Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

Dammit, and the latest issue of Insufferable Fatso Right Wing Blowhard magazine just went to press with the Chris Christie interview on the cover!

Wow.He's like Buzz Windrip without the shallow charisma.

Yep. I always wondered why people took Romney's debt scaremongering seriously. After all, he was running a lucrative scam where Bain Capital would acquire companies in 80's-style leveraged buyouts, load them up with the debt, and force them to hire Bain as consultants to relieve them of the debt through drastic cost-cutting measures. As you say, the percentage of companies who failed to survive this corporate-raider torture test was disturbingly high. And Bain's tactics might have been extreme (having the acquired companies pay Romney & Co. exorbitant fees and "dividends"), but their poor record meant that their shareholders didn't see any better return for investment than if they'd bought shares in a legitimate business instead of playing Romney's rigged crap game.

By the way, it wasn't some bleeding-heart organization or welfare agency that came up $2.3 trillion short in a 2001 audit, it was the Pentagon. Rumsfeld announced the shortfall the day before 9/11, and naturally the news got pushed below the fold shortly thereafter.I assume social spending doesn't give your macho insecurity the boost that military spending does because welfare bucks are supporting the very people you hate and mistrust instead of defending you from them. But I just wanted to point out that if you want to see the stupidest, fattest welfare mama on Earth, just take a look at the Pentagon.Edited by MrHambre, : Added link to DOD website.

As much as I love seeing Republicans seeking powerful government posts stammering like high-school debaters, I wonder how effective this means of choosing a chief executive really is. After all, it was a caught-on-camera gaffe that made Democratic hopeful Howard Dean look foolish and sank his political ambitions. However, Dean wasn't the choad he appeared to be on TV: he was the closest thing to a progressive voice in the 2004 campaign, and his exit led ultimately to John Kerry's uninspiring run and subsequent failure against Bush Jr. Furthermore, Dean's campaigning and fundraising strategies were so effective they became models for the Democratic machine during Obama's successful runs.I'm voting for Bernie Sanders when the time comes, but I have no illusions that his grumpy, disheveled manner will translate into major voter support or media attention. The other prominent progressive Democrat in the public eye, Elizabeth Warren, looks so awkward on camera it's often excruciating; is her message going to transcend image any more than it did for people like Dean or Nader? Maybe we always get the President we deserve via this method, and that's too bad.Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.

Ever heard of Scandinavia? Apparently these welfare states have a much lower degree of income inequality than the USA.

Never said that's what we see. But we do see a lower degree of income inequality. You're right, Norway has an economy based on exporting resources. That's what countries do. They have a mixed economy like ours, it's not socialist per se. And they do have an environmental agency that was created in the mid-70s just like our EPA. I'll bet they spend a lot of time and money doing just that. Are you suggesting that money spent on researching climate change is by definition money wasted? If you're suggesting that invading countries is a costly foreign policy tactic, I agree. And I'm not sure what "diversity" has to do with income inequality.

Sixty years ago, someone talking about the Constitution was likely to be advocating for the rights of marginalized populations, or broadening social discourse to include previously forbidden content. Nowadays, whenever someone mentions the Constitution, it's almost certain that the person is a gun-nut or a pissed-off white guy.And the line cuts both ways. It's not like the Constitution specifically mentions separation of Church and State, either. We atheists have just become used to the myth that the Constitution affords us freedom from religion in any form. Don't get me wrong, I don't think religion should have influence over public policy or education, and I don't believe for a minute that religion is "under siege"; but complaining about crches and crosses is tired stuff. And using the word Constitution as if it shuts down all discussion of the topic makes us sound like gun nuts.Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.

I'm relieved. I'd rather the Dem candidate have to run against an ineffectual blowhard like Trump or Christie than an opponent like Walker, who has enough actual union-busting cred to fire the imaginations of all the laissez-faire fantasists in the population of this former superpower.Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.