home

2016: the State of Play

29 days until the Iowa Caucus. Via HuffPo here is the polling state of play:

Nationally in the GOP race, Trump holds a wide lead over Ted Cruz 39-17. Everyone else is an also ran. But of course national polling doesn't mean much until later.

Among Dems nationally, Hillary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders by 57-31. I'd give the same general caveat but think the lead in the Dem race is more meaningful given the demographic makeup of the support for the candidates (yes PoC overwhelmingly support Clinton.)

More on the race in early states on the flip.

In Iowa, in the GOP race Ted Cruz has the Big Mo, having overtaken Trump, leading now by 31-28. There is reporting that Trump has no meaningful organization in Iowa (also NH for that matter.) Couple that with the fact that Cruz is supported by the most committed supporters in Iowa, the evangelicals, and I would not be surprised if this turns into a Cruz blowout.

Clinton's lead in Iowa over Sanders is currently 52-37. Personally I think any Clinton win in Iowa, even by a point, effectively ends the race. One of the reasons is that the expectation is Sanders is going to win New Hampshire, With that expectation, Sanders won't have much of a chance to change the dynamics in the race. The next 2 contests after NH are South Carolina and Nevada, where PC will be the dominant voter groups. After that you move to Super Tuesday on March 1 and that will probably close all drama.

Sanders has raised an amazing amount of money (and so has Clinton over 112 million so far) so he'll be in it to the convention, but he'll have no chance for the nomination unless things change before Super Tuesday.

For now, the suspense appears to be in the GOP race. After Iowa, NH has Trump in the lead with 26 percent (with Cruz, Rubio and the rest bunched together around 14 percent) but it would not be in the least surprising if Trump collapsed after losing Iowa. In theory NH is where the GOP Establishment first flexes its muscles, but the reality it's a battle for 3rd right now, with Rubio, Christie, Bush and Kasich duking it out. In theory 3rd (behind Trump and Cruz) gives them a lift. I'm skeptical of this theory as South Carolina comes next - I see that as Cruz country.

What about Trump you might ask? Well, imagine Trump losing Iowa and then losing NH. Can you imagine his meltdown? It could be epic, the moment of the primaries. And if Cruz sweeps Iowa and NH - I'd call ballgame. He'd win South Carolina, have the money flowing and the message (the crazy one) that the GOP base wants this year.

So in sum, if I had to choose today who I think is gonna win - I have Clinton and Cruz.Obviously Clinton is the stronger prediction and the GOP race can still provide many surprises, but that's where I see them right now.

< New Year's Open Thread | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This map (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:14:34 AM EST
    From the Times has been making the rounds.

    I thought it was odd because my area in on the low end of support

    And I wondered, holy hell, what must it be like in the higher concentrations.

    Then, I read the legend and it says REPUBLICAN voters estimated to support.  I see the problem.  Around here there are still many people still registered as democrats who have not voted for a democratic president in decades.   So,  IMO this map, like the polls we were reading about the other day actually underestimate his support.

    What appears as AR (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:24:11 AM EST
    As an island of sanity on that map is interesting and misleading.  This, I think, is the left over "Clinton effect".  Bubba was beloved here.  And still is by many who have not voted for a democrat since.  But it's interesting to see it surrounded by deep red.  In reality it's as red as its neighbors.

    Or definitely closer in hue that it appears on that nap.

    Parent

    What also surprised me was Kansas (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 12:38:43 PM EST
    Missouri is showing more support throughout the state than I would have guessed. Expected parts of MO to be in flavor but not so much of the state. I've only heard one person state support for Trump and the Republicans I know think he is a joke.

    Parent
    I don't have tons of faith (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    In that map.  But the MO I know is pretty red.  I live on the line.


    Parent
    I expected it to be deep red (none / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:22:10 PM EST
    In certain parts of the state, medium red in other parts but with some pale places as well. I just don't see the support for Trump in Republicans around me and believe me their are plenty of conservatives at functions I attend.

    Parent
    I would say (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:37:39 AM EST
    GA and SC are right on the money in this case. Not surprised that Charleston and the lower part of SC is not as enamored with Trump as the upstate is. Southwest GA is somewhat like you were saying in AR in that there are not that many Republicans. And in Metro Atlanta you're less likely to have Trump supporters. I have some Republican friends here that abhor Trump and are horrified. However some of them like Cruz and one of them thinks that Jeb Bush is just awesome. He might be the only person in the country that thinks that about Jeb.

    Parent
    The legend (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:30:56 AM EST
    Is based on Republican-leaning voters. Not registered party affiliation. From the original article you posted:

    He [Trump] is strongest among Republicans who are less affluent, less educated and less likely to turn out to vote. His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats. It's a coalition that's concentrated in the South, Appalachia and the industrial North, according to data provided to The Upshot by Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm.

    SNIP

    (My bold)

    These areas also include many of the places where Democrats have lost the most ground over the last half-century, and where Hillary Clinton tended to fare best among white voters in her contest against Mr. Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

    In many of these areas, a large number of traditionally Democratic voters have long supported Republicans in presidential elections. Even now, Democrats have more registered voters than Republicans do in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, which have been easily carried by Republicans in every presidential contest of this century. As recently as a few years ago, Democrats still had a big advantage in partisan self-identification in the same states.

    But during the Obama era, many of these voters have abandoned the Democrats. Many Democrats may now even identify as Republicans, or as independents who lean Republican, when asked by pollsters -- a choice that means they're included in a national Republican primary survey, whether they remain registered as Democrats or not.

    This could lead to some problems on primary election day, since many states will not allow these people to vote because they have closed primaries.

    And Arkansas isn't showing a lot of support for Trump because of Huckabee.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:34:32 AM EST
    I didn't read it.  I find a Huckabee problem difficult to believe.  He is in my experience universally despised.  I'm sure he has support of the local republican establishment.

    I will predict that Donald will win the republican primary in this state.

    Parent

    Favorite song and all (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    Rather than a NY Yankee?

    Parent
    That's (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    the most amazing thing about the whole Donald thing. He's able to get the votes of these people even though is he everything they profess to despise-- from "up north" NYC, millionaire and everything.

    I think it gets back to an article about Trump where Trump could sell ice to an Eskimo.

    Parent

    If his ship maintains course I believe (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:07:46 PM EST
    He wins Alabama too.

    Parent
    Reuters did a comparative.... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by magster on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:42:51 PM EST
    analysis of all its daily polling in 2012 compared to 2015 and found huge shifts of support to Dems from key demographics. Looks very promising in the general election.

    Link to chart here.

    IMO (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 05:32:07 PM EST
    It may end up being Cruz but I believe you underestimate Donalds support in the south.  
    I even think Donalds supporters may surprise in Iowa. Many seem to think they will not show up for the cacus fight.   Again I think that misunderstands his supporters.   They are spoiling for a fight and I would not be surprised if just as he needs no advertising to be number one he may not need what is traditionally understood as organization to win in a place like Iowa.

    I know anecdotal doesn't mean much from what I hear Cruz is not even really considered an outsider.  The beltway sees him that way but the beltway has been wrong at almost every opportunity this time.

    I think Cruz would be a less formidable opponent than Donald.   Based on who I know is supporting Donald Curz will not have the same diverse support.  He would probably have more republican support but we know that's not enough.

    I'm ready.

    About Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 05:35:47 PM EST
    The MSNBC person following hm has the same.   She said if 10% of the crowds turning out for him show up on cacus night he will win.   No idea if her numbers are right but I think it will be more than 10%.


    Parent
    I just got a mental flash (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 05:40:49 PM EST
    of a caucus room filled with arguing Cruz and Trump supporters. That has to be a heretofore undiscovered circle of hell.

    Parent
    I've said before (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 05:46:46 PM EST
    A cacus with Trump supporters would be something to see.

    I surfed the bobble heads this morning and there was an insert of Trump supporters being asked about the ISIS propaganda.  I wish I could link to the video but I couldn't find it alone.  If the scrub through MTP you could find it

    CHUCK TODD:

    All right, you're all guessing. I've got to show you something. Here's what some of his supporters in Biloxi, Mississippi said last night about the charge.

    (BEGIN TAPE)

    MALE TRUMP SUPPORTER:

    I don't believe it at all. I don't. I don't believe I at all. Screw the damn Muslims.

    FEMALE TRUMP SUPPORTER:

    That's a bunch of baloney. I don't believe it a second of it. No.

    FEMALE TRUMP SUPPORTER:

    I think it's stupid. Stupid news people. It's not happening. It's not happened. Making Donald Trump look bad.

    (END TAPE)

    CHUCK TODD:

    They don't believe the video is real.



    Parent
    Ha!'Making' Donald Trump look bad (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 05:52:29 PM EST
    If they believe what he is saying, why do they think it makes him look bad?

    Oops, there I go again imposing logic...

    Parent

    That same video (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:07:23 PM EST
    is reported to also mention - as a recruiting tool - Obama's targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki - an American citizen.

    I think it is beyond stupid to think that any statement by Trump is more of a recruiting tool that the relentless bombing that has been reigning upon muslim countries lo these many years...

    Another example of selective outrage...
    Trump says that we should deport illegal aliens.
    OOOOh my God. Deport millions of people... oooh my.

    Then, it turns out that the Obama administration has deported over two and a half million poor souls... with hardly a peep of protest from anyone.

    Parent

    I have said several times (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:15:07 PM EST
    I know very liberal people who are supporting Dinakd.   I do.   I have heard this almost word for word from them.

    I keep saying it.  Donalds supporters are not just ignorant "low information" right wingers.  If you believe that I think surprises are coming.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:28:24 PM EST
    know why people don't get this. Sure there are a lot of idiots that support Trump but there are a lot that support him that are far from idiots.

    Parent
    Please explain the rationale (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:52:55 PM EST
    I can understand why intelligent, well-informed voters would be outraged at any number of things going on in the world today, including many aspects of current U.S. policy. But why would those people support Trump, given both his manner and the substance of what he says, including the inconsistencies that suggest a total lack of genuine principles?

    Parent
    You didn't ask me (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:02:20 PM EST
    But I think in a word it's anger.   I can't get in their heads but that's the one common theme.   I think you simply can't over estimate how angry people are.   And not just white men.   All kinds of people are angry fir all kinds of reasons.  
    Consistency and principals have almost nothing to do with it.  Many have been voting for consistency and principals their whole life and never stopped getting screwed,  I have had people I consider very smart and informed tell me they don't believe a word he says.  And, it doesn't matter what he says.  Voting for Donald is a way to say FU to the whole bipartisan clown show.   They just want to see what happens.  
    Our politicians have brought this on them selves.  And not just the republicans.   One thing I have heard several times is red outrage that no one has gone to jail for destroying the economy.  For example.

    Parent
    Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:28:27 PM EST
    biggest mistake was not to put a boot to the neck of the GOP in 2009 after taking office.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#23)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:51:07 PM EST
    Obama's biggest mistake is his continuation of Bush's wars.

    So, we're still in Iraq.
    Still in Afghanistan.
    Now in Syria.

    and counting....


    Parent

    Not prosecuting Wall Street fraudsters (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by Coral on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:53:07 AM EST
    was Obama's single greatest mistake. Also, probably related, is choice of Geithner as Treasury Sec. He should have pushed much harder vs. financial class. The whole country would have been behind that in 2009-10.

    His bipartisan dreams were wishful thinking. Not sure if he understood that at beginning of his presidency. He understands that now.

    Parent

    Ugh....reading the name Geithner (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 12:17:50 PM EST
    Still makes me shudder. What a disaster.

    Parent
    Boot to the neck of the GOP??? (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:21:40 AM EST
    I see that anger is not restricted to Trump supporters.

    Parent
    That's (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:40:43 AM EST
    not anger. You are misreading it. It was incredibly naive of Obama to think he could negotiate with people who from the beginning said they wanted his destruction. And they have shown that they would be willing to blow up the entire country to boot.

    Parent
    Say what? (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:43:38 AM EST
    GA, outside of gun control and immigration he pretty well has gotten everything he asked for.

    Look at the latest budget passed by a Repub House that was elected to not do that.

    Doesn't that give you a hint as to why meany Repubs are supporting "outsiders?"

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    because the GOP leadership doesn't want to blow up the country but the rest of the party does. It's easily understandable at least to me why people like Trump and Cruz are leading. Trump has no part in any of this and Cruz tried to blow up the country over people getting insurance. The GOP base is also realizing that the GOP has spent decades fleecing them telling them if they just helped the wealthy they would become wealthy too. It's gonna trickle down they said. And then years later the GOP base finally realized it ain't money that's trickling down to them.

    Parent
    Someday (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:27:08 AM EST
    Try read the comments before popping off

    All kinds of people are angry fir all kinds of reasons.  

    Who knows, even you might sound coherent

    Parent

    Why not take your own advice? (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:45:21 AM EST
    And read GA's comment a few inches above my reply.

    But I do understand your difficultly in keeping up.

    Old age does that to you.

    lol


    Parent

    That was the reason the country gave (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    The Presidency and both houses to the Democrats, and when they refused to place that boot on the neck of the out of control GOP both voting bases went wild with rage. Very different sorts of rage, but still rage.

    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:42:57 AM EST
    The absent boot on the neck was not the biggest problem as far as domestic politics.   It was holding no one responsible for the destruction of the economy that greeted him on his first day.

    More than any single thing people seem to know on some deep personal level that was the biggest demonstration of how differently the legal system treats the rich and the poor in modern history.

    Steal a hundred you go to the slam.  Steal a billion and you get a raise.   IMO it showed a dangerous disconnect from normal people.

    Parent

    I think the fact that the middle class (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:39:37 AM EST
    Is now in the minority when the low income and the 1% are added together has more to do with the existing rage. Most of the people around me don't seem able to accurately remember or comprehend how all this came about. They are just pissed. What I don't hear about though is anything about Wall Street having a hand in this. It's just seething anger attaching to whatever it can attach to for the day.

    Parent
    Different people (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:48:21 AM EST
    Different reasons.   The people I interact with are, I suspect (no offense) younger and better informed.  I hear it a lot.  From certain segments, former. Coworkers on FB for example, far and away more than any other single thing.  These people fall roughly into 2 groups.  Trump supporters and Sanders supporters.   And the overlap is a lot more than some Bernistas might be comfortable with.  One speaks in that Variety piece I linked to.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    ATLANTIC piece

    V    ----   Down there

    Parent

    Most of my FB friends are much (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    Better informed, but most of them are backing Sanders. Alabama proper, it's just delusional impotent rage. They don't really want to understand how we got here. Too many of their own are involved in how we got here, so they don't want to understand. They just want to blindly lash out and Trump fills that bill for them. His disconnected from reality arguments also matches with how disconnected they choose to be from reality.

    Parent
    He has created (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:03:26 AM EST
    A blank slate onto which unfocused rage is projected.  Politically it's actually brilliant.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    His supporters experience it as a black slate. You and I know it's disconnected from reality, but somehow it doesn't resonate with his supporters until they are asked probing questions like here

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:27:45 AM EST
    I've seen that clip.   The Daily show needs laughs.  If they had chosen that group from my FaceBook friends the answers would have led to less chuckling and more squirming uncomfortably.

    Parent
    Here's your sorting tool (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    Which of them would be equally mad if McCain had been elected in 2008?

    Those are not in the Trump/Sanders overlap.

    Parent

    Really (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:00:54 PM EST
    Except for this guy I guess-

    I have been a liberal practically all of my life (29 years). I am an atheist, and my first ever Presidential vote was cast for John Kerry. I more or less despised George Bush, and even though I leaned toward Hillary in 2008, I voted for Obama in 2012. I support gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and many other liberal positions.

    From the Atlantic link

    Well, and a few others I personally know.  Other than that...

    And Scott I'm sure it's a comforting thing to think people with whom you violently disagree are the equivalent of a "Carson supporter".  I would just suggesting reading that Atlantic link.  Arguing about it here seems pretty pointless.

    Parent

    I guess that he left your (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:02:29 PM EST
    McCain threshold open but trust me when I tell you I know others who do not.

    Parent
    No Captain... (none / 0) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    ...I was arguing about people who disagreed with Trump voting for him out of spite, and you claiming that they are intelligent.

    Don't conflate my words with every Trump supporter.  This is about the people you claim are voting for him who dislike everything about him and his policies.  People who know he will fail spectacularly and that is precisely why they are voting for him.

    This has nothing to do with who I agree with, it's the equivalent of people voting for Dick Cheney to show the party the level of dissatisfaction we have with the democrat party.

    Intelligent people don't vote for a president with the hopes of a failure so epic that the entire democratic system is turned upside down.  Intelligent people realize, especially after GWB that things can go really bad if the person in charge doesn't know what they are doing.  But you are claiming that is the very reason they are going with Trump and my point was/is that by definition, takes them off the intelligent list.  They want a massive failure in hopes of a change they can make rather easily in the next several months without burning the place to the ground.

    Parent

    Rage is rage (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:38:31 AM EST
    Rage (often called fury or frenzy) is a feeling of intense, violent, or growing anger. It is sometimes associated with the fight-or-flight response and often activated in response to an external cue, such as an event that impacts negatively on the person. The phrase, "thrown into a fit of rage", expresses the immediate nature of rage that occurs before deliberation. If left unchecked, rage may lead to violence. Depression and anxiety lead to an increased susceptibility to rage, and there are modern treatments for this emotional pattern.

    And writing about putting the boots on the necks of any political group paints a picture that must include a Nazi swastika.

    Parent

    Now Now Jim (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    Only you are pulling the Nazi card :). Put it away. It doesn't belong here.

    The Bush administration was OUT OF CONTROL. So much so, the primary players scarcely show their faces now. Torture...the Iraq War...deregulation and unenforced existing regulation resulting in the economy pushed off a cliff, the American people wanted the insanity stopped. And in the past eight yrs it has been a slow process, too slow in the opinion of most. But Obama mistakenly believed that the bipartisanship could be negotiated into becoming workable. A lot of political junkies like BTD knew better, but it took years for Obama to accept that fact.

    Parent

    We had a discussion about this (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:54:47 PM EST
    This morning. The conversation revolved around the fact that the people in the group believed that the majority of politicians in BOTH parties were bought and paid for and were no longer working for the benefit of ordinary people. The attitude was very much throw all the bums out.

    Parent
    The "throw the bums out" routine (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:11:34 PM EST
    is a recurrent political theme in American political history.  IMO, while the venting inherent in such an approach might give a momentary high, the inevitable wake-up to reality hits soon after.

    Scott says it quite well in this thread when he concludes that some forms of angry voting against one's own interest are actually not very smart.  I would say that the "for spite" voting response is both foolish and a lazy, throwaway vote. Cutting-off-one's-nose-to-spite-one's-face (as my Dad reminded me when my young self bore a grudge against a politico that defeated my candidate) doesn't amount to anything other than damaging one's own face.

    Parent

    I don't think it was meant in that way (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:34:19 PM EST
    They did not want to vote against their own interest. Quite the opposite in fact. They wanted an opportunity to vote for people who would vote for their interests and not just to enrich themselves and the corporations that fund them. It was meant more in the way that the current bought and paid for politicians need to be replaced by people who would actually legislate for the people that they are susposed to represent. It had nothing to do with grudge voting.

    Parent
    MO... (none / 0) (#126)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:45:07 AM EST
    ...that is not what was written nor what I replied to.

    That being said, and this is a different argument, but to believe Trump will not vote for his own self interest is truly funny.  Yeah, Trump Mr. philanthropist extraordinaire, certainly explains the wall and the ban on muslims entering the US, it's because he cares about all citizens, not just his own narrowed interests.

    I get that people are sick of the money, I am sick as anyone, but to believe that Trump is solution simply doesn't make sense.  If that is your beef, unlike almost every other election, there is an actual viable candidate whose platform is exactly that, and it ain't Trump.

    I get that this isn't your argument, nor do I think anyone can really explain the guy's popularity, but I don't buy that it's because they are sick of money in politics.  

    Parent

    It is counter intuitive (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    In a way but the fact that he is paying for it himself and can not be "bought" is a powerful thing for some.

    Parent
    And It's Untrue... (none / 0) (#140)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    ...he is playing shell games with campaign donations and letting the PAC take all the big money.

    (CNN)Donald Trump appeared at a fundraising event for an outside group that can collect unlimited contributions from secret donors, a move in sharp contrast with his public calls for transparency in money and politics.

    Trump attended a fundraising event Sunday at the home of real estate developer Charles Kushner and his wife, Seryl -- Ivanka Trump's in-laws -- on the Jersey Shore. Some attendees were asked to pony up $10,000 for a group called Make America Great Again. According to an invitation, organizers have set up a super PAC as well as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. While a super PAC is required to disclose its donors, the nonprofit is not.

    Donors were given the option of making contributions to the super PAC or to the nonprofit entity, noting their personal information would be kept private if they chose to contribute to the nonprofit, according to an invitation to the event.


    LINK

    The notion that Trump is going to finance a half billion dollar campaign is pretty funny and not true even at this stage.

    Parent

    The people participating in (none / 0) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 03:00:04 PM EST
    the discussion with me were not Trump supporters.

     In fact, I've only encountered one person who stated support for him and she was coming from a bigoted and/or racist perspective. He is playing fairly openly to that crowd. That is a really strong element of his support. They like him "telling it like it is." He has given them permission to remove all filters and speak openly what they could only say quietly among themselves.

    There are also a whole lot of people who believe that the government and the people up in D.C. are not working for them. I hear this almost everywhere I go from both Republicans and Democrats and with the one exception none of them are fooled by Trump or would vote for him. They do not think he is a solution to the problem. Most believe that the monied interests have such a stranglehold on our government that it won't change.

    Parent

    I Agree Captain... (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 01:46:09 PM EST
    ..that people are mad, but the idea that intelligent people would vote for Trump to see what happens 8 years after GWB, clearly takes them out of any intelligence or well informed, argument.  Intelligent people don't burn the place to the ground to express their anger.  Doubly so if they disagree with Trump.

    That would make them Ben Carson, people who have the capacity to learn and appear intelligent, but who clearly are not.

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:14:14 PM EST
    is from The Atlantic

    Last week, I asked Donald Trump supporters why they believe that the billionaire real-estate developer will treat them any better than the career politicians they mistrust.

    It very interesting.  The responses come from every corner of politics.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:25:49 PM EST
    that pretty much sums it up. However, the whole president as comedian and support from anarchists was news to me.

    Parent
    OK... (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:44:37 PM EST
    but what reason do we really have to support any of the candidates being offered to us?

    I'm closer to supporting Sanders than any of the others, but he has yet to seal the deal for me.

    Personally, I am looking for someone to say that, if elected, they will get us the he!l out of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Immediately.

    Parent

    Why vote in that way ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:55:44 PM EST
    Ah yes, the "Anger."  Perhaps, the glaring inconsistencies to which you refer, Peter G, only hint at the suffocating downsides to burning and unfocused Anger that seems to have spread fever-like within the American populace.  The characteristics of this voter Anger could portend a period of hot destructiveness while we seek to quench our Anger.

    I wonder about the destiny of all this Anger? It seems as if the political publicists and their buddies are prodding even more with "Just how Angry are you, sir or madam--really, really Angry or only Angry?"  Then, I wonder if we are supposed to believe that we have only gone backward as a society since the Middle Ages or somesuch?  And, as for the U.S., are we such reprobates as to shock the rest of the world ... or should we be more Angry than any other society now or earlier?

    Don't get me wrong, please.  I believe in the importance and transformative power of righteous anger, in the need for anger at injustice and/or lack of mercy and whenever people are hurt, disregarded, maltreated because of station in life or birth consequence.  What we have here with part of the American political scene today--tho--strikes me as more than hyped.  Or the fad of the day? (We could have a TV show--Trump could direct maybe--premised on How Angry Are You?)

    When I calm down about it (and, contain my "Anger"), I begin to think that this political Anger needs to be spent by running its course.  After all, we've had the Year of the This followed by the Year of the That, etc.  So, it makes sense that this year the body-politic gets to submerge in either hot or icy Anger...it is a story and a good narrative.  If other countries wonder at it, so what ... because it is our Anger, and we get to sate ourselves with it until the next theme.

    My goodness, I must be Angry at the inflated Anger:) To each his/her own.

    Parent

    Not to me (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by sj on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 06:34:21 PM EST
    It seems as if the political publicists and their buddies are prodding even more with "Just how Angry are you, sir or madam--really, really Angry or only Angry?"  
    I think it's about d@mn time someone tried to analyze it. I can't live in the Valium drenched state it would require for me to be so complacent or dismissive as this.
    My goodness, I must be Angry at the inflated Anger:)
    That said they are still often getting it wrong, of course. Too often they have their own narrative and preconceptions and viewpoints reflecting no empathy whatsoever.

    But the anger and frustration is real. I am seeing the same thing Howdy is:

    Steal a hundred you go to the slam.  Steal a billion and you get a raise.   IMO it showed a dangerous disconnect from normal people.
    I not only see it in my friends and colleagues, I feel it as well.

    Parent
    Completely agree (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 06:50:35 PM EST
    Being a news junkie it's both tragic and comical to watch the hapless talking heads, a central part of the problem, attempt to analyze the problem.

    Example, got MSNBC on in the BG and Tweety is completely flummoxed that anyone would call Hillary an enabler.  He has never ever in all his many years of blah blah EVER heard Hillary referred to a ENABLING her husband..   EVER.

    as I sad, tragic and comic.

    Parent

    Of course, the anger is real (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:30:58 PM EST
    The problem: In many political situations today, the Anger is undifferentiated and so generalized as to do little more than to feed upon itself.  If that is so, the positive effect likely will be limited and, sadly, could consume those individuals who become overwhelmed by their Anger.

    An example of generalized, undifferentiated Anger in the polity today is the takeover of the government installation in Oregon ongoing as we write.  The reason for the takeover is a generally stated Anger at government that minimizes the rights of the protesters ... the purpose of the action is even less clear.  

    Again, there are reasons for righteous anger in any society in the world ... yet, while in no way diminishing that sense and reality, the "mad-as-hell & I'm-not-going-to-take-it-anymore" of the Bundy-related group, etc. together with overstated claims of TeaPot claims of vague Constitutional violations , etc. take rage a bit too far. (Going out on a limb: Over-used Anger gets a bit boring ... and, to that end, perspective would help us all, all the way around.)

    Parent

    the Oregon thing (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    is a distraction. A convenient way to dismiss the righteous anger you refer to tangentially.

    Parent
    Disagree ... Oregon is an example, (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 12:29:29 PM EST
    not a distraction..  

    What is particularly interesting in the time of Anger is that the reasons given by different groups/individuals on an issue show opposing reasons for the same levels of fuming, rage, anger.  Take the matter of government itself, for example ... Some on the right almost sputter with Anger over the power and role of government (health care, gun control, environmental regulations) as they pronounce almost any government involvement or assistance to be a socialistic destruction of America.  Even PACs & Super-PACs such as Bush's Right to Rise and Trump's call to Restore America push the fuming Anger buttons to obtain their own political ends ... and, their followers shout their approval with placards and documented fist-assaults at rallies.  Visceral Anger, I'd say.

    As for the left ... well, while the red-faced rage of the right does not seem to be met in shouting rage, the clarion call of two or three words such as Wall Street and other baddies guarantees an upsurge of Anger.  Lately, the legitimate arguments to rein in/provide needed controls seem to be reduced to emotional slogans designed to generate Anger.

    Far from being cavalier or taking matters lightly, the hardening polarization during this exceedingly long election cycle troubles me very much.  It hurts because there are days when it looks like the Anger from the Right meeting the Anger from the Left ultimately will have nowhere to go but explode, implode, or fizzle out.  Some of the Anger is quite genuine; some of it is definitely programmed by competing campaigns and their sponsors; and--in all honesty--some of it is beginning to feel like this year's programmed TV series about an overheated tantrum.

    Talking without the now white-noise of yelling slogans would be helpful ... but, realistically, problem-solving will have to await the election results.  

    Parent

    It's a total distraction (none / 0) (#145)
    by sj on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:11:21 PM EST
    It is not representative of the anger/frustration of rational people like my friends and colleagues or those MO Blue is talking about.

    Parent
    This may (none / 0) (#21)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:41:07 PM EST
    well be true, but it has nothing to do with my comment above.

    What I was expressing is that many people voiced anger and dismay over statements by Trump, but have paid no attention to policies actively being pursued by the current administration that are virtually identical to the utterances of Trump the pariah.

    Personally, I am not supporting anyone at the moment.

    Parent

    I get that (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:56:19 PM EST
    But it does make my point quite elegantly

    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 10:09:53 PM EST
    What point are you making?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 06:39:08 PM EST
    worse then a room full of Santorum supporters. Iowa Republicans are a tough breed.

    Parent
    Don't know about that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 06:50:17 PM EST
    I predict fist fights. And more.   Are cameras allowed?  Even if not we will have cell phones.  

    Parent
    Donald's strength (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:33:04 PM EST
    is nobody believes he's a social conservative. Everybody knows that Cruz is a social conservative. Yeah, I agree that Donald has the potential to attract some interesting voters like the frat boy contingent that would never vote for the likes of Ted Cruz. And the evangelicals will vote for whomever the GOP puts up. So Donald would not lose those voters. I mean they voted for a Mormon so they would have no problem voting a thrice married protestant.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:43:54 PM EST
    BTD is right that the establishment is going to start flexing whatever muscels that are not completely atrophied at some point.  And I completely believe they may, one way or another, prevail.  In the primary.
    I said I recorded and surfed the Sunday shows today.  There was more than a little grim talk of a split Republican Party.   Disagreement on how that happens, Trump wins and there is an establishment third-they oust Trump and he runs indie, but growing acceptance that something really really bad is about to happen.  
    I actually think that when they stare into that abyss they might come to the same conclusion you made in that comment.  When balls at to the wall Trump is actually a better candidate than Cruz.

    One thing we know at this point.  The Donald will not go quietly.

    Parent

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:16:54 PM EST
    the only way the establishment gains anything is to split the party. It seems to me that they have lost control of the party as it is currently comprised.

    Parent
    Ms Noonan (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:34:44 AM EST
    splitsville

    I have not seen a political cycle so confounding in my lifetime, and it could continue into a year of the most historic kind. If you love politics -- the excitement, the unknowability, the to-and-fro -- this is the year for you. If you take unhappy U.S. political trends seriously -- the shallowness, the restiveness, the division of our polity -- you will feel legitimate concern.

    We could see a great party split in two. That, I think, is what I'm seeing among the Republicans, a slow-motion break.



    Parent
    Also (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    I asserted his appeal was not limited to Republicans. My highly scientific reason is that in talking to Trump supporters it often emerged that they were Democrats or independents.

    Happy New Year; let's get through it together.



    Parent
    You don't understand the evangelicals (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:59:26 AM EST
    They see salvation as a singular act. What they fear is religious freedom taken away. That runs all the way back to their opposition to JFK because he was Catholic, gay marriage in the church and their current opposition to all things Islamic.

    Mormonism presents no threat and never has. And its values --- family, thrift, hard work --- is American mainstream. (At least mainstream 20 years ago.)

    And most don't care that someone has had multiple marriages. It is cohabitation outside of marriage and fatherless children that provokes them.

    Donald is seen as the "Doctor" that will block Islam, return middle class jobs and finish off what they see as useless wars due to the way we are fighting them.

    Parent

    What they (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:18:46 AM EST
    fear is not the government taking their religion away as the government not promoting their religion. I understand them completely. They want a nativity scene put up by the government but the government to close down mosques. They do not believe in religious freedom. They believe that if the government is not promoting Christianity it is not doing its job and they see the president as the religious leader for the country not merely the head of state.

    Many evangelicals believe that Mormonism is a cult. It's probably the majority of them.

    It's not fatherless children that provokes them. It's women making decisions by herself that provokes them. They don't believe that women should be heading households because that is supposed to be the job of a man to be making all the decisions. So if there was a man making the decisions whether it was an uncle or a grandparent they would be okay with that.

    Yes, I know Donald plays right into their completely irrational fears of "the other". It's actually a brilliant ploy on the part of Trump. Funny they seem to have no fear of white ISIS right here in the US but have a huge fear of people far way in the middle east.

    Parent

    They believe in religious supremacy, not (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:27:55 PM EST
    equality; Christianity is better than any other religion, and therefore deserves more protection.

    According to a new AP/NORC poll, Americans place a higher priority on protecting the religious liberty of Christians than other religious groups, with Muslims ranking at the bottom. While the survey found an overwhelming majority believe it either "extremely" or "very important" to uphold religious freedom, the numbers dwindled when asked about specific religious groups: 82 percent said Christians deserve protection versus just 61 percent for Muslims.

    Apparently, "Make America Great Again" is code for "White, Christian and Male-Dominated."  You know, "oh, for the good old days of slavery, segregation, and women-as-property."  

    I think we always suspected that we hadn't made as much progress as we regularly pat ourselves on the back for, but Trump, and to a lesser extent, Cruz and Rubio, have made it not just permissible to let the hatred out, but praise-worthy.

    I worry about this all coming to an explosive head in the heat of summer - especially if the kind of insurrection we are seeing in Oregon is allowed to spread unchecked.

    Parent

    Even Cruz (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:41:14 PM EST
    Isn't supporting the guys in Oregon

    "Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds," Cruz told reporters at campaign event in Iowa, according to NBC News.

    "But we don't have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others," he said. "And so it is our hope that the protesters there will stand down peaceably, that there will not be a violent confrontation."

    Link

    Ironically, neither are the Hammonds - the father and son that these Oregon militia purport to be doing this for in the first place.

    Parent

    Pretty Sure... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:46:34 PM EST
    ...they would rather not spend their last day before jail standing with a sign to let them go free.

    I would imagine the Hammonds fully support anyone trying to get them out of jail.

    Parent

    Not according to their lawyer (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 03:04:12 PM EST
    They are prepared to report to prison today.

    The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy's help.

    "Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.

    From CBSNews.com.  (Sorry, I can't get the link to work).

    Parent

    The GOP base (none / 0) (#84)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    doesn't like Jews very much. Donald reflects the true base, IMO.

    Parent
    et al (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:18:15 PM EST
    I love it. None of you folks have attended an evangelical church or a Tea Party meeting. You depend on what someone tells you or what you read on the `net. You remind me of the lady from NYC who couldn't believe Reagan had won because she didn't know anyone who voted for him.

    shoephone - Even for you the claim that the GOP base is anti-Jew is way too much. On the contrary. It is the Left who attacks Israel and supports Palestine along with Hamas and Hezbollah.

    Anne, you shouldn't be surprised that people aren't very supportive of a religion that has birthed a large number of radical islamists with the resultant attacksand the foiled attacks.

    On global warming. Again. The climate has changed since day one. The issue is cause. Recent months have seen record amounts of CO2 yet the "increase" has been flat for around 20 years and Professor Munn lost his lawsuit because he refused to show his  source data.

    MO Blue - That is not unique to Southern Women. It is SOP for the gender.;-)

    GA, you are so far out of date it is unbelievable. Most marriages have both partners working. Get out of the house and you'll find out the 30's and 40's are gone.

    Parent

    Republicans Jews are, in particular, (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:28:52 PM EST
    horrified about Trump and Carson. I know you think the only thing American Jews care about is Israel, but that's just willful ignorance, Jim. Above all, Jews, as a historically oppressed minority, seek inclusion for minorities. Republican Jews are appalled at the non-inclusiveness of the GOP. Trump's immigrant- and Muslim-bashing is a source of revulsion for Republican Jews, and his rants are tearing the GOP apart. He appeals to the radical base of the party. (And also the basest of the party.)

    Parent
    The base of the GOP only cares (none / 0) (#102)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:31:48 PM EST
    about Israel as a wedge against all Muslim countries; Evangelicals seem to only care about it as their pathway to the rapture.

    Parent
    Pathway to the rapture?? (2.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:43:53 PM EST
    Really?? You been watching TV again?

    lol

    Israel has been under attack by the Left for much longer than the radical islamist have been around.

    Parent

    That's just a dumb comment (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:31:13 PM EST
    No other way to put it.

    You, clearly, don't know much about American Jews, or Israeli Jews, for that matter. There's a very strong peace movement in Israel--led by... gasp! Israeli Jews!

    Your fear and ignorance control you.

    Parent

    And I notice you had no response (none / 0) (#115)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    to the article in The Forward about Republican Jews' disgust with Trump's hateful rhetoric.

    Parent
    Gee, sorry I ignored (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 10:31:32 AM EST
    your incorrect comment.

    I will. I promise to do better.

    lol

    Having worked for an Israeli corporation I think I know and have been around as many Jews as you have.

    Probably 100 times as many.

    In social and business situations. In good times and bad. Cold stone sober and over a cocktail or two. BTW - Best company Xmas party I ever went to.

    And I say incorrect because you are dealing with old information. My feedback says that Jews are starting to understand that radical islamists want to kill them and are women haters.

    BTW - Can you explain why very few leftwing women don't condemn the anti woman position of the radicals and many "moderates????"

    Parent

    I love the deflections you throw around (none / 0) (#133)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    when you don't get your way in an argument. This is the perfect example:

    Can you explain why very few leftwing women don't condemn the anti woman position of the radicals and many "moderates????"

    Not only does it not have anything to do with my comments, but, even taken on it's own, it's completely fact-free. Not to mention, plain wacky.

    But I enjoyed the "Some of my best friends are Jews" type nonsense you included up there in the froth.

    Parent

    And, once again, you refuse to address (none / 0) (#135)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    the question of why so many Republican Jews are turned off by Trump.

    Parent
    If he wanted to, he could start with (none / 0) (#136)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 01:47:08 PM EST
    this article:

    Jewish Republicans' critiques of Trump, when they can be convinced to air them, fall into two categories. Most echo the concerns of the Republican establishment, deriding the real estate developer and former reality show star who is advocating selective tax increases on the wealthy as unserious. They worry that he will drive away nontraditional Republican voters. Others, however, have deeper concerns.

    "There are a lot of folks who are, to be charitable, into white identity politics, and to be uncharitable are outright racists, who are supporting Trump," said Nathan Wurtzel, a Republican political consultant and principal at The Catalyst Group, who is Jewish. "It's very off-putting and disturbing."



    Parent
    Where (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 01:58:40 PM EST
    has Wurtzel been for three decades or so? I guess he was okay with them voting for the GOP and their policies and using dog whistles just so long as the GOP wasn't loud and proud about it? Sheesh.

    Parent
    Not the point. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    The point was that jim refuses to address the question of why so many Republican Jews are turned off by Trump.

    I get your larger question: why aren't they turned off by the rest of the GOP agenda?

    To that I could only respond that I don't understand why anyone supports the GOP.

    Parent

    Oh, I know. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    Jim is never going to respond to points on anything. All he is going to do is cut and paste talking points. He created a fantasy persona for me. He had me guffawing earlier so at least he's good for something.

    Well, my point really was is that Trump is not saying anything new. All Trump is doing is pushing pretty much the same agenda the GOP always pushes but normally with code words and dog whistles. Only Trump is loud and proud about it where you can't even pretend to miss what is being said. Wurtzel had to know the GOP was doing this if he was a so called "consultant" but apparently had no problem with the whole agenda as long as it was in code words. Either that or he just doesn't understand what they have been doing which would be pretty sad for someone who called themselves a consultant.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#143)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 03:07:00 PM EST
    Those are the same sentiments expressed in the piece in The Forward. And his comments to the audience at the Republican Jewish Coalition Forum--about how they're not going to support him because he doesn't want their money--went down reeeeal well.

    The only thing he forgot was to wear his Shylock costume for the event.

    Parent

    If only there were a garment for (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    the intellectually incontinent; then we might be spared your hourly episodes of rhetorical diarrhea.

    Parent
    Is this what is not so commonly (none / 0) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:15:37 AM EST
    referred to as flowery Delhi belly prose?

    Parent
    Not only have I attended an evangelical church (3.67 / 3) (#116)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:47:45 PM EST
    I was baptized by one many moons ago..

    Oh endlessly presumptuous and deluded one.

    Probably the only Tea Party requirement I haven't fulfilled yet is dating my fourteen year old first cousin and bombing a Planned Parenthood.

    Parent

    Look. If your 14 year old (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:28:50 AM EST
    first cousin rejects you don't blame the Tea party...your ahemm...attention to her is probably why the evangelicals dis fellowship-ed you.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:37:42 AM EST
    they promised me that if I died in the act of bombing Planned Parenthood, I'd get 72 first cousins in the afterlife.

    Parent
    Would they be (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 12:04:36 PM EST
    male or female?

    Enquiring minds want to know. ;-)

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 06:01:55 PM EST
    you're the one that has never attended an evangelical church. You have no understanding of how they operate. It has nothing to do with women working. Only a conservative would see things that way. It's about making decisions for the family etc. Silly guy I attended on back in the 90's for a couple of years. You're just spouting exactly what the wingnut welfare brigade tells you about evangelicals and liberals and everybody else in existence. Nothing new. Just another example of abject and willful ignorance.

    Parent
    Nope the facts don't support (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    you,Ga.

    And "back in the 90's is a generation ago.

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Parent

    You're (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 06:44:31 AM EST
    hysterical. When your first fake narrative got blown up you invent another narrative about how it was "too long ago". There is a reason why the millennials are leaving the evangelical churches and it is because they have not changed. LOL.

    Parent
    Ga, I truly don't want to hurt your (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    feelings but your partisan positions are well known.

    Look. You live in a 'burb of Atlanta. Best I can tell you don't work outside the home. You're middle age or older. You have never attended an evangelical church. You've never attended a Tea Party meeting. You may have a few friends who are Repub but for the most part they are of the Left.

    I live in a small town. And the great thing about that is the diversity I am involved with. All races and all income levels shop in the same stores. Put their kids in the same schools. Attend integrated churches. Watch their kids play in sports with kids whose parents are run from well off to poor. Plus I have attended an evangelical service or three. I have attended Tea Party meetings.

    I know these people.

    So yes. You do remind me of the lady who couldn't understand how Reagan had won. She knew no who had voted for him.

    Ga, you're a generation behind. What middle class there is left has both partners working. They don't care about race and if the preacher gets nutso they just go to another church.

    And didn't you wrongly forecast the last Georgia senatorial race? Why yes. Yes you did.

     

    Parent

    That's hysterical. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 12:23:10 PM EST
    The only thing you got right was approximate age and location and my name gives away the location. Another fake narrative made up by the talk radio crowd.

    Do you even know that I live in a county that has the 2nd largest tea party in the nation? Jenny Beth Martin lives down the road from me. I never said that I have been to a tea party meeting only that I interact with the insane tea partiers.

    The ignorance in your statement is simply astounding but then I guess I should not be surprised since dealing with facts have never been your strong point. Fake narratives are what you are invested in. LOL.

    Parent

    The funniest (weirdest?) part (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 01:16:03 PM EST
    is that he thinks both partners working is some really new thing...

    Parent
    Concentrate (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 10:21:59 AM EST
    We're talking about a group.

    And we're going back one, maybe 2, generations in some cases depending on location.

    The norm was the man working. The woman staying home.

    That's changed with all that goes with the change. More divorces. More latch key kids. Less time for the family as a group.

    The result is a completely new dynamic among the source of the evangelicals. The result is a group that tends to leave religion in the church. A group that has supplied the bulk of enlisted military volunteers but hates how the wars are being fought. A group that has seen its income crater.

    At the same time they have seen a flood of people enter the country. These people take the entry level jobs that the group once had. Thesde people are identified as suppliers of terrorism attacks, crime in general, and continual attacks on the culture of the group.

    These folks are looking for someone that can state the concerns and who they believe can fix things.

    They have no confidence in the DC Repubs and Demos. That's the strength of Trump, and somewhat, Cruz. Cruz is beloved by the political junkies of the group and has somewhat established himself as an outsider. Carson was beloved by the more religious in group. But the Left did the Repubs a favor and pushed his supporters to Trump and Cruz.

    The parents of many of these were Reagan Democrats who moved over to Clinton in '92. They almost elected Gore in 2000 but enough of their children had become Repubs to elect Bush.

    The war elected Obama. People wanted change. He promised change but wasn't specific. Trump and Cruz is specific.

    And when I say specific I don't mean policy wonk specific. Trump says he'll stop Muslims from coming in until things are straightened out. That's good enough for them. He's a boss. They know he'll bring in the experts to get the job done. That's what a boss does. Define the task. Set goals.

    I could go on but you get the idea.

    Parent

    Not to Point Out the Obvious... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:42:59 PM EST
    ...but 'stop Muslims from coming in until things are straightened out' is not possible task or goal.  What is the test ?  Skin color, country of origin, making people eat bacon, because as far as I know there is no database or any identification in which religion is listed.  Never mind that changing religion is easier than changing a sock, 'I am catholic today and buddhist tomorrow', that is the effort it takes to change your religion.  Never mind that you can't just not let American citizens back into America,  jesus, Trump would essentially create an entire class of people without a home country.

    This is the problem, a republican candidate says he's going to create gold from horsesh*t and the idiots flock because it sounds fantastic, then they have the audacity to get angry when their candidate isn't giving them gold bricks in exchange for the diarrhea coming out of their mouths.

    Republicans are mad because they keep getting duped by their own, and their solution, Donald Trump.  How could that possibly not work out for them.  

    It would be nice if republicans took out their anger on the people responsible for their bad decisions, aka a mirror, and not inflict a country with a president worse than GWB. The rest of us are tired of paying for their bad decision making skills.

    Parent

    Of course it is possible (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 09:38:27 PM EST
    Just inconvenient.

    Parent
    Simple Answer... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    ...from a simple man.

    In other words you have no idea how one performs a religious test for the purpose of not letting people enter the US, even if they are US citizens.  

    Parent

    It just a wedge issue (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 09:52:54 AM EST
    to get the yahoos churned up.

    They know theres no possibility of doing it in the real world..

    But then, they don't live in the real world.

    Parent

    Mexico will pay for the wall.. (none / 0) (#180)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    eliminate all federally-funded abortions..

    Man-made greenhouse gases are a "hoax"..

    "They" want to take away all our guns..

    I rest my case.

    It's all disgruntled-old-right-wing-fart-rallying horse sh*t -- that the reich will eventually, at some point, be forced by the brute facts of
    reality to acknowledge is in fact horse sh*t and was horse sh*t from right from the start.


    Parent

    Two wrongs (none / 0) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 06:43:17 PM EST
    If they are US citizens no one said they are banned.

    For the other you start with them starting the Visa application in the country of origin.

    Perfect? No. Effective? Yes.

    Parent

    Speaking of predictions.. (none / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:53:17 PM EST
    care to make another one for 2016?

    As I recall, your batting average right now is about on par with that of a Toledo Mudhen's utility outfielder.

    Romney in 2012.."my money is on Walker" for 2016..the Benghazi investigation will implicate both Hillary and Obama..

    How about it? Trump and Cruz in a landslide!


    Parent

    Do you have anything (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 03:45:13 PM EST
    to say that relates to the subject?

    No?

    I didn't think so.

    Parent

    The mind that predicts/wishes (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 08:09:03 PM EST
    Romney in 2012, Walker in 2016, and Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! is maybe a mind that should lay off trying to engage in serious discussions about important things like climate science.

    Just a thought.

    Parent

    One more time (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    Tell me how the MMGW hoax meets the requirements of what a Scientific Theory is.

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed] and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.

    Of course none of you can.

    Parent

    One more time (none / 0) (#172)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 10:23:56 PM EST
    Explain how your claim that the universe was created in six days meets the requirements of a scientific theory.

    Parent
    I know I know.. (none / 0) (#173)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:00:54 PM EST
    you'd like to stay and debate, but you have to go back and bone up on cutting edge science at the 700 Club online.

    Parent
    Pretty simple (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 08:48:02 AM EST
    religion is a small "t" theory.

    Like the MMGW hoax religions depend on acceptance of the various claims by faith.

    Now. Answer my question.

    Parent

    Your claim that science rests (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 09:33:02 AM EST
    on nothing more substantial than belief explains perfectly why conservatives can't be relied on to address and resolve this country's basic problems: new information provded by changing conditions in the outside world must always yield to what conservatives know-believe already..

    New information that's at all threatening to your Eternal Truths must be fended off at all costs..

    Go back to your Bible Study class.

    Parent

    Nope,didn't say that. (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 06:40:03 PM EST
    In fact I said the opposite.

    I said that small t theories are unlike Scientific Theories, which meet strict requirements, they are like religion. They must be accepted on faith.

    Again. Show me how MMGW meets the requirements of a Scientific Theory.

    You can't.

    And yes, I study the New Testament since the Old Testament was fulfilled with the birth, life, crucifixion, raised from death and ascension of Christ.

    We live under the new covenant.

    Parent

    No, YOU and the other (none / 0) (#185)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 06:54:31 PM EST
    Christian mullahs live under the "new covenant".

    The rest of us find enough meaning and significance in reality as it is, quite apart from the instructions of the Koch brothers and the Christian Coalition.

    Parent

    Strange that someone supposedly (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 10:26:03 PM EST
    opposed to violence rejects the new covenant that teaches peace.

    And the Koch brothers? Christian Coalition?

    Really?

    Since you claim to have been baptized you must know that salvation is an individual thing and nothing to do with group activities.

    I mean, is that the best you can do??

    ;-)

    Parent

    I'm not so ignorant as to be (none / 0) (#188)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 11:08:59 PM EST
    unaware of the fact that no man is an island and that the wellbeing of the community is equally as important as the singular wellbeing of any indivual..

    You conservative christian folks have been practicing and preaching a form of cutthroat spiritual capitalism without even being aware of it..And you've been doing it for a long time. Which also explains why "christians" like you are always so eager to bomb someone-anyone at the drop of a hat..

    This is also why conservatives invariably express so much barely-concealed disdain for the weak and downtrodden and for the rest of creation in the midst of all their all-too-public displays of sanctimony.

    Parent

    When it comes to salvation (none / 0) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    every person is an island.

    Of course it is helpful when the societal norms accept religions that teach peace, love and cooperation.  Contrast the slow improvement of societies that were basically Christian.

    Note that I did not say they were perfect, or even good.  But they have slowly improved.

    Contrast that with the societies that are Islamic. The picture isn't pretty.

    And yes, Christians are not expected to bow their heads so the knife wielder has an easier job.

    Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."


    Parent
    No. Not at all.. (none / 0) (#192)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 01:55:59 PM EST
    That's way too simplistic.

    If "salvation" were COMPLETELY an individual matter, the scriptures wouldn't have dwelt so exhaustively and at length on issues pertaining to how one relates to one's neighbor and to the world at large..

    Parent

    Huh?? (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 06:06:30 PM EST
    The "one's" referred to is singular.

    Man is not saved by work alone.

    He must also have faith.

    With those his relationships, material and spiritual, will be proper.

    If you were baptized,and I am not speaking of baptism as a baby but as an adult, then you  had faith but have since lost faith.

    You have my deepest sympathy. Your pain must be intense.

    Parent

    I was more a less bullied into it (none / 0) (#197)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 06:33:21 PM EST
    in my teens, in a manner that your fellow tolerant, fair-minded members of the American Taliban are famous for. Ancient history.

    And to prove that once again that, in the vernacular of the peasantry, you don't know sh*t, I spend most of my days in a state of bliss, wonder, and astonishment -- admixed with a dose of melancholoy at the thought of the existence of the embittered, death-dealing faction you subscribe to.

    Oh well, you're not the first white-washed sepulchre, and you won't be the last

    Parent

    Well, that's sad. (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 08:37:58 AM EST
    And it should not have happened. Will you share the denomination? Maybe someone will be forewarned to not associate or, at the least, approach with caution.

    But to compare the people who did this with the Taliban is very counterproductive because the Taliban would have killed you for leaving along with their killing of gays, women who associate with non family members, etc., etc.  

    And since the comparison is so outrageous and wrong headed you turn people away who otherwise would support you.

    And you have let a bad experience warp you into a bitter person who must attack all Christians for the bad actions of some while seeking to ignore the truly terrible actions of the radical islamists.


    Parent

    Yes, there were very conservative religious folk (none / 0) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    Who refused to vote for a Momon. It was heathen don't you know.

    Parent
    Yes, they are fine if my (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 12:22:04 PM EST
    Dad, my Uncle, or my Grandpa makes all my decisions for me. Just like Saudi Arabia!

    Parent
    It has been my experience that (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:03:02 PM EST
    a whole lot of Southern women play their menfolk like a world class violinist.

    Parent
    Tons (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:11:23 PM EST
    of passive aggressive stuff goes on. I guess it's just me but I'd rather deal with the Jersey mentality where they just tell you.

    Parent
    This Rage in America (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:21:23 PM EST
    from NBC and Esquire is making the rounds

    One of the surprising findings is that women are significantly more angry than men.

    WE THE PEOPLE ARE PISSED. THE BODY POLITIC IS BURNING UP. AND THE ANGER THAT COURSES THROUGH OUR HEADLINES AND NEWS FEEDS--ABOUT INJUSTICE AND INEQUALITY, ABOUT MARGINALIZATION AND DISENFRANCHISEMENT, ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO US--SHOWS NO SIGN OF ABATING. ESQUIRE TEAMED UP WITH NBC NEWS TO SURVEY 3,000 AMERICANS ABOUT WHO'S ANGRIEST, WHAT'S MAKING THEM ANGRY, AND WHO'S TO BLAME.



    Parent
    my sister said something (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:26:08 PM EST
    that resonated with this the other day -

    as people get older, men get less radical, and women get more radical.

    I'm not sure if that's a statistical truth as much as an observation from someone becoming "more radical", but seems to agree with this to an extent.

    Of course, the reasons for anger also varied greatly between men and women.  From the article:

    "Although they share many of the same frustrations with respect to dashed expectations, they are more likely than men to be angry about the treatment of others. (See question 14.) That perception of unfairness has a way of rubbing people the wrong way."

    Parent

    I Would Argue... (none / 0) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    ...that people who makes the rules let go or rectify of their grievances sooner than the ones who do not.

    Radical definitely is not the right word.  I would call it fighting for injustice.

    Parent

    her word (none / 0) (#83)
    by CST on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 03:18:47 PM EST
    But that was certainly the point she was trying to make.

    That being said, she had also just taken what most people would consider "radical" action against a perceived injustice.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 03:34:04 PM EST
    This is from Politco:

    Women were more likely to say current events made them get angry -- 53 percent said that, compared with 44 percent of men. Women were more likely to express frustration over police violence against unarmed blacks and campaign finance abuses, while men were more likely than women to be angry about same-sex marriage and global warming.

    I don't understand the anger over SSM or global warming from men.

    Parent

    my dad is very angry (none / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 03:36:37 PM EST
    About global warming.  He thinks it's the single biggest danger that the world faces and that we're all whistling past the graveyard.  I can't exactly say he's wrong.

    Parent
    Okay. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 03:40:36 PM EST
    Well, since it was also anger over SSM I was thinking of the conservative mindset on global warming. I can understand where your dad is coming from but unless you believe the Agenda 21 conspiracy theories why would anyone be angry over it? It doesn't seem going from that that they are angry over lack of solutions.

    Parent
    I wouldn't jump to that conclusion (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    Just because some (presumably conservative) men are angry about SSM doesn't mean that there aren't also liberal men who are angry about global warming.  And then there is people like Jim who seem to get angry whenever anyone mentions that climate change might be influenced by people.  So if you combine the two you could get a lot of anger.  It doesn't specify why.

    Parent
    Clearly (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 04:29:03 PM EST
    Not enough are angry about climate change.

    I like your dad.

    Parent

    To (none / 0) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 04:54:01 PM EST
    me it's the willful ignorance displayed for purely political reasons. Somehow that ticks me off worse then anything.

    The fight for freedom, justice and equality has been going on forever with many steps forward and many steps backwards and many steps marching in place, that march will probably continue forever.

    If there is a saving grace to humanity is the march of science, reason and knowledge for the most part moves inexorably forward.That we have leaders and would be leaders who would deny science, reason and knowledge  because it does not fit their political views, is chilling.

    Maybe the age of enlightenment is over, that scares the hell out of me more than one more example of injustice, inequality or oppression that is pretty much baked into the human cake.

     

    Parent

    Denying science (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:05:13 PM EST
    Is not a problem in most of the world.  Just mostly the part we live in.   Small consolation, I know.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:30:37 PM EST
    but, we are "exceptional" don't you know? We also are partially ruled by crazy people, and we have nukes, you are either with us or against us, capiche?

    Parent
    I Have Mentioned This... (none / 0) (#90)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 04:31:02 PM EST
    ...numerous times, but no need to be angry about global warming, we have already slipped past the point of no return.  Which means even if we produced zero emissions, the Earth will continue to release frozen methane into the atmosphere, which in turn will aid in not letting the cold out.

    Right now all we are doing is stretching out the inevitable.  We tipped past the point of no return years ago around 2007.

    The good news, this has happened to the Earth 5 times, extinction events, and each time life survived and went on to flourish, but we have lost 95% of the species along the way.  It has also aided in evolution; we are here today because of an asteroid killed the predators that kept mammals underground.  Once they were gone, mammals moved to the surface and flourished to dominate the Earth.

    Parent

    Speaking only for me (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    Extinction makes me a little angry.   And I don't even like the human race all that much.

    Parent
    Agreed... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    ...but unless we develop a giant shade, place it between us and the sun, there ain't much we can do about it.

    The human race sucks in every conceivable way in regards to respecting our environment including other humans and all species.  We won't go extinct, but there is a very real chance the survivors will carry with them the worse genes we have and produce an even more despicable and vulturistic species.

    Parent

    This is where we disagree (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:07:34 PM EST
    If there is indeed a (another) bottleneck of the human gene pool the ones who can afford to survive will almost certainly be the ones most responsible for the problem.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#98)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:18:40 PM EST
    The Bush family did not buy 300k acres in Paraguay for for the view. The vermin will survive.

    Parent
    I misread Scott's comment (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:42:42 PM EST
    I think we all agree

    Parent
    Not so much when it comes to (none / 0) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:10:45 PM EST
    Bird sanctuaries

    Parent
    Useless wars due to the way we are (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    Fighting them? Whaaaat?

    Parent
    Vietnam. You know! (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:33:22 AM EST
    George Bush (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CST on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:37:24 AM EST
    was going to get us a total surrender any day now until Obama was elected.

    Parent
    In other words.. (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:57:39 PM EST
    evanglicals, since you want to generalize, are paranoid..

    JFK making the U.S a Vatican satellite was an early-sixties John Birch Society narrative.

    Are those the Tea Party's intellectual forefathers?

    Parent

    Whatever it was ........ (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    JFK addressed the issue and it went away.

    He didn't even need to blame the "vast right wing conspiracy."

    Of course that was JFK and there was no doubting his love for his country.

    Parent

    He should've blamed a far-right conspiracy (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    especially after they put up those Wanted For Treason posters about him in Dallas.

    And especially after Milteer, another proto-Tea Partier, told an FBI agent a few months before that Kennedy would be shot with a high-powered rifle from an open window  

    Parent

    I see that parnoia (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 12:07:48 PM EST
    is known to you.

    We all know it was Castro's cousin,LBJ.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Maybe it was that international (none / 0) (#138)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 01:55:15 PM EST
    cabal of climate scientists out to destroy the U.S economy.

    Parent
    I doubt that (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 10:30:24 PM EST
    "Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its [his science's] respectability - by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia..."

    Mann lost his lawsuit.


    Parent

    "Climategate CONSPIRACY" (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 12:25:38 PM EST
    there the words are, right in your own link..

    The international cabal of climate scientists, freemasons, and communists..

    And you folks have their number.

    Parent

    It is (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 09:46:04 AM EST
    just as the media is largely members.

    But the conspiracy is the conspiracy of everyone in the Freshman class wearing the same clothes with the same Iphone playing the same games.

    That's what you don't want to understand.

    You don't need ID cards or formal meetings anymore than the black birds around the fields near my home do. When one flies they all fly and circle around landing at another spot then they repeat.

    But the point with Mann is simple. He would not provide his source data and lost his lawsuit. That tells anyone listening that his source data is flawed. And the counter suits have been filed.

    Parent

    In (none / 0) (#161)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 10:47:01 AM EST
    the fevered dreams of the deniers a huge consensus of black birds arose from the fields, and the multitude of flapping wings did verily block the sun. Thus the world was cast into a new ice age. Now you're talking real science.

    Parent
    Feeble attempts at humor aside (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 03:57:59 PM EST
    Mann lost his lawsuit because of he wouldn't provide his source data and is now fighting a very large suit from Mark Steyn.

    That tells you the facts. People don't give away millions without a real reason.

    Parent

    The media is largely members.. (none / 0) (#162)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    fellow travelers..

    And your National Academy of Sciences, and your pinko, tree-hugging National Geographic Society etc

    What do you suppose is at the root of it, Jim?

    Don't tell me: because our institutions of higher learning won't hire conservatives and because they've kicked God out of the classroom. That must be it.

    Parent

    The reason is money (3.00 / 2) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    Pielke had quoted Shukla's 2013 university salary, but his university salary had increased more than 25% between 2013 and 2014: from $250,816 in 2013 to $314,000 in 2014.
    In addition, the "non-profit" organization had also employed one of Shukla's children (not reported, but say $90,000); and,
    IGES transferred $100,000 from its climate grants to a second corporation controlled by the Shukla family (the Institute for Global Education Equality of Opportunity and Prosperity, Inc.), which in turn transferred $100,000 to an educational charity in Shukla's home town in India, doubtless a worthy charity, but one that Shukla could have supported from his own already generous stipend.
    Over a million dollars in total in 2014 alone.

    Link

    Parent

    The reason is money (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 10:20:39 PM EST
    Yes indeed..The reason is money..

    And the ULTIMATE testament to your fundamental dishonesty is that the only financial conflict of interest you're willing to discuss is on the part of climate scientists -- whose compensation pales in comparison to that of the grasping billionaires whose stooge you are.

    Parent

    Let's see some proof. (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 08:57:05 AM EST
    Who are these billionaires and how much and to whom are they giving the money??????

    In the meantime, the feds are giving around $21 billion per year to the MMGW hoaxers.

    Link

    Of course they claim they don't have the money to close the borders.

    At the same time, the federal government will spend nearly $12 billion on customs and border enforcement this year.


    Parent
    You've already proven (none / 0) (#177)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 09:41:02 AM EST
    that you're perfectly impervious to proof..

    Exhibit A: you remain one of a handful of people on the planet that can't acknowledge that the deniers have a huge stake in maintaining the current staus quo..

    The good news is that dinosaurs like you are slowly but surely going the way of the actual dinosaurs.

    Parent

    The facts are that you have no proof (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 06:30:24 PM EST
    The facts are that you just need someone to attack and insult.

    I'm glad to help. By doing this I'm probably keeping you from beating your dog.

    ;-)

    Of course the dog would bite.

    Parent

    Just as you need some place to troll.. (none / 0) (#184)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 06:44:56 PM EST
    with increasingly ludicrous talking points issued from the orifice of planet Breitbart.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 10:28:44 PM EST
    You know you can't answer.

    So funny.

    Parent

    What was the question? (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 11:12:34 PM EST
    Something about why did those peace-freak hippies hurt your feelings so much in the sixties?

    I don't remember the question, and I don't care.

    Parent

    You know what the question was (none / 0) (#190)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 10:09:41 AM EST
    And you know you can't answer it because the MMGW hoax is just that. A hoax.

    There are millions of words about it. There are multiple claims. Years and years and years of predictions. Failed predictions.

    If these people were managing your stock portfolio you'd have fired them years ago.

    You do have a stock portfolio, don't you?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Answer me this.. (none / 0) (#193)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    How did you, an ex-Fuller Brush salesman wind up having a more complete understanding of how science works than the National Academy of Sciences, the National Geographic Society, and Nobel Prize winners?

    Talk about Christian miracles!

    You must have been struck from your horse by a bright light on the road to the Heritage Foundation.

    Parent

    Never sold any Fuller brushes (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 05:53:52 PM EST
    but I have sold and worked on a bunch of real high tech thingees. Didn't take a miracle. Just an education. You should try and get one. Maybe that way you wouldn't believe all the lies being spun by your Dear Leader, Obama of No Known Technical Education.

    Maybe that's why you, and he, think GW would be a greater problem than Iran having nukes.

    As for sources,I prefer to believe what a
     Nobel Laureate has to say.

    Or what a Professor Emeritus has to say.

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    ...... Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.

    I like that bit about Eisenhower. The Left has used his warnings as a hammer to beat anyone wanting an expanded national defense for years and years.

    Now we finally know what he was speaking of.

    A corrupted scientific community co opted by  corrupt political parties and flogged by a corrupt media and entertainment community.

    Parent

    I'm curious.. (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 06:16:40 PM EST
    Does Heritage or whoever send you a cookie for every word you post here, at this terrible blame-America-first, tree hugging, Left-leaning site?

    You certainly feel entitled to devour bandwidth here with posts that are generally about as welcome and thought-provoking as a fart in a crowded elevator..

    How about a simple link next time?

    So your point is, basically, that the media, scientific, academic, and political communties -- practically the whole world fact, if we take Europe and Asia into account, are all in collusion to thwart you, James Inhofe, the Koch brothers and a couple of televangelists whose names I forget right now.

    They's all perpetratin' a hoax against ya. First it was fluoridated drinking water, now this..

    Parent

    And the answer is (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 08:14:27 AM EST
    My purpose?  I just enjoy reading some of the comments. Yours in particular are often humorous.

    Like in this thread. I challenge you to explain why the MMGW hoax meets the requirements  to be a Scientific Theory and you respond with nonsensical answers such as  selling Fuller Brush's, the Heritage Foundation, etc., etc.

    You claim all the opponents are being paid. I say show me some and you ignore.  I show you $21 billion given to the proponents and you don't comment.

    You spout consensus and  try and denigrate  the opponents and I give a Professor Emeritus and a Nobel Laureate.

    So there you. Thanks for demonstrating a perfectly closed mind who doesn't understand science but is willing to suck up all the lies of the power seekers and money grubbers.

    Have a nice day.


    Parent

    To (none / 0) (#6)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 06:28:49 PM EST
    me Cruz has the inside track if and only if Trump falters. Cruz should win going away in Iowa but Trump should prevail in NH with his steady 26% with no one else able to break out of the pack.

    He has already softened his expectations in Iowa so no way he will collapse before NH, I am sure for his own ego if nothing else he will go hard for a win there.

    Right now I would call SC even(Carson will be gone) with Trump being in much more trouble if he loses.

    I don't think (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 06:53:19 PM EST
    coming in 2nd in IA is going to hurt Trump in NH. I still think he carries NH and besides NH is a primary not a caucus where organization matters a whole lot.

    If Trump is still in when it hits SC I see him being able to carry the state. I don't see Cruz as much competition HOWEVER if Trump is out expect Cruz to sweep the south.

    Cruz as the ultimate nominee (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 11:24:55 PM EST
    Makes sense....

    But Trump has yet to implode.....Something has to give....I'd watch how much he spends....If he holds back, then we'll know he knows it is not going to happen.

    Not (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:12:03 AM EST
    holding back

    Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump released his first television ad of the campaign on Monday, a provocative 30-second spot that presents some of the businessman's most controversial proposals.

    According to the Washington Post, which first reported on the ad, the ad is a part of a series that will begin airing in Iowa in the lead up to the Iowa caucuses. The candidate has been reluctant to air television ads, noting how far ahead he's gotten without them, but has now promised to spend up to $2 million per week on ad buys.

    The Post reports Trump said he has six to eight ads in production and the businessman's buy will "go on for months."



    Parent
    I wonder if the ads will (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:32:12 AM EST
    actually help or hurt him. Being bombarded with Trump's most controversial proposals could possibly make some people wake up and say those are really crazy. But then again, we are talking about Republicans in Iowa. Also I read somewhere that ads are being much less effective since the advances in technology allow you to fast forward through them.

    Parent
    IMO they may not help that much (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:43:09 AM EST
    They will not hurt.   And I think they will help.   Just heard them critiqued on cable, he is ending exactly where he started.  Others are scrambling to find a closing argument.  His closing argument is his opening argument by flying right into the face of everything he has been criticized for.   Yep, I think that covers it.

    this Biloxi rally opens saying the 15,000 people there make up the largest campaign event in MS history.

    True?  Who knows.   They are saying this morning there was actually more than 15,000 there.   Like I said.....in the south, watch out.

    Just check out that crowd and try, TRY to imagine that crowd for any other republican candidate including Ted.

    Parent

    Oops (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:45:28 AM EST
    With the passing of the holidays (none / 0) (#121)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:24:46 AM EST
    and my failure to keep up with trademarks, how was I to know that the trademarked Jeb! is no longer locked down by a Jeb supporting SuperPac. The excitement of Jeb! has officially lapsed.

    With him still falling in polling across the board, there is a rumor at the trademark office that Jeb has applied for Jeb:(

    The GOP circular firing squad firing wildly now (none / 0) (#146)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:24:51 PM EST
    It's gotten comical.

    Just check out the front page headlines of the WAPO:

    Trump says Cruz's Canadian birth could be `very precarious' for GOP

    Christie: 'Rubio can't slime his way to the White House'

    Forget hopes and dreams: GOP candidates are focused on nightmares

    And this is the paper owned by the libertarian monopolist.

    Focused (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:51:46 PM EST
    on nightmares is right. Everyone of their ads looks like something out of a horror movie. Trump's commercial made me laugh it was so bad.

    Parent
    I keep (none / 0) (#148)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:44:05 PM EST
    telling myself that Trump can't win, but this kind of stuff just plays into his hands. The only reason  he appears unstoppable to some people is because of the keystone cop antics of the "establishment".

    Realistically if there was only one establishment candidate instead of the four headed beast in NH Trump would be fighting Cruz for a weak second there.

    Imagine what the narrative (not to mention Trumps rhetoric) would be if Trump was currently facing 0 and 2 going into SC.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#149)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:50:07 PM EST
    But politicians being what they are......

    The Republicans did not have anyone able to clear the field like Hillary did with the Democrats.

    Parent

    Let's be honest (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 08:26:11 AM EST
    First, who runs for president?  What is the single most important requirement for running for president?

    Ego.  Any arguments?

    The idea that this bunch of puffed up ego maniacs were going to line up and fall on their sword for "the greater good" was so ridiculous and detached from reality it's only something a republican strategist coukd have come up with.

    Parent

    That is so Funny... (none / 0) (#154)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:47:57 AM EST
    ...and so true.

    Parent
    Jeb (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 07:43:58 AM EST
    Bush tried to clear the field with his fundraising but he's too stuck in the past to realize that in a post Citizen's United world that all you need is one sugar daddy and you can run for a long, long time in the GOP primary.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:21:30 AM EST
    and the sweet irony is that CU and the other tsunamis of Dark Money are threating to tear the GOP apart before our very eyes.

    If you flip it around view the "rise" of Trump and
    the other insurgents more as the "demise" of the establishment, it all seems to make more sense.

    The angry rump of the GOP has existed from at least the days of the Nixon's Sothern Strategy, Trumps seizure of that bloc is actually totally unsurprising. The difference now is the RNC and the rest of the establishment lack the "money muscle" to rein it in. To make matters even worse the establishment lacks the muscle to even clear a lane for it's own preferred candidate.

    Parent

    But first they have to decide who (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    their preferred candidate is.

    Parent