It turns out that Donald Trump's campaign may fall apart because he's a political novice, hired bad consultants, and doesn't know how the caucus and delegate systems work.
Trump will whine that this is unfair, that it's insider politics conducted in smoke-filled rooms. Hey, Donny boy: politics ain't bean bag.
But it raises a bigger question: who controls a political party? The voters who show up at the polls? The elected officials who serve? Or the political operatives and "hacks" who invest their time, sweat and tears, spending thousands of hours a year, year in and year out, working to advance the party and its members? This last group makes up a lot of the delegates who go to conventions. They care about more than just one presidential race.
After contributing zero time, money or effort to Republicans for sixty-eight years, Donald Trump decided that he could stage a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. Understandably, Republican party operatives who have dedicated their entire lives to the party want nothing to do with Trump.
It's not just because his ideas are stupid, he's a selfish boor, he's insulted party icons, he's ripped the bandaid of Republican lies off the Iraq war, and he's reinforced the idea that Republicans are racist, women-hating dicks.
No, a huge part of it is that Trump hasn't paid his dues, put in the time, or supported Republican candidates in any serious manner. Unlike Romney, who contributed millions to local Republican office holders in the 2012 cycle, Trump has done nothing for other Republicans, focusing solely on himself (big surprise).
Donald Trump is a New York carpetbagger come to steal the Republican Party away from the people who built it.
Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing: he's not a Democrat, he just plays one in the Senate. Unlike Clinton, who has helped raise millions of dollars for Democrats on the local, state and national levels, Sanders has done absolutely nothing to help Democrats.
And without electing several dozen more Democrats to the House and Senate, Sanders would be completely incapable of accomplishing any of his grandiose goals if he were elected. If the composition of the House and Senate remain unchanged, Sanders would be a lame duck president for his entire term.
The Bernie Bros and Trumpists want to destroy the party establishments and get rid of the deadwood "insiders." But someone has to do all the work: raise campaign cash, coddle donors, recruit new candidates to run for office so that voters have someone to vote for, organize caucuses and primaries so that people can actually vote, and keep the lights on. Without insiders political parties collapse.
A lot of people who voted for Obama are angry that he didn't accomplish everything he set out to do. Many are Sanders supporters now. But the reason Obama's momentum collapsed was that Ted Kennedy died, leaving Obama vulnerable to never-ending Republican filibusters in the Senate. Then those people didn't show up at the polls in 2010 and 2014 to elect Democrats.
That allowed Republicans to gain control of the Senate and the House, and a lot of statehouses, which allowed them to control redistricting and impose hundreds of new restrictions on voting across the country to suppress Democratic turnout. Republicans in Congress decided they would just run out the clock on Obama's term, and block everything they could.
Voters can't just show up every four years and expect to get what they want. They need to vote in every primary and general election, without fail. That's why cranky old white men run everything -- they volunteer for the grunt work of running the party and they get their peeps to show up to vote in every damned election, no matter how "insignificant."
Saturday, April 09, 2016
Thursday, April 07, 2016
Wednesday, April 06, 2016
Tuesday, April 05, 2016
Wisconsin Predictions
They haven't called Wisconsin yet so I am predicting a Cruz and Sanders victory.
Monday, April 04, 2016
Watching His South Fall
Issac J. Bailey's recent piece over at Politico is both stunning and gut wrenching. He most astutely identifies why Donald Trump is so popular in the South.
The Republican South so far has rallied behind Donald Trump, a northerner without any of the grassroots evangelical credibility that is supposed to bind conservatives here—a candidate whose main appeal, in fact, has been coded appeals to the same hatred that drove Roof to pick up a gun.
The exact same hatred.
Make no mistake, Trump’s embrace by millions of people in my region isn’t solely about economic angst. It is also about the kind of pent-up fear—made up of barely submerged racism and profound ignorance—that a reader in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, expressed to me shortly after Barack Obama’s election: “I think he’s gonna enslave us,” he said. “Look what we done to ya’ll.”
Fear, indeed.
Read the whole piece. It's most illuminating.
The Republican South so far has rallied behind Donald Trump, a northerner without any of the grassroots evangelical credibility that is supposed to bind conservatives here—a candidate whose main appeal, in fact, has been coded appeals to the same hatred that drove Roof to pick up a gun.
The exact same hatred.
Make no mistake, Trump’s embrace by millions of people in my region isn’t solely about economic angst. It is also about the kind of pent-up fear—made up of barely submerged racism and profound ignorance—that a reader in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, expressed to me shortly after Barack Obama’s election: “I think he’s gonna enslave us,” he said. “Look what we done to ya’ll.”
Fear, indeed.
Read the whole piece. It's most illuminating.
Sunday, April 03, 2016
Whites Still Not Getting It
Nicholas Kristof has returned to his "White's Not Getting It" series and it's a corker. He begins with a simple quiz.
A) Whites and blacks were hired at similar rates. B) Blacks had a modest edge because of affirmative action. C) Whites were twice as likely to get callbacks.
Much of the conservative base would like choose B or even A. But the answer is C.
Worse, a black applicant with a clean criminal record did no better than a white applicant who was said to have just been released from 18 months in prison. There's more.
In one study, researchers sent thousands of résumés to employers with openings, randomly using some stereotypically black names (like Jamal) and others that were more likely to belong to whites (like Brendan). A white name increased the likelihood of a callback by 50 percent. Likewise, in Canada researchers found that emails from stereotypically black names seeking apartments are less likely to get responses from landlords. And in U.S. experiments, when blacks and whites go in person to rent or buy properties, blacks are shown fewer options.
Until we reconcile the fact that the fallout from the institution of slavery is still having a massively detrimental effect on the fabric of our society, we can't even begin to address the issues that black people face every day.
A) Whites and blacks were hired at similar rates. B) Blacks had a modest edge because of affirmative action. C) Whites were twice as likely to get callbacks.
Much of the conservative base would like choose B or even A. But the answer is C.
Worse, a black applicant with a clean criminal record did no better than a white applicant who was said to have just been released from 18 months in prison. There's more.
In one study, researchers sent thousands of résumés to employers with openings, randomly using some stereotypically black names (like Jamal) and others that were more likely to belong to whites (like Brendan). A white name increased the likelihood of a callback by 50 percent. Likewise, in Canada researchers found that emails from stereotypically black names seeking apartments are less likely to get responses from landlords. And in U.S. experiments, when blacks and whites go in person to rent or buy properties, blacks are shown fewer options.
Until we reconcile the fact that the fallout from the institution of slavery is still having a massively detrimental effect on the fabric of our society, we can't even begin to address the issues that black people face every day.
Saturday, April 02, 2016
Friday, April 01, 2016
Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be
Richard O. Lempert offers an excellent summation of the faux scandal that is the Hillary Clinton email kerfuffle. It's the most honest and objective piece I have seen out there thus far. Here are some key points.
It is unclear whether classified information conveyed in an email message would be considered a document or materials subject to removal. Moreover, with respect to information in messages sent to Clinton, it would be hard to see her as having “knowingly” removed anything, and the same is arguably true of information in messages that she originated. If, however, she were sent attachments that were classified and kept them on her server, this law might apply.
And if they did?
But even if this section did apply, a prosecutor would face difficulties. Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified. It would also be hard to show that Clinton intended to retain any information sent to her if her usual response was to forward the information to another, and if she then deleted the material from her inbox, whether or not it was deleted from her computer.
Some of that classified information includes information that was published in the New York Times and then retroactively classified recently.
This is a very thorough article that addresses the fact of the law. This is in direct opposition to what the media is reporting on a daily basis. I wonder why...
It is unclear whether classified information conveyed in an email message would be considered a document or materials subject to removal. Moreover, with respect to information in messages sent to Clinton, it would be hard to see her as having “knowingly” removed anything, and the same is arguably true of information in messages that she originated. If, however, she were sent attachments that were classified and kept them on her server, this law might apply.
And if they did?
But even if this section did apply, a prosecutor would face difficulties. Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified. It would also be hard to show that Clinton intended to retain any information sent to her if her usual response was to forward the information to another, and if she then deleted the material from her inbox, whether or not it was deleted from her computer.
Some of that classified information includes information that was published in the New York Times and then retroactively classified recently.
This is a very thorough article that addresses the fact of the law. This is in direct opposition to what the media is reporting on a daily basis. I wonder why...
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Has The Donald Finally Met His Moby Dick?
Donald Trump may have finally met his great white whale and his name was Chris Matthews. Take a look...
The Donald has since walked back these comments but given the condemnation from both sides of the abortion issue, it's clear that he is finally being called on making shit up as he goes along. A recent poll in Wisconsin shows Ted Cruz up 10 points and that was taken before the arrest of Trump's campaign manager for battery and this issue.
Is this where Trump finally hits a wall?
The Donald has since walked back these comments but given the condemnation from both sides of the abortion issue, it's clear that he is finally being called on making shit up as he goes along. A recent poll in Wisconsin shows Ted Cruz up 10 points and that was taken before the arrest of Trump's campaign manager for battery and this issue.
Is this where Trump finally hits a wall?
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Want A Gun? No problem!
Tennessee Lawmaker Shows Just How Easy It Is to Buy A Gun Online
This politician brought a rifle to work to prove how easy it is to buy a gun without a background check
Posted by NowThis on Friday, March 25, 2016
Why, Chicago?
Every single day our nation hears stories like this from Chicago. Everyone across the cultural and political spectrum weighs in with their opinions and solutions which they are CERTAIN will work.
My favorite is the Gun Cult who harp continually about how "restrictive" gun laws prohibit ordinary citizens from defending themselves. This results in the "only criminals will have guns" meme which has always cracked me up. So, we make guns easier for them to get? And we allow more, untrained citizens access to guns? I guess the Gun Cult wants a return to this...
I suppose it makes sense since they are largely older, white men who grew up on a Hollywood western view of violence. Yet this on Chicago's ongoing challenges with crime (along with nearly all of them) fails to note the root cause.
Violence in Chicago is the direct result of slavery.
Consider that it was slavery (and the ensuing Jim Crow laws) which drove African Americans north to Chicago over the course of several decades in the 19th and 20th century. The result of such an influx of people resulted in a jolt of increased population density that was economically harmful to the area. With so many people vying for jobs, especially in times of economic contraction, many citizens of Chicago, newly arrive or long time residents, were bound to be disenfranchised economically. Invariably, this leads people to crime and it has continued on to this day with city officials endlessly trying to play catch up in a game they will never win.
So, we are back, once again, with being confronted by the great wound that our society fails to recognize. Violence in Chicago will not be mitigated until our entire country admits that slavery is still having a profound effect on the socioeconomic status of millions of US citizens of color.
We can't even begin to discuss possible solutions until we recognize the problem.
My favorite is the Gun Cult who harp continually about how "restrictive" gun laws prohibit ordinary citizens from defending themselves. This results in the "only criminals will have guns" meme which has always cracked me up. So, we make guns easier for them to get? And we allow more, untrained citizens access to guns? I guess the Gun Cult wants a return to this...
I suppose it makes sense since they are largely older, white men who grew up on a Hollywood western view of violence. Yet this on Chicago's ongoing challenges with crime (along with nearly all of them) fails to note the root cause.
Violence in Chicago is the direct result of slavery.
Consider that it was slavery (and the ensuing Jim Crow laws) which drove African Americans north to Chicago over the course of several decades in the 19th and 20th century. The result of such an influx of people resulted in a jolt of increased population density that was economically harmful to the area. With so many people vying for jobs, especially in times of economic contraction, many citizens of Chicago, newly arrive or long time residents, were bound to be disenfranchised economically. Invariably, this leads people to crime and it has continued on to this day with city officials endlessly trying to play catch up in a game they will never win.
So, we are back, once again, with being confronted by the great wound that our society fails to recognize. Violence in Chicago will not be mitigated until our entire country admits that slavery is still having a profound effect on the socioeconomic status of millions of US citizens of color.
We can't even begin to discuss possible solutions until we recognize the problem.
Monday, March 28, 2016
The Transcript
Take a look at the transcript of Donald Trump's interview with the Washington Post.
Wow.
Kinda reminds me of right wing blog commenting and discussion...no facts, adolescent tantrums, complete ignorance of reality, imperial declarations...no wonder he has around 40 percent of the GOP vote. They are EXACTLY like this.
Wow.
Kinda reminds me of right wing blog commenting and discussion...no facts, adolescent tantrums, complete ignorance of reality, imperial declarations...no wonder he has around 40 percent of the GOP vote. They are EXACTLY like this.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Facing Charges
Remember Jamie Gilt? She was the gun activist who had images like this on her Facebook page.
Then her 4 year old son accidentally shot and wounded her. Ah, "responsible" gun owners...
Well, she's now facing charges which could land her in jail for up to 180 days. Here's to hoping she does the full stretch.
Well, she's now facing charges which could land her in jail for up to 180 days. Here's to hoping she does the full stretch.
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Friday, March 25, 2016
Pass Three Laws
Bindu Kalesan from Boston University has just released a peer reviewed study that concludes the following.
Of 25 firearm laws, nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality, nine were associated with increased firearm mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase, ammunition background checks, and identification requirement for firearms. Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10·35 to 4·46 deaths per 100 000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1·99 per 100 000, and firearm identification to 1·81 per 100 000.
This means...
Very few of the existing state-specific firearm laws are associated with reduced firearm mortality, and this evidence underscores the importance of focusing on relevant and effective firearms legislation. Implementation of universal background checks for the purchase of firearms or ammunition, and firearm identification nationally could substantially reduce firearm mortality in the USA.
Boom.
Done.
Of 25 firearm laws, nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality, nine were associated with increased firearm mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase, ammunition background checks, and identification requirement for firearms. Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10·35 to 4·46 deaths per 100 000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1·99 per 100 000, and firearm identification to 1·81 per 100 000.
This means...
Very few of the existing state-specific firearm laws are associated with reduced firearm mortality, and this evidence underscores the importance of focusing on relevant and effective firearms legislation. Implementation of universal background checks for the purchase of firearms or ammunition, and firearm identification nationally could substantially reduce firearm mortality in the USA.
Boom.
Done.
Getting Out The Hispanic Vote
Donald Trump sure is doing a great job of getting out the Hispanic vote.
Healy is part of a wave of Latinos getting their US citizenship for the express purpose of voting against Mr. Trump. Overall naturalizations typically rise in election years, but in 2016 the numbers are stark: Applications could approach 1 million this year, 20 percent higher than average, according to The New York Times.
Hee hee...
Healy is part of a wave of Latinos getting their US citizenship for the express purpose of voting against Mr. Trump. Overall naturalizations typically rise in election years, but in 2016 the numbers are stark: Applications could approach 1 million this year, 20 percent higher than average, according to The New York Times.
Hee hee...
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
"Losing" With Cruz
You have to love what the GOP has come to these days.
Republican elders, desperate to stop Donald Trump, are increasingly convinced they would rather forfeit the White House than hand their party to the divisive Manhattan billionaire. That’s why the party’s establishment is suddenly rallying behind Ted Cruz, a man they’ve long despised and who has little chance, in the view of many GOP veterans, of defeating Hillary Clinton on Election Day.
They are getting exactly what they deserve:)
Republican elders, desperate to stop Donald Trump, are increasingly convinced they would rather forfeit the White House than hand their party to the divisive Manhattan billionaire. That’s why the party’s establishment is suddenly rallying behind Ted Cruz, a man they’ve long despised and who has little chance, in the view of many GOP veterans, of defeating Hillary Clinton on Election Day.
They are getting exactly what they deserve:)
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Guns In Schools
Looks like parents in Michigan are pretty pissed about open carry a gun in school.
"Kids with a toy gun can get kicked out of school but an adult with a (real) gun doesn't?" one man asked. "It's not appropriate," said parent Michelle Miller.
"My family hunts. My daughter carries a concealed weapon. There's a time and a place for it (carrying guns) and school is not the time and place."
What did you guys expect would happen when you enable the Gun Cult?
"Kids with a toy gun can get kicked out of school but an adult with a (real) gun doesn't?" one man asked. "It's not appropriate," said parent Michelle Miller.
"My family hunts. My daughter carries a concealed weapon. There's a time and a place for it (carrying guns) and school is not the time and place."
What did you guys expect would happen when you enable the Gun Cult?
Monday, March 21, 2016
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Why I Heart Al Franken
Sen. Franken Pushes Back Against Republicans Obstructing Supre...
In case you missed it, yesterday in the Judiciary Committee I decided to set the record straight on some of the absurd arguments that many Senate Republicans are using to shirk their constitutional duty. They are refusing to hold hearings for Chief Judge Merrick Garland—President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court—and many are refusing to even meet with him. This is obstruction, plain and simple, and the American people deserve better.
Posted by U.S. Senator Al Franken on Friday, March 18, 2016
Saturday, March 19, 2016
What The Fuck Happened To The Republican Party?
Would it make any difference that Saint Ronnie is saying it?
Friday, March 18, 2016
Good Words
Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.
---David Brooks, The New York Times
---David Brooks, The New York Times
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Trump Voters are Losers
There have been several theories advanced about the nature of Trump voters: they're angry, they're authoritarian, they're racist, etc.
This analysis found the locations where Trump is attracting the most voters:
In other words, they're losers.
This pretty much explains everything about Trump supporters, and how he's able to con them into supporting him. As a casino owner, Trump knows a lot about losers. That's because casino gamblers are by definition losers -- the house always wins.
The trick to running a casino is to provide the illusion that you're winning even when you're losing. Slot machines are a great example. There's a lot of noise, and lights, and the thrill of anticipation that something exciting is going to happen. The machine keeps leading you on, giving you a little jolt of excitement every once in a while while you keep feeding it money, fooling you into thinking you're winning, even though you never hit the big jackpot.
Like a Trump rally. Trump puts his supporters in the same mindset as gamblers placing sucker bets on the roulette table or feeding slot machines. Trump constantly yaps about winning and making lots of money, like casino and lottery ads that promise the suckers instant riches.
Real winners don't constantly yap about winning. They're competent and confident in their abilities. They don't need constant adulation. Losers obsess about winning.
Trump is not a real winner: at heart, he's an insecure loser who's perpetuated the illusion of winning. He's failed at most of his business ventures. He's rich, but that's because he inherited millions from his daddy (he's tied for 121 in the Forbes 400 list with two women you've never heard of). People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are real winners, people who started with an idea and got really rich.
Donald Trump is running his campaign like a slot machine or a lottery, promising his supporters that they're all going to win and they're all going to be really rich. The truth is, everyone who plays the Trump lottery is a loser, and if Trump wins the United States will be the biggest loser.
This analysis found the locations where Trump is attracting the most voters:
...Trump counties are places where white identity mixes with long-simmering economic dysfunctions.
The places where Trump has done well cut across many of the usual fault lines of American politics — North and South, liberal and conservative, rural and suburban. One element common to a significant share of his supporters is that they have largely missed the generation-long transition of the United States away from manufacturing and into a diverse, information-driven economy deeply intertwined with the rest of the world.
In particular, Trump voters are white with no high school diploma, they live in mobile homes, they have "old economy" jobs, they have a history of voting for segregationists, they're unemployed, etc.“It’s a nonurban, blue-collar and now apparently quite angry population,” said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. “They’re not people who have moved around a lot, and things have been changing away from them, but they live in areas that feel stagnant in a lot of ways.”
In other words, they're losers.
This pretty much explains everything about Trump supporters, and how he's able to con them into supporting him. As a casino owner, Trump knows a lot about losers. That's because casino gamblers are by definition losers -- the house always wins.
The trick to running a casino is to provide the illusion that you're winning even when you're losing. Slot machines are a great example. There's a lot of noise, and lights, and the thrill of anticipation that something exciting is going to happen. The machine keeps leading you on, giving you a little jolt of excitement every once in a while while you keep feeding it money, fooling you into thinking you're winning, even though you never hit the big jackpot.
Like a Trump rally. Trump puts his supporters in the same mindset as gamblers placing sucker bets on the roulette table or feeding slot machines. Trump constantly yaps about winning and making lots of money, like casino and lottery ads that promise the suckers instant riches.
Real winners don't constantly yap about winning. They're competent and confident in their abilities. They don't need constant adulation. Losers obsess about winning.
Trump is not a real winner: at heart, he's an insecure loser who's perpetuated the illusion of winning. He's failed at most of his business ventures. He's rich, but that's because he inherited millions from his daddy (he's tied for 121 in the Forbes 400 list with two women you've never heard of). People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are real winners, people who started with an idea and got really rich.
Donald Trump is running his campaign like a slot machine or a lottery, promising his supporters that they're all going to win and they're all going to be really rich. The truth is, everyone who plays the Trump lottery is a loser, and if Trump wins the United States will be the biggest loser.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Winner Take All Predictions
For tonight's primary states, I predict the following.
On the Republican side,
Donald Trump will win Florida, Illinois, and North Carolina,
Ted Cruz will win Missouri
John Kasich will win Ohio
Marco Rubio going bye-bye
On the Democratic side,
Hillary Clinton will win Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, and Ohio.
Bernie Sanders will win Missouri,
With the Kasich win in Ohio and several Northeastern states to follow, the GOP race will become more convoluted than ever. Contested convention here we come!!
On the Republican side,
Donald Trump will win Florida, Illinois, and North Carolina,
Ted Cruz will win Missouri
John Kasich will win Ohio
Marco Rubio going bye-bye
On the Democratic side,
Hillary Clinton will win Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, and Ohio.
Bernie Sanders will win Missouri,
With the Kasich win in Ohio and several Northeastern states to follow, the GOP race will become more convoluted than ever. Contested convention here we come!!
Monday, March 14, 2016
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Good Words From The President
"We’ve got a debate inside the other party that is fantasy and schoolyard taunts and selling stuff like it’s the Home Shopping Network," Obama said in a clear reference to Trump's Tuesday-night press conference, where he wheeled out products like Trump Steaks and Trump Water to prove his business bona fides.
"How can you be shocked?" he asked. "This is the guy, remember, who was sure that I was born in Kenya. Who just wouldn’t let it go. And all this same Republican establishment, they weren’t saying nothing. As long as it was directed at me, they were fine with it. They thought it was a hoot. Wanted to get his endorsement. And then now, suddenly, we’re shocked that there’s gambling going on in this establishment."
Sounds familiar...:)
"How can you be shocked?" he asked. "This is the guy, remember, who was sure that I was born in Kenya. Who just wouldn’t let it go. And all this same Republican establishment, they weren’t saying nothing. As long as it was directed at me, they were fine with it. They thought it was a hoot. Wanted to get his endorsement. And then now, suddenly, we’re shocked that there’s gambling going on in this establishment."
Sounds familiar...:)
Friday, March 11, 2016
Poetic Justice
So, let's see here...mom brags on social media, "My right to protect my child with my gun trumps your fear of my gun" and then ends up accidentally getting shot in the back by that same child.
Now she might be charged because Florida law requires guns to be secured from minors?
Poetic justice...
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Three Year High
The president's approval rating has hit a three year high. Real Clear Politics has him at more approval than disapproval. That's good news for Hillary Clinton who seeks to continue the president's legacy.
Right around now is when Republicans will start to say that there were some good things that Barack Obama has done...:)
Right around now is when Republicans will start to say that there were some good things that Barack Obama has done...:)
Wednesday, March 09, 2016
Why Do Polls Suck?
Today the big news was that Michigan primary was a huge upset! How huge? Sanders beat Clinton by a whole 0.5%.
That doesn't sound like much of an upset. In most of the states where Clinton isn't pounding Sanders into the ground with 60, 70 or 80% of the vote, they're running about equal. Which means Clinton is piling up delegates much faster than Sanders.
So why are they calling it an upset? Because the polls predicted that Clinton would win by 20 points. If Sanders had clobbered Clinton by the same amount that Clinton has clobbered Sanders by in other states, that would be an upset. Here, the polls were simply dead wrong.
By this point it should be obvious that polls don't work anymore, and this has been the case for several years. Karl Rove made an absolute ass of himself when he refused to believe that Obama won, because he trusted his polls more than the election itself.
Mark pointed to an article on fivethirtyeight.com about why the polls are wrong. It was a list of lame excuses from someone who still believes that polls can work. They can't. Polling is completely broken, and probably forever.
Here are the real reasons why polling has lost most of its credibility.
Most reasonable people just don't answer the phone if they don't recognize who's calling. They look at the caller ID or let their answering machine pick it up. Why? Every unsolicited phone call you get from an unknown number is
Pollsters used to only call landlines, which was beginning to significantly skew poll results. They have since changed that, and now call mobile numbers as well. Since mobile minutes cost real money, only really schmoey shmoes will waste their minutes talking to a pollster.
People who willingly pick up unsolicited calls frequently do so in order to mess with the caller, tying them up and wasting their time. Some think that lying to pollsters helps tweak the lamestream media, which faithfully and breathlessly report the latest poll numbers, which are increasingly wrong.
A lot of reasonable people who do pick up don't think it's anyone's business who they're going to vote for. They'll a) politely decline, b) just hang up, or c) lie to the pollster. Why? Because they have no way of knowing how that information will be used against them in the future. And it often will be used against you -- independent polls are completely free to sell your answers to political campaigns, who will use that information to dun you with more calls begging for money.
Rabid supporters will answer polls in order to "get their vote in" for their favorite candidate. These are generally a tiny and predictable fraction of the population, so they don't really tell you much about how the majority of the population will vote.
Many voters have the attention span of a gnat. They don't know anything about any of the issues. They often don't decide who they're voting for until they get in the voting booth. Polls tell you nothing when the electorate is so undecided, and though they try to control for this, clearly it's not working (this is the one excuse that 538 gave that holds water.)
For example: the most ridiculous thing I've heard voters say this cycle is, "I can't decide between Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump." (Jesse Ventura, among others, has said this.) This is like saying you can't decide between Attila the Hun and Mahatma Gandhi.
Some of these are simply clueless people. Others, like Ventura, are trying to sabotage the American political system. These saboteurs don't are about either candidate's stands on the issues, they just want to blow the system up.
News flash: nominating unelectable or unqualified candidates won't make the government work better. You'd think Ventura would have realized this after spending four years as governor of Minnesota when neither party had his back and the media hounded him for being such a thin-skinned lout.
Finally, there are Internet polls. These are conducted online, and most pollsters regard them as completely worthless because they aren't really random: it's a self-selecting population, and they are easily gamed by campaign organizations, and are also vulnerable to bot nets (like any other Internet scam).
Political campaigns and news organizations will continue to use polls, but their predictive value is nearing zero.
The only polls that really matter are the ones that actually elect candidates.
That doesn't sound like much of an upset. In most of the states where Clinton isn't pounding Sanders into the ground with 60, 70 or 80% of the vote, they're running about equal. Which means Clinton is piling up delegates much faster than Sanders.
So why are they calling it an upset? Because the polls predicted that Clinton would win by 20 points. If Sanders had clobbered Clinton by the same amount that Clinton has clobbered Sanders by in other states, that would be an upset. Here, the polls were simply dead wrong.
By this point it should be obvious that polls don't work anymore, and this has been the case for several years. Karl Rove made an absolute ass of himself when he refused to believe that Obama won, because he trusted his polls more than the election itself.
Mark pointed to an article on fivethirtyeight.com about why the polls are wrong. It was a list of lame excuses from someone who still believes that polls can work. They can't. Polling is completely broken, and probably forever.
Here are the real reasons why polling has lost most of its credibility.
Most reasonable people just don't answer the phone if they don't recognize who's calling. They look at the caller ID or let their answering machine pick it up. Why? Every unsolicited phone call you get from an unknown number is
- someone you don't know calling during dinner or your favorite TV show or when you're working, or
- a crook trying to steal your personal information, your credit card, your bank account, or your identity, often posing as Microsoft Windows support, or
- a sales person trying to sell you something shady or something you don't want, or
- a crook from a phony charitable organization selling you some bogus sob story to steal your money, or
- a paid telephone solicitor from a reputable charitable organization that is growing ever more desperate for donations because the disreputable scum bags are stealing all their donors.
Pollsters used to only call landlines, which was beginning to significantly skew poll results. They have since changed that, and now call mobile numbers as well. Since mobile minutes cost real money, only really schmoey shmoes will waste their minutes talking to a pollster.
People who willingly pick up unsolicited calls frequently do so in order to mess with the caller, tying them up and wasting their time. Some think that lying to pollsters helps tweak the lamestream media, which faithfully and breathlessly report the latest poll numbers, which are increasingly wrong.
A lot of reasonable people who do pick up don't think it's anyone's business who they're going to vote for. They'll a) politely decline, b) just hang up, or c) lie to the pollster. Why? Because they have no way of knowing how that information will be used against them in the future. And it often will be used against you -- independent polls are completely free to sell your answers to political campaigns, who will use that information to dun you with more calls begging for money.
Rabid supporters will answer polls in order to "get their vote in" for their favorite candidate. These are generally a tiny and predictable fraction of the population, so they don't really tell you much about how the majority of the population will vote.
Many voters have the attention span of a gnat. They don't know anything about any of the issues. They often don't decide who they're voting for until they get in the voting booth. Polls tell you nothing when the electorate is so undecided, and though they try to control for this, clearly it's not working (this is the one excuse that 538 gave that holds water.)
For example: the most ridiculous thing I've heard voters say this cycle is, "I can't decide between Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump." (Jesse Ventura, among others, has said this.) This is like saying you can't decide between Attila the Hun and Mahatma Gandhi.
Some of these are simply clueless people. Others, like Ventura, are trying to sabotage the American political system. These saboteurs don't are about either candidate's stands on the issues, they just want to blow the system up.
News flash: nominating unelectable or unqualified candidates won't make the government work better. You'd think Ventura would have realized this after spending four years as governor of Minnesota when neither party had his back and the media hounded him for being such a thin-skinned lout.
Finally, there are Internet polls. These are conducted online, and most pollsters regard them as completely worthless because they aren't really random: it's a self-selecting population, and they are easily gamed by campaign organizations, and are also vulnerable to bot nets (like any other Internet scam).
Political campaigns and news organizations will continue to use polls, but their predictive value is nearing zero.
The only polls that really matter are the ones that actually elect candidates.
Tuesday, March 08, 2016
Monday, March 07, 2016
Sunday, March 06, 2016
Trump As Hitler?
As Donald Trump continues to lead in the GOP primary, comparisons to Adolph Hitler's populist nationalism are creeping in to the mainstream conversation. I've thought of about ten different ways to talk about it but today DJ Tice said it the best in this editorial. Donald Trump, like Ross Perot before him, is essentially Hitler's act but in a different dialect. Further...
Another discomforting vision of demagoguery from its heyday was authored by Minnesota’s Nobel Prize-winning novelist Sinclair Lewis. In “It Can’t Happen Here,” in 1935, before the full horrors of Nazism were revealed, Lewis conjured a satire in which U.S. Sen. Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip — “an inspired guesser at what political doctrines the people would like” — imposes fascism on America. Windrip gets himself elected president with promises one admirer calls “molasses for the cockroaches,” including: “that he had thoroughly tested (but unspecified) plans to make all wages very high and the prices of everything … very low; that he was 100 percent for Labor, but 100 percent against all strikes; and that he was in favor of the United States so arming itself, so preparing to produce its own coffee, sugar, perfumes, tweeds and nickel instead of importing them, that it could defy the World … and maybe, if that World was so impertinent as to defy America … take it over and run it properly.”
In short, buyers beware...
Another discomforting vision of demagoguery from its heyday was authored by Minnesota’s Nobel Prize-winning novelist Sinclair Lewis. In “It Can’t Happen Here,” in 1935, before the full horrors of Nazism were revealed, Lewis conjured a satire in which U.S. Sen. Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip — “an inspired guesser at what political doctrines the people would like” — imposes fascism on America. Windrip gets himself elected president with promises one admirer calls “molasses for the cockroaches,” including: “that he had thoroughly tested (but unspecified) plans to make all wages very high and the prices of everything … very low; that he was 100 percent for Labor, but 100 percent against all strikes; and that he was in favor of the United States so arming itself, so preparing to produce its own coffee, sugar, perfumes, tweeds and nickel instead of importing them, that it could defy the World … and maybe, if that World was so impertinent as to defy America … take it over and run it properly.”
In short, buyers beware...
Saturday, March 05, 2016
Donald Trump's Penis Signals The Destruction of the GOP
I think I was the only one not shocked when Donald Trump assured debate watchers that his penis was not as small as hands. When your party's base is filled with adolescents, penis size matters. But apparently there were many others who were shocked and most of them are conservatives.
“The spectacle made me ill,” writes the conservative Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti. “On screen I watched decades of work by conservative institutions, activists, and elected officials being lit aflame not only by the New York demagogue but by his enablers who waited until the last possible moment to try and stop him.”
Mitt Romney is trying to stop him and gave this speech hour before the debate.
Aside from the obvious problem that Romney sought and received Trump's endorsement in 2012, Romney's points about Trump (which are all dead on accurate) completely fail to note the conservative base admire all these traits in Trump. Why?
Because they are just like that too!
Predictably, the adolescents that support Trump are pissed that adults are trying to talk them down but they want none of it.
"I want to see Trump go up there and do damage to the Republican Party" said Jeff Walls, 53, of Flowood, MS.
Kathy, from Sun City, Ariz., told Mr. Limbaugh she was “absolutely livid by the Romney speech. He’s condescending,” she said, adding that he sounded like a “Democrat the whole time.” Steve from Temecula, Calif., said he had a message for Mr. Romney: “The Republican electorate is not a bunch of completely ignorant fools.”
“We know who Donald Trump is,” he added, “and we’re going to use Donald Trump to either take over the G.O.P. or blow it up.”
Ah, rebellious teenagers:)
Frank Luntz declared Hillary the biggest winner of the night and said that 22 out of his 25 focus groups said that this debate will hurt the GOP in the fall election.
Jamie Johnson, senior adviser to Rick Perry, said, "My party is committing suicide on national television.
Kristen Anderson, millenial pollster, said, "We may as well cancel the rest of the debate bc we are now in a Mike Judge film and nobody's going to talk about anything but Trump hands." That's not the first time I've hear an Idiocracy reference.
The National Review's Alexis Levinson called for a safe word during future debates.
I think the best reaction, though, came from the Hilz..
Sorta reminds me of my 8th graders...
“The spectacle made me ill,” writes the conservative Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti. “On screen I watched decades of work by conservative institutions, activists, and elected officials being lit aflame not only by the New York demagogue but by his enablers who waited until the last possible moment to try and stop him.”
Mitt Romney is trying to stop him and gave this speech hour before the debate.
Aside from the obvious problem that Romney sought and received Trump's endorsement in 2012, Romney's points about Trump (which are all dead on accurate) completely fail to note the conservative base admire all these traits in Trump. Why?
Because they are just like that too!
Predictably, the adolescents that support Trump are pissed that adults are trying to talk them down but they want none of it.
"I want to see Trump go up there and do damage to the Republican Party" said Jeff Walls, 53, of Flowood, MS.
Kathy, from Sun City, Ariz., told Mr. Limbaugh she was “absolutely livid by the Romney speech. He’s condescending,” she said, adding that he sounded like a “Democrat the whole time.” Steve from Temecula, Calif., said he had a message for Mr. Romney: “The Republican electorate is not a bunch of completely ignorant fools.”
“We know who Donald Trump is,” he added, “and we’re going to use Donald Trump to either take over the G.O.P. or blow it up.”
Ah, rebellious teenagers:)
Frank Luntz declared Hillary the biggest winner of the night and said that 22 out of his 25 focus groups said that this debate will hurt the GOP in the fall election.
Jamie Johnson, senior adviser to Rick Perry, said, "My party is committing suicide on national television.
Kristen Anderson, millenial pollster, said, "We may as well cancel the rest of the debate bc we are now in a Mike Judge film and nobody's going to talk about anything but Trump hands." That's not the first time I've hear an Idiocracy reference.
The National Review's Alexis Levinson called for a safe word during future debates.
I think the best reaction, though, came from the Hilz..
Sorta reminds me of my 8th graders...
-- Here’s a sampling of how conservative media outlets are covering the debate:
- National Review: “GOP Implosion Accelerates in Motor City Wreck.”
- FoxNews.com, “GOP breaks down in Motor City”: “Much of the fight on the Republican side is centered on who can beat Clinton,” Chris Stirewalt, the digital politics editor, writes. “The growing fear among GOP voters is that the answer might be: ‘None of them.’”
- Christian Broadcasting Network, “All That Was Missing Was Jerry Springer”: “The Grand Old Party didn’t look grand at all. Instead, they looked gross,” writes CBN political correspondent David Brody. “Reince Priebus is faced with a crucial decision now: does he go with Tylenol or Excedrin? Which medication will take away this big fat headache?”
Friday, March 04, 2016
Trump's Dupes Just Don't Care
The Republican establishment has belatedly begun attacking Donald Trump for being a con man and a liar. The problem is, Trump supporters don't care:
On the issue of the now-defunct Trump University—which offered real estate seminars that cost students up to $35,000, and which is the subject of three lawsuits that allege Trump defrauded students by misrepresenting what the "university" was—Travino admitted it was a "black mark" on Trump's record. "But I don't care," he added. And he doesn't think Trump's supporters will care either.And:
Matthew Higgens, a Trump supporter from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, felt the same way about Trump University. "To be honest with you, I don't care," he said. Higgens said other Republicans hadn't gone after predatory for-profit colleges that get students to take out loans for degrees and jobs that don't pan out. "How can you point the finger at one guy?" he asked. "It's ridiculous."No, it's not ridiculous. The crooks running those other phony for-profit "universities" aren't running for president. Why do Trump's dupes think that a man under indictment for fraud is going to fulfill any of his campaign promises?
Trump is suckering the his supporters exactly the same way that he suckered those idiots who blew $60,000 on worthless Trump University degrees.
The main reason people say they support Trump is that "he tells it like it is." They hate "establishment" politicians because they say whatever they need to say to get elected, and they never deliver on their promises.
The thing is, Trump is doing exactly the same thing: he's making promises he will never keep, and is at this very moment doing the exact opposite of what he promises. Trump is promising to stop immigrants from entering the country, yet Trump hires foreigners by the thousands to work at his casinos, hotels and construction sites (and even married two foreigners). Trump talks about slapping huge tariffs on Chinese goods, yet his Trump-brand merchandise is made in China and Asia.
But, yeah, I know. Trump supporters don't care. They just want to stick it to the politicians they hate, without really getting that Trump will be even worse than the guys they're trying to stick it to.
Trump has made a big deal about how he's funding his own campaign, and isn't beholden to campaign contributors because he hasn't taken their money. Okay. Like many Americans, he cynically thinks if you give a candidate money, you own the candidate.
But the corollary to that is: if you don't give a candidate money he owes you nothing. That means Trump believes he owes the people who simply voted for him even less than nothing. Trump is going to do whatever's good for Trump, not those broke and angry losers who put him in office. And the people who send $50 or $100 checks to Trump without ever meeting him and extracting a promise from him? They're the biggest losers ever, giving away money with no promise of any return whatsoever....
When Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," he was bragging about himself, implying that his supporters are duped losers following a shiny object.
Trump is repeating the prejudices of white people -- saying what he thinks they want to hear -- in order to get elected, dressing it up as "telling it like it is." He's making insane proposals about walls and tax breaks to set out an initial negotiating position, fully intent on dialing down the crazy when he comes to the negotiating table after he's elected.
That's not just my take on it, that's Trump's standard negotiating tactic: ask for the moon when what you really want is the lot on the corner. Throw your negotiating partner off balance with your daring and bravado, and he'll think he's getting a great deal when you screw him over. It's also what Trump told the New York Times editorial board in the "off-the-record" part of a January interview, according to a story on Buzzfeed.
Trump constantly carps about "political correctness," but he has already said that as president he'll be the most politically correct person in the world.
Trump is exactly the kind of wheeler-dealer politician that all his followers claim to despise. He's promising concentration camps for illegal immigrants. He's promising to lock certain Americans up en masse the way Japanese Americans were during WWII. He's promising to torture Muslims and murder their wives and children in cold blood.
He will never do any of that because these acts are violations of the Constitution and war crimes, and most of the FBI and the American military will disobey such illegal orders, and Trump doesn't want to be impeached or sent to the Hague to face a war crimes tribunal.
Trump is blustering hate to get primary votes from whites who feel downtrodden and left behind: just like the people who got suckered at Trump University. After he gets the Republican nomination, he'll back off on most of this crap for the general election, telling people that they misunderstood what he said, that he was just exaggerating for effect. He didn't really mean it, he'll say, it was just the heat of the moment. Or he'll say he was just repeating what he heard someone else say, and wasn't really sure it was true and he didn't mean it in any case.
But Trump's dupes will remain faithful. They'll rationalize that he's lying to to get win the general election, but that once he's in office he'll do what he promised in the primary.
In other words, he'll be acting just like any other politician. Because he is like any other politician, except that he's even less honest than most.
If you listen to the way Trump talks, it's obvious that he's being intentionally misleading -- or senile. He will repeat something three times, then say the opposite, then ask it as a question, then make a joke, then talk about how popular he is, what a loser his opponents are, and how well he's doing in the polls, and how much we're going to win, and how much money we're going to make by suing everyone for libel (yeah, he said that). It's all bullshit
Once he's in office, Trump will do whatever it takes to make him look good to himself. That will probably mean making tons of deals, and throwing away every campaign promise he ever made. Trump will blame Congress and the Democrats for stymieing him, and he'll sue a bunch of newspapers and websites for insulting him, and he'll swear a couple of times and the dupes who elected Trump will still fall for the act and think he's great. Even though he will have swindled them in the biggest con in history.
The truth is, there's no way to know what Trump will do as president. Everything he says is pie-in-the-sky crap. He's taking his supporters for a ride, and it'll cost this country a lot more than one of those worthless Trump University degrees.
Thursday, March 03, 2016
Post-Mortem on Super Tuesday
Super Tuesday showed that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the front runners for the respective parties.
The Hilz is in a far better position than the Donald with a 1052 to 427 lead over Bernie. At this point, she's halfway to the 2382 needed to win and will likely win the nomination. Bernie fans can take heart that his ideas will live on in this year's party platform.
Donald's front runner status is not quite as solid as of yet. He's got 319 to Cruz's 226 and Rubio's 110. Kasich has 25. The three of them together beat Trump which I find highly amusing for several reasons. More people don't want Trump to be the nominee than want him to be the nominee. Mitt Romney is making a speech today to try to rally the troops against Trump. Many Republicans are calling for a third party option. They may as well just support Hillary if they are going to take this tack. Of course, this is what you get when you have 89 people running for president in your party. You get a disaster as your nominee.
The best the "stop Trump" folks can hope for is that he does not get to the magic number of 1237 in order to win and they can have a contested convention. That will do wonders for voter turnout in the fall. But a Trump candidacy will have the same effect as many GOPers don't support him. They are kind of fucked any way you cut it.
I've said it many times and will continue to say it. When you spend the better part of a decade conditioning your supporters to believe lies through hate, anger and fear, you get Donald Trump as your nominee.
Conservatives only have themselves to blame.
The Hilz is in a far better position than the Donald with a 1052 to 427 lead over Bernie. At this point, she's halfway to the 2382 needed to win and will likely win the nomination. Bernie fans can take heart that his ideas will live on in this year's party platform.
Donald's front runner status is not quite as solid as of yet. He's got 319 to Cruz's 226 and Rubio's 110. Kasich has 25. The three of them together beat Trump which I find highly amusing for several reasons. More people don't want Trump to be the nominee than want him to be the nominee. Mitt Romney is making a speech today to try to rally the troops against Trump. Many Republicans are calling for a third party option. They may as well just support Hillary if they are going to take this tack. Of course, this is what you get when you have 89 people running for president in your party. You get a disaster as your nominee.
The best the "stop Trump" folks can hope for is that he does not get to the magic number of 1237 in order to win and they can have a contested convention. That will do wonders for voter turnout in the fall. But a Trump candidacy will have the same effect as many GOPers don't support him. They are kind of fucked any way you cut it.
I've said it many times and will continue to say it. When you spend the better part of a decade conditioning your supporters to believe lies through hate, anger and fear, you get Donald Trump as your nominee.
Conservatives only have themselves to blame.
Wednesday, March 02, 2016
Tuesday, March 01, 2016
Trump: Then and Now
Yesterday the Daily Show did a send up of Trump's "Fascist Week" antics. Trevor Noah ridiculed him for unknowingly retweeting a Mussolini quote, even though it was originated by "ilduce2016." ("Il duce" is the Italian equivalent of Hitler's "Der Führer.").
The episode also looked at the interview in which Trump refused to disavow an endorsement from white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke. Afterwards Trump claimed he couldn't understand the question because of a faulty earpiece. Seriously? He repeated the name "David Duke" and variations on the phrase "white supremacist" several times, so he clearly heard the words, but he just didn't seem to get it.
I have no doubt Trump had problems understanding the question. He hasn't aged well, so he's probably suffering from significant hearing loss. He may have been repeating the words to make sure that he had heard them properly.
The problem I have with Trump isn't so much the lack of disavowal (because we know Trump is intentionally courting -- nay, inciting -- the racist vote), but the physical and mental deficits Trump is clearly displaying in the clip from Sunday, which starts at about 8:30 in the video.
Notice how confused and pinched Trump's expression is. Notice how frequently he blinks. High blink rates are associated with several things: dry eyes, schizophrenia, stress, and lying. I'm guessing Trump is suffering from three out of four of these -- your guess as to which. (As a bonus, notice how bloated and orange his face is, and how white his skin is around the small, beady eyes, and how silly his hair looks. I wouldn't normally point this out, but since Trump is constantly deriding other people for their appearance -- making light of Rosie O'Donnell's weight, or insisting that Heidi Klum is no longer a 10 -- it's only fair to point out that Trump himself is a pasty, dumpy three and was never more than a five.)
Now look at time index 9:50 in the video, which is an interview Trump gave in 2000. He mentions Duke by name as the reason he's getting out of the presidential race. Trump sounds relatively coherent and reasoned.
Comparing the two Trumps side by side, it is clear that Trump's mental and physical state have greatly deteriorated in the last 16 years. Comparing him to other politicians of a similar age -- Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton -- and even older politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jimmy Carter, Trump has not aged well at all.
In recent days Republicans like Marco Rubio have stooped to Trump's level, hurling all kinds of inane insults at the billionaire. Yet they have not yet touched on what is a completely legitimate concern: Trump's rapidly advancing senile dementia.
This is a serious concern. What will the Republicans do if Trump strokes out from a Viagra overdose having sex with his mistress a month before the election?
The episode also looked at the interview in which Trump refused to disavow an endorsement from white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke. Afterwards Trump claimed he couldn't understand the question because of a faulty earpiece. Seriously? He repeated the name "David Duke" and variations on the phrase "white supremacist" several times, so he clearly heard the words, but he just didn't seem to get it.
I have no doubt Trump had problems understanding the question. He hasn't aged well, so he's probably suffering from significant hearing loss. He may have been repeating the words to make sure that he had heard them properly.
The problem I have with Trump isn't so much the lack of disavowal (because we know Trump is intentionally courting -- nay, inciting -- the racist vote), but the physical and mental deficits Trump is clearly displaying in the clip from Sunday, which starts at about 8:30 in the video.
Notice how confused and pinched Trump's expression is. Notice how frequently he blinks. High blink rates are associated with several things: dry eyes, schizophrenia, stress, and lying. I'm guessing Trump is suffering from three out of four of these -- your guess as to which. (As a bonus, notice how bloated and orange his face is, and how white his skin is around the small, beady eyes, and how silly his hair looks. I wouldn't normally point this out, but since Trump is constantly deriding other people for their appearance -- making light of Rosie O'Donnell's weight, or insisting that Heidi Klum is no longer a 10 -- it's only fair to point out that Trump himself is a pasty, dumpy three and was never more than a five.)
Now look at time index 9:50 in the video, which is an interview Trump gave in 2000. He mentions Duke by name as the reason he's getting out of the presidential race. Trump sounds relatively coherent and reasoned.
Comparing the two Trumps side by side, it is clear that Trump's mental and physical state have greatly deteriorated in the last 16 years. Comparing him to other politicians of a similar age -- Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton -- and even older politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jimmy Carter, Trump has not aged well at all.
In recent days Republicans like Marco Rubio have stooped to Trump's level, hurling all kinds of inane insults at the billionaire. Yet they have not yet touched on what is a completely legitimate concern: Trump's rapidly advancing senile dementia.
This is a serious concern. What will the Republicans do if Trump strokes out from a Viagra overdose having sex with his mistress a month before the election?
Super Tuesday Predictions
As voters in several states around the country head to the polls today, it's become very clear that Hillary Clinton will likely capture the Democratic nomination.She will win Alabama, American Samoa, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. With all of these states and the super delegates she already has, that will put her around the half way point towards the nomination. Bernie Sanders will win Colorado, Minnesota, and Vermont which will clearly not be enough to climb out of the deep hole he is already in.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump will win Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Vermont and Virginia. Marco Rubio will win Minnesota and Tennessee. Ted Cruz will win Texas. With all the victories Trump will pile up, it seems now that he is the likely nominee however it's just a tad too soon to tell. The winner take all states of Florida, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio on March 15th will probably be the day when we see how the rest of the primary season will go.
If Trump wins 2 of these states, it's over. If he wins Florida, Rubio is done. Republicans have been alternately pooping themselves and wringing their hands at the prospect of a Trump nomination. Some have even called for an independent run for one of the candidates that don't win. All of this really says one thing to me.
The GOP as we know it is officially dead.
I've been saying that it was coming for years. The writing was on the wall. Spend time lying to your supporters, stoking fear, anger and hatred-all of which are steeped in xenophobia and racism?
You get Donald Trump as the leader of your party.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump will win Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Vermont and Virginia. Marco Rubio will win Minnesota and Tennessee. Ted Cruz will win Texas. With all the victories Trump will pile up, it seems now that he is the likely nominee however it's just a tad too soon to tell. The winner take all states of Florida, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio on March 15th will probably be the day when we see how the rest of the primary season will go.
If Trump wins 2 of these states, it's over. If he wins Florida, Rubio is done. Republicans have been alternately pooping themselves and wringing their hands at the prospect of a Trump nomination. Some have even called for an independent run for one of the candidates that don't win. All of this really says one thing to me.
The GOP as we know it is officially dead.
I've been saying that it was coming for years. The writing was on the wall. Spend time lying to your supporters, stoking fear, anger and hatred-all of which are steeped in xenophobia and racism?
You get Donald Trump as the leader of your party.
Monday, February 29, 2016
The Trump Chant
I wonder if political candidates truly understand what happens when you poke the darker parts of nationalism in a country.
Because you get shit like this.
In Iowa, students chant 'Trump! Trump!' after basketball loss to more racially diverse high school
At least something has come out of it...
Trump's recent David Duke and KKK comments come as no shock to me whatsoever. His base is composed entirely of rabid racists who want the Antebellum South to rise again.
Because you get shit like this.
In Iowa, students chant 'Trump! Trump!' after basketball loss to more racially diverse high school
At least something has come out of it...
Trump's recent David Duke and KKK comments come as no shock to me whatsoever. His base is composed entirely of rabid racists who want the Antebellum South to rise again.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Is Trump Going Senile?
Donald Trump has received some endorsements recently. Some are relatively benign, though hypocritical, like Chris Christie's. Some, like Paul LePage's, the kookie governor of Maine that everyone in the legislature hates -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- are of limited utility.
Other endorsements are completely toxic for the general public, such as the various hate groups that have been running phone banks supporting Trump's candidacy. And then there's David Duke, the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
When asked if he would refuse endorsements from Duke and other white supremacist organizations, Trump acted confused, repeating himself over and over like some doddering old man:
"I don't know anything about David Duke. I don't know what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacist. I don't know. I don't know, did he endorse me, or what's going on?" he said. That prompted a back-and-forth that went, in part:Trump is either confused here, or has lost his memory, or is lying. He should know exactly who David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan are:
Trump: I don't know what group you're talking about. You wouldn't want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. ... If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them and certainly I would disavow them if I thought there was something wrong.
Tapper: The Ku Klux Klan?
Trump: You may have groups in there that are totally fine and it would be very unfair. So give me a list of the groups and I'll let you know.
Tapper: I'm just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here.
Trump: Honestly, I don't know David Duke.
In 2000, when he ended his presidential campaign, Trump cited Duke's participation in the Reform Party as one reason he no longer wanted the party's nomination.
"The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. [Pat] Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. [Lenora] Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep," he wrote in his statement.
I'm going to engage in some armchair neurology here. Donald Trump is 70 years old. If elected he would be the oldest man ever elected president, beating Reagan by several months.
As Timothy Egan noted, Trump has suffered from sleep deprivation for decades:
Sleep deprivation, we know, can make you cranky and temperamental, and throw off judgment. The severely sleep-deprived are more impulsive, less adaptable and prone to snappish decisions, and they have trouble listening to others. They miss out on essential REM time, which allows people to process emotions and events in their lives. Smaller things set them off.Sleep is essential for good health. As I've written about previously, during sleep the brain cleans out toxic protein buildup. Those proteins are the same plaque tangles that cause Alzheimers. Lack of sleep can cause Alzheimers.
“You know, I’m not a big sleeper,” Trump said last November. “I like three hours, four hours, I toss, I turn, I beep-de-beep, I want to find out what’s going on.”
Now, some people are able to function with little sleep. Bill Clinton is cited as an example, and he's the same age as Trump. But comparing Bill Clinton's manner and Trump's, Clinton's mind is clearly still sharp, while Trump is quite evidently suffering from significant personality, memory and cognitive deficits.
The reason Trump sounds like your crazy old uncle, is that -- like your crazy old uncle -- he's getting senile.
When Trump is viewed in this light, everything becomes clear. He thinks he can build a wall and make Mexico pay for it because he's going senile. He is prone to bouts of bile, vulgar tempers and frenetic excitement because he's suffering from Alzheimers. He talks at a third grade level not because of a grand strategy to condescend to his poorly educated audience, but because that's all he can manage. He constantly repeats himself because he can't remember what he just said.
He runs his presidential campaign from Twitter like some 13-year-old mean middle-school over-privileged princess, not because he's some brilliant media savant, but because mental deficits have regressed his intellect to that of a teen-aged girl.
Last year Trump released a bullshit letter from his doctor claiming that Trump was in the best shape any president ever was. It was written just like a Donald Trump press release, and was obviously penned by Trump's PR flaks. Hilariously, Trump tweeted that the letter had been written by a doctor who had been dead for five years. Trump is in such bad shape he can't even remember who his doctor is.
Clearly, Trump is in a constant state of angry befuddlement.
This suggests an entirely new avenue of attack on Trump: the rest of the Republican field should demand that he submit to a real physical and mental examination by a qualified neurologist or gerontologist, instead of Trump's fart doctor.
I'm sure Ben Carson, brain surgeon, can recommend someone as a parting gift as he drops out of the race.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Food Fight!!
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 12 year olds that are conservatives today.
What a fucking embarrassment. As I have said for many, many years...adolescents.
What a fucking embarrassment. As I have said for many, many years...adolescents.
Friday, February 26, 2016
Was Scalia on the Take?
In the Republican debate last night all the candidates said that Antonin Scalia was the kind of justice they would appoint. But what kind of judge was Scalia?
A judge who accepted hundreds of free trips from private individuals, universities and corporations between 2004 and 2014. The question must therefore be asked: did Scalia clearly separate these private gifts from his court decisions? Or did Scalia receive quid pro quos for the decisions he made?
If Scalia hadn't been gallivanting around the country with elitist
wanna-be Knights Templar, and had instead been at home in his own bed,
would he be alive today?
The ranch where Scalia died may hold some answers.The owner of that ranch, John Poindexter, had a case before the Supreme Court just last year. It involved an age discrimination lawsuit at the MIC Group, in which the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's petition.
That wasn't Scalia's only connection to Poindexter. Poindexter is an officer in an elite secretive religious organization called the International Order of St. Hubertus. The order is also linked to other secret societies:
The society’s U.S. chapter launched in 1966 at the famous Bohemian Club in San Francisco, which is associated with the all-male Bohemian Grove — one of the most well-known secret societies in the country.It's not certain what Scalia's relationship was to the Order, but Scalia obviously liked to pal around with wealthy, titled and entitled European nobility. The group’s Grand Master is “His Imperial Highness Istvan von Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria.” There were also persistent rumors that Scalia was a member of Opus Dei, another secretive religious organization.
Members of the judiciary are supposed to recuse themselves in cases where there are conflicts of interest or any appearance of impropriety. But the conservative wing of the court has taken hundreds of trips paid for by private groups, corporations and individuals, many of who have cases before the court.
Now, not every trip the justices take is suspicious. Many of them are on the up and up: it's completely reasonable for a university to pay for a justice to make speeches before a conference of legal scholars and allow law students to directly interact with a justice of the Supreme Court. But is it right for conservative "think tanks" and foreign entities to give Supreme Court judges free junkets to Hawaii, Hong Kong and Singapore?
This is particularly important, because one of the court's most controversial decisions in recent years was Citizen's United. In that decision the conservative majority threw out most campaign finance laws, removing almost all limits on corporations trying to influence elections. The conservatives completely rejected the idea that there would be corruption when corporations can give infinite amounts of cash to politicians. Indeed, the first thing Clarence Thomas's wife did after the decision was to go out and start a Tea Party group so she could cash in on the decision.
The vast majority of Americans know Scalia was full of crap in Citizen's United. Democrats and independents certainly do, and the popularity of Donald Trump -- whose big claim is that he's so rich he can't be bought -- shows that most Republicans also believe that unlimited campaign contributions corrupt the political process.
Now, despite rumblings from morons like Trump that Scalia was murdered, all indications are that Scalia died of "natural causes," perhaps because he forgot to use his CPAP machine at the ranch. Yes, Scalia snored himself to death.
But here's the question that conservatives should ask themselves: if Scalia hadn't been gallivanting around the country with elitist wanna-be Knights Templar, and had instead been at home in his own bed, would he be alive today?
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Good Words
From a question on Quora...
The question isn't to amend or abolish the second amendment, it is to properly apply it. If the President, Congress and the Courts would focus more fully on what a "well regulated militia" is, I think we'd find compromise.
For example, I would propose:
If you are serving in a militia in good standing (including retired), then you can have whatever guns you wish.
Much like in Australia, you'd have to do some sort gun buyback which would probably go over like a lead balloon.
I'm not sure people have a problem with sensible gun ownership, but instead on whether the mentally unfit / untrained people are using them.
At least that's my take.
And a great take it is! The Gun Cult chides continually that gun safety advocates have no real plan and or idea what new laws should look like. This is a great example of exactly what it should look like and something I firmly support. I would add that the mental health evaluations be at least three times a year and one hundred hours a year minimum training.
The question isn't to amend or abolish the second amendment, it is to properly apply it. If the President, Congress and the Courts would focus more fully on what a "well regulated militia" is, I think we'd find compromise.
For example, I would propose:
If you are serving in a militia in good standing (including retired), then you can have whatever guns you wish.
Much like in Australia, you'd have to do some sort gun buyback which would probably go over like a lead balloon.
I'm not sure people have a problem with sensible gun ownership, but instead on whether the mentally unfit / untrained people are using them.
At least that's my take.
And a great take it is! The Gun Cult chides continually that gun safety advocates have no real plan and or idea what new laws should look like. This is a great example of exactly what it should look like and something I firmly support. I would add that the mental health evaluations be at least three times a year and one hundred hours a year minimum training.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Monday, February 22, 2016
What Drives The Gun Cult
I was recently asked to answer a question on Quora about gun rights activists. Here was my response.
There are several reasons why gun rights activists ignore gun control success in other countries and they all revolve around the reasons why they are passionate about their guns in the first place.
First, like any hobby, people love their toys. If there is a chance that they might be taken away, it's only natural that people would get upset. Seeing that the rest of the civilized world functions just fine with stricter gun control translates into the possibility that their toys will be taken away hence the emotion, temper tantrums, and willful ignorance of functional societies.
Second, gun rights activists are generally a very insecure lot who draw empowerment from their guns. It would be interesting to see a peer reviewed study on how many of them were bullied as kids because they've always struck me as having inferiority complexes. Seeing other people "disarmed" in other countries strikes deep to their biggest fear: being powerless. Ironic, for two main reasons. One, owning a gun makes it more likely that they will injure/kill themselves or others as opposed to protecting them against bad guys.
Two, having a few guns against a federal government who has drones/tanks/planes/battleships and thinking that somehow they are a force to be reckoned with is pure fantasy. Speaking of governments...
Third, gun rights activists believe that they are guarding against a possible, future totalitarian government. This is a very powerful belief that overcomes any positive news about countries with successful gun control. They disseminate propaganda that "proves" that countries with stricter gun control are subjugating their people. Here is an example...
Fourth, gun rights activists, like most conservatives, experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with objective reality. When they see how successful gun control has been in reducing violent crime in every other civilized country in the world, their brains react in such a way that the feel like they are under physical attack. Several peer reviewed neurological studies have shown this to be valid and are detailed in the following book.
Amazon.com: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality (9781118094518): Chris Mooney:
Books In many ways, this is the most direct and scientific reason why they ignore the precedent set by other countries. It makes them feel physically uncomfortable and this is due to the previous three reasons mentioned above.
There are several reasons why gun rights activists ignore gun control success in other countries and they all revolve around the reasons why they are passionate about their guns in the first place.
First, like any hobby, people love their toys. If there is a chance that they might be taken away, it's only natural that people would get upset. Seeing that the rest of the civilized world functions just fine with stricter gun control translates into the possibility that their toys will be taken away hence the emotion, temper tantrums, and willful ignorance of functional societies.
Second, gun rights activists are generally a very insecure lot who draw empowerment from their guns. It would be interesting to see a peer reviewed study on how many of them were bullied as kids because they've always struck me as having inferiority complexes. Seeing other people "disarmed" in other countries strikes deep to their biggest fear: being powerless. Ironic, for two main reasons. One, owning a gun makes it more likely that they will injure/kill themselves or others as opposed to protecting them against bad guys.
Two, having a few guns against a federal government who has drones/tanks/planes/battleships and thinking that somehow they are a force to be reckoned with is pure fantasy. Speaking of governments...
Third, gun rights activists believe that they are guarding against a possible, future totalitarian government. This is a very powerful belief that overcomes any positive news about countries with successful gun control. They disseminate propaganda that "proves" that countries with stricter gun control are subjugating their people. Here is an example...
Fourth, gun rights activists, like most conservatives, experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with objective reality. When they see how successful gun control has been in reducing violent crime in every other civilized country in the world, their brains react in such a way that the feel like they are under physical attack. Several peer reviewed neurological studies have shown this to be valid and are detailed in the following book.
Amazon.com: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality (9781118094518): Chris Mooney:
Books In many ways, this is the most direct and scientific reason why they ignore the precedent set by other countries. It makes them feel physically uncomfortable and this is due to the previous three reasons mentioned above.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
So Long, Jeb
After yesterday's 4th place finish in South Carolina, Jeb Bush suspended his presidential campaign. I suppose no one should really be surprised given the nature of the GOP base these days. Ad in the fact that Bush came off every single day like your awkward dad and it simply spelled doom for him.
I was pretty surprised myself. I thought the boost from his brother and mom would at least put him in third place. This was not the case as Rubio eeked out a 2nd place win with Cruz in third. Kasich and Carson came in 5th and 6th as I originally predicted. Rubio's finish surprised me as well but it does help to have endorsements. It appears that we now have a 3 man race and the hopes of GOP leaders are now pinned on a guy who panics when the spotlight is on him.
So, now the question becomes...is Trump inevitable? The answer is no. Politico's Ben Shcreckinger points out that it's going to be a long ride.
Despite Trump’s polling lead, there are significant obstacles to his running away with the nomination in the coming weeks. With Rubio buoyed by momentum, Nevada’s organizing-heavy caucuses set for Tuesday, and the first half of March weighted toward states where Cruz is poised to finish strongly, there is little space for Trump to translate that lead into a certain nomination in the coming weeks.
Agreed. Rubio is a very imperfect candidate but he polls better against Hillary Clinton than Trump or Cruz. Speaking of the Hilz, as I predicted, she won the Nevada caucuses yesterday and more or less put Bernie Sanders' bid for the presidency to rest. Bernie will be a significant factor, however, in shaping the 2016 Democratic platform which I think is a very, very good thing.
I was pretty surprised myself. I thought the boost from his brother and mom would at least put him in third place. This was not the case as Rubio eeked out a 2nd place win with Cruz in third. Kasich and Carson came in 5th and 6th as I originally predicted. Rubio's finish surprised me as well but it does help to have endorsements. It appears that we now have a 3 man race and the hopes of GOP leaders are now pinned on a guy who panics when the spotlight is on him.
So, now the question becomes...is Trump inevitable? The answer is no. Politico's Ben Shcreckinger points out that it's going to be a long ride.
Despite Trump’s polling lead, there are significant obstacles to his running away with the nomination in the coming weeks. With Rubio buoyed by momentum, Nevada’s organizing-heavy caucuses set for Tuesday, and the first half of March weighted toward states where Cruz is poised to finish strongly, there is little space for Trump to translate that lead into a certain nomination in the coming weeks.
Agreed. Rubio is a very imperfect candidate but he polls better against Hillary Clinton than Trump or Cruz. Speaking of the Hilz, as I predicted, she won the Nevada caucuses yesterday and more or less put Bernie Sanders' bid for the presidency to rest. Bernie will be a significant factor, however, in shaping the 2016 Democratic platform which I think is a very, very good thing.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Friday, February 19, 2016
Nevada and South Carolina Prognostications
I was all set to predict Bernie Sanders for the Nevada win but some recent polling and Nate Silver's model has led me to change my mind. Hillary will win Nevada 52-46 and the talk about Bernie being a truly national candidate will begin. Does he really have appeal coast to coast? I''m not sure he does.
On the GOP side, Donald Trump will pick up another primary with Ted Cruz coming in 2nd, Bush 3rd, Rubio 4th, Kasich 5th and Ben Carson 6th. Bush's 3rd place showing will keep him around long enough until Super Tuesday. Rubio's camp is going to have to start answering the tough questions starting with a the big one. Why is someone who has finished 3rd place or worse still in the campaign? Kasich sill be around until Super Tuesday as well. Carson needs to give it up. He has just enough of that wacky, ideological nonsense to appeal to the right wing blogger but they are a pretty small part of the electorate.
I hope the GOP continues to enjoy their top two candidates. They certainly deserve them:)
On the GOP side, Donald Trump will pick up another primary with Ted Cruz coming in 2nd, Bush 3rd, Rubio 4th, Kasich 5th and Ben Carson 6th. Bush's 3rd place showing will keep him around long enough until Super Tuesday. Rubio's camp is going to have to start answering the tough questions starting with a the big one. Why is someone who has finished 3rd place or worse still in the campaign? Kasich sill be around until Super Tuesday as well. Carson needs to give it up. He has just enough of that wacky, ideological nonsense to appeal to the right wing blogger but they are a pretty small part of the electorate.
I hope the GOP continues to enjoy their top two candidates. They certainly deserve them:)
Thursday, February 18, 2016
The Politics of Polls
Take a look at today's president polls on a national level. The head to head match ups are very interesting. Clinton bests only Trump and is behind Cruz, Rubio, Bush and Kasich. Yet Bernie Sanders beats all of them handily. Why is that?
Well, for starters, it's polling registered, not likely voters. And we are looking at national numbers and not the coveted state by state numbers. It really doesn't matter how a candidate is doing nationally because the only polls that matter are the ones in the swing states. Candidates like to spin how well they are doing nationally but I'm only interested in how they match up in Ohio. Or Florida. Or Virginia.
Well, for starters, it's polling registered, not likely voters. And we are looking at national numbers and not the coveted state by state numbers. It really doesn't matter how a candidate is doing nationally because the only polls that matter are the ones in the swing states. Candidates like to spin how well they are doing nationally but I'm only interested in how they match up in Ohio. Or Florida. Or Virginia.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Ending the Transgender Bathroom Hysteria
South Dakota is the latest entrant in the fearfest many Republican-run states have been whipping up over transgendered individuals and bathrooms. Mike Huckabee dialed up his creep factor to 11 last year when he said:
"Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE," Huckabee said.The number of transgendered individuals in South Dakota high schools is going to be amazingly small. The number is estimated to be about 0.2 to 0.3 percent, or about 700,000 Americans. Given South Dakota's small population and lack of tolerance for transgendered individuals, there can't be more than a couple dozen in the entire state. So why the big stink?
The problem, as conservatives appear to see it, is that males claiming to be transgendered will be physically attracted to women and wish to spy on them in the toilet (because sitting in the stall next to someone taking a dump is so alluring).
However, many people born male who identify as women are attracted to men. And many people born female who identify as male are attracted to women. Which, in Republicans' minds, means they are gay. That means Republicans want to make people with homosexual tendencies use restrooms that are frequented by the sex they are physically attracted to.
In other words, Republicans want to force Mike Huckabee's wet dream on these transgendered individuals.
Not that long ago Republicans were going through a gay panic, worried that they would be trapped in a bathroom with a rapacious gay man. Now, just a few short years later, they want to force every allegedly gay man to share bathrooms with them, even when they've sex reassignment surgery, lopped off their penises, taken hormones and grown breasts.
Now, imagine how disconcerted Mike Huckabee will feel when he's taking a leak in the men's room and Caitlyn Jenner walks in. Wouldn't he rather she visit the ladies room and save everyone the embarrassment?
And how is this going to be enforced? Is South Dakota going to post toilet police outside every restroom and check your ID before they let you in? Or are they going to strip search everyone on the way in? With all those phony IDs floating around you just can't be too safe.
One thing these Republican men may not be aware of is that women's bathrooms provide a great deal more privacy than men's bathrooms. Men's bathrooms sport communal urinals, but women get private stalls. There's really nothing to see in a women's bathroom.
When I went to high school, boys showered communally, which I felt was a terrible invasion of privacy. Unlike Mike Huckabee, I didn't really like getting naked with a bunch of guys. However, my wife's school had private shower stalls in their locker rooms. The locker rooms in the women's sports programs at our local university have separate showers, the men shower communally. Even women's prisons, if Orange is the New Black is any kind of guide, have separate shower stalls.
So, sorry, Huck. Even if you had claimed you were a girl in high school, you'd be showering alone in a personal stall anyway.
Scanning the Internet, this seems to be the way it is across the country: women get privacy in their bathrooms, while men get communal urinals and sometimes even rows of toilets with no walls separating them.
Rather than fretting about transgendered individuals sneaking peaks, legislators should be taking steps to ensure everyone's privacy in the bathroom. Every student should be free from the prying eyes of other students, whether they're straight, gay or trans.
While we're talking toilets, there's another problem that deserves mention: in many places -- sports stadiums, for example -- there are nowhere near enough facilities for women. The line for the women's room is really long, while the men's room is empty. This has prompted some women to use the men's room instead.
Many public places now have three kinds of bathrooms: mens, womens and family -- the later being a single stool with a baby-changing station. This idea should be expanded: separate men's and women's rooms should be eliminated, replacing them with facilities that can be used by anyone in privacy. An adjacent penis-only urinal room could be provided for men who absolutely must flash their dicks for other men to see.
That would also put men and women on an equal footing waiting in line for toilet stalls.
The most dishonest thing about South Dakota bathroom scare is that trans kids are threatening anyone. By far and way the most frequent sort of sexual harassment in the schools is straight students harassing gays and trans kids.
But institutionalizing that harassment is the entire point, isn't it?
A Gun That Offered No Protection
Today, I'm wondering if Trisha Nelson knew that when she bought her gun and got her conceal carry permit that she would up being shot with it.
He had served his sentence and was on probation when he shot Nelson. He most likely used Nelson’s gun, for which she had a concealed-carry permit, Padden said.
Having a gun increase, not decreases, your chances of being shot.
He had served his sentence and was on probation when he shot Nelson. He most likely used Nelson’s gun, for which she had a concealed-carry permit, Padden said.
Having a gun increase, not decreases, your chances of being shot.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Monday, February 15, 2016
A Cause We Believe To Be Just
(Abraham Lincoln. Speech on the Sub-Treasury in the Illinois House of Representatives, December 26, 1839)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)