March 2016 Archives
It had been a long time since I'd eaten Corn Nuts.
Now I remember why.
Now I remember why.
Idea for enterprising college student: find some way -- Twitter, Facebook, whatever -- to collect from people things they think should never be said on a college campus.
Then once a week hang out in the middle of your college quad/cafeteria/whatever holding up a sign with one of the things that should never be said.
That's what I'd do if I were in college.
Then once a week hang out in the middle of your college quad/cafeteria/whatever holding up a sign with one of the things that should never be said.
That's what I'd do if I were in college.
Recently there was a terror attack in Lahore, Pakistan. I mentioned the city in my second song about Osama Bin Laden -- "Porn King of Abbottabad" -- about OBL funding terrorism by selling porn, and trading porn in exchange for suicide bombings.
Because that's what holy people do.
Because that's what holy people do.
This is proof that Donald Trump's man committed the crime of "simple battery" against Michelle Fields. You can argue all you like that Corey Lewandowski didn't mean anything by it, that it wasn't as serious as Fields made it sound, and so on.
But none of that matters: he grabbed Fields and pulled her back, which is illegal, unless directly justified by the circumstances (for example, if she was illegally threatening someone, and he was stopping her).
Whether he should be charged, whether she should press charges, whether this should be a crime at all ... these are all subordinate questions. He committed the crime. And Trump is -- as usual -- lying when he says Lewandowski is innocent. It is now a matter of fact that Lewandowski is guilty of the crime of simple battery. He just hasn't been convicted yet.
But none of that matters: he grabbed Fields and pulled her back, which is illegal, unless directly justified by the circumstances (for example, if she was illegally threatening someone, and he was stopping her).
Whether he should be charged, whether she should press charges, whether this should be a crime at all ... these are all subordinate questions. He committed the crime. And Trump is -- as usual -- lying when he says Lewandowski is innocent. It is now a matter of fact that Lewandowski is guilty of the crime of simple battery. He just hasn't been convicted yet.
Many will say that this is why the GOP will not appoint an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court.
This decision is clearly incorrect. While a private business should be allowed to hire only people who are willing to join a union (or pay it a fee), the government cannot be allowed to so discriminate (and that's all this is: ideological discrimination unrelated to the performance of the duties in question).
Further, it is also clear that collective bargaining itself, in the public sector, is an inherently corrupt and anti-democratic institution that should itself be illegal. You are taking away the power of the people and their representatives to decide on contract terms, putting the executive in control of those decisions ... who ends up being the beneficiary of donations from the union.
The left thought it was more important to uphold previous bad precedent which violates individual rights in order to give a sense of stability than to do the right thing as required by the Constitution.
The next time you think the GOP should just accept Obama's nominee ... please understand, there's no way it's going to happen, and this is why.
This decision is clearly incorrect. While a private business should be allowed to hire only people who are willing to join a union (or pay it a fee), the government cannot be allowed to so discriminate (and that's all this is: ideological discrimination unrelated to the performance of the duties in question).
Further, it is also clear that collective bargaining itself, in the public sector, is an inherently corrupt and anti-democratic institution that should itself be illegal. You are taking away the power of the people and their representatives to decide on contract terms, putting the executive in control of those decisions ... who ends up being the beneficiary of donations from the union.
The left thought it was more important to uphold previous bad precedent which violates individual rights in order to give a sense of stability than to do the right thing as required by the Constitution.
The next time you think the GOP should just accept Obama's nominee ... please understand, there's no way it's going to happen, and this is why.
ThinkGeek just sent me an email with subject: "Son of Crypton versus Bat of Gotham! Whose side are you on?"
That's embarrassing.
That's embarrassing.
Can someone explain to me a specific way in which this bill is bad? Simply saying "it allows discrimination by religious groups" isn't an argument against it, nor is saying "we believe inclusiveness is good."
I've said it before, but many people still don't get it, so I will say it again: being in the United States illegally is not a crime. It never has been a crime.
You cannot be convicted in a court of law for being in this country illegally, because there is no such crime.
There is not even any punishment in the law for being here illegally. You can be deported, but in the eyes of the law that isn't a crime, since it is just sending you to where you legally belong.
You cannot be convicted in a court of law for being in this country illegally, because there is no such crime.
There is not even any punishment in the law for being here illegally. You can be deported, but in the eyes of the law that isn't a crime, since it is just sending you to where you legally belong.
the most important news of the week was probably the Hulk Hogan story. That will have much more important and lasting impact than Merrick Garland's nomination.
There's just one thing I want to know: what's so bad 'bout havin' a contested convention? My latest video ponders the question, so you don't have to.
If Trump is treated fairly, that means he cannot be the nominee without a majority of delegates.
Dear America,
Yes, the parties pick their nominees, not the general public. It has not only always been this way, but it must be this way.
For a presidential candidate to get on the general election ballot, they usually have to pay enough money and provide enough signatures to do so. Anyone can do that, and that's why you often see lots of candidates for President on the ballot. In each case, private people have -- either individually or as a group -- used their resources to get that person on the ballot.
For a major political party nominee, the parties -- which are private organizations -- use their own private resources to put together the fees and signatures required to get the party's nominee on the ballot.
So the question is: who should decide which candidate gets on the ballot with the party's private resources?
Obviously, the party should decide that; the Supreme Court has been very clear on the matter (see California Democratic Party vs. Jones). And the way it's decided is that each state gets a certain number of delegates to the national convention, and the party decides how those delegates are allocated.
The state parties could randomly allocate the delegates, or it could allocate the delegates by simply having the state chairperson handpick them. But they don't: because the parties want public participation, they have public primaries or caucuses where virtually anyone who wants to can have their say (even in a "closed" process, anyone can affiliate with the party if they choose to).
So you do have a voice if you want one, at the state level, but only because the parties let you have one, and because you choose to exercise it.
If you don't like it, well, start your own political party. But unless we have the government deciding who our candidates should be, rather than private citizens working together to decide who they want to support, then this is the only way it can work.
Yes, the parties pick their nominees, not the general public. It has not only always been this way, but it must be this way.
For a presidential candidate to get on the general election ballot, they usually have to pay enough money and provide enough signatures to do so. Anyone can do that, and that's why you often see lots of candidates for President on the ballot. In each case, private people have -- either individually or as a group -- used their resources to get that person on the ballot.
For a major political party nominee, the parties -- which are private organizations -- use their own private resources to put together the fees and signatures required to get the party's nominee on the ballot.
So the question is: who should decide which candidate gets on the ballot with the party's private resources?
Obviously, the party should decide that; the Supreme Court has been very clear on the matter (see California Democratic Party vs. Jones). And the way it's decided is that each state gets a certain number of delegates to the national convention, and the party decides how those delegates are allocated.
The state parties could randomly allocate the delegates, or it could allocate the delegates by simply having the state chairperson handpick them. But they don't: because the parties want public participation, they have public primaries or caucuses where virtually anyone who wants to can have their say (even in a "closed" process, anyone can affiliate with the party if they choose to).
So you do have a voice if you want one, at the state level, but only because the parties let you have one, and because you choose to exercise it.
If you don't like it, well, start your own political party. But unless we have the government deciding who our candidates should be, rather than private citizens working together to decide who they want to support, then this is the only way it can work.
I used to go to McKees Rocks to visit my grandparents in the summer. My mom grew up there, as did John Kasich.
"Trump is a weak man's idea of a strong man." -- Charles Cook
I have not seen polling data in WA, but I suspect Trump might win a plurality in the presidential preference primary here in WA, and therefore most of the delegates, because the delegates are allocated entirely by the primary.
However, those delegates are elected before the primary.
The Washington State GOP convention is May 19-21. The delegates will be elected there. Then, on May 24, the primary is held. The elected delegates will each be bound to vote for a certain candidate based on the results of the primary.
However, if the convention is contested, the delegates will be free to vote for a different candidate on subsequent ballots. While in most states there is a close relationship between who a candidate is pledged to and how they are selected. For example, in Ohio, there is a slate of delegates approved of by the winning candidate's campaign, and those delegates are likely to vote for the same person on the second ballot as on the first.
But this is not the case in Washington, since there is virtually no relationship between delegate election and allocation. A Cruz supporter could be elected as a national delegate, but then be bound to vote for Trump on the first ballot. And it's highly likely this will happen, because of the fact that different people are electing delegates (people who choose to participate in GOP caucuses) and voting in the primary, and Trump support is far weaker in the GOP grassroots than in public votes.
However, those delegates are elected before the primary.
The Washington State GOP convention is May 19-21. The delegates will be elected there. Then, on May 24, the primary is held. The elected delegates will each be bound to vote for a certain candidate based on the results of the primary.
However, if the convention is contested, the delegates will be free to vote for a different candidate on subsequent ballots. While in most states there is a close relationship between who a candidate is pledged to and how they are selected. For example, in Ohio, there is a slate of delegates approved of by the winning candidate's campaign, and those delegates are likely to vote for the same person on the second ballot as on the first.
But this is not the case in Washington, since there is virtually no relationship between delegate election and allocation. A Cruz supporter could be elected as a national delegate, but then be bound to vote for Trump on the first ballot. And it's highly likely this will happen, because of the fact that different people are electing delegates (people who choose to participate in GOP caucuses) and voting in the primary, and Trump support is far weaker in the GOP grassroots than in public votes.
Dear college students who want free the government to give you free tuition: even if it happens, it won't be retroactive. You won't get it. You'll still pay.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Some folks are talking about the RNC rules, and saying to have your name entered into nomination for the GOP nomination, you need to win eight states.
That isn't true. The rules actually state: "Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination." (emphasis added)
Out of the 19 states that have delegate results so far, in only seven has a candidate gotten a majority of the delegates. Before tonight, Cruz had a majority only in Texas, but he picked up two more tonight.
So Trump has four states, Cruz three, and Kasich and Rubio -- despite having the most delegates in one state each -- have not won a majority of delegates in any states.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html
That isn't true. The rules actually state: "Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination." (emphasis added)
Out of the 19 states that have delegate results so far, in only seven has a candidate gotten a majority of the delegates. Before tonight, Cruz had a majority only in Texas, but he picked up two more tonight.
So Trump has four states, Cruz three, and Kasich and Rubio -- despite having the most delegates in one state each -- have not won a majority of delegates in any states.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html
I am still hearing that if Trump doesn't win the nomination, this somehow defies the will of the GOP voters, or is anti-democracy. Like most Trump arguments, the exact opposite is true: if Trump doesn't win the nomination, it is only because a majority of GOP voters opposed him: he doesn't win a majority of delegates, and someone else does.
This is what democracy looks like, folks.
This is what democracy looks like, folks.
"If I say do it, they're gonna do it. That's what leadership is all about." -- Donald Trump
To me, being a good leader is primarily about being a servant to people, not about simply telling them what to do. If you spend more time giving orders than empowering the people under you to make their own decisions, you're probably an extremely poor leader.
To me, being a good leader is primarily about being a servant to people, not about simply telling them what to do. If you spend more time giving orders than empowering the people under you to make their own decisions, you're probably an extremely poor leader.
Governor Jan Brewer, who is endorsing Donald Trump, is complaining about Mitt Romney criticizing Trump, because, "whatever happened to the 11th commandment?"
Do I even need to point out that Trump attacks his "fellow Republicans" more than any other major Republican presidential candidate ever?
It's really amazing to me how almost every attack the Trumpeviks (including Trump himself) make against Trump opponents is for something that Trump is even more guilty of.
"Anger" is only a part of this year's election story. The untold part of this story is the implicit -- and often explicit -- abandon of reason. It's not that it is unreasonable to support Trump per se, it's that many (if not most) people who support him don't care about the reasons why Trump is a bad candidate. They reject even the consideration of reason and logic. There's no arguments or evidence you can provide that they care about, and they don't want to hear it.
It's not quite like Idiocracy, where people are just too stupid to make good choices. It's that they are so fed up with the system, and Trump is the only candidate who is willing to tear it all down, that nothing else matters, even a high risk of catastrophic failure, because in their minds, we already have a catastrophic failure.
To put it another way, they feel desperate, and while there is risk with Trump, the chance of reward with any other candidates is virtually zero, so there's nothing to lose by going with Trump.
Do I even need to point out that Trump attacks his "fellow Republicans" more than any other major Republican presidential candidate ever?
It's really amazing to me how almost every attack the Trumpeviks (including Trump himself) make against Trump opponents is for something that Trump is even more guilty of.
"Anger" is only a part of this year's election story. The untold part of this story is the implicit -- and often explicit -- abandon of reason. It's not that it is unreasonable to support Trump per se, it's that many (if not most) people who support him don't care about the reasons why Trump is a bad candidate. They reject even the consideration of reason and logic. There's no arguments or evidence you can provide that they care about, and they don't want to hear it.
It's not quite like Idiocracy, where people are just too stupid to make good choices. It's that they are so fed up with the system, and Trump is the only candidate who is willing to tear it all down, that nothing else matters, even a high risk of catastrophic failure, because in their minds, we already have a catastrophic failure.
To put it another way, they feel desperate, and while there is risk with Trump, the chance of reward with any other candidates is virtually zero, so there's nothing to lose by going with Trump.
Dear America,
Don't believe the nonsense that somehow it would be in any way bad or unreasonable or unfair if Donald Trump won more delegates than anyone else, but didn't get the nomination. The rules have always been that you need to get a majority of delegates, and if he does not, and the delegates narrow it down at the convention and pick someone else ... that is how the system is designed to work, and there's nothing remotely unfair or unreasonable about it.
If you don't like it, then get your candidate a majority of delegates going into the convention.
Don't believe the nonsense that somehow it would be in any way bad or unreasonable or unfair if Donald Trump won more delegates than anyone else, but didn't get the nomination. The rules have always been that you need to get a majority of delegates, and if he does not, and the delegates narrow it down at the convention and pick someone else ... that is how the system is designed to work, and there's nothing remotely unfair or unreasonable about it.
If you don't like it, then get your candidate a majority of delegates going into the convention.
Dear America,
The "winner" of a primary or caucus is not determined by who gets the highest percentage of the vote. What matters is delegate count. In some states you can get the greatest percentage, but not get the most delegates. For example, in a state where delegates are allocated winner-take-all by congressional district, one candidate could get the most overall votes, but another candidate could win a majority of the congressional districts.
Whoever gets the most delegates is the winner of the state.
John Kasich had a couple percentage points fewer than Donald Trump in Vermont last night, but wound up with exactly the same number of delegates: they both took half of the delegates. So Kasich did not come in second; he tied for first.
The news reports you see that three different Republican candidates won states on Super Tuesday are incorrect. There were four.
Also, Carson came in dead last in every state yesterday, winning delegates only in Virginia, with no signs of coming in greater than last place in any future state.
The "winner" of a primary or caucus is not determined by who gets the highest percentage of the vote. What matters is delegate count. In some states you can get the greatest percentage, but not get the most delegates. For example, in a state where delegates are allocated winner-take-all by congressional district, one candidate could get the most overall votes, but another candidate could win a majority of the congressional districts.
Whoever gets the most delegates is the winner of the state.
John Kasich had a couple percentage points fewer than Donald Trump in Vermont last night, but wound up with exactly the same number of delegates: they both took half of the delegates. So Kasich did not come in second; he tied for first.
The news reports you see that three different Republican candidates won states on Super Tuesday are incorrect. There were four.
Also, Carson came in dead last in every state yesterday, winning delegates only in Virginia, with no signs of coming in greater than last place in any future state.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
