At least Dana plans on keeping his promise. It was only nine days ago that I reminded him.
@Milbank I'll spring for the sriracha
— brendan skwire (@brendancalling) March 16, 2016
At least Dana plans on keeping his promise. It was only nine days ago that I reminded him.
@Milbank I'll spring for the sriracha
— brendan skwire (@brendancalling) March 16, 2016
The list of unlikely pundit and insider comestibles this cycle includes newsprint, crow, humble-pie, various hats and lots of poop sandwich.
At least the guy’s got a sense of humor.
hardly in keeping with the origins or intent of such a statement.
imho, the only way that this doesn’t look like a stunt would be to eat it raw and hot off the press…nah…never happen.
If Cruz gets the nomination at a brokered convention, and manages to soothe the jilted Trumpistas and angry establishment and unite the party, he’d probably lose worse against Hillary than Romney and McCain lost to Obama, with the result that the redstate.com/limbaugh/foxnews gang would have finally gotten exactly what they wanted – somehow who agrees with them 100% on everything and has the basic intellectual qualities expected in a candidate. If he lost badly with no handy scapegoat, might it break the fever on the right, leading the GOP back to its former pre-Reagan, semi-sanity?
Trump, on the other hand, might force the creation of a new party, but would two be enough? One could be socially conservative, nationalist, populist, sexist, pro-gun, racist, anti-LGBTQ and anti-PC; the other cosmopolitan, pro-immigration, socially laisez faire, small government, low taxes, entitlement reform, corporate deregulation.
What I haven’t included is foreign policy. The neocons like Kristol would fit with the cosmopolitan group of course, but would the low tax, small gov guys be willing to accomodate them?
The next question would be whether our system could work with three huge parties, given that the electoral college requires an outright majority or the election goes into the House.
As for the naming, it seems like the tax cut contingent would probably keep “Republican” and the others would come up with some new name – the White Rights Party or something!
” the other cosmopolitan, pro-immigration, socially laisez faire, small government, low taxes, entitlement reform, corporate deregulation.”
That exactly describes the Democratic Party. Another such party is redundant.
Yeah, the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank, so small government, low taxes and deregulatory!
Does it mean anything at all to you that public polling shows that Americans are increasingly unhappy about the size and power of government? That Obama and Congressional Democrats took electoral losses in his midterms while under an onslaught of “out of control government” attacks that appear to have worked?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27286/government.aspx
Making the case for a vigorous Federal government is our project, but it’s a work in progress. Sticking our middle fingers up in the faces of the leaders of the Party which has passed laws which increase taxes, regulations and government power seems a foolish way to conduct the project.
You seem to think that voters want Obama and Democrats to grow the government. One of the main reasons we got smashed in the midterms is because most of the voters who showed up in those elections felt that the government is doing too much for people with low incomes. They were, and are, unhappy with the ACA because it’s a big government program which disproportionately assists low-income citizens.
Your candidate wants to “remove some of the restrictions from Dodd-Frank” like her husband removed the restrictions from Glass-Steagal.
And need I remind you that Obamacare is nationwide Romneycare, invented by a right wing think tank.
OT:
But but but…I thought it was all about class though….
Uh huh
Uh huh
…………………………..
Poor white kids are less likely to go to prison than rich black kids
By Max Ehrenfreund
March 23
It’s a fact that people of color are worse off than white Americans in all kinds of ways, but there is little agreement on why. Some see those disparities as a consequence of racial discrimination in schools, the courts and the workplace, both in the past and present. Others argue that economic inequalities are really the cause, and that public policy should help the poor no matter their race or ethnicity. When it comes to affirmative action in college admissions, for example, many say that children from poor, white families should receive preferential treatment, as well.
In some ways, though, discrimination against people of color is more complicated and fundamental than economic inequality. A stark new finding epitomizes that reality: In recent decades, rich black kids have been more likely to go to prison than poor white kids.
“Race trumps class, at least when it comes to incarceration,” said Darrick Hamilton of the New School, one of the researchers who produced the study.
He and his colleagues, Khaing Zaw and William Darity of Duke University, examined data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a national study that began in 1979 and followed a group of young people into adulthood and middle age. The participants were asked about their assets and debts, and interviewers also noted their type of residence, including whether they were in a jail or prison.
The researchers grouped participants in the survey by their race and their household wealth as of 1985 and then looked back through the data to see how many people in each group ultimately went to prison. Participants who were briefly locked up between interviews might not be included in their calculations of the share who were eventually incarcerated.
About 2.7 percent of the poorest white young people — those whose household wealth was in the poorest 10th of the distribution in 1985, when they were between 20 and 28 years old — ultimately went to prison. In the next 10th, 3.1 percent ultimately went to prison.
………………..
About 10 percent of affluent black youths in 1985 would eventually go to prison. Only the very wealthiest black youth — those whose household wealth in 1985 exceeded $69,000 in 2012 dollars — had a better chance of avoiding prison than the poorest white youth. Among black young people in this group, 2.4 percent were incarcerated.
………………………………….
What’s more, even young black people who follow the rules and are never incarcerated are less likely than similar white people to accumulate wealth as they get older. As of 2012, the median household wealth of black participants in the study who had never been incarcerated at some point in their lives was $16,200. Those who had been incarcerated had zero wealth at the median.
Among white participants who had never been incarcerated, however, median household wealth was $192,000 by 2012. The median white participant who had been incarcerated reported wealth of $5,000.