dc.

Sure, but are they failing because of democratic socialism or are their economies a bit different from ours? Is our economy, in its makeup, more like Greece or like Germany? Spain or France? Hint: Spain, Greece, Portugal, Ireland - they have long been agricultural and tourist economies. They have never been industrial economies. It's not that democratic socialist policies are failing them... it's that their economies at large are failing them. (fun side note - all four PIGS countries have higher life expectancies than the US)

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/255806-obama-i-will-not-sign-another-short-term-spending-bill Look at all those demands he is throwing in there. His threat amounts to "pass a bill, any bill, that actually makes a full, annual budget a reality..."

Oh, RedState.com. Fun. The words "that's the truth, not a spin" next to a link from RedState.com - best post of the day. Second, "threats" ... not the same as actually shutting it down and later forcing a mandatory sequester, which others DID in fact do. Third, read Obama's quote - he doesn't say "I want what I want"... he says he wants a full budget. The US gov't has not had an official full budget in almost a decade. Blame goes on both sides. We've been funding via short-term holdovers called CRs (continuing resolutions) all this time. It's a large part of why we can't actually address our deficit and debt because no one actually tackles the problem - they can't agree on anything so they agree to just "stay the course" a few more months. Obama's threat was "I will not sign another short-term CR" - not "give me everything I want in a budget or else." I'm starting to see the Trump supporter here more and more. Words don't matter. Say what you want. Hear what you want. But ignore the reality of what words mean when the time comes to actually make a decision or take a side. Just assume that all words mean all things.

There is no "spin" here. Marxist Socialism (also known as Communism) and Democratic Socialism are very simply different things. Period. The US is a democratic republic. The UK is a democratic republic. Yet one is presidential and one is parliamentary. Similar names. Different things. The Nazis were also, by name, "socialists." But Hitler simply added the word because he knew it would attract people. Bottom line - it is not "socialism" that has failed. It is Communism (Marxist Socialism) that has failed. Democratic (Revisionist, Evolutionary Socialism in the vain of Eduard Bernstein) has not failed but is thriving around the world. You still refuse to address the most basic point here... how are Britain, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland... surviving and thriving under such BRUTAL, HORRIBLE, OPPRESSIVE, FAILING SOCIALIST REGIMES?!? gtfo.

Watched it all. Not amazing, but it gets better as it guess and the plot at least holds you pretty well... Lots going on by the end. I most enjoyed some if the nice subtle references to historical ideas buried in there- the language used that mirrors the actual ideas and terms of the time by the Nazis and Japanese. Great sets as well.

General Musing: someone posted about the (original) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 movie coming out 25 years ago today. Question: why did/do the turtles wear masks? I'm just going to leave that there.

Most people walk away from these things. It's probably the smarter move. As a history and econ teacher though, I feel it is my moral duty to at least say "no" - even if I know it won't work.

Oh, the fallacies ... again! So, is Trump getting independents right now? He certainly is getting some. But then again, independents make up about 40% of the electorate. Just like Bernie is getting a lot in the Dem primary because some are more democratic leaning (or even further left), Trump is getting some who lean right. Obama won against Romney 51% to 47% (though, far heavier to Obama electorally). So, no one wins "all" the independents. It's about winning a decent number of them. If Obama got his 30% dems and Romney got his 30% Reps... then Obama won about 55% of the independents to win the whole thing. That's a lot for sure, but it's not nearly "all." So, will Trump get 55% of independents? No. As above... he seems to be maxing at 40-45% of anything. And that aligns with all other polls that say about 60% of people find him repulsive. So, he'll win his Rs. Probably less than the full 30% he should because, unlike your view above, the Christian voters don't all love him. And many others as well. And then he'll win a bunch of the Independents - but mainly those that already lean Right. But that's not by any means guaranteed to be 50%. Or even 40%. Really, we don't even know how many independents he's winning now. As for immigration - whatever. H1Bs are legal and Trump wants to get rid of them. And being legal isn't the same thing as being just or morally right. For most of history, "immigrating" meant showing up and signing your name as you walked off the boat. Then we didn't like certain groups so we started capping their numbers. Then we capped all numbers. And now new groups are told "what's legal" as if it means it is right. In the end, I'm all for legal immigration too. But the fact is - we need more immigrants, not fewer. Demographically and economically, we need the workers. So fine, talk about the laws. The laws need to change. Moving on.

More falsehoods to dispel here... Dems never shut down the gov't. That was largely Ted Cruz, not Ryan as well, and it was because he was trying to attach a "defund Obamacare" provision to a budget. No one has really gotten what they've wanted recently. Ryan wants huge tax cuts (how do those help the debt again?) and if you look at his spending cuts, they're pretty scary, but that's just me. But even his budget doesn't ever come close to actually balancing itself. Lastly, the debt ceiling pays for debt already created - not for new debt. It's a silly system and we shouldn't even really need a "debt limit" but... think of it this way. You write yourself a budget for the month. The budget says you are going to earn $100, spend $200... so there's $100 deficit there. But you wrote it and it's kind of in stone, you can't change it now because you've promised that $200 out to people in advance. The debt ceiling is your credit card limit. If you need an extra $100 in limit, you can't say "no" after you've already given the money out. You have to say yes. Congress - both Ds and Rs - have been passing budgets with insane deficits for decades. The debt limit says "we will pay for what we created." You can't say no after the fact. Other fun facts... our debt ballooned early in the Obama administration. That's not great of course. But several TRILLION of that was literally just paying for the recession. We lost about half a trillion per year in tax revenue the first two years of the recession. Unless you're going to cut spending hugely in that moment - horrible idea, people need their social security and unemployment in that moment more than ever - that's going to create in debt. A lot of it. Finally - for being so debt conscious, you know whose tax plan has the worst impact on our debt? Donnie! Estimated between $10T and $15T of increased deficits over 10 years. So, we're already on track to be at about $25T debt by 2026. Donnie is ready to make that $36-40T! Hooray for fiscal responsibility from our "libertarians!"

Let's try to take out all four falsehoods in this quickly. 1. Neither China nor Russia were ever socialist. They were communist. China is now a state-driven/state-run capitalism. They are growing because of their state intervention (your friend, Donald, likes to point this out). They are not a true capitalist society yet. They are also growing so quickly in large part because their economy had been so small for so long. When your economy gets bigger, it's hard to grow as quickly. Either way, no one is advocating for communism. Socialism is different. 2. If you are touting China's advances as a "capitalist" nation - please look at how that capitalism is fairing for their average citizen. 3. In 2015, China held $1.3T of our debt - that's less than 10% of our gross debt which is now closer to $19T. They sold most of it off recently because their economy is so weak and they have to use that foreign held debt to prop it up. They also cannot just "call in" their debt because that's not really how debt works - your bank cannot just ask you to pay your mortgage off in full one day because they don't like the loan anymore. Let's say it this way, if anyone were worried about debt in the real world, they wouldn't still be lending to us at record low interest rates. 4. The debt does NOT come from Medicare and Social Security. About 1/3 of the debt is owed TO those programs because we took it out to pay for other programs. Those programs are currently fully funded by your FICA taxes. Meanwhile - way not to respond to the actual question. Despite having a higher GDP and being "better" - why is our awesome capitalist nation NOT able to produce students as bright or people who live as long as all those dreaded socialist nations in western europe? Because we're not really socialist at all right now. Social Security and Medicare are great programs, but they are the weakest of their kind in the free world.

Once again, simple question is: would Dems stay home for Hillary? Apparently no more than for Bernie. Now, other work to be done? Sure. But same with any GOPer. And choosing Bernie now is not the same as not choosing Hillary later. The prior poll was about satisfaction, not preference.

But what's he's supposed to say? They're the top team in the country, you ignore it and say we love facing it now instead if later? I just get tired of over analyzing an this stuff. Some coaches are great rahrah guys on a certain way, some work differently. Not better or worse. Let's all pile on Turg. He's only the best recruiter the university has ever had in any sport...

Sorry, NH and Michigan. Two states Bernie win, of course. Point remains above. And reminder: you're not taking to a HRC supportee

That's only New Hampshire though? And again, the point was that even if people prefer one or the other, 75% are happy with either... (Not the same 75%). So the claim that Hillary isn't motivating her base is not really true.

Like all the dem socialist state in Europe... With lower debt, longer life span, and happier people. But gee, those taxes are just strangling... Yet somehow with all those taxes they still are able to go on more vacation and live on one salary more easily than in the US.

The delegates are skewed a bit by the winner takes all system in some places, like Florida. His 46% aligns perfectly with the poll I cited. He's never really cracked that level in the primaries, as well. Cruz has. And primary voters are extra motivated. So it's not telling us who is staying home And in open primaries he may be getting an independent bump. The point is simply, he has work to do in his own party. Lastly, I disagree that if he has a plurality of votes he should automatically get it. In fact, I think the whole system, even at the National level, is off. We should have run offs and require majorities to get elected or become more parliamentary and require coalition building.

I meant it only to discuss the idea that Dems would stay home. Apparently no more so than if Bernie were there. Don't disagree on independents, but as another analysis on 538 was recently saying, independents are of course the most diverse group. Some like Hillary more than Bernie because they are more centrist. Some the opposite.

https://youtu.be/IJOuoyoMhj8 Best of the best.

New poll on support of candidates by party. On Dem side, 25% unhappy with Sanders of nominated... Same as 25%for Clinton. Clinton actually has slightly more people "satisfied" with her nomination. Meanwhile, almost 50% of GOPers would be dissatisfied with Trump. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-trump-leads-gop-race-nationally-but-with-weaker-hold-on-the-party/2016/03/07/890cc8d0-e496-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html

First... sorry my ranting got you out of Facebook. I noticed that the other week, like "wait, where's Cleetz?!" Second... I dropped LinkedIn a year or more ago; I remember reading something crazy about what their terms of service allows them to do with your info. Be wary!

I am not trying to mock, but these analogies just popped into my head. I guess I half understand the logic of "he got things done even if it was bad"... but the logic is just so backwards there, I feel the need to say: Slavery was bad, yeah, but you know... imagine what the US economy would have been like if we hadn't had slaves for like 200 years. Segregation sucked, of course, but for a good 100 years it really kept a level of civil peace and unity in the country... we didn't have these big black lives matter protests, you know? (The latter, by the way, returns to my point about why bother protesting Trump? Because sometimes, just for the sake of decency, someone has to say "I oppose this even if it bothers you and gets in your way")

I have to disagree here. I mean, can you say some items were "good" ... maybe. But we'd have to be careful. If be more sympathetic to Mussolini. But much of what Hitler accomplished was not only accomplished by fear, violence and unconditional principles, it was frequently accomplished through the exclusion or exploitation of certain groups. He dropped unemployment to 2% ... by excluding women, Jews and other "undesirables" from the labor force. He also did so by militarizing in violation of international law and with the strict intent of invading neighbors. He industrialized with state takeovers and he "aided labor" by replacing individual labor unions with state directed unions. He improved schools and life... With indoctrination programs, propaganda and state restricted media. So, can you look at some results and say, "that looks successful?" Sure. But that doesn't mean he "did good." He acted in reprehensible ways to further his ends, and at times, the ends of the greater society. But he did horrible things to accomplish what he saw as "success"

Possible. Yes. Likely. No. They play like that run at the 10min mark last night and they can take on anyone

Most bats have been fine. Kim has rebounded with a 8-16 or something, but mostly weak singles which was not his apparent MO in Korea... Still unsure. But there are other options there while he, hopefully, adjusts

Yeah, my thoughts precisely. Plus, unlike Cruz, he was well liked in the party. He'll become a lobbyist in one form or another and make millions hawking an issue or bills to his former colleagues. Nytimes had a great editorial from a retiring rep about his intent to leave because of his much he hated the system, and directly cited examples of exactly this problem of finding himself being lobbied by former colleagues. Will have to go find it