US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3143

On March 04 2016 03:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
If anything I thought STEM or econ/biz/math people would see Sanders has unworkable proposals.

On March 04 2016 03:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
If anything I thought STEM or econ/biz/math people would see Sanders has unworkable proposals.

On March 04 2016 03:05 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the problem for the Republican Establishment. Trump supporters, and the Republican base at large, already were thinking that the Republican Establishment had betrayed them and were corrupt and actively working against their interests. Now the Republican Establishment (and big money from Wall Street) is going out of its way to politically assassinate their guy. All that is going to do is reinforce their beliefs and convince more people to support Trump. Trump doesn't fit my political leanings particularly well, but I'll be damned if I'm not completely disgusted by what Trump has exposed from the Republican leadership.

Romney’s attack on Trump is impotent because it is not about racism. It’s about manners. For well-mannered Americans from good backgrounds, racism is like Fight Club. Speaking openly about bigotry is a social faux pas. Outrage over Trump’s Klan gaffe is nothing more than tone-policing.

Remember, Mitt Romney is the same guy who whitesplained the opposition he got from the NAACP in 2012 by implying that they just want “free stuff.” Romney is the 47% guy. This year’s establishment moderate, Jeb Bush, repeated the same ‘free stuff’ line in South Carolina last fall. None of the GOP field drew any principled distinction from Trump on his refugee policy, his stupid border wall, or his foreign policy militancy. Sophisticated people cloak their racism in a well-turned phrase. Romney isn’t criticizing Trump for racism. He’s just ridiculing him for using the wrong fork. Good luck with that.

On March 04 2016 03:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
If anything I thought STEM or econ/biz/math people would see Sanders has unworkable proposals.

On March 04 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:


STEM can not be lumped with econ and biz. In my 6 years working in academia, I have met 2 republicans. I have never been in groups more uniformly liberal than research. Academia is an extremely collectivist system and I think people in academia see the world as a lot more unified than other people do.

On March 04 2016 03:54 jcarlsoniv wrote:


Biz/Math double degree here, bud

On March 04 2016 03:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I've felt that while Sanders is out of the running, he's still had a really positive impact on the democratic debate. Personally he's probably the only american politician with a semi-legit presidential chance I've been aligned with policy wise (I mean sure, there's your jill stein or nader), but I also realize that many of his political suggestions never had a real chance at being implemented in the US.

Still, him, and his supporters, have been instrumental in setting the agenda for the democratic debates. For example, I don't see wall street regulation or student debt having been equally important debate topics if Sanders had not ran.

On March 04 2016 03:43 Plansix wrote:
There as a strong "Clinton or nothing camp" in 2008 too. I bet if we traveled back, it is a thing in every election to some level or another.

On March 04 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:

I could see econ majors poking holds in it, but STEM is a broad section of fields and they are just as prone to believing stupid shit as anyone else.

On March 04 2016 03:55 ticklishmusic wrote:


anyone who really has to deal with numbers and evidence for a living i feel should be the sort to take a hard, objective look at proposals for both candidates and decide if they make sense.



You support Sanders more on message grounds though, don't you? That's fine. But you can't be looking at his proposals and the funding mechanisms/ economics and say "yeah that works".

On March 04 2016 02:59 xDaunt wrote:

I think everyone who's paying attention thinks this. The Republican Establishment is completely misreading this election.

On March 04 2016 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:


Only 1 of my research buddies is insane about Bernie. The others are mainly people who studied music or other some other similarly idealistic subject.

On March 04 2016 03:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I've felt that while Sanders is out of the running, he's still had a really positive impact on the democratic debate. Personally he's probably the only american politician with a semi-legit presidential chance I've been aligned with policy wise (I mean sure, there's your jill stein or nader), but I also realize that many of his political suggestions never had a real chance at being implemented in the US.

Still, him, and his supporters, have been instrumental in setting the agenda for the democratic debates. For example, I don't see wall street regulation or student debt having been equally important debate topics if Sanders had not ran.

On March 04 2016 03:55 ticklishmusic wrote:


anyone who really has to deal with numbers and evidence for a living i feel should be the sort to take a hard, objective look at proposals for both candidates and decide if they make sense.



You support Sanders more on message grounds though, don't you? That's fine. But you can't be looking at his proposals and the funding mechanisms/ economics and say "yeah that works".

On March 04 2016 03:53 Seuss wrote:


Here's a good perspective on Romney's tut tutting of Trump: https://goplifer.com/2016/03/02/why-republican-criticism-of-trump-fails/

On March 04 2016 04:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:


More or less, yes. I've been very open about not necessarily agreeing with some of his specific proposals.

But I've watched the disgusting corruption of money in politics - and as I've said many, many times, that corruption is no secret. That corruption isn't going to change unless there's real campaign finance reform.

When it's widely acknowledged that no candidate will get their proposals through the governmental system completely in tact and without concessions, I support the candidate who is walking the walk when it comes to the issue that I feel compromises the general integrity of the system.

It's the same reason I supported Zephyr Teachout when she ran for NY governor last year - she was trying to succeed against a heavily funded opponent with "open-source" funding, for lack of a better term.

On March 04 2016 04:09 xDaunt wrote:

That article is horseshit. It's the same horseshit that I see from every dishonest liberal who tries to articulate what actually motivates conservative voters.

On March 04 2016 04:05 strongwind wrote:
Today it finally hit me just what the death of print journalism has meant for media coverage in general. I can't believe I haven't realized it until now.

Watching this election I've been constantly struck by the sensationalist news headlines that pollute the airwaves and the internet. Add in the pervasiveness of opinion pieces and blog articles, and what we have now is the fracturing of readership / viewership into increasingly polarized camps. Now people get to hear what they "want" to hear instead of the broad reality of the country at large.

At first I thought this might be due to the consolidation and acquisition of the major news agencies by wealthy individuals and corporate entities. But now I realize this was an effect, not the cause. The cause is that the failure to adequately monetize the transition from print to digital media has led to severe cost-cutting measures, effectively winnowing the field of conscientious journalists that strive hard to achieve journalistic integrity.

I for one am tired of the hyperbole being thrown around. I know my opinions are not always right, and I don't think the opposition is the devil incarnate. I want to know why people think the way they do, because I believe there is almost always a nuanced reason behind it.

I understand objective journalism can never be completely unbiased, but I've always trusted journalists to strive for it no matter what. Now with bloggers posing as true journalists, I question that trust. That can't be good for this country.

On March 04 2016 04:09 wei2coolman wrote:

I mean, I think a lot of people agree with this. That's why Sanders and Trump have been the two stand out candidates this primary cycle.