What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

Oh, Ted. Never change.

Cruz has become such a pariah that one of his colleagues, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, told supporters at a campaign fundraiser for his own re-election that he would vote for liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders for president before Cruz, according to one person who attended the event. Burr did not appear to be joking, said the person, who demanded anonymity to discuss the private gathering.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

1. My State
2. The White House
3. The Courts
4. The Senate
5. The House
6. Other States
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

1. The Courts
2. The White House
3. The Senate
4. The House
5. The States

Until Donald Trump increases the number of justices to 49 and nominates his entire board of directors plus Ivanka as "super-duper chief justice," the Court has the greatest ability to stop bad things from happening.

The White House is next, since a terrible president is so crippling to the country (c.f., C+ Augustus).

I would rate the courts first, particularly the circuit and district court judges, but since they are lifetime positions appointed by POTUS, I'd have to go with the WH first.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

I would rate the courts first, particularly the circuit and district court judges, but since they are lifetime positions appointed by POTUS, I'd have to go with the WH first.

That's my rationale. That influence over congress in a veto/party leadership.

But if it were part of your consideration set, wouldn't you put your own state first?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

That's my rationale. That influence over congress in a veto/party leadership.

But if it were part of your consideration set, wouldn't you put your own state first?

Good question, and I can't even explain why I did not. One would think that anybody who has had to endure Wisconsin politics for the last 5 years would want to fix what is happening here first.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

I still find it amusing that more prominent Republicans would take Trump over Cruz (TNR notwithstanding). Not that I would disagree if you put a gun to my head, but I'm hardly their target demographic anymore.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

I still find it amusing that more prominent Republicans would take Trump over Cruz (TNR notwithstanding). Not that I would disagree if you put a gun to my head, but I'm hardly their target demographic anymore.

The irony is, we all ought to be their target audience. This place is basically ground zero for old, white males.

It's the college part that f-cks it up for them.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

I still find it amusing that more prominent Republicans would take Trump over Cruz (TNR notwithstanding). Not that I would disagree if you put a gun to my head, but I'm hardly their target demographic anymore.

I'm of the opinion that this GOP nomination process is putting a bright spotlight on the contemporary make up of the American right unlike others in the past. And I think a large number in the GOP establishment is just as confused as you (i.e., all of us).
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

I'm of the opinion that this GOP nomination process is putting a bright spotlight on the contemporary make up of the American right unlike others in the past. And I think a large number in the GOP establishment is just as confused as you (i.e., all of us).
I'm not sure it's "confused" as much as it is they underestimated the anger.

As others have noted, there are two segments of the Republican party. There is the less affluent, less educated portion that gladly supports Republican positions because in part the establishment threw them a few bones on the social issues, and in part because even though these people may be very poor, they still actually believe in the American Dream, that a person can raise themselves up to be fabulously wealthy. These people are angry. They don't like being called religious nuts or rightwingers or knuckledraggers or whatever other names the opposition or media want to drag out. They are angry because they haven't yet achieved the American Dream, personally, and believe that is due at least in part to government policies that transfer wealth to people they perceive as poor Democrats.

The more establishment portion isn't angry. They're living the American Dream. They understand that whatever is thrown to the poor as part of government social programs has relatively small impact on their own personal financial well-being. And they don't really care when people call them knuckledraggers, neanderthals, or right wing nuts. Their response to this name calling is usually just, "Ok, funny Keith, now get back to work before I decide to fire your azz."

Contrary to what Kep and others want you to believe, the anger to the Republican underbelly isn't just being stirred up by the Karl Rove's of the world to get out the vote. Those efforts are being supplemented, and even overtaken, by what has become a very caustic and attack prone society, media, social media, etc..., in which the "other side" has to not only be refuted through rational responses to their policy positions, but vilified in the most strident terms possible. The anger created by this behavior does not just disappear with an election. The hard boil may simmer down a bit, but like the Hatfields and McCoys, just sits there waiting to be stirred up again.

And this is a problem for both parties.
 
I still find it amusing that more prominent Republicans would take Trump over Cruz (TNR notwithstanding). Not that I would disagree if you put a gun to my head, but I'm hardly their target demographic anymore.

They really want JEB!, but the rest of the voters don't. The voters are fed up with the Washington Establishment and are rebounding to the anti establishment.
 
They really want JEB!, but the rest of the voters don't. The voters are fed up with the Washington Establishment and are rebounding to the anti establishment.

By putting a NYC millionaire with tons of political connections and a former SCOTUS law clerk, Texas Solicitor General, and sitting US senator in the top two spots. Yeah, they really love their outsiders... :rolleyes:

(Seriously, Cruz is as far from an outsider as you can get. You cannot call a former Supreme Court clerk an outsider; you don't get more inside than that. He's not liked because he's an *******, not because he's bucking the system).
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

I'm not sure it's "confused" as much as it is they underestimated the anger.

As others have noted, there are two segments of the Republican party. There is the less affluent, less educated portion that gladly supports Republican positions because in part the establishment threw them a few bones on the social issues, and in part because even though these people may be very poor, they still actually believe in the American Dream, that a person can raise themselves up to be fabulously wealthy. These people are angry. They don't like being called religious nuts or rightwingers or knuckledraggers or whatever other names the opposition or media want to drag out. They are angry because they haven't yet achieved the American Dream, personally, and believe that is due at least in part to government policies that transfer wealth to people they perceive as poor Democrats.

The more establishment portion isn't angry. They're living the American Dream. They understand that whatever is thrown to the poor as part of government social programs has relatively small impact on their own personal financial well-being. And they don't really care when people call them knuckledraggers, neanderthals, or right wing nuts. Their response to this name calling is usually just, "Ok, funny Keith, now get back to work before I decide to fire your azz."

Contrary to what Kep and others want you to believe, the anger to the Republican underbelly isn't just being stirred up by the Karl Rove's of the world to get out the vote. Those efforts are being supplemented, and even overtaken, by what has become a very caustic and attack prone society, media, social media, etc..., in which the "other side" has to not only be refuted through rational responses to their policy positions, but vilified in the most strident terms possible. The anger created by this behavior does not just disappear with an election. The hard boil may simmer down a bit, but like the Hatfields and McCoys, just sits there waiting to be stirred up again.

And this is a problem for both parties.

When we try to understand polarization and anger, I don't think we can discount the effect that changes in the way news is delivered has had on the way we shape (and hang onto) our opinions. People who are prone to anger and resentment in the first place and who are not inquisitive enough to actively seek out diverse sources will stew in their own echo chamber, getting angrier and angrier the more they read. Every time we log on we get news that is personalized to reinforce the opinions and to heighten the angst we already have.
 
That's my rationale. That influence over congress in a veto/party leadership.

But if it were part of your consideration set, wouldn't you put your own state first?

You can move

Can't you move? This isnt Russia. Is it?

Why does anyone need to stay in their state? States don't matter anymore. Those rights left us 150yrs ago
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

You can move

Can't you move? This isnt Russia. Is it?

Why does anyone need to stay in their state? States don't matter anymore. Those rights left us 150yrs ago

The state you're in really matters if you're poor. States have the power to really f-ck over the poor. But once you're 2x+ over the poverty line, about the only thing they can f-ck you on is when they play politics with stuff like Planned Parenthood.
 
You can move

Can't you move? This isnt Russia. Is it?

Why does anyone need to stay in their state? States don't matter anymore. Those rights left us 150yrs ago

Says the person with internet access and the time to post on a college hockey message board.

If you're making $10,000/yr, how can you afford to move?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

The state you're in really matters if you're poor. States have the power to really f-ck over the poor. But once you're 2x+ over the poverty line, about the only thing they can f-ck you on is when they play politics with stuff like Planned Parenthood.

my mom has taking 2 plane rides up to see me from pittsburgh airport where her seatmate was a welfare collector who was flying to boston to register for their payments here.

seems poor people can move and not get too f_cked :p
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

Says the person with internet access and the time to post on a college hockey message board.

If you're making $10,000/yr, how can you afford to move?

my mom has taking 2 plane rides up to see me from pittsburgh airport where her seatmate was a welfare collector who was flying to boston to register for their payments here.

seems poor people can move and not get too f_cked :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top