Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

For some reason watching the GOP transform itself into hideous, blathering idiocy is as chilling as watching the series documentary "Making a Murderer". I only hope the U.S.A. doesn't end up wrongfully convicted of conspiracy to commit stupidity.

vs, say, fairly judged to have committed countless acts of actual stupidity at an increasing rate. If Kafka were reincarnated once a day at dawn, the increasing insanity would make it hard for him to hang in there long enough to finish breakfast.

[blackshoe]

You seem to claim a binary vision of life, as though there were only good and bad, a right way (capitalism) and wrong way (anything else). But the lives of humans are not binary, not off or on. Human lives move more like a Bell curve, needs and wants changing from birth through death. The blunt ax of capitalism should not be relied on to carve the fine lines and nuances of human existence.

So what should we rely on? The sharp scalpel of socialism?

[barmar]

So what should we rely on? The sharp scalpel of socialism?

You're still thinking that you have to choose one or the other.

 

The answer is a Chinese menu approach: some from column A, some from column B. For instance, capitalism with government oversight/regulation to prevent abuse.

[PassedOut]

You're still thinking that you have to choose one or the other.

 

The answer is a Chinese menu approach: some from column A, some from column B. For instance, capitalism with government oversight/regulation to prevent abuse.

I agree. Society needs both incentives to ensure the production of sufficient goods and services and a structure to ensure the adequate distribution of those goods and services across the whole population.

[mycroft]

...and a structure to ensure that those goods and services are fit for purpose and won't kill the consumers. A benefit if we can get "won't kill the people doing the producing"; another if we can get "won't kill the 'producers'" (i.e. the companies employing the people doing the producing).

 

Actually, another benefit if we can get "consumers can afford to buy the goods and use the services without working Victorian hours."

[Winstonm]

So what should we rely on? The sharp scalpel of socialism?

 

Well regulated capitalism; government that emphasizes social good over defense spending.

 

Btw, as noted by others, there are many shades of gray between capitalism and socialism. We do not live in a binary system.

[hrothgar]

So, only a few days left before the Iowa caucus.

 

I am expecting a bad night for Sanders and Trump.

 

From what I understand, Sanders voters are packed into a relatively small number of districts. There is a very real chance that a lot of his votes are going to be wasted. I've heard several stories saying that Trump's ground game is near non-existent an that his get out the vote efforts are extremely inefficient.

 

The most interesting outcome for the night would be if either

 

1. Trump wins which would be a crippling defeat for Cruz - If Cruz can't win the nut job "lane" in evangelical Iowa he's going to lose a lot of momentum

2. Trump comes in third which would cast real doubt into his organizational model and overall competence

[kenberg]

I watched some of the R debate last night. I missed the first fifteen minutes, watched for about half an hour, had all I could take and turned it off. Here is a fact. It seemed empty. Trump has been such a big presence that it seemed empty. Cruz, I thought, looked quite bad and listening today I gather that view is widely shared. It was as if nobody knew what to do without Trump there to stir things up.

 

The logos implied that Google was some sort of co-sponsor with Fox. I really never expected to see a joint Fox/Google undertaking. And they would put up some data from Google about the number of Google searches on certain phrases and ask the candidates to respond.

 

I hope the good people of Iowa will tell them all to get the hell out of their state. I believe in hospitality but a line has to be drawn.

[y66]

Clinton keeps slim edge over Sanders in latest Iowa Poll

 

Donald Trump reclaims lead in latest Iowa Poll

 

NYT: DES MOINES – Donald J. Trump has widened his edge against Ted Cruz in Iowa, according to a Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll on Saturday that shows the billionaire gaining momentum right ahead of Monday’s caucuses.

 

The survey, considered the most authoritative poll of Iowa caucus-goers, found that 28 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers support Mr. Trump, while 23 percent back Mr. Cruz. Trailing the two leading candidates are Senator Marco Rubio at 15 percent and Ben Carson at 10 percent.

 

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

 

The results come as the Republican presidential candidates are crisscrossing Iowa in hopes of turning out their supporters and persuading remaining undecided voters to caucus for them.

 

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders were battling for the lead position, with Mrs. Clinton getting the support of 45 percent of likely caucus-goers to Mr. Sanders’s 42 percent. Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, trails them with just 3 percent.

 

Of Democrats who are planning to caucus, 30 percent say they could still be persuaded, while 45 percent of Republicans remain open to changing their minds.

 

Backed by evangelical Christians and social conservatives, Mr. Cruz, Senator of Texas, had surged to the top of the Iowa polls a month ago only to see his momentum dampened under sustained attacks from Mr. Trump. A poll from the same group in mid-January showed Mr. Cruz with a three-point lead.

 

For months the candidates had been been publicly friendly toward each other, but Mr. Trump has recently raised questions about the eligibility of the Canadian born Mr. Cruz to run for president and has assailed his lack of popularity in the senate. Mr. Cruz has largely sought to remain above the fray, but has been urging Iowans not to be lured by a candidate without a conservative record who will “burn” them if chosen as the Republican nominee.

 

Some political analysts suggested that Mr. Trump might have blunted his momentum by skipping the Republican presidential debate earlier this week. However, Saturday’s results show that his gamble appears to have paid off.

 

Most voters said they did not care about Mr. Trump missing the debate. However, the survey did show that some of the candidates’ attacks appear to be resonating. A majority of respondents said they were bothered by Mr. Trump’s previous pro-choice views and his use of eminent domain as a businessman.

 

Voters were also perturbed by Mr. Cruz’s failure to disclose loans he took from big banks during his senate run, but they did not seem to care about his Canadian roots.

 

Among the lower-tier Republican, candidates, the poll showed Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky with 5 percent support, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey with 3 percent, and Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio each with 2 percent. Mr. Christie, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kasich have focused their efforts on winning New Hampshire, visiting Iowa only sporadically.

[kenberg]

I mentioned that I watched some of the debate the other night and then just could not stand any more.

 

I looked up the transcript. A sample:

 

 

 

WALLACE: Thank you. Governor Christie, you have compared both Senators Cruz and Rubio to Barack Obama, saying that we cannot afford another inexperienced President. You've also said that Senator Cruz's vote to curtail the NSA surveillance program made America less safe. Is either of them ready to be Commander in Chief?

 

CHRISTIE: Well, let me say that I do believe that the vote on NSA made the country less safe. Well, let me tell you what the country should really be worried about. I watched that town hall meeting with the Democrats the other night, and I heard Hillary Clinton asked a direct question by an Iowan, and that's what Iowans like to do. They like to ask direct questions.

 

And, they asked about her email situation. And, here's what she said to the American people. She did it for convenience. For her convenience. She put America's secrets at risk for her convenience. She put American intelligence officers at risk for her convenience. She put American strategy at risk for her convenience.

 

Let me tell you who's not qualified to be President of the United States, Chris. Hillary Rodham Clinton did that to our country. She is not qualified to be President of the United States.

 

(CHEERING)

 

The fact is what we need is someone on that stage who has been tested, who has been through it, who has made decisions, who has sit (ph) in the chair of consequence and can prosecute the case against Hillary Clinton on...

 

(BELL RINGING)

 

CHRISTIE: ... that stage, and that is exactly what I am ready to do.

 

(APPLAUSE)

 

WALLACE: Governor Bush...

 

CRUZ: Chris? Chris I was mentioned in that question.

 

BUSH: No, you weren't. Your name wasn't mentioned, Ted.

 

CRUZ: ... Actually, I was...

 

BUSH: ... Chris, keep it coming...

 

WALLACE: ... I don't think that your name was mentioned...

 

CRUZ: ... Chris, your questions that you...

 

WALLACE: ... Sir, I think -- I think the question was...

 

CRUZ: ... What was your question...

 

WALLACE: ... It's not my question that you get a chance to respond to, it's his answer.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

WALLACE: You don't get 30 seconds to respond to me...

 

CRUZ: ... Your question was you have disagreed...

 

(AUDIENCE REACTION)

 

WALLACE: ... You don't get 30 seconds to respond to me...

 

 

 

Imo, the clearest case of disqualification is of Chris Wallace. Firstly, his question was at least awkwardly phraded if not downright stupid. Is he asking about NSA surveillance or, as he put it at the end, "Is either of them ready to be Commander in Chief?" If the latter, just ask it.

Secondly, the question certainly referred to the Cruz and Rubio votes on NSA and Christie responded to that part of the question, clearly saying that he disagrees with those votes. Does Wallace really want to claim that since Christie expressed disagreement with the Cruz votes that Wallace asked about, but Christie did not mention the word "Cruz" in his answer that Cruz is not entitled to a response? If Christie had said "Well, let me say that I do believe that the vote [by Cruz and Rubio] on NSA made the country less safe." then Cruz would get to respond but since the bracketed part was not explicitly stated (but obviously part of the answer) then he is not entitled to a response? Actually, it is tough to think of ay response to the Wallace question that would not entitle Cruz and Rubio to a response, unless Christie said "They are both great guys and everyone should vote for them".

 

It is not as if Wallace was asking a question spontaneously. He had time to formulate it and presumably discuss it with others.

 

We expect that the candidates will bob and weave, it goes with the political genetic structure. But the interviewers, here and elsewhere, need to be more serious or they should be looking for a different job.

 

 

The print media have been worried about their future in an age of 900 channels. To the contrary, I see the network news as becoming less and less of a serious enterprise. I watched one of the (basically interchangeable, NBC, CBS, ABC) network news programs the other day. Absolutely awful. And, with the debate, I turned it off.

[Winstonm]

I mentioned that I watched some of the debate the other night and then just could not stand any more.

 

I looked up the transcript. A sample:

 

 

 

 

 

Imo, the clearest case of disqualification is of Chris Wallace. Firstly, his question was at least awkwardly phraded if not downright stupid. Is he asking about NSA surveillance or, as he put it at the end, "Is either of them ready to be Commander in Chief?" If the latter, just ask it.

Secondly, the question certainly referred to the Cruz and Rubio votes on NSA and Christie responded to that part of the question, clearly saying that he disagrees with those votes. Does Wallace really want to claim that since Christie expressed disagreement with the Cruz votes that Wallace asked about, but Christie did not mention the word "Cruz" in his answer that Cruz is not entitled to a response? If Christie had said "Well, let me say that I do believe that the vote by [Cruz and Rubio] on NSA made the country less safe." then Cruz would get to respond but since the bracketed part was not explicitly stated (but obviously part of the answer) then he is not entitled to a response? Actually, it is tough to think of ay response to the Wallace question that would not entitle Cruz and Rubio to a response, unless Christie said "They are both great guys and everyone should vote for them".

 

It is not as if Wallace was asking a question spontaneously. He had time to formulate it and presumably discuss it with others.

 

We expect that the candidates will bob and weave, it goes with the political genetic structure. But the interviewers, here and elsewhere, need to be more serious or they should be looking for a different job.

 

 

The print media have been worried about their future in an age of 900 channels. To the contrary, I see the network news as becoming less and less of a serious enterprise. I watched one of the (basically interchangeable, NBC, CBS, ABC) network news programs the other day. Absolutely awful. And, with the debate, I turned it off.

 

Maybe we should put them all in a cage and see who survives. Then we could sell it as a Presidential reality show.

[kenberg]

Maybe we should put them all in a cage and see who survives. Then we could sell it as a Presidential reality show.

 

Maybe we could bring back Grouch Marx, together with George Fenneman and the duck, to present it as You Bet Your Life. I found this Grouch quote:

 

 

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

 

Marx and his ironic cynicism would be very welcome. For some reason my parents did not like that show, but I loved it.

 

[Winstonm]

Maybe we could bring back Grouch Marx, together with George Fenneman and the duck, to present it as You Bet Your Life. I found this Grouch quote:

 

 

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

 

Marx and his ironic cynicism would be very welcome. For some reason my parents did not like that show, but I loved it.

 

You just like hearing "the magic word", I bet. Speaking of quotes, I found this one from Will Rogers:

"There is only one redeeming thing about this whole election. It will be over at sundown, and let everybody pray that it's not a tie, for we couldn't go through with this thing again.

[mike777]

just for the record what is binary socialism.....

 

 

granted 999% have no idea what socialism is.

 

define and have a standard of measurement for socialism seems a first step

 

binary socialism ..I hve no idea

 

this is why so many think economics is a joke....a real joke...you do not define and measure

[helene_t]

granted 999% have no idea what socialism is.

 

define and have a standard of measurement for socialism seems a first step

 

binary socialism ..I hve no idea

QFT :)

 

Sorry for flogging a dead horse but ..... who cares about what the word "socialism" means. Politics should be about substantial issues.

[mike777]

if in your country socialism is not a substantial issue...ok...

 

please tell us

at this point no one I mean on one has said that

[helene_t]

if in your country socialism is not a substantial issue...ok...

 

please tell us

at this point no one I mean on one has said that

Indeed. Most politicians stopped vasting time on ideology-releated metasemantics discussins some time back in the late 1970's.

[Zelandakh]

just for the record what is binary socialism.....

I think this refers to the use of negative words and phrases in connection with (Soviet) socialism. Even high-level texts use phrases such as "the collapse of the Soviet regime" and this produces the appearance of a binary model - socialism bad, capitalism good - that not all academics feel is justified.

[Al_U_Card]

Could it also be where the social goods (and services) are shepherded by private sector interests?

[Winstonm]

Cruz said that he would “repeal every word of Obamacare” to wild applause. The Texas senator and Tea Party hero repeated claims that the law had forced Americans into undesirable part-time work and cost millions their health insurance coverage.

 

“The fact checkers say you’re wrong,” Fox News host Chris Wallace followed-up with Cruz during an interview on Sunday, after noting that his debate stage answer had drawn a lot of scrutiny. “Since that law went into effect, the unemployment rate fell from 9.9% to 5% as 13 million new jobs were created, and 16.3 million people who were previously uninsured now have coverage,” Wallace corrected Cruz.

 

If you are too crazy for even Fox News hosts to tolerate, surely you must be too nutty to win a Presidential election?

[y66]

If you are too crazy for even Fox News hosts to tolerate, surely you must be too nutty to win a Presidential election?

Surely the interesting takeaway from that exchange between Cruz and Wallace is that Wallace knows of the existence of fact checkers.

[barmar]

If you are too crazy for even Fox News hosts to tolerate, surely you must be too nutty to win a Presidential election?

As long as Trump is considered a viable candidate, I'm not sure there is "too nutty".

[Flem72]

Two things I believe based on recent events:

 

1) Trump's "Fox News is biased against me" routine, which heretofore I didn't understand, is probably based in fact. Both Murdoch and Ailes are big players in a large, well-funded lobbying entity the sole focus of which is open borders. I don't see O'Reilly carrying that water -- which is probably why Trump talks to him, quite openly-, but other Fox anchors....????

 

2) National Review's anti-Trump issue misses a large gorilla: Many of us crave a constitutional conservative, even if we are not socially conservative as that term is usually used, but Trump voters don't care. They want certain issues to be fixed and they don't care whether the fixer of these issues might be liberal on other issues, or as screw-separation-of-powers-I-know-what's-best-for-you as the current guy.

 

And don't forget that a president's personal radicalisms don't often filter themselves into actual political accomplishment. Repeat after me: Separation of powers.

[Winstonm]

Surely the interesting takeaway from that exchange between Cruz and Wallace is that Wallace knows of the existence of fact checkers.

LoL

[Phil]

Interesting discussion on 538 about Sanders' appeal to white liberals and how NH and Iowa are 2 of the 3 best states for this parlay.

 

I think Cruz wins Iowa and Trump wins NH but Kasich makes a good enough showing to stay in. Early on, a 538 pundit differentiated between 'buying' and 'shopping' on the Republican ticket and how Trump will fade down the stretch. Where those votes go is anyone's guess but I'll predict Jeb as the 'devil we know' choice. He has a lot of backing and the ability to get endorsements.