Danny Bateman

IF he had shared his message like that, this wouldnt be an issue. The fact that he compared the police to ISIS and said he would probably shoot a cop if he had a gun is the issue. He said those words.. The problem is that had he said it that way, it would've just blended into the endless white noise that other politkspeak funnels into. He'd be another black guy saying, "Hey, there's institutional racism here, and black people are disproportionately affected." It's true, but there would still be a ton of people who don't acknowledge that or don't care. Without him saying it that way, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because it wouldn't be news. It's just Ernie's way of stirring the pot and getting people to talk about the issues he thinks are important.

Hell of a way to start the day! Welcome to the family! GBR!

I have a considerable issue with people lumping "the media" into one overpowering conglomerate, as if all police, lawyers, accountants and grocery clerks fall into a similar cohesive unit, as well. They don't. The vast majority of journalists, whether on TV or the paper, are hard-working and honest people doing everything they can to share stories and report. It is an incredibly thankless job, one that people just can't and will never understand unless they physically do it. Consider the fact that a significant amount of reporters, who are just getting into the business, are making in the realm (or less than) $20,000 a year. Many of them work hard and dedicate themselves to their craft, while simultaneously (and routinely) receiving nothing but hatred and scrutiny from idiots with an opinion and a keyboard. And CNN, CBS and whatever other networks we all watch are not the media in it's entirety, though they do make up some of the most influential groups. Now, "the media" has it's sour and unacceptable traits. Many outlets are influenced by big money. Many do have agendas they push. Many are also caught between a rock and a hard place of maintaining 'journalistic integrity' while being influenced. The national networks come off as untrustworthy. The media has made, in my opinion, considerable mistakes in recent history with their coverage. Ideas that may have sounded good in theory, but in practice, were horrific. I don't say all this to any one person, nor am I asking you take pity on journalists. They knew what they signed up for. But, when people lump "the media" into one all-powerful entity, they're lumping a lot of honest people into unfair niches, both your local reporter and the 20-year vet. So, before placing blame on "the media," consider your own inadequacies and shortcomings. Consider the fact that there are literally hundreds of news outlets out there, and if any of you only pay attention to what one outlet is saying, that's as much your problem as it is anyone else's. Great post, Enhance. I know that the major media outlets all have their own distinct owners and thus we probably know what their agenda is. But on the whole, it's important that we're all diligent and analytical about the media we consume. Don't just lap something up. The onus is on YOU to try to decipher whatever bias may be inherent in whatever you're reading, or seeing, or hearing, and try to filter it out as best you can. Almost all media can be consumed. But you've got to be smart about it, consider what you're actually taking in, and whatever underlying agenda there may be (or not be).

Rubio's fall from grace was expedient and breathtaking. Apparently he's just going to be out of politics now. He's saying he doesn't even desire a run at the governor job in Florida. I'd take a guess and say that Obama had to have this conversation with Garland beforehand to level with him and let him know that in the event that the Dems did maintain control of the White House, they'd want a more liberal Justice. This would mean that Garland was somehow cool with his offer being somewhat conditional. But who knows...

BRB, Zoogs and Cornographic both correctly surmised (and science has backed it up) that the strongest predictor for Trump supporters is craving for authoritarian tendencies. I guess I'll just leave our halfway fleshed-out model of his supporters there, for the time being. Here's CNN story on Mexican immigrants voting against Trump. The biggest takeaway is that naturalization applications jumped 14.5% from June to December. Ironically, he's led to a spike in the number of people seeking full citizenship. And they're turning out to crush him at the polls.

But wait, conspiracy theory time! Could the Senate refuse to hold a hearing on Garland until after the election... and then approve him anyway, if Clinton wins?

I nominate Zoogs as your more objective source.

You know, I really half expected Republicans to call this a victory and go home. They can claim to have served the Senate's advice and consent role to force President Obama to nominate a moderate, serious candidate with significant bipartisan support -- and one who would serve closer to 15 than 30 years. Without that ruckus, they can argue that President Obama would surely have nominated some outrageous left-wing firebrand. But no, they're digging in -- from McConnell to Grassley to even Hatch (who last Friday had said '[The president] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won't do that...') Even beyond the ugliness of this intransigence, I just don't understand the political calculus here. Do they think doubling down is going to help them keep seats this November? ....to which I can only say: Obama's playing chess while it seems the Senate prefers checkers. Smart of him to pick someone so terrifically qualified as Garland who is also about as far right as the GOP is going to get from him. If they were to confirm him, he'd get his selection appointed, and Garland seems he'd be a damn good Justice. It appears they've declined, and that's especially risky given they're looking down the barrel at another general election loss and four more years of a Democrat holding down the executive branch. In that event, they'll get someone far more liberal. But the Congressional Pubs can't stand Trump, so it's not like they're holding out to do him any favors. This reeks of partisan politics. They must have a really strong inclination their constituents really dislike Dems, or have really low aspirations for reelection.

Thanks for the links. I tried reading the first one and just couldn't. His very clear preconceived ideas show me that I'm not going to be able to trust his opinion. If you're going to read these, you've got to be OK with the massive liberal filter. What's sad is I've seen nothing from the media (and I've got no other sources to work with) to dispel their portrayal of Trump supporters.

BRB, if you want a generalization of Trump supporters (or at least the people at his rallies), it's anecdotal, but here's a starting points: Florida Man Goes Undercover at a Trump Rally I Attended Trump's Rally in Kansas City Last Night. Here's What I Witnessed. I pretended to be a Trump supporter to infiltrate his Chicago rally

Hold on...are you saying that sometimes people act differently in different situations? That perhaps sometimes people are playing a bit of a part to get a reaction?I'm not playing a part when I call him an idiot and I'm not asking for anyone's vote to become President of the US and represent the entire country. Saying that, if I offended all of the low IQ people of the world by associating them somehow with Trump....I greatly apologize. Your attempt at whatever you are trying to accomplish is an epic fail. EDIT: Actually, I probably was wrong for calling him an idiot. I actually think he must be pretty smart. How else could someone be the person he is where he changes what he says constantly and puts himself out to the public in the manner he has and so many people fall all over him... Thank you for pointing out my error. And that was exactly my point! He is playing a part so that he can accomplish his goal. He is saying what he thinks he needs to say.I did not mean that you were playing a part. I was talking about Trump. His actions are probably pretty calculated and it seems to be working. So no, I was not calling you out or anything like that. With that said...he might not be playing a part...I could be totally wrong. OK...sorry if I got defensive. So, if you are correct, you have a group of people who like him because he says exactly what's on his mind and they love that because they are tired of politicians who always try to say the right things to get our votes...but....meanwhile, he is just playing an act to garner their votes. No problem at all! I like your posts! Yeah...I think he has some (maybe a lot) of people fooled. Now, that doesn't mean that I think he is a moron or anything like that...I think he has a plan to win. Like the kid in school that baked cookies to win a student council election or promised "longer lunches and better food in the cafeteria" I think Trumps game plan is about getting attention...from that there will be votes...I think his thought process is "win first...figure out how to fix things later" because if he isn't elected it doesn't matter anyway. I also think that most of us say what we need to...so that we can get what we want. Trump is likely very sharp when it comes to managing his media relations and maintaining near consistent coverage. One of the best. It's frustratingly transparent when he says another controversial thing or does something typically politically idiotic in order to cook up a fresh batch of headlines. I feel like he's very much wet behind the ears when it comes to political savvy and general knowledge. When he's in the process of milking the media for more attention, I feel like he often ends up creating legitimate firestorms for himself that negatively affect him with populations outside his base. An example would be the Duke-KKK slipup, the Mexicans are rapists gaffe, mocking McCain, or calling for war crimes. He's not used to having to filter himself, and I don't think he fully understands that statements like those actually tangibly influences voting blocs outside his own, and doesn't really grasp he's hurting himself. He's playing the short game, generating attention while damaging himself in the long-term. CNN ran a story about how Hispanic voters are registering in record numbers this year expressly to vote against him. He's systematically isolating so many important voting blocs he's setting himself up for near-certain failure because he going to just get massacred in those groups. Teach, the only problem with him saying and doing whatever he needs to do to get votes is that he's not adopting strong, concrete positions, and pointing out how flip-floppy he is down the road on KEY issues can hurt him.

I saw a story on the news the other night that shared your theory about authoritarianism. It may well have been the same scientists. Regardless, good call. I just can't understand how people think that type of persona would go over well for world diplomacy, especially coupled with ignorance on most facets of actually being POTUS.

It's a rather vague line that is being parroted by the media and Trump himself. Turnout for them is definitely on record pace, but as to whether or not it will translate to the general election is up for debate, and smart folks think not. Trump appears to have a hard ceiling. The most he's won a state by was 49.3% in Massachusetts. He's got a couple other wins in the high 40s in Nevada and Mississippi, but he usually wins in the high 30s or low 40s, or loses. And it doesn't appear to have any kind of linear increase since more candidates have been dropping out. The inconvenient truth that they leave out here has a few different points. Part of that increased turnout are people coming out to specifically vote AGAINST Trump. He drives turnout both ways, in that a significant chunk of people hate the idea of his presidency (rightly so, IMO) and just want to block him. This includes Dem crossover voters-- they can do this in open primaries. This is a VERY significant portion- I know it was 7% of registered Dems in MI and I believe 8-9% in Ohio. Most of those votes will likely be returning to the left come November. He will affect turnout for the Dems as well. Just as is being seen now with the GOP, a sizeable coalition of voters will be hitting the ballot box in the fall to deny Trump his goal. He's a great recruiting tool for the Dems. Unfortunately, the Politifact I linked only has numbers through 2012. I'm working on finding numbers for this year though. Will check back later. Short answer: Yes, it's another example of him not telling you the whole truth.

Good deal. Interesting tidbit. Will be exciting to see what happens.

Any personal favorites, Zoogs? I don't follow this process too terribly closely, but I know it seemed like the popular pick from the beginning was Srinavasan.

IIRC, BRB posted work (or I saw some somewhere) that declared on average, it is VASTLY the rule rather than the exception that the rich pay the highest [effective] tax rates. I'd love to see some more data, though. We're breaking down taxes in here and no one is talking about the s---show in Chitown last night? Bernie supporters were a big part of the fracas...

I'm not sure what the Uber drunk girl has to do with this. So....people who aren't rich don't act like that some times? And....she was in residency. I'm not sure from that we can garner that she was this ultra rich bitch compared to other people. Are you saying also that she wasn't punished? What should her punishment be? She quite frankly might lose her ability to become a doctor. Even if not, it is being delayed. Let's say it's delayed one year. Let's say a doctor fresh out of residency makes $100,000 per year. She is basically being fined $100,000 of lifetime earnings. Also, I would bet the embarrassment of her actions going viral are a pretty dang good punishment. Also...are you saying that a all, or at the least a vast majority, of rich people act like this? If so....I would think there would be one hell of a lot more viral videos like this. For every bitch like this there are thousands of "rich people" that are fantastic people who care about society and their fellow citizens. I feel like you're inflating my point with a fair amount of hyperbole. I'm not in any way saying all rich people act like this. Or that people with lesser amounts of wealth or power don't act like this. There are pricks from all walks of life. What I AM saying is that I think as one acquires more wealth or power in their lifetime, it's easier to succumb to the air of elitism that sometimes pervades such circles. If you ARE a person of few scruples, I think it could be easier to show displays of what others would consider unacceptable behavior beliving either your position somehow justifies it or it will protect you from the consequences. The Uber girl was an example of this. Here's the video: She did get suspended from her job as a neuro resident. I personally think it's a good thing. Call it an injection of perspective and humility. She may need to sit down and reevaluate how she treats people. She's 30 years old and obviously a very successful person. But again, for whatever reason she needed to go off on that poor guy like that. How much of it is in part due to her success in life? I think it's a fair question. I just hate it when people who are blessed with good lives turn around and mistreat people. I realize that's a minority, but I despise that minority.

Rumors floating Rubio dropping out BEFORE debate unless his polling improves. Interesting. It's basically a Trump lock, them, right? You're right, BRB. That case wasn't the norm. But I saw a video not too long ago of a drunk neurologist demanding an Uber that wasn't hers take her instead and proceeding to berate driver and literally tear his car up when he said no. Guy handled it like a champ and kept his cool. She ended up getting suspended from her residency and having to go on Good Morning America style shows to apologize. Point is, privileged people can easily become drunk off their power and think their status somehow justifies bad behavior. It's why you're seeing Trump be such a prick as the face of the GOP right now.

What the sign guy is describing is communism which is not the same as Socialism. Communism was the ideology that no matter the job you did you got paid the same and everyone was equal (minus the fact that the whole system was corrupt at the top) whereas Socialism is the idea that what should be basic rights (education higher than HS, Medicine and healthcare etc) should be able to be readily available or free to anyone no matter your economic status. The surplus that the one percent holds right now with all the tax breaks available to them would be enough to help out those that aren't as privileged as you. Much of that money shouldn't be in that top 1 percent anyways as the wealth isn't being dispersed evenly among workers even in the slightest. To the bolded part, why? And do you think that those in the highest tax brackets would continue to act the same, therefore creating the excess tax revenue that you allude to, without certain incentives? Even if they acted the exact same, how much would the extra revenue from the one percent ACTUALLY help? Let's ask Neil and....Keely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o EDIT: I don't know how to imbed the youtubez. I'm bad at internet. For future reference, to embed a YouTube video, just copy the URL in between the following brackets: [ YouTube ][ /YouTube ] One of the mods could fix it for you if they're feeling generous. For anybody that caught the debate, what was the highlight of it for you? For me, it was Bernie getting hammered on the Fidel video. That was pretty brutal.

Case in point, that affluenza kid. That case was infuriating.

I don't think that a significantly different proportion of millionaires strive (or strived) for higher achievement or worked harder than do people in any other income bracket. I think a large proportion worked hard but lots of poor and middle class people work just as hard or harder. They may not have worked any harder, but they simply put their efforts in a place where it would be more advantageous to them. I think you and Moiraine seem to disagree fundamentally about the access to the necessary tools and opportunities to get themselves to such a position. Take Trump as an example. Would he have been able to attend boarding and military schools, and Wharton growing up, had he not been born into a wealthy family? Would he have had the successes he's had with only a bachelor's in economics had he not inherited his father's company? It's basically a debate about personal responsibility and hard work vs. availability of resources and opportunities.

Right. We're totally in agreeance here. I too like to keep hyperbole at a minimum, because sensationalism is often a quick way to look foolish or stagnate good conversation from differing viewpoints. Good conversation is necessary for constructing good solutions. You're right. But both those classes face real problems. The working poor are faced with the more drastic ones from my OP, and the middle class has their own, less severe problems, like healthcare spending and education. Some issues overlap and affect all socioeconomic groups, like sh**ty infrastructure, social security funding, and climate change. I'm not terribly opposed to collecting more income from the very wealthy to help address some of these. But, it should be reasonable and certainly not the hyperbolic stealing away from those who earned it that some make it out to be. How do you make out on increased taxes for the wealthy?

OK.....I guess I'm going to question the bolded statement. So....now the middle class in this country are working minimum wage and can't even afford food and basic living expenses at the end of the month? Ummmm.....no. Lumping the middle class and poor into the same group was egregious, but that's definitely true for the poorest among us in the US. But just because the middle class can put food on the table, does that mean they're still not getting the short end of stick. The price charts showing average employee vs. CEO wage growth are pretty egregious too, IMO. The prices we pay for healthcare ARE too damn high. The cost of education is ridiculous. I'm not in favor of raking successful entrepreneurs over the coals and draining the bank accounts. Nor am I in favor of some of the socioeconomic hardships that far too many people in the lower income brackets face every day. There's got to be a better middle ground than we have right now in there somewhere.

And the trickle-down economics talk begins... Oh my. ZRod is right about Bernie, IMO. The middle class and the poor are not some stereotypical freeloader out on a corner holding a hat asking for loose change. In many cases, they're folks working long hours in crappy jobs who still don't have enough at the end of the month to buy enough food or afford basic living expenses. The minimum wage does not reflect the cost of living in prettymu h every area. I'm not OK with that. Especially when I'm told they should just get a better job. I don't equate helping those peoe make ends meet with ripping off entrepreneurs. It's more about helping the people who need help in our society. I believe this is Bernie's goal, even if some of his methodology sucks. And, now a tweet about Donald: