• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

The only voting guide you need for this election -- PZ Myers on the 2016 US Presidential Election, repeating a decision-tree picture from Facebook.

Here it is, slightly edited:

Is our nation broken?
  • Yes.
    Who did it?
    • Mexicans, Muslims, #BLM (Black Lives Matter)
      When is Jesus Christ coming back?
      • Dunno
        Trump
      • Next week
        Cruz
    • Rich people
      Sanders
  • No
    Are women people?
    • Yes
      Clinton
    • No
      Kasich
 
Internet Rule #15 - If a quote is included in a JPG, the person that allegedly said it, probably didn't say it.

dont-believe-everything-you-see-on-the-internet.jpg
 
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/03/22/3762291/ted-cruz-phil-gramm/

[h=1]How Ted Cruz’s New Senior Economic Adviser Paved The Way For The Financial Crisis[/h]
On Friday, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz snagged the endorsement of former Texas Senator Phil Gramm and announced that Gramm will serve as a senior adviser to the campaign on economic issues.
Gramm has a long history of railing against regulation, particularly in the financial industry, and the legislation he helped pass through during his time in the Senate have been connected to the financial crisis.
[h=3]Deregulating banks, paving the way for the financial crisis[/h] Gramm was perhaps Congress’ biggest proponent of financial deregulation, allegedly telling former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Arthur Levitt, “Unless waters are crimson with the blood of investors, I don’t want you embarking on any regulatory flights of fancy.”

----------

Gramm was one of the fathers of supply-side economics, and along with David Stockman, worked tirelessly to get the GOP Congress to accept supply side economics and enact Reagan' economic program based on that concept. Gramm never wavered even as the US ran up huge deficits. A worse economic advisor could not be found except maybe Arthur Laffer himself.

----
Weakening Glass-Steagall was just one of the ways Gramm can be tied to the financial crisis, however. He inserted a provision in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 that exempted complex derivatives — such as credit-default swaps — from regulatory oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The lack of regulation meant that as the use of credit-default swaps grew in the lead up to the crisis, banks weren’t required to create backstops in case they failed, and once they all came crashing down amid the housing bubble’s burst, it left financial institutions exposed. Credit-default swaps took down AIG, leading to its bailout.

---------

Gramm is an idiot. Cruz is an idiot.
 
Fuck me! Seriously, the Grandfather of the Great Recession of 2008 is his economic advisor?!

Is Rumsfeld going to be his Foreign Policy Advisor?!
 
Fuck me! Seriously, the Grandfather of the Great Recession of 2008 is his economic advisor?!

Is Rumsfeld going to be his Foreign Policy Advisor?!

Yes. Remember, Gramm was briefly McCain's economic expert until his dimwitted speeches got him dumped. Gramm is a floater. A turd that won't flush down the toilet. Cruz has always been a proponent of the idea that regulation of any kind is bad. And both hate ACA. So they are a match as far as their economics are concerned. Gramm played down the 2008 recession, as disaster stared us in the face, Gramm didn't get it.
 
it was Phil Gramm, of course, who famously decried how we were a "nation of whiners" back in 2008, telling us that the beginning of the worst economic crisis in almost eighty years was only a "mental recession." Either Cruz is desperate for supporters with recognizable names or he has a tin ear to rival Gramm's own. Maybe it's a Texas thing.
 
All this talk about Cruz's advisors (as if he would win) and we've managed to completely overlook Bernie sweeping Hillary. He beat her by huge margins in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. Over 40 points in each state. He severely cut the gap of pledged delegates down to a near tie. Only her superdelegate lead makes it continue to look like she is far ahead.

I know the Republican battle is more entertaining, but there is a civil war on the Democratic side that is more intellectually interesting.
 
No, the Dem contest is over. Sanders picked up about 35 delegates and is still down by almost 300 and Clinton still has the big states going for her. Sanders has passion, but Clinton has math and Sanders can't beat that math. It would be nice if he could, but that race was done a couple of weeks ago.
 
All this talk about Cruz's advisors (as if he would win) and we've managed to completely overlook Bernie sweeping Hillary. He beat her by huge margins in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. Over 40 points in each state. He severely cut the gap of pledged delegates down to a near tie. Only her superdelegate lead makes it continue to look like she is far ahead.

I wouldn't call Clinton's lead of well over 200 pledged delegates (the exact size varies depending on which source you look at) a "near tie." Also, most of the states Sanders has won are caucus states, and almost all of the states left to choose delegates have primaries. The only path for Sanders to the nomination is to win some of the big states left on the calendar by large margins (narrow, Michigan-sized wins are not going to do it). That doesn't seem likely at this point.
 
No, the Dem contest is over. Sanders picked up about 35 delegates and is still down by almost 300 and Clinton still has the big states going for her. Sanders has passion, but Clinton has math and Sanders can't beat that math. It would be nice if he could, but that race was done a couple of weeks ago.

Ah, the power of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Do you make this announcement because you want it to be true or because you fear it is true?
 
What is strange about WA Caucus is that there are 101 delegates and only 34 are listed now? WTF is going on?

So as of now he gained 35 delegates to the counted yesterday, but will be gaining about 29 more from Washington eventually. He needs that to be known NNNNOOOWWWWW!
 
What is strange about WA Caucus is that there are 101 delegates and only 34 are listed now? WTF is going on?

So as of now he gained 35 delegates to the counted yesterday, but will be gaining about 29 more from Washington eventually. He needs that to be known NNNNOOOWWWWW!

I am assuming the remaining delegates are awarded at the county and district conventions.
 
No, the Dem contest is over. Sanders picked up about 35 delegates and is still down by almost 300 and Clinton still has the big states going for her. Sanders has passion, but Clinton has math and Sanders can't beat that math. It would be nice if he could, but that race was done a couple of weeks ago.

Ah, the power of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Do you make this announcement because you want it to be true or because you fear it is true?

I think it's because I passed grade five math and am therefore my counting abilities have risen to at least the "trivial" level.
 
All this talk about Cruz's advisors (as if he would win) and we've managed to completely overlook Bernie sweeping Hillary. He beat her by huge margins in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. Over 40 points in each state. He severely cut the gap of pledged delegates down to a near tie. Only her superdelegate lead makes it continue to look like she is far ahead.

I know the Republican battle is more entertaining, but there is a civil war on the Democratic side that is more intellectually interesting.
Uh huh.
 
I have not kept current with this thread, but has it been discussed why Clinton is doing well in states with less white people?

What is the correlation and causation to this?

I have some ideas, but it would probably make me seem more racist (as if that were possible)...
 
I have not kept current with this thread, but has it been discussed why Clinton is doing well in states with less white people?

What is the correlation and causation to this?

I have some ideas, but it would probably make me seem more racist (as if that were possible)...

I don't know. Maybe it's because of her decades worth of work on the cause of helping minorities. Sanders, on the other hand, only has decades worth of work on the cause of helping minorities in his favour. The choice is clear.
 
I have not kept current with this thread, but has it been discussed why Clinton is doing well in states with less white people?
Like New York, Massachusetts, Colorado, Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina?

What is the correlation and causation to this?
Having an agenda causing you to not really have a good grasp as to the actual results in the primaries?

Sanders is doing well in caucus states, like Obama. Also in states where the Democrats that do exist in deep Red States are quite liberal. Clinton has done well winning states across the nation.
 
538 website (which I went to from a mention in this thread) says that Sanders is not doing well in states with more than 10% blacks.

Colorado, 4% blacks - Sanders did well
Tennessee 17% black - Sanders faired poorly
Texas 12% black - Sanders got half of Clinton's delegate count.
North Carolina 22% black Sanders lost to Clinton.

New York is not yet.

You are saying that Sanders is self serving when it comes to race?

I would rather say that he is so focused on economic class that he has to force himself to talk about race.

Clinton is such a sociopath she can easily talk about race, while you see her reptilian eyes having no real emotion.

She has the name recognition, he has the conviction and consistency. I feel every voter should watch her being a lying dirtbag by watching this video:

 
Back
Top Bottom