thephan wrote:Smooth - Bloomberg said he was considering running conditionallya few days ago, so your rumor is not a rumor.

THAT'S THE JOKE

(part of it)

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:But he lacks an understanding of basic economics, human behavior, and market behaviors.

Do you understand the basic economic structures of the western european and scandanavian countries?

Wait, I'll answer that for you: no, you clearly don't.

I'm generalizing, but your understanding of how contemporary economies actually work is pretty limited

Doc - With Dajafi on sabbatical, do you understand that you need to step up as the adult voice representing the left on this board?

I know you lash out with the personal invectives each time you face an argument that you can't refute easily. But dig a little deeper. You're in a leadership role.

Meanwhile, don't take my word on Bernie's pulp fiction that self-identifying progressives love to consume; liisten to this right-wing outlet, the WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

that's a relatively lame take by WaPo. They come off very in the bubble and I'm not sure who they're trying to sway? Failed attempt by them because they don't provide too much evidence for their claims while they then say Sanders doesn't provide enough evidence. It's a campaign, of course he doesn't. No one else is, either. I've read parts of his healthcare plan and he has a big cost control in there (using medicare's bargaining power to lower costs of drugs, care and YES, doctor and hospital salaries/profits). I say that as someone who isn't voting for him in the primary.

Chait has a better piece, IMO positing that Sanders is running on too negative an idea for it to be relatable to the public at large after 8 years of a Democratic president. Running away from the predecessor rarely if ever works. he appears to be using this stage as his moment to bring to light the issues he's been about for 30+ years. That's admirable but I don't think it's conducive to electing a Democratic president.

I don't believe Sanders is necessarily distancing himself from Obama. If anything he's running a similar campaign to Obama 08. The left is not going to give up on their core agenda.

The more I think about, the more it seems to me Trump's decision to pick a fight with FOX is an attempt by him to sabotage his own campaign. Why pull this with FOX, rather than NBC or CNN? It's no secret FOX is a thinly disguised arm of the Republican party (although I think the relationship between the two is oversimplified when put that way, but I don't want to write a novel here). Certainly, FOX panders to the exact audience and fears with which Trump connects. The guy who sits around watching FOX News from the safety of his home and has his fears and rage articulated by the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, et. al. is the exact guy who is a Trump supporter. "Mainstream" establishment Bush-type Republicans don't really belong on FOX News - the jarring appearance of George Will as an employee of that network - he who once opined that the "less said about Ann Coulter, the better - is a case in point; he has made a final degrading mockery of what was left of his career to the exact degree to which he has embraced the FOX model of pandering to the basest fears and most anti-intellectual impulses of its audience.

But Trump? In his current iteration, at any rate, he is like an automaton designed by Roger Ailes to be the living, breathing embodiment of the exact statistical average FOX News viewer:

White
Male
55+
Extremely conservative on issues perceived to redistribute wealth and/or resources to those "undeserving" (i.e., poor minorities, recent immigrants)
Hostile to "political correctness," which is perceived not as simply a way to be appropriately polite to fellow citizens but instead an attack on the culture in which he grew up and from which he and his family arose, that is to say patriarchal, white, and Judeo-Christian
Having said that, broadly populist when it comes to redistributive policies that tend to favor himself (In favor of social security and medicare, for the "right" people)

I could go on. Trump the candidate hits the exact center of all of this. I don't know how much of what Trump says Trump believes - the performative aspect of his candidacy still seems to be its defining feature - but if we take him at face value it is like giving the absolute average FOX News viewer a few billion dollars and a microphone.

So why, then, would Trump attempt to boycott THE network that cultivates and connects him to THE audience most receptive to his bluster?

Unless he wants to lose.

Monkeyboy has spoken about reports he's read that Trump has been caught off guard by how well his candidacy has "worked" to this point. Trump's comments to the effect that he could kill someone and his poll numbers still wouldn't go down seem of a piece with this observation, and essentially function as a "tell" that he would be just as happy to see his candidacy collapse at this point, following as they do the same pattern of self-destruction, or at least desire for self-destruction, as picking a fight with FOX News would seem to establish.

I think Trump wants out, but doesn't want to be perceived as quitting, particularly when the numbers say he is the favorite. This is why I think Christie will be the nominee: his candidacy has been undermined to a large degree by Trump. Christie was to play the roll of the politically incorrect truth-teller, but within the well-defined confines of electoral politics. Trump came in not caring about actually winning, but performing the same role, and has therefore outdone Christie in every conceivable way on this point.

Trump's desperate attempt to undo himself should allow him to exit after a predictable drop in poll numbers and/or early state defeats, and then throw his weight behind Christie, who would inherit the mantle of the angry-white-guy representative, but without (I am sure Christie hopes) the racist and xenophobic edges. Christie is probably closest to where the "real" Trump is - if that person exists - ideologically anyway.

But of course, as Trump himself has observed, it is possible this attempt will not work. If it doesn't, he's all but trapped into an extended run for the presidency. Watch how fast he suddenly accepts donor money when this happens - it certainly beats blowing your own on something you at best only sort of want to do.

I fully agree that Trump is taking a "fuck it, let's see what happens" approach. If it tanks his campaign, good for him, because I still refuse to believe he actually wants the job. If it doesn't tank the campaign, then he might be the most powerful man in the country other than the sitting President.

TomatoPie wrote:
Meanwhile, don't take my word on Bernie's pulp fiction that self-identifying progressives love to consume; liisten to this right-wing outlet, the WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Yawn. WaPo gets lamer with each day goggle-eyed starship trooper Bezos owns it.

Both Cruz and Rubio demonstrating they are pretty clueless regarding National Defense. Carpet bombing? We have a weak military?

Our military is the strongest in the world. It's not even close. Carpet bombing doesn't work very often. Yeah, if a large concentration of enemy forces are out in the open it can be effective.

Trump getting slammed by the candidates. Clever.

Cruz tells it like it is

https://vine.co/v/i5ATOI1O6wU

I agree 100%

how has ben carson been around this long and still has no idea whats going on

the so called tolerant left Fox News moderators hurting Teddy's feelings

Ted Cruz: "If you guys ask one more mean question, I may have to leave the stage."

Rubio thinks Sweden sucks for reasons that aren't clear

These guys are so bad... it wouldn't have surprised me to hear Trump enter in the last 5 minutes to a wrestling theme song...

smitty wrote:Both Cruz and Rubio demonstrating they are pretty clueless regarding National Defense. Carpet bombing? We have a weak military?

Our military is the strongest in the world. It's not even close. Carpet bombing doesn't work very often. Yeah, if a large concentration of enemy forces are out in the open it can be effective.

I think "carpet bombing" is meant to be a code word for "bombing people who make carpets."

I'm not sure if it's scarier if they do know what carpet bombing is or if they don't know what carpet bombing is.

For hugging the military so much they sure seem to know very little about how it works.

swishnicholson wrote:
I think "carpet bombing" is meant to be a code word for "bombing people who make carpets."

& it was right there in front of all of us this whole time