Trump or Cruz becoming POTUS would be so catastrophic. I mean I hate Hillary but I just think it would make for a shitty near term future. All this talk of being a threat to democracy or our ways of living/governing ourselves is laughable.

Oh, I don't think either would be any more than a shitty near term future (though I am somewhat uncomfortable about giving either nuclear weapons). The stuff about the threat to our democracy isn't from either of them, but my general worry about what's going to play out in the coming century if our government continues to be largely unable to function when in divided control.

It is a problem that will fix itself. It takes a while but the ship always rights itself when it must. At some point, if required, I'm sure people will start oiling up the guillotines.

Well, oiling up the guillotines would be one possible eventual disaster. In general I do think that the ship rights itself over time, but the core problem is with our constitutional structure, which is extremely difficult to amend in any environment, and essentially impossible in a partisan political environment.

So I'm just not sure how this ends other than extremely unpleasantly.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:That's where the parties and donors come in. I like to think that they have some semblance of logic behind the curtain. They may not be able to hand-pick a candidate, but they can certainly get their thumb on the scale.

If only the men behind the curtain would save the American public from themselves!

Trump's rise is a de facto argument for reducing the voice of average citizens in the political system. And that's just....unpleasant. I'm starting to see the appeal of oligarchies. And that makes me uncomfortable.

I find your lack of faith in the system.......disturbing.

Seriously, I find it comical how much you guys think a Trump or Cruz becoming POTUS would be so catastrophic. I mean I hate Hillary but I just think it would make for a shitty near term future. All this talk of being a threat to democracy or our ways of living/governing ourselves is laughable.

LordMortis wrote:

Kraken wrote:The Globe's editorial page today urged independents to take a Republican ballot and vote for Kasich. They had already endorsed Hillary and they consider her inevitable (even though MA is one of the states Sanders hopes to win on Super Tuesday), so they reasoned that voting against Trump is the most effective thing an independent can do.

Their logic is logical if one is willing to concede the nom to Clinton. The Globe happens to be the unofficial mouthpiece of the Dem establishment so their "don't waste your vote on Sanders" stance is predictable.

If the Globe were really that concerned, shouldn't they ask all Hillary voters to stay home so the independents can have the luxury of choosing to vote for Kasich rather than being forced to worry about taking power away from Hillary?

I would sit home at Primary day if I weren't going to vote for Sanders. After him, nothing else matter.

Here’s a part of the political calendar that nobody in the Republican Party seems to have noticed: This spring, just as the GOP nomination battle enters its final phase, frontrunner Donald Trump could be forced to take time out for some unwanted personal business: He’s due to take the witness stand in a federal courtroom in San Diego, where he is being accused of running a financial fraud.

Rip wrote:Seriously, I find it comical how much you guys think a Trump or Cruz becoming POTUS would be so catastrophic. I mean I hate Hillary but I just think it would make for a shitty near term future. All this talk of being a threat to democracy or our ways of living/governing ourselves is laughable.

Rip wrote:Seriously, I find it comical how much you guys think a Trump or Cruz becoming POTUS would be so catastrophic. I mean I hate Hillary but I just think it would make for a shitty near term future. All this talk of being a threat to democracy or our ways of living/governing ourselves is laughable.

Kurth wrote:

Rip wrote:Seriously, I find it comical how much you guys think a Trump or Cruz becoming POTUS would be so catastrophic. I mean I hate Hillary but I just think it would make for a shitty near term future. All this talk of being a threat to democracy or our ways of living/governing ourselves is laughable.

Trump is awful, but that's not what scares me. It's the reaction of the crazies who would choose him as their presidential nominee when he inevitably loses.

I'm pretty sure there's no way Trump can win. That probably means another Clinton in the Oval Office . . . and this Clinton is a woman, to boot! Anyone think that's gonna help tamp down all the partisan vitriol and obstructionism? Think that's going to tone down the fractured state of our society? Will it help restore a little faith in government and trust in our elected officials?

There's only one group of winners in the scenario that's playing out: Drudge, Limbaugh, Breitbart, FOX news, MSNBC . . . The rest of us, not so much.

Please tell me, Rip, how this ship rights itself. Unless you're serious about the guillotines, in which case, that's kind of a bummer.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:That's where the parties and donors come in. I like to think that they have some semblance of logic behind the curtain. They may not be able to hand-pick a candidate, but they can certainly get their thumb on the scale.

If only the men behind the curtain would save the American public from themselves!

Trump's rise is a de facto argument for reducing the voice of average citizens in the political system. And that's just....unpleasant. I'm starting to see the appeal of oligarchies. And that makes me uncomfortable.

I find your lack of faith in the system.......disturbing.

Seriously, I find it comical how much you guys think a Trump or Cruz becoming POTUS would be so catastrophic. I mean I hate Hillary but I just think it would make for a shitty near term future. All this talk of being a threat to democracy or our ways of living/governing ourselves is laughable.

Kurth wrote:I'm pretty sure there's no way Trump can win.

YellowKing wrote:

Kurth wrote:I'm pretty sure there's no way Trump can win.

That's what people were saying months ago, and now he's cruising to the nomination.

I would not underestimate him. This nomination has shown that there is an extremely angry electorate out there right now that are sick of DC - Democrats and Republicans alike. When it comes down to choosing four -if not eight- more years of Clinton, and a total Washington outsider, you could see voters across the political spectrum jump on the Trump train.

Common sense is out the window right now - I haven't seen anything yet that leads me to believe that Trump's antics are going to do him in. If anything, they have just made him more powerful. This is a Sanjay from American Idol moment.

tgb wrote:As I've been saying for a while now, they dismissed the idea of a Reagan presidency, too.

tgb wrote:As I've been saying for a while now, they dismissed the idea of a Reagan presidency, too.

Rip wrote:Trump wins Nevada. Might as well start printing the t-shirts!

It’s hard for me to turn down money because that’s what I’ve done in my whole life, I grab and grab and grab. You know I get greedy I want money, money.
I’ll tell you what we’re going to do, right? We get greedy right? Now we’re going to get greedy for the United States we’re going to grab and grab and grab. We’re going to bring in so much money and so much everything. We’re going to make America great again, folks, I’m telling you folks we’re going to make America great again.

We have a trade deficit with Mexico. They’ll pay for the wall. They’ll be very happy about it. Believe me. I’ll talk to them. They’re going to be very, very thrilled. They’re going to be thrilled to be paying for the wall.