TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Kasich/Rubio can probably win
Rubio/Kasich can't win, though the fly boots are fly.

Are enough Rs who matter pragmatically imaginative enough to grasp this?

Election 2016 boils down to this.

Rubio/Kasich is the ticket I prefer. Can you explain why you think it only has a chance with Kasich as POTUS?

Sure. Rubio's a green, harshly social conservative robot/nut with no executive experience. Michael J Fox circa Back to the Future haircut aside, Kasich is an adult.

Gimpy wrote:I don't know, I'm kind of tired of my tax dollars paying to supplement Walmart employees' income so they can live while the Walton family makes a disgusting amount of money.

I get the sentiment, even though I don't agree that anyone can earn a "disgusting" amount of money. It's only troubling to those who earn less. There are people who envy your wealth - but I wouldn't think the solution is for Uncle Bernie to take it from you.

The bottom line - regardless of your political affiliation - is that there will always be people at the economic bottom who need to be supported by the other 90%. We can accept that, and seek ways to make them self-sufficient - but we can't pretend that problem goes away.

You can't get that subsidy for "free" by punishing WalMart and McDonalds. You and I are going to pay for it, either in tax dollars, higher costs of goods, or some combination. So the Sanders-inspired class warfare is nice holier-than-thou feel-good stuff, but at the end of the day his kind of policies will shift people from the working class to the welfare class.

You and I and Bernie all want to help the disadvantaged in America. Those who are poor are not poor because the Walton family screwed them.

Every economy needs entry-level jobs, and WalMart provides them AND a path for growth. Almost any sentient mass can get a job at WalMart and obtain the fundamental job skills (shower, comb your hair, wear a clean shirt, show up on time, follow instructions) that will translate into other opportunities within WalMart or elsewhere. When we double the cost of those jobs, you cut off the first rung of the ladder. Those with the least skills now become not $15/hour rich, but unemployable.

The myth of trying to support a family on minimum wage fuels a lot of the nonsense that inspires the Sanders crowd. Minimum wage earners are largely young people living with parents or second earners in a home. You are indeed in sad shape if you are 40 years old and working for minimum wage. But no matter how you got there, you're gonna need a subsidy to get by. And it's much better that your subisdy comes as EIC or food stamps or other, rather than compelling the Waltons to overpay all the teens in entry-level jobs.

Bernie appeals to those who want to blame someone for the poor in America. That's really a dead-end. Helping the poor can be done without being a bully.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Kasich/Rubio can probably win
Rubio/Kasich can't win, though the fly boots are fly.

Are enough Rs who matter pragmatically imaginative enough to grasp this?

Election 2016 boils down to this.

Rubio/Kasich is the ticket I prefer. Can you explain why you think it only has a chance with Kasich as POTUS?

Sure. Rubio's a green, harshly social conservative robot/nut with no executive experience. Michael J Fox circa Back to the Future haircut aside, Kasich is an adult.

I agree with your analysis - but since when does Murka vote for anyone but the prettier/taller/trendier candidate?

Rubio is only trendy because he won a predicted third place in Iowa and spun it as some sort of major victory.

Right now, poll wise, he is basically tied for second with Cruz and Kasich in NH. Some twenty points behind Trump. I do hope that Rubio does not manage to sneak by with a second place finish. Still a few days to go. Hoping he continues to say insane things now that the spotlight is somewhat on him. Christie may be right with his "bubble boy" analysis.

The GOP is certainly down to Cruz or Rubio, unless the Club For Grey Men can somehow get Jeb! jumpstarted!

i get the sense gimpy and tomatopie may not have taken the same econ101 classes

fwiw, i think that meme is real dumb

pacino wrote:fwiw, i think that meme is real dumb

I can enjoy anything that mocks Olive Garden.

Santorum is endorsing Rubio (not that it matters much) even though he ideologically aligns with Cruz much more

goes to show just how much Cruz's peers hate his guts

they were never even in the Senate together; just brushed elbows in Iowa

TomatoPie wrote:

Gimpy wrote:I don't know, I'm kind of tired of my tax dollars paying to supplement Walmart employees' income so they can live while the Walton family makes a disgusting amount of money.

I get the sentiment, even though I don't agree that anyone can earn a "disgusting" amount of money.

the Walton family - the living family members - almost exclusively inherited their sociopathically distended heap of wealth.

We've been over & over this: earning is not the same as owning. Owning is far, far more important. Earning anyone can do. Here's your problem: owners have sharply devalued your earning power. You're confused because you believe you're an owner. No; not really. Not seriously.

You, like practically everyone else here - ok, Steele aside - is owned. You may be able to earn, but you do not own. You get all upset and confused by people screeching about 'income inequality' - a distraction, and an almost deliberate misunderstanding of what, economics-wise, is most at issue.

his kind of policies will shift people from the working class to the welfare class.

only if you have the kind of unexamined and curdled view of humanity that causes you to imagine, for example, that people will necesssarily consume LOTS & LOTS of high-cost health treatment if someone else funds it. Western economies with more egalitarian health care systems do not endure more usage than we do - they merely pay lots less for it.

We've been over this several times. You're not learning anything. Disappointing.

Bernie appeals to those who want to blame someone for the poor in America.

Once again you're confusing an urge to do something about something with 'blaming' someone for the condition that needs doing something about.

1. Sanders is not identifying you as a logical source of resources to do something about it. You're not an owner. Not really. Not seriously.

2. Identifying wealth disparities as a systemic problem is not the same as blaming those who are wealthy with creating it. It's identifying a systemic problem.

Be as delusionally, boot-lickingly defensive as you like; just know you're missing the point.

702 wrote:Why did you take 675k for speeches?


Cause that's what they offered.

I have absolutely no problem with somebody like Clinton collecting whatever speaking fees she can (although the totals do get to be pretty obnoxious). Here's the thing though, you can't accept that kind of money and then not expect people to believe you are very likely to act favorably toward the people who paid you, especially when you already have a hot/cold relationship with honesty and truth.

traderdave wrote:

702 wrote:Why did you take 675k for speeches?


Cause that's what they offered.

I have absolutely no problem with somebody like Clinton collecting whatever speaking fees she can (although the totals do get to be pretty obnoxious). Here's the thing though, you can't accept that kind of money and then not expect people to believe you are very likely to act favorably toward the people who paid you, especially when you already have a hot/cold relationship with honesty and truth.

this coming from people who want to reform our political system of donations and money in politics is a valid criticism. this coming from people who don't is just a naked political tactic itself. so, bernie can make this criticism, but no republican can.

pacino wrote:women in the draft?

I dodged the draft using the oldest trick in the book. I joined the Army.

Women being required to register is an interesting idea. I'm not automatically against it. But it's not likely to ever matter.

Ted Cruz ex roomate hates him

https://twitter.com/clmazin

Sweden worried that Russia is going to move to retake Gotland, just like Crimea. More Russian homeland moves. Truth is thst no one knows what Russia is up to, and since the Easter Incident the Sweds are some what embarrassed that the Russians simulated attacks by overlying their cities while they managed to launch zero intercept aircraft at all. NATO might get a new member.

Good news is if you miss or missed the cold war, you can have a redo.

Only here because it involved a Congressional committee:

Human-shaped dogshit Martin Shkreli appeared before Chaffetz's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, took the Fifth, dissed the committee while he was there, and later from the comfort of whatever gutter he'd slithered off to, tweeted that he feels the committee's members are "imbeciles".

A republican committee member couldn't recall the committee ever being treated with such contempt and asked Committee Chair Chaffetz whether he felt Shkreli could be held in contempt of Congress. Imbecile Chaffetz informed him he did not intend to do so. Let's check his list of campaign contributors

The Dig weighs in on Rand Paul

The despicable Kentucky senator began his campaign in April of 2015, raising a pitiful $1 million dollars from involuntarily celibate Call of Duty livestreamers who all coordinated to steal money from their mothers’ purses at the same time. These humiliating “money bombs” were a hallmark of the Paul campaign. He employed Cash.me, a website reserved for financial dominatrixes who lead on good men then empty their hearts and their wallets, similar to how Rand treats the social outcasts that make up his base.

http://www.cafe.com/der-undermensch-the ... -campaign/