2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Valmy]

Sorry to jump in late, but I was surprised to read statements from earlier in the day which argued, essentially, that Elizabeth Warren's problem was that she clung to her principals.  Garbo and dguller appeared to be saying that clinging to principals was a bad idea, and that they wanted politicians whose principals were flexible.

Am I the one other who doesn't understand what a principal is, in this context, or are they?  In the normal English with which I am conversant, a principal that is abandoned for expediency was never a principal to begin with.

I'm a little confused. We know you've been a doddering, old fool for quite some time, but how did you manage to confuse DG (who doesn't appear to have mentioned principals or principles) and myself (who did mention principles) with Valmy who mentioned both principals and principles?

Oh fuck did I say principals? Damn it.

[Admiral Yi]

Individuals pay taxes on income, not profit. Given that we all have to meet certain expenses simply to survive, biologically, socially and professionally, it is disingenuous to say that the rich bear a heavier burden of taxation than the poor.

No has said the rich bear a heavier burden of taxation than the poor, at least not in this thread.  I don't see the connection between your comment and mine, and I'm beginning to suspect you misunderstood mine.

[DGuller]

Garbo and dguller appeared to be saying that clinging to principals was a bad idea, and that they wanted politicians whose principals were flexible.

Was I?  I'm not sure I have a simple ready answer for this question, but I don't recall opining on this point at all here.  Are you confusing me with someone else?

[Malthus]

Sorry to jump in late, but I was surprised to read statements from earlier in the day which argued, essentially, that Elizabeth Warren's problem was that she clung to her principals.  Garbo and dguller appeared to be saying that clinging to principals was a bad idea, and that they wanted politicians whose principals were flexible.

Am I the one other who doesn't understand what a principal is, in this context, or are they?  In the normal English with which I am conversant, a principal that is abandoned for expediency was never a principal to begin with.

I'm a little confused. We know you've been a doddering, old fool for quite some time, but how did you manage to confuse DG (who doesn't appear to have mentioned principals or principles) and myself (who did mention principles) with Valmy who mentioned both principals and principles?

Oh fuck did I say principals? Damn it.

9 out of 10 school administrators approved. 

[DGuller]

In a roundabout way, we have been discussing what is essentially a principal/agent problem in US politics, so Valmy shouldn't feel so bad.

[Eddie Teach]

In the normal English with which I am conversant, a principal that is abandoned for expediency was never a principal to begin with.

Have you been taking notes from Hans on how to fire your boss? 

[dps]

Thomas Stratmann, an economist at George Mason who studies campaign finance, agrees. "In my view, political money is unlikely to have much impact on well publicized issues, such as gun control or single-payer issues," he writes in an email. "Money is more likely to be important for issues that are not on the radar screen of TV, newspapers, and social media, perhaps something like subsidies for sugar farmers."

That is exactly the point I (and the Princeton study) is making. When issues get into the spotlight, the interests of the voters matters. But for the majority of issues that do not...the interests of the funders trumps. And that is most issues. Nobody fights over the stuff that the funders all want - it is off the table.

But all that's really saying is that people make their voices heard about issues that they care about--and that their voices will be listened to.    If the people who actually care about sugar subsidies make their voices heard, and politicians listen to them, it's not the politicians' fault those people are mostly major stakeholders in the sugar industry.  And I don't see that anyone can reasonably claim that the will sugar industry is thwarting the will of the public in general, because the public in general simply doesn't care.

[derspiess]

The principal is your pal!

[garbon]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-when-i-said-we-should-go-to-war-in-iraq-i-052320351.html

Trump: When I said we should go to war in Iraq, I 'wasn't a politician'

Donald Trump was apparently for the Iraq war before he was against it.

The Republican presidential hopeful has made his opposition to the invasion of Iraq a major talking point of his campaign for the White House in recent days. But asked in a September 2002 interview with Howard Stern if he supported going to war in Iraq, Trump replied, "Yeah, I guess so."

In a CNN town hall Thursday, Trump said he did not recall the interview, which was unearthed by BuzzFeed , but he admitted he "could have" said it. Still, Trump defended the remark, insisting he "wasn't a politician" at the time and that it was "probably the first time" anyone had asked him the question.

"By the time the war started, I was against it," Trump insisted. "And later, I was really against it."

The muddled position emerged as Trump fended off criticism of his recent attacks against former President George W. Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, which he has called "the worst decision in U.S. history." At the CNN forum, a voter asked Trump if he regretted suggesting Bush had "lied" to the American public about the Iraq war during last Saturday's GOP primary debate.

At first, Trump doubled down—insisting Bush had wrongly led the country into war. But when the voter—and later CNN's Anderson Cooper—tried to pin Trump down on whether he actually believed the former president "lied," Trump backed off. "I don't know," he said. "I don't know."

The forum came just two days before South Carolina's pivotal Republican primary and after a wild day on the campaign trail, which began with Trump trashing Pope Francis after the pontiff suggested the GOP frontrunner is "not a Christian" because of his pledge to deport undocumented immigrants and build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

Trump had called the pope's comments "disgraceful," but at the CNN forum, he backed off ever so slightly, saying the pontiff's comments had not been as harsh as he first believed.

"I don't think this is a fight," Trump said. "I think he said something much softer than was originally reported by the media."

He added that he liked Pope Francis, describing him as a "wonderful guy" with great energy who didn't have the full story before he spoke.

The forum wrapped on a surreal note, as Trump spoke at length about his love of fast food ("Kentucky Fried Chicken, not the worst thing in the world") and mused about the sexual relationship between Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley, who honeymooned at Trump's home in Florida.

"Michael Jackson was actually a very good friend of mine," Trump said. "He was an unbelievably talented guy. He lost his confidence. He lost tremendous confidence because of, honestly, bad-bad-bad surgery."

[Eddie Teach]

Who are all these people voting for him anyway?

[DGuller]

People tired of our dumb politicians losing, losing, losing.  People who are looking for a president who will make us win again.

[Valmy]

Who are all these people voting for him anyway?

[Grey Fox]

That's right!

[Grinning_Colossus]

Who are all these people voting for him anyway?

And specifically Denmark.

[Martinus]

Who are all these people voting for him anyway?

I am constantly puzzled by people who are puzzled by his mass appeal.