It is boring, but so is attempting to debate with a Democratic Partisan. Face it Playdude, everyone already knows that you'll vote for whomever the Democrats offer. It doesn't matter if it is Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Adolf Hitler. You are part of the Democratic 15%. That is to say 15% of the population is going to vote for whomever the Democrats put on offer. The GOP also has 15%. That 30% is not who decides elections, thankfully.
If I were you I'd leave the psychological analysis to the psychologists on the board. You see I personally don't care if you post either. That we agree on much doesn't mean I even have to like you. Honestly much of the time I think you're a pretentious bore, but I think that of many liberals so you're not alone. You really should stick to posting about MMT, that is one of the few times you're not a pretentious bore.
As for the technique, it is effective. It gets your blood up, I see that by your post. It is effective so I'll use it in the future. See that is the thing I've noticed about Boomers (especially white ones) early on. They hate thinking they aren't being taken seriously--whether they are being serious or not. I blame it on GI parenting and its indulgent ways.
Also it it is Gangnam Style. I googled Gaungan Style and well Google says they've never heard of it. Playing fast and loose again? You know cause it works so effectively against people who actually take the time to think about what they post before they actually post.
I don't need to. Your ignorance of Asia in general and Korea in particular will do the work for me.
The governmental structure of Korea has been written down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...of_North_Korea
I know, I know wikipedia. Needless to say I've read translated versions of the document for myself. Kim has to deal with his own Party's politburo and his power isn't unlimited. He has exactly as much power as the Army and the Party allows, the two foundations of the power he has. Which is prudent given that he is both young and untested, and that regencies are not uncommon in monarchies which it is slowly becoming evident the DPRK actually is.
Furthermore, I'd argue that any problems with having a Bellicose Moron in the White House would be primarily domestic. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the US does not attack powers with nukes because we don't want ourselves blown up and we most certainly do have checks on said bellicose moron's power. Or do you plan on arguing that the US is itself a totalitarian dictatorship or whatever you plan on claiming the DPRK is.
History is also rife with coups d'etats when something like that is close to happening. Kim's power is not absolute, he rules only by the consent of the Army really. One of the many flaws of Kim Jong-Il's policy of Army First.
Again with the Guangan Style...if you mean Gangnam Style it is clear that you have not understood the meaning of the song (which I will admit is rather vapid in and of itself, but it actually does have a meaning). No the grammar police tactic is not a misdirection. It is pointing out that someone who can't be bothered to use names correctly cannot be taken seriously.
As for using Google, you may want to try it. One can learn many useful things off google. Hell the search engine has inspired its own religion.
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/
In some ways I kind of see their point.
Kim's power rests on the Army's consent. Which is evident upon an analysis of the power dynamics within the DPRK with has been made available through the CIA among other sources.
I'm not particularly interested in doing that. It is obvious you haven't debated me much, but if you did you'd know I don't play that game. I leave that for the Partisan Republicans on the board.
I've read that book. I understand that book. But it is obvious that you don't understand the Song referenced in my Signature. Furthermore,
Animal Farm in the 8th grade, read it in 6th down here. Don't tell me New York now lags behind Florida!
The fact is that Orwell wrote a fable based upon what he thought. The man may have been involved in the Spanish Civil War, but he never learned to speak Spanish so he could only base his thoughts on what he was told was happening. He also never went to the Soviet Union, and even if he had he certainly didn't speak Russian so like Spain he could only base his thoughts on what he was told.
No I have a better book that I think you should review.
The Prince by Machiavelli. Even an absolute monarch has to cater to that base which supplies him with power. Kim is no different, and he isn't even close to being an absolute monarch even if him being a monarch is an arguable point.
It isn't my fault you cannot understand basic logic. That logic being that Hillary Vs Any Republican is not a binary choice until AFTER she is anointed (or nominated if you prefer) the Democratic candidate.
I understand how the two party system works. Perhaps better than you do. I have to, not having either that actually represents me any way, shape or form, though Progressive (not to be confused with Neo-Progressive) Democrats come closest. Also I understand basic math, I did after all graduate the 4th grade.
Again not a point of contention other than the fact that the Democrats have their own primary binary choice: A New Deal Progressive vs DLC Corporatist Democrat. In short Sanders Vs Clintion. I could even simply it further An Indpendent that acts like a Democrat (in the New Deal Traditional sense) vs A Democrat that acts like a Republican (That is uses traditionally Non-ClownCar GOP talking points and positions).
The fact that you don't seem to understand that no matter the desires of the DNC or the DLC, Hillary is a Democrat that acts like a Republican (and the fact that everyone outside of the Democratic 15% knows this) means we have a choice between whomever the GOP picks (Establishment or Non-Establishment doesn't matter) and whomever the Democrats pick, and whom the Democrats pick does matter. At least for everyone outside of the GOP 15% and the Democrat 15%.
So then if the choice is between say Ted Cruz Vs Ted Cruz Lite (since HRC might not enforce Marijuana Laws and probably will let women have abortions) the clear choice for the 70% is clear. Ted Cruz. Trump is more tricky because his positions quite frankly are all over the map if you listen to the man.
Actually I was not confused by it. But the problem you have is in your assumption that HRC will end up being the nominee. Polls conducted in real time seem to indicate otherwise. And that isn't even bringing in the fact that she was supposed to have been the nominee in 2008 and Obama came out of no where running on a Progressive (again not to be confused with Neo-Progressive) platform.
In short you are being illogical from the start by assuming that something which is not a given is in fact a given. It is akin to assuming that x+y=2 that both x and y must be 1 and ignoring the possibility that x or y could be 2 and x or y could be 0.
For the record 2 can be derived through addition by the following processes: 1+1=2, 0+2=2, 2+0=2. If you disbelieve me you may want to consult your 8th grader on the matter.
As such since we are dealing with a binary choice and we know that the answer is 2 we must first determine if either x or y is in fact 0 before we conclude that both are 1. In American politics this happens through one means, the primary process. As such attempting to determine whom one is going to vote for in the General election cannot happen (unless one is voting strictly on the basis of political party--which if that is how you do things, that's your choice but for others the process is quite different) until after it is mathematically impossible for anyone other than the eventual nominee to be nominated.
To make a complex system simple, each state is allocated delegates that are assigned in proportion to how that state goes with the addition of a few delegates from the Party's National Center (AKA Super-delegates...a trick HRC tried in 2008 and failed at as well). These delegates then vote on the basis of the preferences of the electors (IE the people who voted in their state's primary) that sent them to the Convention. This may or may not require several rounds of voting depending on if anyone has an overwhelming majority.
Or perhaps you are realizing that you are slowly painting yourself into a corner with real time information trickling in that Sanders is beating Clinton across the board and that he Beats the GOP candidates across the board by more points than HRC does. In any case I'll proceed to blow up your simplistic model because it is first simplistic and second it is wrong.
I notice that you're attempting to ascribe plus points and negative points to the candidates. I would contend that if we are going to ascribe these points we should not do so on the basis of Party but rather of actual positions (assuming one can actually nail down Hillary on any, seriously she filp flops more than Romney and as such one can only conclude she'll say anything to get elected).
As such we'll ascribe to New Deal types (and New Deal Lite types) the value of +10, and we'll ascribe to the Tea Party/Know-Nothing types -10.
As such we'll get the following values:
Cruz: -10
Rubio: -7
G. W. Bush: -7 (not on the ballot but used as a frame of reference)
Jeb Bush: -5 (He could have been a worse Governor, in fact we have a worse Governor now)
Bill Clinton: -0.5 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
Trump: ? (really listen to the man, somethings are really monstrous, some things sound like Bernie)
HRC: ? (again listen to her, on the one hand she's all for the ACA & the BHO record, on the next she's claiming that Single Payer would be the end of the USA--never mind Single Payer has been a Democratic position SINCE Truman)
Al Gore: +0.5 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
O'Mally: +3 (I've checked him out he reminds me of a milquetoast version of Mondale)
BHO: +4 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
Bernie: +9 (Sorry but the only +10 president we've had since Lincoln was FDR, though TR was about a +9.5)
Now as we can see we have two candidates, one of which is not guaranteed to win nomination by their party (seriously were you asleep during the Primaries in 2008?) the other of which can win their party's nomination after defeating Cruz (which should be easy, the Birther thing + tapping into raw electoral anger can win Trump the GOP nomination).
Now it should be obvious that since I broke for Obama twice, and Al Gore once, and would have voted for Bill Clinton twice had I had the opportunity to (one has to remember I was 13 and 17 in '92 and '96 respectively) I'm not opposed to voting for candidates I'd consider to be "on the bubble". Often that is the only choice presented. I also voted for Kerry but that was an A.B.B vote. (Anybody but Bush).
Now one would think by looking at the scores I've given these candidates, I'd vote primarily Democratic, and they would be right. The New Deal/Great Society Democrats (to use Truman's terminology "Democrats that act like Democrats") do by and large represent a great deal of my views (they only piss me off in that they don't go far enough). On the other hand, if one carefully looks at the divisions within the Democratic party one will clearly notice that those candidates that coalece into what is usually termed the Democratic Leadership Caucus (DLC) score the lowest of all Democrats. Hillary Clinton is very much a creature of the DLC just like her Husband (whom I've criticized a great deal both in the 90s and 00s for being "too willing to cave to the GOP"). As such I have no reason to expect that she won't, like Bill be at least a -0.5.
Now if we add into the things she actually has said in the past 20 years her numbers sink much much lower than Bill's. As such given her current trajectory we're looking at a -3 at least. Granted that is two points above Jeb Bush and seven points above Cruz, but we do know that HRC is a DLC Democrat and when confronted with a GOP dominated Congress will cave to them because that is what DLC Democrats do (you know, cause they are Republican lite).
As such we have no idea where Trump would place. I've actually listened to the man, and in the GOP debates he is the only person I could stand to vote for if someone besides Hillary (seriously it may not be logical but I viscerally hate the woman and that is a trait shared by many nominal Democrats, including my own mother) and besides Bernie runs on the Democratic ticket and even then it is a close thing. He seems to me to be very much on the bubble.
On the one hand he says some pretty monstrous things, all of it has the look and feel of Red Meat for the Red Base (to be expected during a primary) on the other hand he says some incredibly progressive things (not to be confused with Neo-Progressivism) such as wanting single payer and scrapping NAFTA, TPP and other "free trade" deals that result in the destruction of high paying blue collar jobs upon which the Proletariat depends. That being said, he most likely would place somewhere under Bill Clinton but above Jeb Bush (which remember I scored as -5).
As such assuming that HRC scores at least a -5, which she can do easily just on likability alone never mind her positions (again assuming she actually has some--seriously she acts like a Democratic Romney). Even Ted Cruz starts to look good. You might call it illogical, and maybe it is, but let us see if we can understand why.
You see when one elects a President he also is electing a Vice President, a House, and a Third of the Senate. Now in my case since Rubio is not running for re-election assuming he isn't nominated for Vice President, the choice is simple, vote for the Democrat, any Democrat will do (though a progressive is strongly preferred). It should be noted that we've had a couple constitutional changes lately (since 2000) and one of them prohibits a candidate from appearing twice on the Ballot (one of Jeb Bush's doings, something he did right but only on accident as I told both my BF and Mother). As such it is a safe bet for me to vote for a Democrat for Senate, and I'll also be voting Democratic for the House. This therefore means that even if Hillary runs and I about face and vote a split ticket (extremely rare for me I assure you) and vote for Trump or hell even Cruz those two will be actively working against his agenda and gumming up the works.
At the same time, let us suppose that Bernie is running. This means that he will get my senator assuming the Democrat wins, which is possible Allan Greyson win on the I-4 alone (the I-4 corridor is an intensely blue stripe down the middle of an otherwise red state), and my representative (which with the new districts can happen, my county has been hit very hard these last few years). He very well could ride a wave of left-populism into a super-majority in both houses. As such this simplies the maths even further and makes your judgements on the presidency alone patently absurd.
So lets us break it down:
GOP Prez w/ GOP Congress: -2 (backward)
GOP Prez w/ Dem Congress: -1 (total gridlock)
HRC Prez w/ GOP Congress: -1 (total gridlock)
HRC Prez w/ Dem Congress: 0 (progress so long as congress doesn't go much further left than John Kerry)
Bernie Prez w/GOP Congress: +1 (making the Republicans say "No" and telling the people they said "No", you know like FDR did.)
Bernie Prez w/ Dem Congress: +2 (forward)
As you can see once one includes the Congress into the metric (which they have to because the President isn't a dictator or even a king) we see that the top score that Hillary can achieve for us is a 0 (and that is assuming she is a hard zero and not a fractional negative which here DLC ways indicate). What is known, is that Hillary will not attract the Presidential race voters which swept BHO into office and weakened the GOP House and Senate in 2012 after the GOP wave of 2010 (though the GOP made marginal gains in 2014 but that was to be expected in a low turn out midterm). As such one must conclude that the realistic outcome of HRC being elected will be a -1 result. That is to say gridlock.
Now, here is the problem with gridlock, we have to deal with the mathematics of the collapse of the Third Republic (I've at times divided US history into various republics on the basis roughly of saeculum, the first was 1789-1865, the second 1865-1945, the third 1945-present). Since we all know that systems that must collapse eventually will, and that some collapses are good for you, and that bigger collapses are nastier than smaller ones, and that frequent collapses are better than infrequent ones. It makes sense that if the best Hillary can offer is gridlock, that therefore a backwards result is better. It is better in that it will bring the collapse of the Third Republic.
Of course best of all would be the establishment of the Fourth Republic through democratic and electorial means with a Democratic Congress and Bernie Sanders at the helm. Which won't happen if Hillary is in fact the nominee. As such it makes logical sense that if the end goal is the destruction of the Third Republic and the creation of the Fourth Republic that "going backwards" really is going forwards.
My apparent failure is not one of logic, but rather your failure to understand the dialectic at play.
quotes
Originally Posted by pbrower2a
Do you even realize what is the core strength of the GOP?