smjjames

gonna disagree. republicans in 16 didn't fully understand the magnitude o' the dissatisfaction within their party. had a field o' familiar moderates and one outsider wingnut. republicans, at least the voting republicans, didn't want familiar. so much resentment towards beltway insiders and career politicians that the one stark alternative became the improbable default choice. am knowing the democrat field is ridiculous large, but keep in mind, in spite o' your observation, it were a republican candidate who ended up winning in 2016. am thinking the problem for democrats ain't numbers just as numbers weren't the real problem in 2016 for republicans. problem for democrats is party identity. democrat candidates is current all trying to show just how progressive they can be, w/o going full democratic socialist... with the exception o' bernie sanders. "tax the rich" has become new refrain, but am not certain how far the democrats will go on such thin policy. if independents is forced to choose 'tween a moderate democrat and trump, am thinking they go with the democrat, and independents functional decided the last election. at the moment, independents, who voted more in favor o' trump than clinton in 2016, has largely flipped, but what if democrats skew towards the lunatic fringe and embrace somebody more like ocasio-cortez? independents, in spite o' their growing dissatisfaction with trump, will need make a hard choice and am not liking democrat chances if they force independents to choose 'tween trump and an equal unrestrained democrat. am thinking democrats current have an edge... right up until they choose candidate, regardless o' size o' the field. unfortunate, we can foresee democrat primaries going as did republican leading up to 2016. winnow down candidates until only the most extreme outsider remains worked for republicans in part 'cause hillary were disliked by independents and by more than a few democrats. democrats can't count on reversing the playbook on the republicans. as an aside, independents also tend to trust mueller. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/independents-trust-mueller-which-could-be-bad-news-for-trump/ HA! Good Fun! I don't know about it coming down to the 'least desireable candidate' (which is also subjective to an extent), the Republicans had a pretty clearly divided group with all the insiders not differing by much and with Trump as the one outsider and having a big chunk all to himself from pretty much the start. Here, the Democrats have a wide spectrum with a variety that will have to fight for and the particular conditions and what they're aiming for. The crowded primaries will definetly produce A result, but history isn't neccesarily going to repeat itself.

I think you mean 'putting the law of man above the law of god', unless it comes to spiritual matters (cue arguments over marriage, reproductive rights, etc). Also, the ancedote about Caesar is really just a contemporary statement about sticking Romes stuff to Rome.

I'm just gonna root for my home team, the Padres.

I don't remember anything about Jesus attacking anybody with a whip, though if it was a politician, it'd have to have been a low level one that Rome didn't give a damn about. The only time I know of that Jesus used violence is when he kicked out the merchants from the temple square with... his fists? I don't think it says how, just that he kicked them out.

A dangerous surplus of what though? Identitarian populism? Just wondering what you're referring to here.

Depends on the species (because not all snakes are venomous and not all scorpions are dangerous to humans) and whether the antivenom is available. Just logicing it around.

The mimicing of Gromnir was completely unneccesary SonicMage. I also noted that it's subjective since the big accomplishments aren't always in the first two years, and despite your mimicking sarcasm, you do have a point in that 'accomplishments' is subjective in the sense that it depends on who you ask. I think Gromnir was asking the question from a historian sort of point of view.

I'm certain there are competitors back in the 19th century.... edit: It's also somewhat subjective because, for example, Abraham Lincolin was still in the middle of the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclaimation was in his second year, so, you have to look at the entire term.

Speaking of Shultz, yesterday he gave an ultimatium of sorts that he'd drop his candidacy if the Democrats nominated a centrist. I'm curious as to who out of the 30+ is running, looking at running, and plausibly could run, he thinks is a centrist.

While I get the implication of Trump being a buffoon with using Jar Jar, I think that's somewhat unfair to Senator Jar Jar as he appeared to have grown some as a character, even though we never saw that growth. Palpatine would be more appropriate here in the sense of grabbing power. For all the Republican hyperventilating over the precedent, they've set some precedents themselves that they should have thought twice about. So, despite them having a point, they're wallowing in their own hypocrisy.

Now, if only they'd invent glasses which translate audio into text....... (though I think Google Glass might have this capability?? Too bad you probably can't get them fitted with prescription lenses).

*Grumbles loudly at whatever the **** happened to youtube captions.....*

Aww, that's sweet...

New post because this forum doesn't show when the latest post gets edited. nvm that, heh. GD, you might like or be interested this one. Just spotted this on the The Guardian liveblog a bit ago. I don't know how you feel about Bill Weld switching back to Republican from Libertarian (the local NH GOP is pretty hostile to him), but he's made a major/substantial move towards a Presidential candidacy, most likely as a Republican. Hopefully this opens the floodgates to other challengers jumping in....

Could be because it's more efficient or cheaper in some way? Anyhow, other news, better add another name to the revolving door that is the Trump Adminstration, FEMA director Brock Long has resigned, the exact reasons aren't known, but he has been involved in a government resource scandal of his own.

That and the fact that they keep kicking the debt ceiling oil barrel down the road (I prefer 'oil barrel' to 'can' as kicking a steel barrel would be more painful than a small aluminum can. Plus calling it a can makes the issue smaller than it is.) instead of dealing with it. I don't want to go default on it, that would be the extreme of extreme last resorts, but repeatedly playing chicken with the debt ceiling isn't good in the long run. At some point, neither side is going to blink, or they blink too late.

I thought it was due to the recession crash and efforts to fix it and stuff in relation to the wars. At least give him credit for bringing it down to almost the Bush years peak. Though it has been slowly rising since then. It was the Senate I believe rather than Obama directly who tried to fix the crisis, however, the Republican Senate went and rolled back those same fixes (or at least some of them), so, it's back to square one regardless of what Obama did. I haven't heard much about the 2008 troubles reappearing in 2018/2019 other than that the Republicans rolled things back and that it's only a matter of time before it happens all over again. As you said earlier, the main focus of attention is on what's happning in China since one of the major economic engines of the world not doing great should be a concern to everybody. Also, people probably should pay attention to whatever ripple shocks happen after Brexit. It's probably unlikely that it'll destabilize anybody besides the UK, but you never know in the 'whisper from the wings of a butterfly in the Amazon that creates a storm in Africa' sense.

Obama wasn't the one who ballooned the deficit in the first place Gromnir, that was George W. Bush's doing. I don't know where you're getting the idea that he bloated the deficit, he actually decreased it from the Bush years. As for China, yeah, that is going to be an issue, though it's in part inevitable whether or not Trumps tariff stuff exacerbates it because boom times don't last forever.

Eh? I haven't heard anything regarding him being hated just because he has different opinions (though some are irritated by some of his comments). The reason why some are hating him right now is because they're all 'NO! An independent run will just throw the election to Trump!' because third party spoiler effect and FPTP system.

*sigh* Whatever the hell happened to Youtubes captioning system? Sure, it wasn't perfect, but often times it's better than nothing for those who are hard of hearing.... Except for the cases where it was truly terrible. CNN is doing a town hall with him later tonight (for some reason, even though he isn't even actually running yet), so, I guess we'll see if he bombs that or something.

I was thinking that, but wasn't sure since the others are referring to Trump. In related news, Russia says they're also pulling out of the treaty. https://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/428176-putin-says-russia-will-abandon-nuclear-arms-pact-after-us-does

ABM? Which deal/treaty is that?

Sounds like blind kneejerkiness if anything.

The WH certainly isn't tamping things down either https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/white-house-bolton-colombia/index.html .

All she said is that she isn't closing the door and the article does mention that most former candidates never fully close the door to running again. Still, I think she should stay out of it. However, even if she doesn't run, she's still going to play a significant king/queenmaker role whether people like it or not. Sure, her influence took a hit after 2016, but it's still a large influence.