the Trump Phenomenon

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

Interesting to hear The statistics for Massachusetts this morning . The Democrat party lost 30,000 last year. 1/3 of those reenrolled as Republicans .
I love how the left throws out the word "uneducated " , as if it's some indicator of smarts. Ironically these are the same people complaining that they are crushed by student loans , that they can't afford to repay . Education they couldn't afford was only there first mistake in life .
I prefer to surround myself with people with common sense and open minds
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you need to go back and see who threw out the word uneducated (and uninformed).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

ha..ha..ha...stupid MSNBC talking heads...when things don't go the way you planned

Oh, that restored my belief in a benign God!

Of course, she had to say "of course, a majority of trump's supporters are not African Americans".

I have news for that MENSA candidate...neither are a majority of Barack Obama's supporters.

When you cannot win the debate on the merits of your ideas (and liberals rarely can), ALWAYS resort to the race card. Always.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's my anti Hillary vote .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

High five!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Oh lookie, a political scientist studied this issue...

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/sh...713003733a.pdf

Your link doesn't work. Can you give me the cliffs notes version?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

ha..ha..ha...stupid MSNBC talking heads...when things don't go the way you planned

In a related story, The Narrative was rushed to the hospital via LifeStar helicopter, but was pronounced dead on arrival.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Oh lookie, a political scientist studied this issue...

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/sh...713003733a.pdf

For a minute I thought this might have been hosted on Hillarys server and she deleted it by mistake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Your link doesn't work. Can you give me the cliffs notes version?

Try this one...

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/sh...c3e7a9ef680b41

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Try this one...

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/sh...c3e7a9ef680b41

I saw notihng in there that explains why blacks in places in Hartford and Bridgeport, are better off under Democratic leadership, than they would be under Republican leadership.

Sorry Spence. You can't measure what doesn't exist, and no data exists to tell us whether or not the people of Hartford would be better off if the Tea Party was running the show. There is overwhelming empirical evidence to show that after 40 yeras of Democrat rule, they are far worse off. It's possible that conservatives would have done even worse, but we can't know. Because pepole like you cannot say out loud, that what we have been doing, has been a disaster. And somehow, you think that means you care more about them than I do.

Have fun with that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Try this one...

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/sh...c3e7a9ef680b41

This article, claiming to be an objective, empirical, study is basically a selective statistical apologetic for what you might call "old news." It is an attempt to validate government hegemony above individual effort. There is no evaluation of cultural differences and their impact; no weight given to economic disparity within minority groups and the individual efforts therein creating the intra-group income inequality as well as the unequal status and health due to individual differences therein.

It is a "study" that promotes egalitarian group think. That is evident toward the beginning when it states that "The Republican Party’s efforts to end slavery under Abraham Lincoln are the most obvious example of one party favoring a more racially egalitarian agenda than the other party." That is a subtle twist which casts Lincoln's abolishment of slavery as something it was not. It was not about egalitarianism. It was about liberty. Abe did not think blacks were "equal" to whites in an egalitarian sense, but that they should be so before the law.

And it is a testimonial for a "democracy" which is propped up by the Progressive version of an Administrative State. It gives lip service to Congress and the Courts, but lays the power of guiding the state almost exclusively in the hands of the chief administrator, the President. It rightly avoids our idea of a Constitutional Republic, because that obviously is not about the equality of groups, rather it is about unalienable rights of individuals. He says "We focus on the President because that office stands at the top of American Democracy." He claims that " The extent of Presidential power is an open question. . . There is a long-standing debate about the relative influence of Congress and the President." He claims a long-standing debate and bows to a hierarchy neither of which exist in our Constitution.

And the President he says, importantly for his thesis, is the head of a Political Party. He curiously says "The political parties created democracy." And that parties serve interests. This is the very factionalism that the Founders warned against and whose influence Madison said would be nullified because their large number and diversity would work against each other. But the two party system changes that as it subsumes the diverse factions and creates the binary factional war that could, as the Founders warned, destroy the Republic.

He attributes the closing of gaps between groups to Party policies. He says "Because the kinds of redistributional efforts (e.g.) taxing and spending tend to fluctuate extensively from administration to administration, they are, in our opinion, among the most logical sources of minority gains and losses across different administrations." That is, it is government redistributive policies, not cultural nor even individual differences within and between groups that determine the well-being of "groups." That is, dependence on government is the key to success. And the right President, the right Administration, will provide that for us.

The author says, "The more we can do to link minority outcomes to specific policy measures, the more we will be able to help disadvantaged minorities. In an age of growing inequality and sharp racial divisions in the vote, it is imperative that we use our research capacities 'to scrutinize the health of our democracy' and to look for avenues to restore its vitality"

It is amazing that our "democracy" has lost its vitality in spite of all the past policy measures. Maybe it is a because of them?

The article ends "If voters cannot tell whom government has helped and whom it has hurt, they will not know which party to reward and which to punish. . . . By assessing the relative gains and losses of different groups under competing regimes, scholars can contribute substantially to a healthy democracy."

It is the "competing regimes" and the scholars who assess them, that we (as "groups") must depend on--for a healthy democracy. But if a democracy is rule by majority, isn't it the perspective of that majority that determines what is healthy? And isn't that the rub in democracy? The majority determines who to reward and who to punish. If Latinos, as projected, become the majority, will they try to equalize the gaps, or use their power for advantage? Isn't individual liberty a better goal than group egalitarianism?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

like Dennis I'm thoroughly enjoying this go round....I don't like Trump but he's as close as you can get to actually waterboarding a leftist or a Republican establishment type and the MSM... which is endlessly amusing

Trump being elected Emperor of the Galactic Empire is worth it for that little quote. Can I steal that?

Originally Posted by buckman

It's my anti Hillary vote .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is OK - if you are a Democrat you can vote more than once.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Trump being elected Emperor of the Galactic Empire is worth it for that little quote. Can I steal that?

he's a great argument against the left's and some on the right's desire to expand executive power, ignoring Congress when they don't agree with him... and broadening the role, scope and expense of government, weakening the Constitution and favoring Federal control and mandate, is he not?...the dems were happy to have all of this occur under Obama but seem terrified at the prospect of someone hostile to THEM having the same powers.....interesting

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is an attempt to validate government hegemony above individual effort.

I think the premise is pretty simple. Some have done better under democrat leadership and that's why they tend to prefer it. I didn't see the word hegemony in the report, but to be honest I didn't read the entire thing.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the premise is pretty simple. Some have done better under democrat leadership and that's why they tend to prefer it. I didn't see the word hegemony in the report, but to be honest I didn't read the entire thing.

Wall Street's doing well
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I didn't see the word hegemony in the report, but to be honest I didn't read the entire thing.

this is not a surprise...particularly for someone who constantly chastises others for supposedly not reading the links they post

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Wall Street's doing well
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Still clutching that Sanders flyer from yesterday I see. Soon you and Nebe will be sharing an Occupy tent.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Still clutching that Sanders flyer from yesterday I see. Soon you and Nebe will be sharing an Occupy tent.

😂 You're the one that has been bragging how well Wall Street has been doing the last few years under Obama . Oh yeah people working for the government have been doing amazingly well also .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

😂 You're the one that has been bragging how well Wall Street has been doing the last few years under Obama. Oh yeah people working for the government have been doing amazingly well also .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought federal unions were outraged at Obama's last planned increase?

You do realize that government workers under Obama have gone down during his presidency right? I believe nearly 3/4 of a million people at the fed, state and local levels.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the premise is pretty simple.

Too simple to the point that it is simple-minded. It promotes the simple-minded notion that the study's "objective, empirical" statistics show that government policies are responsible for those stats. Yet, the very same statistics could be used to back up an argument that white Americans are the superior race. And that blacks are dumb as a rock.

There are many other factors that go into those statistics. And trying to "close the gap" by government spending and taxing in order to shape group behavior can be the proverbial putting lipstick on a pig. It doesn't change deeper underlying causes. And worse, it creates a dependence on the lipstick.

Some have done better under democrat leadership and that's why they tend to prefer it.

Again, the statistics are too simple, too broad. Internal statistics could show that "groups," on average, do better because some within those groups have benefited. Many blacks, for instance, have improved financially because they were preferentially hired by Federal, State, and local governments. Large cities with majority black population, like Detroit for instance, became basically a black civil service workforce. That provided higher paying jobs for those blacks working in the government. Those blacks did way "better" than most other people in the city. But the rest of the black Detroiters, the vast majority, did not advance because of it. Yet, the overall average in black pay scale was elevated. And the very same thing would have happened if the blacks had all voted Republican rather than Democrat. The key was that blacks became the majority.

The current Democrat leadership doesn't seem to have "closed the gap," so I don't know how that would affect the study's stats.

I didn't see the word hegemony in the report, but to be honest I didn't read the entire thing.

There were a lot of words I used that were not in the report. If I had used the same words as those in the report, I might have just rewritten the report.

The words (which are chock full of statisms such as "democracy" rather than Republic, "egalitarianism" rather than liberty, "groups" rather than individualism) used to craft the report, reputedly to help minorities choose the right party to advance their well-being, actually promotes racial political warfare rather than creating a color blind society. It promotes political factionalism and majoritarianism. It promotes dependence on government to shape lives. It devalues to the point of eliminating the importance of individual initiative and cultural values. It is the selective, slanted, statistically perfect divide and conquer storm which helps to finally transform us from a once constitutional Republic into an all-powerful, centralized, administrative State.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I thought federal unions were outraged at Obama's last planned increase?

You do realize that government workers under Obama have gone down during his presidency right? I believe nearly 3/4 of a million people at the fed, state and local levels.

Yet the cost government continues to go through the roof. Debt continues to accumulate and what we ( The 47% ) get for our tax dollars continues to decline .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You do realize that government workers under Obama have gone down during his presidency right? I believe nearly 3/4 of a million people at the fed, state and local levels.

and which Obama policy resulted in this reduction??

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

and which Obama policy resulted in this reduction??

Reducing the number of Caucasians LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Mar 2, 5:02 PM EST

TRUMP DOMINATES WITH HUGE TURNOUTS, WIDE BASE OF SUPPORT

BY BILL BARROW AND EMILY SWANSON
ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) -- Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump continues to demonstrate a wide base of support, riding record turnouts to seven victories out of the 11 states where Republicans cast Super Tuesday ballots.

Exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and other media across nine of the states showed Trump drawing significant support across educational, ideological, age and income classifications.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

oh good...is this the new snarky comedian that leftist will roll out to make all of their "points"?

this is not news but it is factual....love that...


hey Spence....that's all been taken out of context ...right???

Did you hear Romneys speech today sounded like he got his info from the show

[wdmso]

Interesting

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Interesting

More proof the Dems are in the tank with Wall Streef
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

rumney finally showed his true colors...

[wdmso]

The republican Limbo how low can you go!! Trumps comment to Rubio about his hand size started by some spy Magazine some 30 years ago

"Look at those hands, are they small hands?" the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination said, raising them for viewers to see. "And, he referred to my hands -- 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."

And some think the current POTUS is an embarrassment ... And trump will be an Improvement if elected ? thats some serious mental gymnastics...

[scottw]

ahhhh the feigned indignation......the left has been quite content with a growing coarsened culture and proudly responsible for it(at least the parts that they condone and deem acceptable depending on who you are and how you think)) for quite a long time and Trump is thriving in that culture beating the left with their own club.....we were told that Bill Clinton could be a complete dirt bag in his personal life and even at the OFFICE (and he demonstrated that he was)...a prolific liar married to a congenital liar(and they've demonstrated that they are)...yet still be an effective President/co-President and now presumptive President(everybody lies, what's the big deal?).... we were told that all of Obama's radical associations didn't matter...the same folks upset that Trump wasn't aware of David Duke defended Obama when he said he sat in Rev Wright's church for years and never heard anything he said or his many comments attacking those he didn't care for.....sooooooo.....it's the left that has lowered the bar nearly to the ground and Trump is crawling on his belly and he's coming to get you.........if Trump is elected and proceeds to run wild over Congress, the SC and the States....the left has only themselves to slap in the face as they've condoned and defended the expansion of executive power....you reap what you sow....Trump thrives in the culture the left has created which must be befuddling...


if Biden was running and made this comment in a debate...we'd be told it was funny(and it was)...probably brilliant(debatable) ....and that...it's just "Joe being Joe"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

if Biden was running and made this comment in a debate...we'd be told it was funny(and it was)...probably brilliant(debatable) ....and that...it's just "Joe being Joe"

True. But we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. That was the least dignified debate, in a series of undignified debates. I am no longer a Rubio supporter. I'll vote for him over Hilary, but I won't support him in a primary. I think he's too young, and the last 7 years have shown us what happens when you elect a neophyte.

It was embarrassing, cringeworthy, pathetic.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

True. But we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. That was the least dignified debate, in a series of undignified debates. I am no longer a Rubio supporter. I'll vote for him over Hilary, but I won't support him in a primary. I think he's too young, and the last 7 years have shown us what happens when you elect a neophyte.

It was embarrassing, cringeworthy, pathetic.

don't disagree with that....just pointing out that the folks acting most offended are being a little hypocritical.....the same folks are always calling for red meat when the repub debates are milquetoast



“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

"The comment drew some laughs and applause."