Allowing states to use anti-poverty dollars on programs that recognize marriage’s crucial role in lifting families out of poverty
This scares the shit out of me, because it's basically saying 'let's cut single parents out of already existing social welfare programs, since, yknow, they're the ones that generally need it the most!'
But forcing single parents to find a spouse at all costs will certainly promote strong families. Nothing can go wrong with this plan.
Who doesn't remember fondly when their parents remained together instead of getting a divorce. Nothing breeds happiness like hatred.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well, the starting minimum premise to be accepted as a part of serious policy conversation in the GOP is that government is incompetent and intrusive (ignore the criminal justice and privacy stuff for now). What policy venues does he have left? I can quote the entirety of Rubio's issues section for family.
Reform the Tax Code to Treat Parents Fairly by:
Creating a new $2,500 per child tax credit, to allow working parents to keep more of their money and fix the parent tax penalty.
Ending the marriage tax penalty without penalizing homemakers (Read more about Marco’s tax plan here.)
Encouraging paid leave for new parents, caretakers of ailing loved ones, seriously ill employees, and military families, without harmful mandates, taxes, or costly new entitlements (Read more about Marco’s paid leave plan here.)
Promote a Marriage Culture by:
Defending traditional American values and the value of marriage
Allowing states to use anti-poverty dollars on programs that recognize marriage’s crucial role in lifting families out of poverty
A tax cut, a tax cut, a tax credit (heaven forbid the government makes a regulation), gay marriage, I don't even know what the fuck that last one is but it sound like a waste of money on religious bullshit. But he'll finally stop an anti-establishment insurgency, if he just tells him about this tax cut he has.
The last one sounds like the federal marriage promotion programs that started under the Bush administration. They were generally a bunch of failures. As far as I know, they weren't discontinued under Obama and were reauthorized in 2010 except for the insanely stupid ones no one could justify. So of course Rubio wants to allow states to use federal welfare money on that.
Honestly, the program doesn't sound too bad to me.
The study examined more than $600 million in federal funding spent between 2000 and 2010, including early demonstration projects.
A decade ago, then-Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade F. Horn told a Senate committee that teaching relationship skills could "increase the odds that couples will form and sustain healthy marriages." Children raised in "healthy married households" were less likely to endure poverty or commit crimes, Horn said.
The new research adds to a long-standing debate over the effort and whether government can or should promote better marriages as a way to combat poverty. Some supporters argue that marriage rates are an inadequate measure because the goal is not to increase weddings but to improve existing relationships so that children are better off.
Gauging marriage and divorce "is really a narrow view of the benefits," said Robyn Cenizal, project director of the federally funded National Resource Center for Healthy Marriage and Families. If someone goes to such classes and realizes their relationship is unhealthy, "choosing not to get married is actually a good thing," Cenizal said.
It's not (or not supposed to be, anyway) a judgmental thing or anti-gay thing, but just a program intended to find out what makes functional marriages work and spread good information about how to improve your odds of being in a healthy relationship.
I have no doubt that bias crept into the study in terms of what parameters were looked for in terms of both success & what how 'marriage' is defined, but the goal was certainly fine and a properly overseen such program would probably have net benefits at the end of the day.
having long-term marriages is pretty strongly linked to economic stability and mobility. Of course, economic stability also promotes healthy marriages, but there's plenty of data to suggest that the government should be promoting marriage, especially for child-rearing. Really as a big leftie hippie liberal my natural instincts are against that idea, but all of the data I've seen on the issue seems pretty convincing just in economic terms if nothing else.
Course that doesn't mean that any particular program is actually good, but compared to the other laundry list of horrible republican party ideas it's not really something to get concerned over.
Kana
The causation goes the other way. Economic stability leads to stronger marriages. Economic instability is a source of stress and strife in the family.
Such, promoting strong marriages does not make the economy stronger.
From what I have read, the causation goes both ways. Economic stability absolutely helps marriages. But even when you control for income and other economic factors, marriages still show strongly established benefits for child-rearing and that child's educational achievements and economic mobility, as well as the parents own economic stability - particularly thanks to things like home ownership, savings and more security in their income, even when low.
My main source for that is Robert Putnam's Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
So somebody has obviously told Rubio to be Trump light, which is not a good look for him. I think the play with Trump was the direction Rubio went during the debate, which is give him enough rope to hang himself. Make him explain how he's going to make everything so yuge. But he's decided to try and out bully trump, which he's never going to do, but even if he does it's going to be pretty bad for the party come the general when your nomination winner just finished up a months long "yo mama so fat" contest.
The way to attack Trump is either you go after his record as a business man and get him to self-destruct OR you do what Clinton will be doing, but what the GOP can't do, because they basically believe all the shit he says.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The way to attack Trump is either you go after his record as a business man and get him to self-destruct OR you do what Clinton will be doing, but what the GOP can't do, because they basically believe all the shit he says.
Neither have proven to dent him, he's untouchable by the usual GOP tactics. That is why they fail. Well, that and they're absolutely terrible at running campaigns this cycle.
The way to attack Trump is either you go after his record as a business man and get him to self-destruct OR you do what Clinton will be doing, but what the GOP can't do, because they basically believe all the shit he says.
Neither have proven to dent him, he's untouchable by the usual GOP tactics. That is why they fail. Well, that and they're absolutely terrible at running campaigns this cycle.
They haven't really. Only in the last few days with the fraud that is Trump University have they even tried. You attack him personally, not his positions, and he'll be a sputtering mess. Metaphorically, you punch the bully in the mouth.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So somebody has obviously told Rubio to be Trump light, which is not a good look for him. I think the play with Trump was the direction Rubio went during the debate, which is give him enough rope to hang himself. Make him explain how he's going to make everything so yuge. But he's decided to try and out bully trump, which he's never going to do, but even if he does it's going to be pretty bad for the party come the general when your nomination winner just finished up a months long "yo mama so fat" contest.
Not to mention that not only winning that contest against a guy that was on the WWE a losing proposition, that goes specially on the case of Rubio, a guy built and trained to project nice, non-confrontational establishment approval.
The way to beat Trump is to ignore him as much as possible. Which of course is never going to happen, since the media loves covering him for ratings, and talking about Trump is the best way currently for basically any politician to get screentime.
The way to beat Trump is to ignore him as much as possible. Which of course is never going to happen, since the media loves covering him for ratings, and talking about Trump is the best way currently for basically any politician to get screentime.
That was true eight months ago, now it's impossible.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The way to attack Trump is either you go after his record as a business man and get him to self-destruct OR you do what Clinton will be doing, but what the GOP can't do, because they basically believe all the shit he says.
Neither have proven to dent him, he's untouchable by the usual GOP tactics. That is why they fail. Well, that and they're absolutely terrible at running campaigns this cycle.
They haven't really. Only in the last few days with the fraud that is Trump University have they even tried. You attack him personally, not his positions, and he'll be a sputtering mess. Metaphorically, you punch the bully in the mouth.
That's even more galling for being terrible campaigners. What were they waiting for?
The way to attack Trump is either you go after his record as a business man and get him to self-destruct OR you do what Clinton will be doing, but what the GOP can't do, because they basically believe all the shit he says.
Neither have proven to dent him, he's untouchable by the usual GOP tactics. That is why they fail. Well, that and they're absolutely terrible at running campaigns this cycle.
They haven't really. Only in the last few days with the fraud that is Trump University have they even tried. You attack him personally, not his positions, and he'll be a sputtering mess. Metaphorically, you punch the bully in the mouth.
That's even more galling for being terrible campaigners. What were they waiting for?
Listen, nobody outside the media ever said the GOP candidates were good at their job.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Well, the starting minimum premise to be accepted as a part of serious policy conversation in the GOP is that government is incompetent and intrusive (ignore the criminal justice and privacy stuff for now). What policy venues does he have left? I can quote the entirety of Rubio's issues section for family.
Reform the Tax Code to Treat Parents Fairly by:
Creating a new $2,500 per child tax credit, to allow working parents to keep more of their money and fix the parent tax penalty.
Ending the marriage tax penalty without penalizing homemakers (Read more about Marco’s tax plan here.)
Encouraging paid leave for new parents, caretakers of ailing loved ones, seriously ill employees, and military families, without harmful mandates, taxes, or costly new entitlements (Read more about Marco’s paid leave plan here.)
Promote a Marriage Culture by:
Defending traditional American values and the value of marriage
Allowing states to use anti-poverty dollars on programs that recognize marriage’s crucial role in lifting families out of poverty
A tax cut, a tax cut, a tax credit (heaven forbid the government makes a regulation), gay marriage, I don't even know what the fuck that last one is but it sound like a waste of money on religious bullshit. But he'll finally stop an anti-establishment insurgency, if he just tells him about this tax cut he has.
The last one sounds like the federal marriage promotion programs that started under the Bush administration. They were generally a bunch of failures. As far as I know, they weren't discontinued under Obama and were reauthorized in 2010 except for the insanely stupid ones no one could justify. So of course Rubio wants to allow states to use federal welfare money on that.
Honestly, the program doesn't sound too bad to me.
The study examined more than $600 million in federal funding spent between 2000 and 2010, including early demonstration projects.
A decade ago, then-Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade F. Horn told a Senate committee that teaching relationship skills could "increase the odds that couples will form and sustain healthy marriages." Children raised in "healthy married households" were less likely to endure poverty or commit crimes, Horn said.
The new research adds to a long-standing debate over the effort and whether government can or should promote better marriages as a way to combat poverty. Some supporters argue that marriage rates are an inadequate measure because the goal is not to increase weddings but to improve existing relationships so that children are better off.
Gauging marriage and divorce "is really a narrow view of the benefits," said Robyn Cenizal, project director of the federally funded National Resource Center for Healthy Marriage and Families. If someone goes to such classes and realizes their relationship is unhealthy, "choosing not to get married is actually a good thing," Cenizal said.
It's not (or not supposed to be, anyway) a judgmental thing or anti-gay thing, but just a program intended to find out what makes functional marriages work and spread good information about how to improve your odds of being in a healthy relationship.
I have no doubt that bias crept into the study in terms of what parameters were looked for in terms of both success & what how 'marriage' is defined, but the goal was certainly fine and a properly overseen such program would probably have net benefits at the end of the day.
having long-term marriages is pretty strongly linked to economic stability and mobility. Of course, economic stability also promotes healthy marriages, but there's plenty of data to suggest that the government should be promoting marriage, especially for child-rearing. Really as a big leftie hippie liberal my natural instincts are against that idea, but all of the data I've seen on the issue seems pretty convincing just in economic terms if nothing else.
Course that doesn't mean that any particular program is actually good, but compared to the other laundry list of horrible republican party ideas it's not really something to get concerned over.
Kana
The causation goes the other way. Economic stability leads to stronger marriages. Economic instability is a source of stress and strife in the family.
Such, promoting strong marriages does not make the economy stronger.
From what I have read, the causation goes both ways. Economic stability absolutely helps marriages. But even when you control for income and other economic factors, marriages still show strongly established benefits for child-rearing and that child's educational achievements and economic mobility, as well as the parents own economic stability - particularly thanks to things like home ownership, savings and more security in their income, even when low.
My main source for that is Robert Putnam's Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis.
The childs economic mobility but not the economy in general. While education achievement isn't zero sum, its also not entirely exclusive.
Such marriage is good for the child, but not necessarily good for GDP/the ecnomy. I suspect similar effects in economic stability for the parents.
I haven't read putnams book but i would not be surprised if he was exaggerating the effects on the greater economy.
The reason why Trump is where he is right now is due to the misguided concept of "ignore the troll and he'll go away." In reality it's the opposite: when you ignore a troll they just get louder and louder until you DO pay attention to them. That's exactly what Trump has done since he entered the contest: any time anyone else gets any sort of exposure he does something to draw attention back to him. The time to stop Trump was months ago when he was first rubbing sticks together, not now when he's constructed a multi-story raging bonfire that consumes all who dare approach it.
A few weeks after Senator Marco Rubio joined a bipartisan push for an immigration overhaul in 2013, he arrived alongside Senator Chuck Schumer at the executive dining room of News Corporation’s Manhattan headquarters for dinner.
Their mission was to persuade Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire, and Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of its Fox News division, to keep the network’s on-air personalities from savaging the legislation and give it a fighting chance at survival.
Mr. Murdoch, an advocate of immigration reform, and Mr. Ailes, his top lieutenant and the most powerful man in conservative television, agreed at the Jan. 17, 2013, meeting to give the senators some breathing room.
But the media executives, highly attuned to the intensifying anger in the Republican grass roots, warned that the senators also needed to make their case to Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative talk radio, who held enormous sway with the party’s largely anti-immigrant base.
The senators argued how damaging the word “amnesty” was to their efforts, and walked Mr. Limbaugh through their vision for an immigration overhaul.
The senators were especially eager to try to neutralize conservative media, which proved lethal to a big push for immigration changes in 2007. A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that conservative news shows had devoted about a quarter of their time to immigration.
In late 2012, after Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, lost the presidential election in part because of his dismal performance with Latino voters, Mr. Rubio joined the fight. On one Sunday alone in April 2013, he made an appearance on seven talk shows to advocate the immigration overhaul, including on “Fox News Sunday.”
Mr. Rubio also reached out to other conservative power brokers, including the radio hosts Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham, telling them that the legislation did not amount to amnesty. The Fox anchors Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly became more supportive.
At the time, The Washington Post reported that Mr. Rubio’s advisers were monitoring to the minute how much time the hosts devoted to immigration, and that “they are heartened that the volume is much diminished.”
Mr. Rubio publicly and privately worked to assuage the fears of Mr. Limbaugh, who on air called him a “thoroughbred conservative” and assured one wary listener that “Marco Rubio is not out to hurt this country or change it the way the liberals are.”
On Jan. 29, 2013, the same day Mr. Obama highlighted immigration in Las Vegas, Mr. Limbaugh had Mr. Rubio on as a guest to talk about immigration and called him “admirable and noteworthy” during a warm conversation about the bipartisan immigration plan.
In other words, the power brokers of the GOP and the conservative media all collided to sell the "Gang of Eight", that, BTW, is still utterly despised by the base. Yeah, this pretty much seals the deal on them losing the reigns.
A few weeks after Senator Marco Rubio joined a bipartisan push for an immigration overhaul in 2013, he arrived alongside Senator Chuck Schumer at the executive dining room of News Corporation’s Manhattan headquarters for dinner.
Their mission was to persuade Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire, and Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of its Fox News division, to keep the network’s on-air personalities from savaging the legislation and give it a fighting chance at survival.
Mr. Murdoch, an advocate of immigration reform, and Mr. Ailes, his top lieutenant and the most powerful man in conservative television, agreed at the Jan. 17, 2013, meeting to give the senators some breathing room.
But the media executives, highly attuned to the intensifying anger in the Republican grass roots, warned that the senators also needed to make their case to Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative talk radio, who held enormous sway with the party’s largely anti-immigrant base.
The senators argued how damaging the word “amnesty” was to their efforts, and walked Mr. Limbaugh through their vision for an immigration overhaul.
The senators were especially eager to try to neutralize conservative media, which proved lethal to a big push for immigration changes in 2007. A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that conservative news shows had devoted about a quarter of their time to immigration.
In late 2012, after Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, lost the presidential election in part because of his dismal performance with Latino voters, Mr. Rubio joined the fight. On one Sunday alone in April 2013, he made an appearance on seven talk shows to advocate the immigration overhaul, including on “Fox News Sunday.”
Mr. Rubio also reached out to other conservative power brokers, including the radio hosts Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham, telling them that the legislation did not amount to amnesty. The Fox anchors Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly became more supportive.
At the time, The Washington Post reported that Mr. Rubio’s advisers were monitoring to the minute how much time the hosts devoted to immigration, and that “they are heartened that the volume is much diminished.”
Mr. Rubio publicly and privately worked to assuage the fears of Mr. Limbaugh, who on air called him a “thoroughbred conservative” and assured one wary listener that “Marco Rubio is not out to hurt this country or change it the way the liberals are.”
On Jan. 29, 2013, the same day Mr. Obama highlighted immigration in Las Vegas, Mr. Limbaugh had Mr. Rubio on as a guest to talk about immigration and called him “admirable and noteworthy” during a warm conversation about the bipartisan immigration plan.
In other words, the power brokers of the GOP and the conservative media all collided to sell the "Gang of Eight", that, BTW, is still utterly despised by the base. Yeah, this pretty much seals the deal on them losing the reigns.
The way to beat Trump is to ignore him as much as possible. Which of course is never going to happen, since the media loves covering him for ratings, and talking about Trump is the best way currently for basically any politician to get screentime.
That was true eight months ago, now it's impossible.
I wonder if this might happen later though. Le'ts say Trump sweeps super Tuesday and wraps up the nomination within a month. There will be several long months after that without much going on. The primary is effectively over, just going through the motions, and the general hasnt really kicked off yet. Will people start to lose interest in him? And what will he talk about on twitter without 12 opponents to insult?
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
The way to beat Trump is to ignore him as much as possible. Which of course is never going to happen, since the media loves covering him for ratings, and talking about Trump is the best way currently for basically any politician to get screentime.
That was true eight months ago, now it's impossible.
I wonder if this might happen later though. Le'ts say Trump sweeps super Tuesday and wraps up the nomination within a month. There will be several long months after that without much going on. The primary is effectively over, just going through the motions, and the general hasnt really kicked off yet. Will people start to lose interest in him? And what will he talk about on twitter without 12 opponents to insult?
They can't stop Trump now. The only chance they had was to whittle him down long ago, but now he has an organized and loyal base that's not going anywhere.
Plus, if the GOP try some convention shengians with him, or stack the deck from here on out, I fully expect him to take his voters and walk. He'd rather burn the GOP down than lose the nomination.
I continue to read Republicans and movement conservatives grappling with Trump. It's fascinating. Here's Eliot Cohen, Iraq war booster and neocon explaining the rise of Trump.
Moral rot.
...
Trump’s rise is only one among many signs that something has gone profoundly amiss in our popular culture. It is related to the hysteria that has swept through many campuses, as students call for the suppression of various forms of free speech and the provision of “safe spaces” where they will not be challenged by ideas with which they disagree. The rise of Trump and the fall of free speech in academia are equal signs that we are losing the intellectual sturdiness and honesty without which a republic cannot thrive.
...
In the context of culture, if not (yet) politics, he is unremarkable; the daily entertainments of today are both tawdry and self-consciously, corrosively ironic. Ours is an age when young people have become used to getting news, of a sort, from Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, when an earlier generation watched Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley. It is the difference between giggling with young, sneering hipsters and listening to serious adults. Go to YouTube and look at old episodes of Profiles in Courage, if you can find them—a wildly successful television series based on the book nominally authored by John F. Kennedy, which celebrated an individual’s, often a politician’s, courage in standing alone against a crowd, even a crowd with whose politics the audience agreed. The show of comparable popularity today is House of Cards. Bill Clinton has said that he loves it.
I wonder if he knows that House of Cards (Netflix) is basically the same in sensibility as its BBC original. A show made in the backdrop of Thatcher's Britain. That idol of certain people.
A few weeks after Senator Marco Rubio joined a bipartisan push for an immigration overhaul in 2013, he arrived alongside Senator Chuck Schumer at the executive dining room of News Corporation’s Manhattan headquarters for dinner.
Their mission was to persuade Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire, and Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of its Fox News division, to keep the network’s on-air personalities from savaging the legislation and give it a fighting chance at survival.
Mr. Murdoch, an advocate of immigration reform, and Mr. Ailes, his top lieutenant and the most powerful man in conservative television, agreed at the Jan. 17, 2013, meeting to give the senators some breathing room.
But the media executives, highly attuned to the intensifying anger in the Republican grass roots, warned that the senators also needed to make their case to Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative talk radio, who held enormous sway with the party’s largely anti-immigrant base.
The senators argued how damaging the word “amnesty” was to their efforts, and walked Mr. Limbaugh through their vision for an immigration overhaul.
The senators were especially eager to try to neutralize conservative media, which proved lethal to a big push for immigration changes in 2007. A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that conservative news shows had devoted about a quarter of their time to immigration.
In late 2012, after Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, lost the presidential election in part because of his dismal performance with Latino voters, Mr. Rubio joined the fight. On one Sunday alone in April 2013, he made an appearance on seven talk shows to advocate the immigration overhaul, including on “Fox News Sunday.”
Mr. Rubio also reached out to other conservative power brokers, including the radio hosts Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham, telling them that the legislation did not amount to amnesty. The Fox anchors Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly became more supportive.
At the time, The Washington Post reported that Mr. Rubio’s advisers were monitoring to the minute how much time the hosts devoted to immigration, and that “they are heartened that the volume is much diminished.”
Mr. Rubio publicly and privately worked to assuage the fears of Mr. Limbaugh, who on air called him a “thoroughbred conservative” and assured one wary listener that “Marco Rubio is not out to hurt this country or change it the way the liberals are.”
On Jan. 29, 2013, the same day Mr. Obama highlighted immigration in Las Vegas, Mr. Limbaugh had Mr. Rubio on as a guest to talk about immigration and called him “admirable and noteworthy” during a warm conversation about the bipartisan immigration plan.
In other words, the power brokers of the GOP and the conservative media all collided to sell the "Gang of Eight", that, BTW, is still utterly despised by the base. Yeah, this pretty much seals the deal on them losing the reigns.
I continue to read Republicans and movement conservatives grappling with Trump. It's fascinating. Here's Eliot Cohen, Iraq war booster and neocon explaining the rise of Trump.
Moral rot.
...
Trump’s rise is only one among many signs that something has gone profoundly amiss in our popular culture. It is related to the hysteria that has swept through many campuses, as students call for the suppression of various forms of free speech and the provision of “safe spaces” where they will not be challenged by ideas with which they disagree. The rise of Trump and the fall of free speech in academia are equal signs that we are losing the intellectual sturdiness and honesty without which a republic cannot thrive.
...
In the context of culture, if not (yet) politics, he is unremarkable; the daily entertainments of today are both tawdry and self-consciously, corrosively ironic. Ours is an age when young people have become used to getting news, of a sort, from Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, when an earlier generation watched Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley. It is the difference between giggling with young, sneering hipsters and listening to serious adults. Go to YouTube and look at old episodes of Profiles in Courage, if you can find them—a wildly successful television series based on the book nominally authored by John F. Kennedy, which celebrated an individual’s, often a politician’s, courage in standing alone against a crowd, even a crowd with whose politics the audience agreed. The show of comparable popularity today is House of Cards. Bill Clinton has said that he loves it.
I wonder if he knows that House of Cards (Netflix) is basically the same in sensibility as its BBC original. A show made in the backdrop of Thatcher's Britain. That idol of certain people.
Yes, the reason the Republican Party has gone insane is Kevin Spacey with a Southern Drawl
It doesn't really matter what any of the various websites and rightwing magazines say about Trump, because they're still going to vote for him in November.
It doesn't really matter what any of the various websites and rightwing magazines say about Trump, because they're still going to vote for him in November.
The mental gymnastics will sure be fun to watch, though
+1
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
I think a lot of the more moderate, center-right republican voters, who absolutely do exist, won't turn out for Trump. They'd probably rather stay at home. They sure as hell won't flip and vote Democrat but they'll stay home and watch HGTV or the DIY network. Maybe the History Channel.
That's such bullshit from Rubio, we know he'll be lining up to kiss Trump's ass in less than a month. Even Mitt Romney style pollsters couldn't get this one wrong.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I fucking loathe Scott Walker but at least he had the balls to drop out early and tell the rest of his party to stop being such fucking morons and unite around defeating the clowns
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
It's hilarious that he's bitching about the death of old-school, respectable news when between the rise of Fox News and repeal of the Fairness Doctrine his side has done the lion's share of the killing.
It doesn't really matter what any of the various websites and rightwing magazines say about Trump, because they're still going to vote for him in November.
The mental gymnastics will sure be fun to watch, though
"He's not Hillary Clinton." Is pretty much it.
And then stick the landing.
Don't underestimate the level of hate conservatives have for the Clintons.
It doesn't really matter what any of the various websites and rightwing magazines say about Trump, because they're still going to vote for him in November.
The mental gymnastics will sure be fun to watch, though
"He's not Hillary Clinton." Is pretty much it.
And then stick the landing.
Don't underestimate the level of hate conservatives have for the Clintons.
That hate isn't exclusive to the Clintons, any nominee the Democrats elect is going to get that hatred - like John Kerry and Barack Obama.
It's hilarious that he's bitching about the death of old-school, respectable news when between the rise of Fox News and repeal of the Fairness Doctrine his side has done the lion's share of the killing.
Exactly.
If there were more journalists with the integrity of Cronkite you wouldn't have so many younger people growing up watching Colbert and Stewart mock the entire process because there were regular members of the press calling politicians out on their bullshit.
That's such bullshit from Rubio, we know he'll be lining up to kiss Trump's ass in less than a month. Even Mitt Romney style pollsters couldn't get this one wrong.
He's literally been giving that same line out for months.
So was Chris Christie, so was Jeb Bush and I've heard it at least twice from Cruz.
Posts
Who doesn't remember fondly when their parents remained together instead of getting a divorce. Nothing breeds happiness like hatred.
pleasepaypreacher.net
From what I have read, the causation goes both ways. Economic stability absolutely helps marriages. But even when you control for income and other economic factors, marriages still show strongly established benefits for child-rearing and that child's educational achievements and economic mobility, as well as the parents own economic stability - particularly thanks to things like home ownership, savings and more security in their income, even when low.
My main source for that is Robert Putnam's Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis.
Neither have proven to dent him, he's untouchable by the usual GOP tactics. That is why they fail. Well, that and they're absolutely terrible at running campaigns this cycle.
They haven't really. Only in the last few days with the fraud that is Trump University have they even tried. You attack him personally, not his positions, and he'll be a sputtering mess. Metaphorically, you punch the bully in the mouth.
That was true eight months ago, now it's impossible.
That's even more galling for being terrible campaigners. What were they waiting for?
Listen, nobody outside the media ever said the GOP candidates were good at their job.
The childs economic mobility but not the economy in general. While education achievement isn't zero sum, its also not entirely exclusive.
Such marriage is good for the child, but not necessarily good for GDP/the ecnomy. I suspect similar effects in economic stability for the parents.
I haven't read putnams book but i would not be surprised if he was exaggerating the effects on the greater economy.
Glad to see Snowden is showing his grasp of politics is the same as his grasp of the law.
pleasepaypreacher.net
In other words, the power brokers of the GOP and the conservative media all collided to sell the "Gang of Eight", that, BTW, is still utterly despised by the base. Yeah, this pretty much seals the deal on them losing the reigns.
Do you wonder how long the Times knew about this?
"The Grey Lady sends her regards."
I wonder if this might happen later though. Le'ts say Trump sweeps super Tuesday and wraps up the nomination within a month. There will be several long months after that without much going on. The primary is effectively over, just going through the motions, and the general hasnt really kicked off yet. Will people start to lose interest in him? And what will he talk about on twitter without 12 opponents to insult?
Insulting twelve popes comes to mind
Plus, if the GOP try some convention shengians with him, or stack the deck from here on out, I fully expect him to take his voters and walk. He'd rather burn the GOP down than lose the nomination.
*jerkoff motion*
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/02/26/the-age-of-trump
I wonder if he knows that House of Cards (Netflix) is basically the same in sensibility as its BBC original. A show made in the backdrop of Thatcher's Britain. That idol of certain people.
"The Grey Lady wants ALL the page views."
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, the reason the Republican Party has gone insane is Kevin Spacey with a Southern Drawl
Of course!
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
The mental gymnastics will sure be fun to watch, though
This is going to be a gold mine when he's forced to endorse Trump when the primary is over.
pleasepaypreacher.net
"He's not Hillary Clinton." Is pretty much it.
And then stick the landing.
Don't underestimate the level of hate conservatives have for the Clintons.
That hate isn't exclusive to the Clintons, any nominee the Democrats elect is going to get that hatred - like John Kerry and Barack Obama.
Exactly.
If there were more journalists with the integrity of Cronkite you wouldn't have so many younger people growing up watching Colbert and Stewart mock the entire process because there were regular members of the press calling politicians out on their bullshit.
He's literally been giving that same line out for months.
So was Chris Christie, so was Jeb Bush and I've heard it at least twice from Cruz.