I was unaware of any negative connotations attached to that word.
You were completely oblivious of any negative connotations associated with the word "agitator"? I don't believe you.
I certainly intended to indicate aggressiveness, but that is not an inherently negative trait.
It carries a negative connotation. Contrast with activist, which carries a neutral and often positive connotation.
I'm not concerned about Muslims overall because they have a high place in the twisted European/leftist worldview which is beginning to prevail in the West.
Europe and Muslims occupying a "high place." Interesting.
They are allowed to be homophobes. They are allowed to be bigots.
These are still problematic qualities to have regardless of who has them.
They are allowed to persecute under the banner of Islamophobia. Their victims are the subject of victim-blaming. They are not in any trouble.
... Ok, you actually believe that no one in the world condemns the violence and persecution of fanatical Islam? What... What do you do to get your worldview this skewed?
Yes, plenty of people condemn fanatical Islam. The problem is people who, like you are doing in this thread, attribute the qualities of certain Islamists to all Islamists. That is wrong.
They are allowed to be homophobes. They are allowed to be bigots. They are allowed to persecute under the banner of Islamophobia. Their victims are the subject of victim-blaming. They are not in any trouble.
So are you upset because there are Muslims who are homophobes and bigots? Or are you upset because you perceive that they are some how allowed to be.
Here is a tip for you they aren't. It's no different from any group of people, you don't judge a group for the actions of individuals.
I was unaware of any negative connotations attached to that word. I certainly intended to indicate aggressiveness, but that is not an inherently negative trait. John Brown and Martin Luther King, Jr. were agitators and I have no problem with their public lives. (Well, John Brown a tad, perhaps but overall...)
Generally when you say someone is a "known <blank>" it indicates that <blank> is something negative they should keep secret. Consider the sound of "Bob is a homosexual" vs. "Bob is a known homosexual".
Now please don't do the whole social justice warrior thing and tell me that what I meant is what you think I meant. What I meant is what I actually meant and that intent you cannot know with certainty but please take my word for it.
Speaking of intents that SJWs imagine/invent, that brings me back to the main point. The purpose of pointing out that his father is a known agitator (hereafter 'activist' if it suits you) is to frame the context under which this event unfolded. Here you have a man who is an activist for a cause in which his son mysteriously becomes entangled. They then hire a lawyer immediately and all persons involved are instantaneously deemed 'Islamophobes' without evidence. There's no coincidence.
Wouldn't you hire a lawyer is your child were pulled from class, denied contact with you, interrogated by police, and threatened with expulsion unless they signed a confession then and there? For someone with an anarcho-capitalist flag as their forum avatar, you seem pretty blasé about this sort of police action.
I like that he admitted ousting Saddam and Kadaffi were terrible ideas in retrospect. I don't care for him blaming a minority group for the country's problems. But I'm also not opposed to seizing ISIS's oil fields or whatever black gold they've got.
Unless the bottom rung of candidates see jumps in support, I anticipate we'll see some candidates leave the race after this.
I unfortunately didn't see a lot of it, but I've been trying to follow the coverage as much as I can.
Seems to be that Fiorina, Rand Paul, and Jeb lost ground. I would not be surprised to see Fiorina and/or Rand drop out soon. Consensus seems to be building that Rubio (maybe Kasich) are going to be the choice that establishment Republicans line up behind. Whatever else you think of Rubio he at least proved that he has some good handlers/strategists on his team. They knew his senate record was in the news this week and not only was he prepared with a response, but he was prepared with a response specifically if he was attacked by Jeb, and it worked.
Ted Cruz (blech) seems to be gaining a lot of support to represent the non-establishment side of things, I can only assume that this is because Trump and Carson have just said too many dumb things for any rational person to actually take them seriously as candidates. Christie seemed to help himself a bit. Huckabee should really just go away, you're not going to win an election running as the ultra-religious candidate.
Cruz has set himself up to either take all of Trump's support if he peters out, or to be his VP candidate if he doesn't. Carson has never had anywhere close to a real shot at it because he is certifiably insane, as is Paul. Fiorina has proven to be an aggressively incompetent leader well before she even announced. Jeb has been shooting himself in the foot since the debates started, and Rubio or Kasich will take whatever support he has left as things progress.
The later stages of the primary will essentially come down to Trump, Cruz, and either Rubio or Kasich once one of them gets selected to get all the Kochbux, with the possibility of Trump being eliminated early based on how stupid he is in the meantime. None of them stand a chance in the general except maybe Kasich, but I don't see that happening because of how bat***** insane the Tea Party has become.
Apparently Rubio has enjoyed a boost from the debates, Carson remains the frontrunner, Trump is still up there, Kasich and Christie have enjoyed a boost, and everyone else has either remained the same or declined.
At this point, I'm hoping for people to start folding soon. There is no reason for 10 candidates going into the next debate.
The later stages of the primary will essentially come down to Trump, Cruz, and either Rubio or Kasich once one of them gets selected to get all the Kochbux, with the possibility of Trump being eliminated early based on how stupid he is in the meantime. None of them stand a chance in the general except maybe Kasich, but I don't see that happening because of how bat***** insane the Tea Party has become.
I agree with your assessment. At this point it looks likely to come down to Cruz vs Rubio or Kasich, and if he hasn't imploded yet, Trump.
Rubio or Kasich seem like the most sane choices, but God help us all if Cruz actually wins. I don't think any stand much chance in the general election, but incredibly the one with the best shot there might actually be Trump especially if Clinton wins the DNC nomination.
the one with the best shot there might actually be Trump especially if Clinton wins the DNC nomination.
What.
What is confusing? I think Clinton would crush Rubio, Kasich, or Cruz like a grape, not even a contest. Trump on the other hand, while I would never want to see him as president and believe he's a horrible candidate, I think would actually have a non-zero chance of beating Hillary. Not a good chance of course (maybe like 10% if I had to put an actual number to it), but a chance, which is more than the others have.
I'm not concerned about Muslims overall because they have a high place in the twisted European/leftist worldview which is beginning to prevail in the West. They are allowed to be homophobes. They are allowed to be bigots. They are allowed to persecute under the banner of Islamophobia. Their victims are the subject of victim-blaming. They are not in any trouble.
The optics of the situation looked spot on. You had a kid in a NASA t-shirt with a digital clock that never hid the "suspected bomb." This reminds me of the girl that was mentally retarded that brought in a steak knife in to cut meat and was suspended because of zero tolerance. Or my personal favorite, a few teenagers who took pictures of their anatomy and sent the nude pictures to their boyfriends or girlfriends and today are considered pedophiles and now on a sex offenders list.
It's a reactionary with zero tolerance as a part of the "safer than sorry" but the first thing that would have done fine was to confiscate the material and analyze it within the context through a few questions. A teacher that "thought it was a bomb" looks like an ass, and this is the first in showing that zero tolerance with zero respect to the individual person is nothing more than fear. This is what terrorists have always wanted, and we give it to them.
Now, even presuming what you presume is true, I feel it's an actual good idea. Because it makes authorities look like an ass and makes a bad rules set and conflict management system without understanding.
For example, a known person with mental retardation that is young and does "something stupid" for the first time is different than some idiot who brings a knife to stab their bff for sleeping with their special friend or not paying up their drug money. It's called an investigation and we determine the penalty towards the crime. A simple detention for a mentally retarded person with a stern lecture not to bring a knife would have been plenty. Had she done it again, then yes suspension.
Right now, we have people back during the cell phone revolution still on the sex offenders list. Why? They were young adults sexually expressing themselves to people they were sexually interested in. I am not saying it wasn't stupid to create pornography, especially at that age, but we have seen other young women engage in that activity to the message that hackers gunna hack. We need to teach our women that the issue is not Rape Culture, but that understanding people like to see tits... you know Porn Culture. The same with young men with women. And that if you're 60 years old and successfully trying to run for president, those nude pics are going to come back. People are going to see them.
Overall, the "pornography peddlers" that were just sexting teenagers would have done well with a stern lecture, a grounding, and some community service. That's about it, really any teenager that found out his or her parents found out they flashed their goods over the nets is going to be super, super embarrassed.
With that said, here's a person that successfully gamed the system and showed why racial profiling is stupid and zero tolerance is a waste of time. It only took enough time for someone to figure out how to game the system, so we can make for better conflict resolution skills within schools when faced with the "I'm scared, there's a monster under the bed...let's set fire to the house!" line of thinking. We tried that, the old "we have to destroy the village to save the village" in Vietnam. It's a really bad type of thinking in American culture.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Another Republican debate was today. Surprised it happened so recently after the first one.
This time Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie were relegated to the B tier of debates. A good move. Both of them, especially Huckabee, should have bowed out by now.
We shall see after this debate if Rubio and Cruz can maintain their upward momentum, if Carson can hold onto his position as frontrunner, and where Trump's popularity will go from here. Furthermore, we'll see if Florina, Kasich, and Paul can avoid being relegated to the lower tier of debates, and whether Jeb Bush can actually justify his claim that he's a viable candidate.
Is there any legal/constitutional need for the primary stage?
If as you say the republicains are just going to run debate after debate until 2 reasonable candidates emerge its going to get really expensive and run the risk of all the candidates, even the vaguely sensible ones, saying/doing something that severally weakens them with the 'undecideds' that will ultimately choose who is going into the white house.
Surely it would be better to just get a group of higher ranking party members to sort the ticket out amoungst them selves and then unleash the prospective canidates on the country with their powder dry and pockets full of money.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Is there any legal/constitutional need for the primary stage?
If as you say the republicains are just going to run debate after debate until 2 reasonable candidates emerge its going to get really expensive and run the risk of all the candidates, even the vaguely sensible ones, saying/doing something that severally weakens them with the 'undecideds' that will ultimately choose who is going into the white house.
Surely it would be better to just get a group of higher ranking party members to sort the ticket out amoungst them selves and then unleash the prospective canidates on the country with their powder dry and pockets full of money.
Constitutionally there is no requirement for primaries, but both parties have used some form of that system to ensure there is consensus among the party. A series of primaries in which candidates win delegates ensures that the most agreed upon candidate gets the nomination and therefore the full backing of the party. If the party leaders anointed a chosen one instead of letting the voters pick it's likely to fracture the party.
Primaries also temper candidates. Those who can survive the scrutiny of primary voters are likely well prepared to survive general election scrutiny.
Constitutionally there is no requirement for primaries, but both parties have used some form of that system to ensure there is consensus among the party. A series of primaries in which candidates win delegates ensures that the most agreed upon candidate gets the nomination and therefore the full backing of the party. If the party leaders anointed a chosen one instead of letting the voters pick it's likely to fracture the party.
Would the party grandees be likely to select a canidate that they know would alienate a vast proportion of their base though? Granted if there was no Public primary Hilary would have gotten the nomination over Barack but would that have split the Democratic base?
Primaries also temper candidates. Those who can survive the scrutiny of primary voters are likely well prepared to survive general election scrutiny.
Whilst getting tempered might be a good thing is it worth going into the general election handicapped because you have been forced to adopt some really extreme positions just to get the nomination that you have alienated a vast proportion of the Independant voters?
I mean it is a given that pretty any Republicain candidate is going to be pro choice, anti gun control, pro big business and have a number of other positions that some independants are going to find distasteful. But it is a lot easier to overlook/forget those if they haven't had to spend the previous year and a bit crowing them from the rooftops just to get a chance to win a seat in the main event.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Would the party grandees be likely to select a canidate that they know would alienate a vast proportion of their base though? Granted if there was no Public primary Hilary would have gotten the nomination over Barack but would that have split the Democratic base?
This year and 2011 were a bit different for the Republicans. After McCain and the 2010 Republican wave there was and is a lot of primary voters who want a factional candidate, i.e. a Tea Party or non-establishment candidate. Someone who is a "True Scotsman Conservative" as they would say. And frankly they appear to have a point: both McCain and Romney were establishment candidates who were begrudgingly given the nomination (Romney way more so than McCain) and both lost big (nevermind that they lost because they went up against a very, very well run campaign both years) . A loud portion of the base now wants someone who isn't just Establishment Candidate #3. In reality I think they're going to get someone the establishment is happy with anyways because eventually the delegates do take electability into account, but in the meantime the fanatical base wants to say something to the party leaders. Switching among the not-establishment candidates before settling is like a subtle poke in the eye.
Whilst getting tempered might be a good thing is it worth going into the general election handicapped because you have been forced to adopt some really extreme positions just to get the nomination that you have alienated a vast proportion of the Independant voters?
I mean it is a given that pretty any Republicain candidate is going to be pro choice, anti gun control, pro big business and have a number of other positions that some independants are going to find distasteful. But it is a lot easier to overlook/forget those if they haven't had to spend the previous year and a bit crowing them from the rooftops just to get a chance to win a seat in the main event.
It happens that way every election. A candidate swings farther left or right early but then moves back towards the middle once he or she gets the nomination. The Republicans problem is that they've courted a voter bloc that espouses an belief of ideological purity so it requires candidates to be even more "conservative" to get the vote of that bloc. But it's a trap the same way Hedron Blade is a trap in BFZ draft: there aren't enough of these extreme primary voters to outnumber the more moderate primary voters so any candidate who caters to the extremes is going to eventually hit a plateau. The primaries ensure that the consensus candidate is good enough for everybody because in the end a diehard Republican isn't going to vote for a Democratic candidate no matter what. If he didn't get a say in a primary he might forego voting altogether just out of spite; giving him a voice during the primaries at least ensures he'll likely vote on election day.
Is there any legal/constitutional need for the primary stage?
No, there's nothing in the constitution about parties. And primaries were not always how the parties selected a candidate.
If as you say the republicains are just going to run debate after debate until 2 reasonable candidates emerge its going to get really expensive and run the risk of all the candidates, even the vaguely sensible ones, saying/doing something that severally weakens them with the 'undecideds' that will ultimately choose who is going into the white house.
Well, the debates have already been scheduled. There will be a total of 11 Republican debates held during this primary, 4 of which have already been held, and 6 Democratic debates.
How this is determined, scheduled, and coordinated is not known to me. However, while 11 might seem like a great many debates, it's put into context by there being 6 Democratic debates for basically 4 candidates, while the Republican field had about 4 times that at the start.
Surely it would be better to just get a group of higher ranking party members to sort the ticket out amoungst them selves and then unleash the prospective canidates on the country with their powder dry and pockets full of money.
Actually, that is how they did select a candidate at one point. But since the 1820s, we have been using a primary system.
Also, how would that be better? Would you really want a bunch of backroom dealings determining the presidency? With primaries, you at least get large numbers of the electorate involved.
Frankly, this year's Republican primary has been quite an endorsement for the primary system. Notice how the Republican base has responded to the supposed-party favorites of Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. Walker is out of the race completely, and Bush will follow unless he manages a complete turnaround.
Whilst getting tempered might be a good thing is it worth going into the general election handicapped because you have been forced to adopt some really extreme positions just to get the nomination that you have alienated a vast proportion of the Independant voters?
Juggling that has been a reality of American politics since the beginning and is not purely an issue of the primary system.
Surely it would be better to just get a group of higher ranking party members to sort the ticket out amoungst them selves and then unleash the prospective canidates on the country with their powder dry and pockets full of money.
Actually, that is how they did select a candidate at one point. But since the 1820s, we have been using a primary system.
Also, how would that be better? Would you really want a bunch of backroom dealings determining the presidency? With primaries, you at least get large numbers of the electorate involved.
It would be a heck of a lot less expensive and take less time. There is also less risk of your eventual candidates being tainted by assoication with some of the opinions of the fringe candidates. Thankfully it does seem that the other candidates are now calling Trump to account when he comes up with some of his more outlandish statements and claims but surely that energy would be better spent against the true opponents in the democrats not against each other.
Frankly, this year's Republican primary has been quite an endorsement for the primary system. Notice how the Republican base has responded to the supposed-party favorites of Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. Walker is out of the race completely, and Bush will follow unless he manages a complete turnaround.
With an opinion and outlook from across the pond I'd say the opposite. The campaign so far appears to have coalesced around the twin lunacies of Trump and Carson, and that what appears to have been a reasonable candidate has had to fall upon his own sword to due lack of money and poor polling figures in what is a very wide field.
Hypothetically would there have been anything wrong with Walker/Bush ticket in either configuration if they hadn't had to fight for publicity in what is a very congested pool.
Or if a new convention were created where by the 2 parties would put forward their leaders in the Senate/House of representatives forward for the tickets.
Whilst getting tempered might be a good thing is it worth going into the general election handicapped because you have been forced to adopt some really extreme positions just to get the nomination that you have alienated a vast proportion of the Independant voters?
Juggling that has been a reality of American politics since the beginning and is not purely an issue of the primary system.
Not just the America system, its part of every political system that relies on elections. It just seems that you have to unleashe the extreme positions/messages earlier in the campaign cycle in the US than you have to do over here in the UK just so you can get the nomination.
With the election of our executive directly tied to that of the legislature we can atleast wait until a lot later in the campaign cycle to really hit the red button topics that will fire up the party faithful and have the potential to alienate the floating voter.
Also, I think you mean "pro-life."
Yeah that
As a side note with your campaign cycle effectively lasting 2 years surely the money needed to put someone into the white house could be better spent elsewhere.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
With an opinion and outlook from across the pond I'd say the opposite. The campaign so far appears to have coalesced around the twin lunacies of Trump and Carson, and that what appears to have been a reasonable candidate has had to fall upon his own sword to due lack of money and poor polling figures in what is a very wide field.
It's still really early into the campaigning season. Trump and Carson are stars that burn brightly but will eventually burn out. Like I said way back, when the field begins to thin those up-for-grabs voters are likely not going to coalesce behind Trump or Carson. It happened last time in 2012 when there was a good number of candidates and it will happen again this year. The only reason this year seems different is because there are so many Republican candidates in the ring.
Or if a new convention were created where by the 2 parties would put forward their leaders in the Senate/House of representatives forward for the tickets.
That's a whole 'nother ball o' wax. The Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House are both pretty powerful positions. It's likely neither would want the nomination.
As a side note with your campaign cycle effectively lasting 2 years surely the money needed to put someone into the white house could be better spent elsewhere.
Absolutely. Not much can be done about that though.
It would be a heck of a lot less expensive and take less time.
It would also be less expensive and take less time if we had an absolute monarchy. That doesn't make it better.
There is also less risk of your eventual candidates being tainted by assoication with some of the opinions of the fringe candidates.
Not necessarily. Depends on the political leanings of that small cadre of people who's doing the selecting.
Furthermore, you have to understand that any person in a party needs to appeal to the fringes at least on some level. That's how politics works in America. You have the Republicans, who are a group of diverse interest groups who range from center to right, and the Democrats, who are a group of diverse interest groups who range from center to left. You have to have a broad base of appeal or else you won't get any votes.
Besides, it's not like being a fringe candidate equates to success. Look where Rand Paul is. Look where Bernie Sanders is.
With an opinion and outlook from across the pond I'd say the opposite. The campaign so far appears to have coalesced around the twin lunacies of Trump and Carson, and that what appears to have been a reasonable candidate has had to fall upon his own sword to due lack of money and poor polling figures in what is a very wide field.
Trump and Carson are in the lead right now but "in the lead" means about 20% support in the polls - which, lest we forget, means 80& of people aren't supporting them.
Hypothetically would there have been anything wrong with Walker/Bush ticket in either configuration if they hadn't had to fight for publicity in what is a very congested pool.
Erm, yes, of course. Bush is losing because he's Bush, not because of lack of money or publicity. And Walker left because he had no support polling for him. The Republican base has not supported either candidate, and it's largely due to dissatisfaction with them, and also with the party establishment.
Which is another advantage of the primary: the person who emerges victorious at the very least has the support of the party base.
Or if a new convention were created where by the 2 parties would put forward their leaders in the Senate/House of representatives forward for the tickets.
Wait, what? How does that make any sense?
Not just the America system, its part of every political system that relies on elections. It just seems that you have to unleashe the extreme positions/messages earlier in the campaign cycle in the US than you have to do over here in the UK just so you can get the nomination.
I wouldn't know, I don't know anything about UK politics.
However, in this election especially, the Republican candidates need to get their base fired up and supporting them. This is for two reasons: (1) There's a bunch of other guys running, and (2) we're on the tail end of 8 years of Obama and a possible 4+ more years of Hillary, so the conservatives are rallying.
With the election of our executive directly tied to that of the legislature we can atleast wait until a lot later in the campaign cycle to really hit the red button topics that will fire up the party faithful and have the potential to alienate the floating voter.
I'm lost, what is the problem with people displaying their political opinions? You seem to want a system in which the candidates can sort of fly under the radar, keeping their more alienating opinions to themselves for as long as they possibly can to avoid people knowing about them. How is this something we would want?
It carries a negative connotation. Contrast with activist, which carries a neutral and often positive connotation.
Europe and Muslims occupying a "high place." Interesting.
These are still problematic qualities to have regardless of who has them.
... Ok, you actually believe that no one in the world condemns the violence and persecution of fanatical Islam? What... What do you do to get your worldview this skewed?
Yes, plenty of people condemn fanatical Islam. The problem is people who, like you are doing in this thread, attribute the qualities of certain Islamists to all Islamists. That is wrong.
So are you upset because there are Muslims who are homophobes and bigots? Or are you upset because you perceive that they are some how allowed to be.
Here is a tip for you they aren't. It's no different from any group of people, you don't judge a group for the actions of individuals.
Generally when you say someone is a "known <blank>" it indicates that <blank> is something negative they should keep secret. Consider the sound of "Bob is a homosexual" vs. "Bob is a known homosexual".
Wouldn't you hire a lawyer is your child were pulled from class, denied contact with you, interrogated by police, and threatened with expulsion unless they signed a confession then and there? For someone with an anarcho-capitalist flag as their forum avatar, you seem pretty blasé about this sort of police action.
Unless the bottom rung of candidates see jumps in support, I anticipate we'll see some candidates leave the race after this.
I unfortunately didn't see a lot of it, but I've been trying to follow the coverage as much as I can.
Seems to be that Fiorina, Rand Paul, and Jeb lost ground. I would not be surprised to see Fiorina and/or Rand drop out soon. Consensus seems to be building that Rubio (maybe Kasich) are going to be the choice that establishment Republicans line up behind. Whatever else you think of Rubio he at least proved that he has some good handlers/strategists on his team. They knew his senate record was in the news this week and not only was he prepared with a response, but he was prepared with a response specifically if he was attacked by Jeb, and it worked.
Ted Cruz (blech) seems to be gaining a lot of support to represent the non-establishment side of things, I can only assume that this is because Trump and Carson have just said too many dumb things for any rational person to actually take them seriously as candidates. Christie seemed to help himself a bit. Huckabee should really just go away, you're not going to win an election running as the ultra-religious candidate.
The later stages of the primary will essentially come down to Trump, Cruz, and either Rubio or Kasich once one of them gets selected to get all the Kochbux, with the possibility of Trump being eliminated early based on how stupid he is in the meantime. None of them stand a chance in the general except maybe Kasich, but I don't see that happening because of how bat***** insane the Tea Party has become.
At this point, I'm hoping for people to start folding soon. There is no reason for 10 candidates going into the next debate.
I agree with your assessment. At this point it looks likely to come down to Cruz vs Rubio or Kasich, and if he hasn't imploded yet, Trump.
Rubio or Kasich seem like the most sane choices, but God help us all if Cruz actually wins. I don't think any stand much chance in the general election, but incredibly the one with the best shot there might actually be Trump especially if Clinton wins the DNC nomination.
What is confusing? I think Clinton would crush Rubio, Kasich, or Cruz like a grape, not even a contest. Trump on the other hand, while I would never want to see him as president and believe he's a horrible candidate, I think would actually have a non-zero chance of beating Hillary. Not a good chance of course (maybe like 10% if I had to put an actual number to it), but a chance, which is more than the others have.
The optics of the situation looked spot on. You had a kid in a NASA t-shirt with a digital clock that never hid the "suspected bomb." This reminds me of the girl that was mentally retarded that brought in a steak knife in to cut meat and was suspended because of zero tolerance. Or my personal favorite, a few teenagers who took pictures of their anatomy and sent the nude pictures to their boyfriends or girlfriends and today are considered pedophiles and now on a sex offenders list.
It's a reactionary with zero tolerance as a part of the "safer than sorry" but the first thing that would have done fine was to confiscate the material and analyze it within the context through a few questions. A teacher that "thought it was a bomb" looks like an ass, and this is the first in showing that zero tolerance with zero respect to the individual person is nothing more than fear. This is what terrorists have always wanted, and we give it to them.
Now, even presuming what you presume is true, I feel it's an actual good idea. Because it makes authorities look like an ass and makes a bad rules set and conflict management system without understanding.
For example, a known person with mental retardation that is young and does "something stupid" for the first time is different than some idiot who brings a knife to stab their bff for sleeping with their special friend or not paying up their drug money. It's called an investigation and we determine the penalty towards the crime. A simple detention for a mentally retarded person with a stern lecture not to bring a knife would have been plenty. Had she done it again, then yes suspension.
Right now, we have people back during the cell phone revolution still on the sex offenders list. Why? They were young adults sexually expressing themselves to people they were sexually interested in. I am not saying it wasn't stupid to create pornography, especially at that age, but we have seen other young women engage in that activity to the message that hackers gunna hack. We need to teach our women that the issue is not Rape Culture, but that understanding people like to see tits... you know Porn Culture. The same with young men with women. And that if you're 60 years old and successfully trying to run for president, those nude pics are going to come back. People are going to see them.
Overall, the "pornography peddlers" that were just sexting teenagers would have done well with a stern lecture, a grounding, and some community service. That's about it, really any teenager that found out his or her parents found out they flashed their goods over the nets is going to be super, super embarrassed.
With that said, here's a person that successfully gamed the system and showed why racial profiling is stupid and zero tolerance is a waste of time. It only took enough time for someone to figure out how to game the system, so we can make for better conflict resolution skills within schools when faced with the "I'm scared, there's a monster under the bed...let's set fire to the house!" line of thinking. We tried that, the old "we have to destroy the village to save the village" in Vietnam. It's a really bad type of thinking in American culture.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
This time Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie were relegated to the B tier of debates. A good move. Both of them, especially Huckabee, should have bowed out by now.
We shall see after this debate if Rubio and Cruz can maintain their upward momentum, if Carson can hold onto his position as frontrunner, and where Trump's popularity will go from here. Furthermore, we'll see if Florina, Kasich, and Paul can avoid being relegated to the lower tier of debates, and whether Jeb Bush can actually justify his claim that he's a viable candidate.
"Carson v Trump" in the primaries isn't what the republican party wants. They'll keep having debates until it changes.
If as you say the republicains are just going to run debate after debate until 2 reasonable candidates emerge its going to get really expensive and run the risk of all the candidates, even the vaguely sensible ones, saying/doing something that severally weakens them with the 'undecideds' that will ultimately choose who is going into the white house.
Surely it would be better to just get a group of higher ranking party members to sort the ticket out amoungst them selves and then unleash the prospective canidates on the country with their powder dry and pockets full of money.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Constitutionally there is no requirement for primaries, but both parties have used some form of that system to ensure there is consensus among the party. A series of primaries in which candidates win delegates ensures that the most agreed upon candidate gets the nomination and therefore the full backing of the party. If the party leaders anointed a chosen one instead of letting the voters pick it's likely to fracture the party.
Primaries also temper candidates. Those who can survive the scrutiny of primary voters are likely well prepared to survive general election scrutiny.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Would the party grandees be likely to select a canidate that they know would alienate a vast proportion of their base though? Granted if there was no Public primary Hilary would have gotten the nomination over Barack but would that have split the Democratic base?
Whilst getting tempered might be a good thing is it worth going into the general election handicapped because you have been forced to adopt some really extreme positions just to get the nomination that you have alienated a vast proportion of the Independant voters?
I mean it is a given that pretty any Republicain candidate is going to be pro choice, anti gun control, pro big business and have a number of other positions that some independants are going to find distasteful. But it is a lot easier to overlook/forget those if they haven't had to spend the previous year and a bit crowing them from the rooftops just to get a chance to win a seat in the main event.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
This year and 2011 were a bit different for the Republicans. After McCain and the 2010 Republican wave there was and is a lot of primary voters who want a factional candidate, i.e. a Tea Party or non-establishment candidate. Someone who is a "True
ScotsmanConservative" as they would say. And frankly they appear to have a point: both McCain and Romney were establishment candidates who were begrudgingly given the nomination (Romney way more so than McCain) and both lost big (nevermind that they lost because they went up against a very, very well run campaign both years) . A loud portion of the base now wants someone who isn't just Establishment Candidate #3. In reality I think they're going to get someone the establishment is happy with anyways because eventually the delegates do take electability into account, but in the meantime the fanatical base wants to say something to the party leaders. Switching among the not-establishment candidates before settling is like a subtle poke in the eye.It happens that way every election. A candidate swings farther left or right early but then moves back towards the middle once he or she gets the nomination. The Republicans problem is that they've courted a voter bloc that espouses an belief of ideological purity so it requires candidates to be even more "conservative" to get the vote of that bloc. But it's a trap the same way Hedron Blade is a trap in BFZ draft: there aren't enough of these extreme primary voters to outnumber the more moderate primary voters so any candidate who caters to the extremes is going to eventually hit a plateau. The primaries ensure that the consensus candidate is good enough for everybody because in the end a diehard Republican isn't going to vote for a Democratic candidate no matter what. If he didn't get a say in a primary he might forego voting altogether just out of spite; giving him a voice during the primaries at least ensures he'll likely vote on election day.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Well, the debates have already been scheduled. There will be a total of 11 Republican debates held during this primary, 4 of which have already been held, and 6 Democratic debates.
How this is determined, scheduled, and coordinated is not known to me. However, while 11 might seem like a great many debates, it's put into context by there being 6 Democratic debates for basically 4 candidates, while the Republican field had about 4 times that at the start.
Actually, that is how they did select a candidate at one point. But since the 1820s, we have been using a primary system.
Also, how would that be better? Would you really want a bunch of backroom dealings determining the presidency? With primaries, you at least get large numbers of the electorate involved.
Frankly, this year's Republican primary has been quite an endorsement for the primary system. Notice how the Republican base has responded to the supposed-party favorites of Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. Walker is out of the race completely, and Bush will follow unless he manages a complete turnaround.
Juggling that has been a reality of American politics since the beginning and is not purely an issue of the primary system.
Also, I think you mean "pro-life."
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
It would be a heck of a lot less expensive and take less time. There is also less risk of your eventual candidates being tainted by assoication with some of the opinions of the fringe candidates. Thankfully it does seem that the other candidates are now calling Trump to account when he comes up with some of his more outlandish statements and claims but surely that energy would be better spent against the true opponents in the democrats not against each other.
With an opinion and outlook from across the pond I'd say the opposite. The campaign so far appears to have coalesced around the twin lunacies of Trump and Carson, and that what appears to have been a reasonable candidate has had to fall upon his own sword to due lack of money and poor polling figures in what is a very wide field.
Hypothetically would there have been anything wrong with Walker/Bush ticket in either configuration if they hadn't had to fight for publicity in what is a very congested pool.
Or if a new convention were created where by the 2 parties would put forward their leaders in the Senate/House of representatives forward for the tickets.
Not just the America system, its part of every political system that relies on elections. It just seems that you have to unleashe the extreme positions/messages earlier in the campaign cycle in the US than you have to do over here in the UK just so you can get the nomination.
With the election of our executive directly tied to that of the legislature we can atleast wait until a lot later in the campaign cycle to really hit the red button topics that will fire up the party faithful and have the potential to alienate the floating voter.
Yeah that
As a side note with your campaign cycle effectively lasting 2 years surely the money needed to put someone into the white house could be better spent elsewhere.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
It's still really early into the campaigning season. Trump and Carson are stars that burn brightly but will eventually burn out. Like I said way back, when the field begins to thin those up-for-grabs voters are likely not going to coalesce behind Trump or Carson. It happened last time in 2012 when there was a good number of candidates and it will happen again this year. The only reason this year seems different is because there are so many Republican candidates in the ring.
That's a whole 'nother ball o' wax. The Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House are both pretty powerful positions. It's likely neither would want the nomination.
Absolutely. Not much can be done about that though.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Not necessarily. Depends on the political leanings of that small cadre of people who's doing the selecting.
Furthermore, you have to understand that any person in a party needs to appeal to the fringes at least on some level. That's how politics works in America. You have the Republicans, who are a group of diverse interest groups who range from center to right, and the Democrats, who are a group of diverse interest groups who range from center to left. You have to have a broad base of appeal or else you won't get any votes.
Besides, it's not like being a fringe candidate equates to success. Look where Rand Paul is. Look where Bernie Sanders is.
Trump and Carson are in the lead right now but "in the lead" means about 20% support in the polls - which, lest we forget, means 80& of people aren't supporting them.
Erm, yes, of course. Bush is losing because he's Bush, not because of lack of money or publicity. And Walker left because he had no support polling for him. The Republican base has not supported either candidate, and it's largely due to dissatisfaction with them, and also with the party establishment.
Which is another advantage of the primary: the person who emerges victorious at the very least has the support of the party base.
Wait, what? How does that make any sense?
I wouldn't know, I don't know anything about UK politics.
However, in this election especially, the Republican candidates need to get their base fired up and supporting them. This is for two reasons: (1) There's a bunch of other guys running, and (2) we're on the tail end of 8 years of Obama and a possible 4+ more years of Hillary, so the conservatives are rallying.
I'm lost, what is the problem with people displaying their political opinions? You seem to want a system in which the candidates can sort of fly under the radar, keeping their more alienating opinions to themselves for as long as they possibly can to avoid people knowing about them. How is this something we would want?
For a guy who had almost no support, never had any chance, and is honestly kind of a joke, I'm surprised he hung around so long.