US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3586

On April 12 2016 01:08 Gorsameth wrote:

Yes it is, it was functional at the time when distance was a serious concern but sadly America has a tendency to get overly attached to 'the old ways' which hampers any attempt at reforming the process.

with any workable socialist arrangement you need a highly productive, broad based economy. the redistribution and govt structure can happen but those are not the actual drivers for economic value creation. it is more of a political luxury, that also neglects certain populations. events in europe should show the limits of the welfare state model with respect to (re)integrating certain marginalized populations. the lesson from aid and development is vwry clear in this respect as well. you want sustainable development, which involves letting people use their talent and drive.

On April 12 2016 02:09 Acrofales wrote:
Now all we need is someone to come in and say that National Socialism was also socialism, because it had it in its name, and that all socialism therefore leads to holocausts or gulags. That is probably the only thing that could make this discussion more stupid than it currently is. If you two want to debate the exact meaning of socialism, it would really be great if you could take it to PMs while we go back to making fun of Drumpf. On that theme:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/trump-erupts-as-cruz-sweeps-colorado-without-votes/

On April 12 2016 02:17 KwarK wrote:

If the delegates were offered trips and other benefits by Cruz in exchange for votes then that simply shows that Trump was unwilling to properly value the economic utility offered by those delegates and compensate them appropriately for their economically rational behaviour. The true crime here would have been if Cruz had been willing to appropriately compensate them for their labour but been unable to do so due to the artificial constraints, no, let's call it what it is, slavery, imposed by a system which forces delegates to act against their own inclination. There is no greater virtue than the right to freely negotiate and enter into contracts of ones own will. Would Trump wish Cruz barred from entering into free and fair contracts? There is no greater evil imaginable.

On April 12 2016 02:58 Ghanburighan wrote:
Frankly, I've had it with this thread. In the last few weeks I've been insulted by pretty much everyone I've had a prolonged exchange with (except a few pleasant individuals, who know who they are). This includes mods, the OP preaching a "no bashing policy" and many others. I just don't need this.

One shouldn't need to write full length essays covering all of one's bases every time they post in this thread to avoid patronizing, being called stupid, ignorant and worse. And, in fact, people don't seem to read prior posts anyway so even if you have covered a particular base, that doesn't seem to matter much. So I'm done. I blame myself for thinking I could enjoy a conversation on politics on the internet, but this little experiment only demonstrates that it's a waste of time and energy that only creates pointless arguments.

I'm sure many of you will be happy to see me go (greetings to GH - I do actually wish Sanders the best of luck, he almost made this primary cycle a nail-biter) but I'll remind you that self-reflection is a virtue.

On April 12 2016 03:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Anyone have a link to what went down in the Republican Colorado vote? I don't understand it and the pro-Trump sources are all crazy (WND). Was there a vote? Where did these delegates come from?

On April 12 2016 03:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Anyone have a link to what went down in the Republican Colorado vote? I don't understand it and the pro-Trump sources are all crazy (WND). Was there a vote? Where did these delegates come from?

You’re hearing a lot about New York, where Donald Trump is reportedly trying to make up for his poor performance in Wisconsin. On Friday, for example, CNN reported:

The Trump campaign is overhauling its schedule to go all in in the Empire State. Trump abandoned plans to travel west this week for a news conference in California, a rally in Colorado and an appearance at Colorado’s state convention …

On the surface, this strategy makes sense: New York, which votes April 19, is worth 95 delegates, while Wisconsin, which voted last Tuesday, awarded only 42 pledged delegates and Colorado just 34.1 In reality, however, the Colorado conventions this weekend were really important; Trump’s path to the 1,237 delegates necessary to clinch the Republican nomination is so tenuous that he can’t afford slip-ups anywhere. And he slipped up in Colorado. Now, no matter how well Trump does in New York, he will have fallen further off pace to reach 1,237 delegates, taking into account Colorado and Wisconsin.

Colorado elects 34 potentially pledged delegates through seven district conventions and a statewide convention. (The state GOP decided not to hold a primary or caucus with a presidential preference vote this year.) But instead of putting together a top-notch convention team, Trump’s campaign was a mess: In one case, Trump delegates weren’t even on the ballot to be voted on by a district convention; in two others, Trump’s campaign didn’t provide his potential supporters with a list of pro-Trump delegates, so they didn’t know who to vote for.

The end result: Trump won zero delegates from Colorado; Ted Cruz won 34.

So where does that leave Trump?

A few weeks ago, FiveThirtyEight asked a panel of delegate “experts” how many delegates they expected Trump to win in the remaining contests. Our panel, on average, had Trump garnering 513 pledged delegates after the March 15 primaries, to add to the 694 he had already won.2 In that scenario, Trump would fall just short of 1,237, but he’d be close enough that he could still win the nomination on the first ballot at the GOP convention by securing the support of some of the 100+ unpledged delegates.

But the point of the panel wasn’t to predict the exact number of delegates Trump would win overall, or in each state. The idea was to get a sense of the pace Trump would have to set to reach 1,237. The panel, for example, had Trump winning 25 delegates in Wisconsin, on average. Trump won only six delegates there, putting him behind the pace he needs to hit to clinch the nomination. The panel, on average, projected Trump to win seven delegates from Colorado. That he came up empty-handed means he’s even further off pace.


Which brings us back to New York. The panel projected Trump to win 71 delegates there, but let’s say he wins all 95. That seems unlikely — Trump would have to win more than 50 percent of the vote in all 27 of New York’s congressional districts. But let’s say he manages to do it. Even in that scenario, Trump would still be underperforming the panel’s overall delegate target, because of Wisconsin and Colorado. (Trump also ended up with two fewer pledged delegates in American Samoa3 than the panel projected and four fewer delegates in Utah.)

And remember, the panel had Trump falling just short of 1,237. That means that after five additional contests, Trump is now on pace to fall just short of just short even if he sweeps New York.

This isn’t to say Trump’s quest for 1,237 is lost. There will be opportunities down the line in states like California for him to earn more delegates than our panel projected. But the math is close enough that disregarding Colorado was probably a big mistake. Trump and those watching this delegate fight shouldn’t kid themselves: Every delegate matters.

On April 12 2016 03:10 Jormundr wrote:

I haven't been following too much lately (yay romance) but every single time I come in here you're starting a new strawman about how literally any type of socialism is going to eventually equate to life behind the iron curtain. I understand your frustration. I didn't have to grow up in it, but my father and grandparents did. Unfortunately that doesn't make your argument correct, it just makes it understandable.

On April 12 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote:

Generally those who live in and/or are educated in the West who come from the East tend to be a skewed sample that is strongly against the socialist economy of the USSR. So is English-speaking ex-USSR for that matter. You would get a much different interpretation of events if you talked to Russians who chose to live in Russia - such is the case with the majority of the people I know who didn't choose to leave after the collapse of the USSR.

Among fellow immigrants I know who left the USSR, the majority are to a very large extent anti-socialist and tend to lean Republican. Ghan's positions are very similar to that group.