Gyroscopic Investing

Ad Orientem wrote:

Shades of 1912. The last time the GOP was this divided we elected the worst President in US History.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/us/po ... .html?_r=0

From Michigan to Louisiana to California on Friday, rank-and-file Republicans expressed mystification, dismissal and contempt regarding the instructions that their party’s most high-profile leaders were urgently handing down to them: Reject and defeat Donald J. Trump.
[...]
“There’s nothing short of Trump shooting my daughter in the street and my grandchildren — there is nothing and nobody that’s going to dissuade me from voting for Trump,” Ms. Butler said.
[...]
The problem, for figures like Mr. Forbes and Mr. Romney, is that Mr. Trump’s supporters seem profoundly uninterested at the moment with the image, expectations or traditions of the Republican Party, according to interviews with more than three dozen voters, elected officials and operatives. They are, in many cases, hostile to it.

“I want to see Trump go up there and do damage to the Republican Party,” said Jeff Walls, 53, of Flowood, Miss.
[...]
Kathy, from Sun City, Ariz., told Mr. Limbaugh she was “absolutely livid by the Romney speech. He’s condescending,” she said, adding that he sounded like a “Democrat the whole time.” Steve from Temecula, Calif., said he had a message for Mr. Romney: “The Republican electorate is not a bunch of completely ignorant fools.”

“We know who Donald Trump is,” he added, “and we’re going to use Donald Trump to either take over the G.O.P. or blow it up.”

moda0306 wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:

Shades of 1912. The last time the GOP was this divided we elected the worst President in US History.

You mean the best? 

You're the monarchist here. I thought you would like Teddy. His heavy expansion of the executive branch is arguably very dangerous, but don't you think his conservationist and anti-trust moves were pretty important?  I struggle with this. I simultaneously love the guy and am disappointed in the expansion of the executive that he made commonplace.

But if any one president illustrates all the great or scary things that can result from monarchy, it's Teddy, IMO.

Xan wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:

Shades of 1912. The last time the GOP was this divided we elected the worst President in US History.

You mean the best? 

You're the monarchist here. I thought you would like Teddy. His heavy expansion of the executive branch is arguably very dangerous, but don't you think his conservationist and anti-trust moves were pretty important?  I struggle with this. I simultaneously love the guy and am disappointed in the expansion of the executive that he made commonplace.

But if any one president illustrates all the great or scary things that can result from monarchy, it's Teddy, IMO.

Moda, he's talking about the election of 1912, in which Teddy went third-party and split the Republican vote with the official nominee, Taft, thus handing the election to one Woodrow Wilson.

moda0306 wrote:

Xan wrote:

moda0306 wrote: You mean the best? 

You're the monarchist here. I thought you would like Teddy. His heavy expansion of the executive branch is arguably very dangerous, but don't you think his conservationist and anti-trust moves were pretty important?  I struggle with this. I simultaneously love the guy and am disappointed in the expansion of the executive that he made commonplace.

But if any one president illustrates all the great or scary things that can result from monarchy, it's Teddy, IMO.

Moda, he's talking about the election of 1912, in which Teddy went third-party and split the Republican vote with the official nominee, Taft, thus handing the election to one Woodrow Wilson.

Dammit. Duh.

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Xan wrote: Moda, he's talking about the election of 1912, in which Teddy went third-party and split the Republican vote with the official nominee, Taft, thus handing the election to one Woodrow Wilson.

Dammit. Duh.

It's OK.  Now we know you are human like the rest of us. 

... M

Xan wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:

Shades of 1912. The last time the GOP was this divided we elected the worst President in US History.

You mean the best? 

You're the monarchist here. I thought you would like Teddy. His heavy expansion of the executive branch is arguably very dangerous, but don't you think his conservationist and anti-trust moves were pretty important?  I struggle with this. I simultaneously love the guy and am disappointed in the expansion of the executive that he made commonplace.

But if any one president illustrates all the great or scary things that can result from monarchy, it's Teddy, IMO.

Moda, he's talking about the election of 1912, in which Teddy went third-party and split the Republican vote with the official nominee, Taft, thus handing the election to one Woodrow Wilson.

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Dammit. Duh.

It's OK.  Now we know you are human like the rest of us. 

... M

Not so fast... Between my blaze-red facial hair, my inability to comment outside the modes of "snarky" and "deductive logic," and my communistic tendencies, I think the existence of a soul in this vessel is questionable at the very least.

2. What really differentiates Trump’s voters from the other Republicans is the populism.

Trump voters are the only ones to score consistently high on all three populist dimensions. Cruz and Rubio’s supporters, for example, don’t express high feelings of anti-elitism. In fact, on this scale, they are strongly anti-populist, identifying with authority rather than rejecting it.

Trump supporters share anti-elitism with only one other group: Sanders’s voters.

But where Trump is a populist, we would argue that Sanders is not. Despite the fact that Sanders often gets called a populist, his voters do not conform to the populist stereotype. They generally trust experts and do not identify strongly as Americans. A better way to describe them would be cosmopolitan socialists. They see the system as corrupted by economic elites. But they don’t trust ordinary Americans and show only light attachment to Americanism as an identity.

Pointedstick wrote: Some more evidence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... -are-they/

[img width=600]http://i.imgur.com/gRTGjL2.png[/img]

2. What really differentiates Trump’s voters from the other Republicans is the populism.

Trump voters are the only ones to score consistently high on all three populist dimensions. Cruz and Rubio’s supporters, for example, don’t express high feelings of anti-elitism. In fact, on this scale, they are strongly anti-populist, identifying with authority rather than rejecting it.

Trump supporters share anti-elitism with only one other group: Sanders’s voters.

But where Trump is a populist, we would argue that Sanders is not. Despite the fact that Sanders often gets called a populist, his voters do not conform to the populist stereotype. They generally trust experts and do not identify strongly as Americans. A better way to describe them would be cosmopolitan socialists. They see the system as corrupted by economic elites. But they don’t trust ordinary Americans and show only light attachment to Americanism as an identity.

MangoMan wrote: If only we could move to a more parliamentary style government....

Pointedstick wrote: I predict that the new populist Republican party enthusiastically embraces the welfare state and public benefits, but adds conditions to them, such as means testing, drug testing, no benefits if you're not married or not a citizen, etc. Populists like government benefits, but as Tenn mentioned, only if for people (often themselves included) whom they can be convinced have "earned" them. Expect the new Republican party to advocate generous government benefits for people who are citizens, employed, net taxpayers, married, drug-free, etc, and few to none for people not meeting those conditions.

Desert wrote: We'll look back at this period one day and wonder at the madness of crowds, and our kids will mock us for being so blind.  But we aren't really blind; we just want to win.  We want to get on the winning bus and fight back against the "great other" that is oppressing us.  The Mexicans, the Muslims, the Chinese ... they are responsible for our ills, and only Trump can save us now.  So I'm putting on my red hat (red?  really?), and I'm goin' out to get me some justice.

Pointedstick wrote: Yes. Because he is a canny, calculating man who--as we see in the presidential race--uses exactly as much force as is needed to get his way, and no more, but he also knows how to fold, withdraw, and redirect while saving face. Tonight in the debate he was caught in some blatant flip-flopping and he basically turned it around and said, "Okay, so I'm a flip-flopper. I can change my mind when things change or I get new information. Can't you?"

moda0306 wrote: I struggle with this. I simultaneously love the guy and am disappointed in the expansion of the executive that he made commonplace.

moda0306 wrote: But if any one president illustrates all the great or scary things that can result from monarchy, it's Teddy, IMO.

Pointedstick wrote: What Kool-aid? What did I say that you disagree with?

Desert wrote: I'm more of a globalist financier, trying to usher in the new world order.

Desert wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Desert wrote: I'm more of a globalist financier, trying to usher in the new world order.

Well, you sure sound like one.  Funny how YOUR fucking selfish interests are far more important the public's.  No vote from me!

What are you even talking about?  Seriously, I have no idea what topic you're even trying to discuss.  Are you saying you are voting for Trump and I'm selfish for not voting for him?

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Desert wrote: What are you even talking about?  Seriously, I have no idea what topic you're even trying to discuss.  Are you saying you are voting for Trump and I'm selfish for not voting for him?

Yes, clearly! We know how you sneer down at us proles through your monocle, wearing your tophat and fingering that gold-handled cane. You evil destroyer of the global commons, you!

That's beautiful! 

I especially like the monocle image ... maybe one day I can be that guy.  I'll keep working at it, tirelessly.

Greg wrote: Be careful about wanting to be that guy, otherwise you're apt to go a little nutty (I love a good pun)

MangoMan wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: But if any one president illustrates all the great or scary things that can result from monarchy, it's Teddy, IMO.

No, its FDR.  He so effectively neutered the Judicial branch against government overreach and intervention that the modern nation state we've come to love and abhor is traced back directly to him.  So lets compromise and say the Roosevelt brothers were the worst monarchies in our history.

The Roosevelt presidents were not brothers,  they were like fifth cousins. Where are you getting your facts these days?