Next year, copyrights expire again maybe!!
I’m thinking it will actually happen this time. The reason is we spent the past decade trying to get every other country in the world to coordinate their copyright terms, and I doubt anyone thinks we’ll be able to pull that off again.
Oprah appeals to the more liberal minded people. But if you want Trump gone, we need someone that will appeal to the moderate and conservative-light people. Obviously the liberals are going to vote for the Democrat whoever it is. But the moderates and conservative-light people need to be won over.
Alternatively, and probably more easily; get someone that actually excites the liberal base—get the non-voters to go out and vote. Going right isn’t always, or even usually, the answer.
the liberals alone can’t elect a President.
They managed to elect Trump by staying at home.
You think they stayed home? I thought they voted for Hillary or the Green party.
Forbes had an article on this: “The Non-Voters Who Decided The Election: Trump Won Because Of Lower Democratic Turnout”
This pattern is national. Clinton’s black voter turnout dropped more than 11 percent compared to 2012. The support for Clinton among active black voters was still exceedingly high (87 percent, versus 93 percent for Obama), but the big difference was the turnout. Almost two million black votes cast for Obama in 2012 did not turn out for Clinton. According to one plausible calculation, if in North Carolina blacks had turned out for Clinton as they had for Obama, she would have won the state.
Not just North Carolina, but the more closely-contested states as well.
I live in a fairly liberal area, and I can say that at least here, we’ve been down on the Democratic Party for not really representing liberal values for some time, probably really escalating with Clinton. Bill Clinton. Sure, I get out there and vote for what I consider to be pretty conservative and even downright awful (but less awful!) candidates, but that’s because I’m angling for the Democratic Party to move to the left again, or at least stop moving to the right so fast. A lot of my peers have given up at this point – they think there will never be a liberal national political party in America in their lifetimes, and maybe they’re right (snark: especially if they never vote!). Not all non-voters are ideologically stuck indecisively between the two parties, or people without strong political views at all. They’re just Democrats from the seventies who are looking around for a party they recognize, and don’t see anything even close (snark: and apparently they also have trouble distinguishing between conservatives and fascists for crying out loud).
EDIT: Jill Stein was even a joke out here in Leftyville, although apparently not enough of one. Back in the Clinton years, we had a few leftists successfully run for office here as Republicans, because Republicans were desperate to have anyone. It got pretty awkward when the Democrats got outflanked by the Republicans on the left, but the Republicans started clamping down on ideological purity around the same time, so it was a short-lived phenomenon.
Oprah appeals to the more liberal minded people. But if you want Trump gone, we need someone that will appeal to the moderate and conservative-light people. Obviously the liberals are going to vote for the Democrat whoever it is. But the moderates and conservative-light people need to be won over.
Actually, I thought that was what was being attempted with Hillary. As democrats go, she was pretty centrist.
Hillary was hated by too many people.
I think it’s entirely plausible that Oprah’s role in smuggling Uranium to Benghazi via secret e-mails to Vince Foster stored in a private server located in a pizzeria is something that might draw the attention of our crack congressional investigators, if her candidacy starts seeming serious. Then we’ll see how likable this Crooked Oprah is.
But is her husband a creep?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stedman_Graham
He is also founder of Chicago, Illinois’s AAD (formerly, Athletes Against Drugs), a non-profit organization that provides services to youth and has awarded over $1.5 million in scholarships since its founding in 1985. It also arranged for sports figures to educate children about substance abuse.
Sounds suspiciously like a Clinton foundation-style bribe conduit to me. I’m sure Gowdy’s already been briefed.
Oprah appeals to the more liberal minded people. But if you want Trump gone, we need someone that will appeal to the moderate and conservative-light people. Obviously the liberals are going to vote for the Democrat whoever it is. But the moderates and conservative-light people need to be won over.
Actually, I thought that was what was being attempted with Hillary. As democrats go, she was pretty centrist.
Hillary was hated by too many people.
I think it’s entirely plausible that Oprah’s role in smuggling Uranium to Benghazi via secret e-mails to Vince Foster stored in a private server located in a pizzeria is something that might draw the attention of our crack congressional investigators, if her candidacy starts seeming serious. Then we’ll see how likable this Crooked Oprah is.
Quite possibly the nation’s most blatant and aggressive gerrymander just got struck down.
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/rucho-opinion.pdf
It will be appealed, of course. The real game in the appeal is not necessarily to reverse the ruling, but to try and delay any remedies until AFTER the 2018 elections have already taken place.
But seriously, why are we actually discussing Oprah being elected? Why is anyone anywhere discussing it?
She made a big and inspiring speech.
meh.
Pfft. Good grief.
I just didn’t think it was that great or that moving. On a side note, I think I’d rather have someone just say thank you to whomever they feel need to be thanked when winning an award like a Golden Globe or an Oscar, instead of making a political speech. But that is just me.
And everyone thinks their ideas sound perfectly reasonable.
Well, what if someone gave you the chance to talk to the entire nation? What if that chance kept coming up again and again, and your views never lost their urgency?
Going to take a shower now. Just realized in retrospect that I briefly entered the mind of the Donald.
But seriously, why are we actually discussing Oprah being elected? Why is anyone anywhere discussing it?
She made a big and inspiring speech.
meh.
Pfft. Good grief.
I just didn’t think it was that great or that moving. On a side note, I think I’d rather have someone just say thank you to whomever they feel need to be thanked when winning an award like a Golden Globe or an Oscar, instead of making a political speech. But that is just me.
That’s the problem of celebrity. Earned or not, related to your occupation or not, you’ve got a soapbox. Firefighters and surgeons don’t get soapboxes*, hardly anyone really ever gets a chance to make their voice heard to very many people. But that doesn’t mean they don’t sometimes wish, “Gee, if I could only air my views to the nation for a couple minutes, I could make a difference.” Everyone’s got something to say. Everyone has something they care deeply about. And everyone thinks their ideas sound perfectly reasonable.
Well, what if someone gave you the chance to talk to the entire nation? What if that chance kept coming up again and again, and your views never lost their urgency?
Frankly I’m shocked celebrities aren’t much more politically vocal than they currently are.
* Well, technically I suppose if you were a firefighter or a surgeon, you could refuse to provide your services to someone who conflicted with your ideology, but that’s just a sure way to seem like a complete dick, and celebrities often have enough sense to avoid that.
Trump doesn’t seem all that evangelical if you ask me.
The bar is lower today than ever before. Trump may be our first atheist President – but he’s a self-righteous, bigoted, ignorant, loudmouthed atheist, and apparently in some circles that makes you an honorary evangelical.
not in my circle.
I get that. Nevertheless, there are other – and unfortunately, larger – circles.
That’s quite a generalization.
Exit polling wouldn’t work if you couldn’t take a statistical sample and generalize to the larger population.
Trump doesn’t seem all that evangelical if you ask me.
The bar is lower today than ever before. Trump may be our first atheist President – but he’s a self-righteous, bigoted, ignorant, loudmouthed atheist, and apparently in some circles that makes you an honorary evangelical.
not in my circle.
I get that. Nevertheless, there are other – and unfortunately, larger – circles.
Trump doesn’t seem all that evangelical if you ask me.
The bar is lower today than ever before. Trump may be our first atheist President – but he’s a self-righteous, bigoted, ignorant, loudmouthed atheist, and apparently in some circles that makes you an honorary evangelical.
I will have to do some research on this Kamala Harris.
I think the road for her was (ominously) mapped out by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. She is on many occasions doomed to be the smartest person in the room. Gore tripped over that by seeming too eager to crush his neophyte opponent in a debate. Clinton (I felt) successfully managed to walk the line between being strong and knowledgeable without showing any drive to kneecap her opponent just because he didn’t know how to defend himself, preferring to let him hang himself instead.
That’s the trap of an Oprah candidacy IMO. If Kamala does anything that seems mean to Oprah, it’s over. She’s got to get that tough but fair balance just right.
If Kamala is the smartest person in the room, I view that as a big plus. I want the President to be the smartest in the room.
Depends who else is in the room.
?
There are lots of smart people in the world. Not all the candidates are fielded yet. We may get to choose among multiple well-informed, articulate, competent candidates… in the Democratic primary. Kamala Harris has a lot of chatter but she hasn’t even declared yet. Who knows who else might be in the mix by 2020? There could easily be better choices than her… in the Democratic primary.
The reason lack of political experience is only a giant red flag and not a disqualification is delegation. The President does not need to know how to do everything – they only need to be smart enough to know who knows how to do things, and delegate accordingly. I’d be fine with an amateur pitching in the Word Series if they could delegate the pitching duties to someone else, as long as I trusted their judgment about who that person might be.
That said, it’s still a giant red flag. I’m not excited about the prospect.
The Presidency is more than just delegation of duties.
Which is exactly why it’s a giant red flag if a candidate has no political experience.
As said on a conservative blog:
More than anything, what sustains him is the sense — true or not — that he’s outsourced his actual duties to more responsible actors. Ryan and McConnell write the bills; Mattis, McMaster, Kelly and the generals coordinate foreign policy. Occasionally POTUS pops up to say something provocative about North Korea or NATO’s obsolescence or a trade war with China but mostly he seems consumed with live-tweeting Fox News and settling grudges.
IMO there’s difference between delegation and a power vacuum. Delegation is an actual management skill, Trump seems to be the latter.
I will have to do some research on this Kamala Harris.
I think the road for her was (ominously) mapped out by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. She is on many occasions doomed to be the smartest person in the room. Gore tripped over that by seeming too eager to crush his neophyte opponent in a debate. Clinton (I felt) successfully managed to walk the line between being strong and knowledgeable without showing any drive to kneecap her opponent just because he didn’t know how to defend himself, preferring to let him hang himself instead.
That’s the trap of an Oprah candidacy IMO. If Kamala does anything that seems mean to Oprah, it’s over. She’s got to get that tough but fair balance just right.
If Kamala is the smartest person in the room, I view that as a big plus. I want the President to be the smartest in the room.
Me too. Now you’ve got me all misty eyed for Bush Sr again, and I hated that guy’s policies.
The reason lack of political experience is only a giant red flag and not a disqualification is delegation. The President does not need to know how to do everything – they only need to be smart enough to know who knows how to do things, and delegate accordingly. I’d be fine with an amateur pitching in the Word Series if they could delegate the pitching duties to someone else, as long as I trusted their judgment about who that person might be.
That said, it’s still a giant red flag. I’m not excited about the prospect.
The Presidency is more than just delegation of duties.
Which is exactly why it’s a giant red flag if a candidate has no political experience.
The BernieBros don’t like Harris though.
The BernieBros don’t even like Bernie. They’re just there to sink Democrats.
EDIT: I should add that I’m an actual Bernie primary voter (not just someone who plays a Bernie supporter on the Internet to peddle pro-Trump conspiracy theories) and sure Harris is more conservative than I’d like but so are most people. If we could have stopped fascism in the 1930’s merely by voting for less-than-perfect candidates, I’d have jumped at the chance. I would gladly vote for Romney or Bush Sr. if I thought it would stop the rise of white supremacy.
I will have to do some research on this Kamala Harris.
I think the road for her was (ominously) mapped out by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. She is on many occasions doomed to be the smartest person in the room. Gore tripped over that by seeming too eager to crush his neophyte opponent in a debate. Clinton (I felt) successfully managed to walk the line between being strong and knowledgeable without showing any drive to kneecap her opponent just because he didn’t know how to defend himself, preferring to let him hang himself instead.
That’s the trap of an Oprah candidacy IMO. If Kamala does anything that seems mean to Oprah, it’s over. She’s got to get that tough but fair balance just right.
What qualifications does Frink have for being President?
Being Frink.
… I never really thought about it that way before … it’s all so clear to be now … must make campaign contribution …
The reason lack of political experience is only a giant red flag and not a disqualification is delegation. The President does not need to know how to do everything – they only need to be smart enough to know who knows how to do things, and delegate accordingly. I’d be fine with an amateur pitching in the Word Series if they could delegate the pitching duties to someone else, as long as I trusted their judgment about who that person might be.
That said, it’s still a giant red flag. I’m not excited about the prospect.
I’m just curious, other than not being Trump, what qualifications does Oprah have for being President?
Well, when Trump ran for President, he would have been the least qualified person to ever be elected to that office.
If Oprah runs for President, she would be tied for the least qualified person to ever be elected to that office.
Totally different 😉
But all snark aside, lack of political experience is not an immediate disqualification, just a giant red flag. Oprah is clearly a successful businesswoman, which puts her above Trump on that scale, for whatever that’s worth. She doesn’t appear to be mobbed up, which is nice. She also can go hours and even days without lying or committing a major crime, which again is a serious leg up.
Maybe she’s got some political savvy that we haven’t seen very clearly yet. Trump’s political liabilities were on full display and easy to discern during the primary and general election, and people ran from him in droves (not enough, but still). Obviously Oprah will come across more favorably than Trump, but she’ll be up against people like Kamala Harris who will be very clearly smart, levelheaded, professional and experienced. Don’t forget Trump was up against a clown car full of amateurs in the primary, so it didn’t really matter what sort of fool he looked like there, and he failed to be more appealing than his opponent in the general. Oprah will have to really prove herself to come out on top, just in the primary alone.
With Trump in office, I keep hoping liberals will see the danger of consolidation and expansion of federal power. Some wonder if marijuana could be the gateway drug to federalism.
If Federalism’s most notable appeal is that it can throw a wrench in the gears when the Federal Government opts to do spectacularly bad things, the argument is already lost IMO. Because, among other things, who can throw a wrench into the gears when states opt to do spectacularly bad things? Whoever gets primacy gets the ability to screw people over, any good anarchist could tell you that.
That said, liberals AFAIK have never been against Federalism per se, but see the role of the Federal goverment fundamentally differently than conservatives. There’s plenty of good stuff in Federalism, liberals just hate most of the things conservatives love about it, and vice-versa.
The NeverTrumpers (well, the ones that weren’t just kidding about it) are a fascinating bunch. Sure, you’ve got your David Brooks crowd who deals with it by digging even deeper into their own bullshit (i.e. “My party never had a problem with racism and was full of very serious policy ideas until Trump came along!”). But you do have a few who are starting to take a long and sober look (warning: crazy right-wing link with only hints of the beginnings of introspection) at how their party got to where they are today. Maybe the National Review is doing this. Maybe we’ll end up a better nation for it. I’m dubious, but you never know.
I’d rather put two tiny little things in my ears than two giant things over my ears with a big strap connecting them.
Commander Chekov would like a word.
I don’t use headphones.
My co-workers appreciate that I do, I can assure you.
I can still tell it’s “Hot Rocks Polka” on repeat from three cubicles away. Get some closed headphones please!
The collusion starts paying off.
EDIT: Hey, that may be the only time I’ve ever linked to the National Review, so get your ideologically conservative news served up by CatBus while the limited-time offer stands.
Speaking of the conservative news slant – twice within the period of one year I have linked to the National Review now.
Could the National Review be heading in the direction of “self-defined conservative news outlet with actual editorial standards and some degree of credibility” to join the Wall Street Journal in that lonely group? A few more fact-based analyses and I might have to check with them more often. It’s a crazy world we live in where the National Review of all places changes their opinions to fit the facts rather than the other way around.
Well, my $80 set is pretty unfashionable*. But it goes well with my overall very unfashionable wardrobe. And as with all audio stuff, there is a point of diminishing returns on audio (more money can yield incrementally better results, but is it worth it?)–but some people are willing to go further beyond that point than others. $300 for good headphones is still an excellent deal over an equivalent-sounding speaker setup, though.
* And it should be noted I’ve been called a cheapskate by quite a lot of people.