The Dude wrote:it's his daughter dillweed!

burnt

Brantt wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Brantt wrote:And I would much rather vote for a candidate beholden to his own ego than one beholden to interest groups or Wall Street. That's a no-brainer for me.

Well, I'm certain Bernie isn't beholden to Wall Street, so what special interests groups are Bernie beholden to that you are opposed to?

Again, I am a Bernie Sanders fan. Most of his economic stuff mirrors Trump centering around free trade being an absolute disaster for this country. I like the guy.....absolutely would support him. I just don't think he has a chance in hell and will get crucified over the socialist moniker.

but the guy who calls mexicans rapists, that dude is electable.

SK790 wrote:

The Dude wrote:it's his daughter dillweed!

burnt

You thought anything I ever said in a political thread here was truly serious? I hate you now. She is hot though.

to be clear, i don't take anything on the internet seriously.

SK790 wrote:to be clear, i don't take anything on the internet seriously.

especially weather predictions

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

SK790 wrote:to be clear, i don't take anything on the internet seriously.

especially weather predictions

ohhh

SK790 wrote:

Brantt wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Brantt wrote:And I would much rather vote for a candidate beholden to his own ego than one beholden to interest groups or Wall Street. That's a no-brainer for me.

Well, I'm certain Bernie isn't beholden to Wall Street, so what special interests groups are Bernie beholden to that you are opposed to?

Again, I am a Bernie Sanders fan. Most of his economic stuff mirrors Trump centering around free trade being an absolute disaster for this country. I like the guy.....absolutely would support him. I just don't think he has a chance in hell and will get crucified over the socialist moniker.

but the guy who calls mexicans rapists, that dude is electable.

Moreso than Sanders, yes.

Being an alpha-male has helped Trump more than anything.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

SK790 wrote:to be clear, i don't take anything on the internet seriously.

especially weather predictions

This is true. Hope my job never finds this board.

SK790 wrote:So the stock markets are plummeting, but yeah, more about the relative hotness of Trump's wife.

market already up 272 pts now

so the plummet is only about 200 pts from yesterday morning as of now

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

SK790 wrote:So the stock markets are plummeting, but yeah, more about the relative hotness of Trump's wife.

market already up 272 pts now

so the plummet is only about 200 pts from yesterday morning as of now

Isn't it down quite a bit still over the last few weeks?

I wouldn't get too worked up over the coke heads on Wall Street being worried about a Chinese slowdown. It's not even historically a top anything as far as being down.

TenuredVulture wrote:I may have been right about something--I've been speculating that the real split in American politics is between a cosmopolitan coast and a populist heartland--the Palin/Huckabee types. The populist movement was in some respects exploited and sidelined by the manipulations of the Tea Party. Ironically, though the heartland politics have found its greatest success with a man mostly identified with New York, casinos and multiple divorces and trophy wives.

Anyway, I think this article has some interesting points, though of course the real problem is the angry white working class isn't going to be helped by either wing of the Republican Party.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/21/are ... -politics/

The Federalist article is a very good read. I almost shared it on Facebook the other day, and I never do that.

On the cosmopolitan vs. populism front, there's obviously something to it. The issues I care about and the things your average Republican from the middle of the country care about are different, and these are coming to the forefront thanks to Trump and other developments.

I've seen some tries at connecting two or three of these things, but an article oughta try to connect many of the weird goings on in Europe to the Summer of Trump (and to a lesser extent Bernie). In France, there's been the persistent strength of Marine LePen, regularly drawing in the upper 20s/low 30s in 1st round preferences for president. Sweden has seen the Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigrant party, climb to first or second in public opinion polling, with voters abandoning the mainstream parties in large numbers. In the UK, in addition to the whole UKIP bit from last election, you've now got Jeremy Corbyn looking like he will be the next Labour leader. Alongside his socialist renationalizing industries stuff, he's got some out of the mainstream foreign policy views like wanting to ditch NATO and unsure on whether Britain should stay in the EU. He wouldn't represent voters ditching a mainstream party, but the membership of a mainstream party picking a decidedly non-mainstream leader, along the lines of the Dems nominating Bernie if Bernie had wackier foreign policy views.

Lotta weirdness going on in Western democracies at the moment. Lotta people anxious and uncertain and whatnot.

this feels wrong

The constitutions of these seven "Bible Belt" US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:
Article 19, Section 1
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[91]
Maryland:
Article 37
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."[92]
Mississippi:
Article 14, Section 265
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[93]
North Carolina:
Article 6, Section 8
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."[94]
South Carolina:
Article 17, Section 4
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[95]
Tennessee:
Article 9, Section 2
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[96]
Texas:
Article 1, Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[97]

yeah, that would never hold up with Diana Ross' backup singers.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatio ... ted_States

Ah, recently covered in the WaPo. Apparently no attempted enforcement since a 1961 SCOTUS ruling.

So, why leave it on the books?

Brantt wrote:
If he were elected, maybe he would be awful and make things worse. Maybe not.

no. No, there's really no room for doubt about this. He would make things worse.

I am so ingrained in my belief that our system is shattered broke that I am willing to try the alternative no matter what flaws it may have. And I would much rather vote for a candidate beholden to his own ego than one beholden to interest groups or Wall Street. That's a no-brainer for me.

Not sure how you, or anyone else, can be "ingrained in a belief". There's no such figure of speech. Beliefs may be ingrained in you; it doesn't work the other way. (I know, I know; take it to the grammar annoyances thread)

But reflect a minute about what the candidate decision process you've outlined says about your ability to construct decision processes. I find it hard to imagine that, if your boss saw it, you'd never again be given any role in evaluating or selecting any personnel for your organization.

Soren wrote:this feels wrong

The constitutions of these seven "Bible Belt" US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:
Article 19, Section 1
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[91]

.....


Texas:
Article 1, Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[97]

Try a'readin' 'em with a chaw 'er tabacky in yer cheek

Er holdin' some kind of loaded firearm

drsmooth wrote:

Brantt wrote:
If he were elected, maybe he would be awful and make things worse. Maybe not.

no. No, there's really no room for doubt about this. He would make things worse.

I am so ingrained in my belief that our system is shattered broke that I am willing to try the alternative no matter what flaws it may have. And I would much rather vote for a candidate beholden to his own ego than one beholden to interest groups or Wall Street. That's a no-brainer for me.

Not sure how you, or anyone else, can be "ingrained in a belief". There's no such figure of speech. Beliefs may be ingrained in you; it doesn't work the other way. (I know, I know; take it to the grammar annoyances thread)

But reflect a minute about what the candidate decision process you've outlined says about your ability to construct decision processes. I find it hard to imagine that, if your boss saw it, you'd never again be given any role in evaluating or selecting any personnel for your organization.

I just showed this whole exchange to my boss (who is the President and CEO of our company). He agrees with you 100% and wants to hire you.

Soren wrote:So, why leave it on the books?

Because there's no political gain to be had from leading the effort to get it out of the state constitution, and it wouldn't change anything.

In a way, it's partly why legalization of marijuana only progresses through referendum--even if a representative thinks it's good policy, the political gain (and the long odds of success) mean that it's not rational to fight for such a thing. Inertia is a pretty powerful political force.