2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

Aren't those dynamics what we have in play today, without Socialism?

Neither George Soros nor Charles Koch have their own police forces. That's the difference between private power and state power. The state wields the force of law.

 

[connor_in]

Agree completely - Bush is cannibalizing Kasich big time, money and votes. The governor ticket needs to consolidate. In the four above I think Kasich would pick up a vast majority of the Christie and Bush support. Fiorina probably goes to Trump and Cruz. Carson is hard to predict since it has to be more of a protest vote than anything. Consolidation benefits Kasich and Rubio the most I think.

As for a Trump recipe, Bush + Christie + Kasich = a third of the vote - Kasich is the only one I see able to consolidate that entire group. The question becomes where Rubio/Fiorina/Carson supporters run to as they die on the vine. If the Fiorina/Carson supporters go non-establishment primarily Kasich loses - hard to predict where those folks migrate to.

Rubio will be interesting - he is great option for VP for a lot of reasons. Seems to have lost luster as a POTUS candidate but has to be tops of Cruz or Kasich lists for VP. Trump would tell him to pound sand. Making an early deal with Cruz or Kasich could be a route to beat Trump and bump one of those guys to the front.

Jeb just needs to hang it up. Is he just sticking in there out of guilt, intent on spending all the money he raised? Maybe the thought is controlling 5% - 10% of delegates might be needed to beat out Trump? Kind of a contingency plan (damned expensive one at that).

Even tho Bush has anemic support in the polls and his finishes show the same here in the early going, due to his cash and (current) establishment support and structure in future primary states, I think he stays in for a while yet. Basically, he , like HGSC, are playing the long game and are able to money-wise. This could change for him if Rubio recovers and (like after Iowa) starts to become more realistic, closer to the establishment than some others, hope

(FYI...I saw HGSC from Bernie supporter...Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton)

 

[woolybug25]

Neither George Soros nor Charles Koch have their own police forces. That's the difference between private power and state power. The state wields the force of law.

Billionaire Kochs Get Taxpayer-Subsidized Security Protection

 

[GoIrish41]

Neither George Soros nor Charles Koch have their own police forces. That's the difference between private power and state power. The state wields the force of law.

Not much difference when state power and private power are in bed together. We've been fighting in the middle east for decades over oil at the behest of energy companies.

 

[RDU Irish]

Billionaire Kochs Get Taxpayer-Subsidized Security Protection

It is common place for police officers to work private security details in their off time. This is such a freaking stretch like pretty much every hit piece I see on the Koch bros.

 

[wizards8507]

Billionaire Kochs Get Taxpayer-Subsidized Security Protection

Read the article, not just the headline. Charles Koch hired an off-duty police officer for his personal security. The "subsidy" is that the police officer was trained... as a police officer. So his training was subsidized and benefited Charles Koch. That argument is so beyond stupid. It's akin to saying every company that hires a veteran is receiving subsidized leadership training.

Not much difference when state power and private power are in bed together.

I agree, but private power is inevitable. So the only way to prevent private power and state power from ganging up on the little guy is to minimize state power. Creating more state power in the name of controlling the private power does nothing but make the unholy alliance of the two more powerful.

We've been fighting in the middle east for decades over oil at the behest of energy companies.

Sure. Human rights abuses and threats to national security have nothing to do with it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I agree, but private power is inevitable. So the only way to prevent private power and state power from ganging up on the little guy is to minimize state power. Creating more state power in the name of controlling the private power does nothing but make the unholy alliance of the two more powerful.

Or just, you know, work to reform government as needed. That's been the choice of every modern society, not to opt for idealistic lolbertarian utopias.

 

[Black Irish]

Maybe the leftist politicians who want to jack up taxes would earn a bit more credibility if they put in provisos that the rate will eventually go down if certain benchmarks are met. We hear all this rhetoric about "how can people be allowed to dine on lobster while others in their community are barely scraping by?" Never mind that the rich person having earned his wealth very likely had nothing to do with the poor person's poverty.

But how about a social contract? Okay, Mr. Progressive. You get your tax increases. You explain exactly why you need this extra money and how it will be deployed to make a significant dent in poverty and near-poverty. The tax increase should have a sunset provision so that we aren't stuck with the new higher tax bracket being the new normal. We need to cut out this fuzzy language about the rich not paying their fair share. Tell us how much money you need to make significant progress in the poverty problem and why. And you better show some results after 4 years or else it will be blatantly obvious that this was all just class warfare, zero sum economics rhetoric.

 

[RDU Irish]

That is not what the article says. You also should keep reading:



Privatized gains...socialized losses. Par for the course.

So you would restrict police officers from working in their off time?

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Caring about gender equality doesn’t oblige you to back Hillary Clinton, writes <a href="https://twitter.com/FrankBruni">@frankbruni</a> <a href="https://t.co/K8AechMCqD">https://t.co/K8AechMCqD</a> <a href="https://t.co/VIe8NQS7tX">pic.twitter.com/VIe8NQS7tX</a></p>— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) <a href="https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/697268411626291200">February 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Black Irish]

It isn't just rich people hiring off-duty police officers to do security work. Night clubs, major events (like county fairs, NASCAR races, street festivals) all hire police officers to show up in uniform and work security. It's way off base to act like what the Koch Brothers are doing is some elite privilege that only the 1% club has access to.

 

[connor_in]

 

[GoIrish41]

So you would restrict police officers from working in their off time?

I think working for an off-duty private entity in the uniform that gives them authority over the public is a questionable practice. If they want to get a job as a greeter at WalMart, there is no issue. But, some thought should be given to the appropriateness of wearing the uniform and carrying government issued firearms to protect a private interest.

I suspect that this practice simply would not fly with uniformed military members. Why are cops different?

 

[Irish#1]

I hope a second place finish accelerates John Kasich's bid for the Presidency. It's amazing to me that we live in a world where Donald Freaking Trump is leading the race for the most important role in the world. I feel like we are in a scene from Idiocracy. Especially when there is a serious, well intentioned, proven leader like Kasich getting ignored.

Who is John Kasich? - CNNPolitics.com

It's really pretty simple to explain IMO.

1. Trump gets a plus because he's not a true politician.
2. He speaks his mind. Many people who are afraid of getting hammered for not being PC, like that he's calling bullshit on the PC police.

While not as abrasive as Trump, Sanders is very similar (not counting ideology). It's not a coincidence that he's the leader on the Demo side right now.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Maybe the leftist politicians who want to jack up taxes would earn a bit more credibility if they put in provisos that the rate will eventually go down if certain benchmarks are met. We hear all this rhetoric about "how can people be allowed to dine on lobster while others in their community are barely scraping by?" Never mind that the rich person having earned his wealth very likely had nothing to do with the poor person's poverty.

But how about a social contract? Okay, Mr. Progressive. You get your tax increases. You explain exactly why you need this extra money and how it will be deployed to make a significant dent in poverty and near-poverty. The tax increase should have a sunset provision so that we aren't stuck with the new higher tax bracket being the new normal. We need to cut out this fuzzy language about the rich not paying their fair share. Tell us how much money you need to make significant progress in the poverty problem and why. And you better show some results after 4 years or else it will be blatantly obvious that this was all just class warfare, zero sum economics rhetoric.

You are aware that ~90% of the federal budget doesn't go to the typical "safety net" programs like SNAP right? Raising taxes isn't only about poverty, nor is it punishing the rich who "earned his wealth."

The 1% in this country are wealthier than they've ever been and are getting even wealthier at the fastest rate in history. I mean you want to talk about fuzzy language, this idea that we'd be punishing the rich is right up there.

I guess I'm just saying that someone can oppose things like the carried-interest loophole and favor higher taxes on people earning millions annually without giving a damn about poverty or thinking that the livelihoods of the 1% are being harmed significantly.

 

[Irish#1]

Aren't those dynamics what we have in play today, without Socialism?

It's that way with any government. The difference is there's no ceiling for folks with capitalism.

 

[connor_in]

Clinton likely to leave NH with same number of delegates as Sanders | TheHill

 

[RDU Irish]

I think working for an off-duty private entity in the uniform that gives them authority over the public is a questionable practice. If they want to get a job as a greeter at WalMart, there is no issue. But, some thought should be given to the appropriateness of wearing the uniform and carrying government issued firearms to protect a private interest.

I suspect that this practice simply would not fly with uniformed military members. Why are cops different?

Would you have a problem with this if it were raised in a normal conversation or is it just because someone linked it to Wall Street and the Koch brothers that you are incredulous? Hey, ND pays police to be at games, waddaya think?

Trying to equate military with police is pretty interesting though, I can see why dems might do that.

 

[Ndaccountant]

You are aware that ~90% of the federal budget doesn't go to the typical "safety net" programs like SNAP right? Raising taxes isn't only about poverty, nor is it punishing the rich who "earned his wealth."

The 1% in this country are wealthier than they've ever been and are getting even wealthier at the fastest rate in history. I mean you want to talk about fuzzy language, this idea that we'd be punishing the rich is right up there.

I guess I'm just saying that someone can oppose things like the carried-interest loophole and favor higher taxes on people earning millions annually without giving a damn about poverty or thinking that the livelihoods of the 1% are being harmed significantly.

I don't think you would find much opposition on the carried interest loophole closure. However, how frequently do proposals come out of simply doing that? Instead, it's paired with new programs or other tax changes that are debatable.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I don't think you would find much opposition on the carried interest loophole closure. However, how frequently do proposals come out of simply doing that? Instead, it's paired with new programs or other tax changes that are debatable.

I'd say about as often as tax cuts are passed along with responsible cuts to the federal budget.

 

[GoIrish41]

Would you have a problem with this if it were raised in a normal conversation or is it just because someone linked it to Wall Street and the Koch brothers that you are incredulous? Hey, ND pays police to be at games, waddaya think?

Trying to equate military with police is pretty interesting though, I can see why dems might do that.

Actually, I have had an issue with this practice for years. My brother in law s a deputy in Virginia and used to regularly work security at a bingo parlor. Lots of folks found it objectionable because their taxes were subsidizing a local business. When there was trouble at the business, there were I assigns during which arrests were made by off duty officers. Eventually the deputies were told they could not wear uniforms for such off duty jobs. Also, in the 90s when I was in the Navy stationed in Alameda, CA, sailors were regularly recruited to work security at 49ers games but they were not permitted to do so in uniform, and certainly were not permitted to be armed while performing these duties. Both cops and service members work for the collective public good, and mixing that up with a private enterprise is a conflict of interest, in my opinion. Doesn't have anything to do with political affiliation. Its more about public perception.

 

[Irish#1]

I think working for an off-duty private entity in the uniform that gives them authority over the public is a questionable practice. If they want to get a job as a greeter at WalMart, there is no issue. But, some thought should be given to the appropriateness of wearing the uniform and carrying government issued firearms to protect a private interest.

I suspect that this practice simply would not fly with uniformed military members. Why are cops different?

If they hire a cop and he wears his regular clothes, he still has police authority. Wearing the uniform is hopefully a deterrent to the knucklehead who is thinking about stealing. It may initially be protecting a private interest, but if the policeman is not there and there is a theft, it then gets reported and it turns into a "public" matter requiring police resources. One could argue "An ounce of prevention" is cheaper.

 

[Irish#1]

Actually, I have had an issue with this practice for years. My brother in law s a deputy in Virginia and used to regularly work security at a bingo parlor. Lots of folks found it objectionable because their taxes were subsidizing a local business. When there was trouble at the business, there were I assigns during which arrests were made by off duty officers. Eventually the deputies were told they could not wear uniforms for such off duty jobs. Also, in the 90s when I was in the Navy stationed in Alameda, CA, sailors were regularly recruited to work security at 49ers games but they were not permitted to do so in uniform, and certainly were not permitted to be armed while performing these duties. Both cops and service members work for the collective public good, and mixing that up with a private enterprise is a conflict of interest, in my opinion. Doesn't have anything to do with political affiliation. Its more about public perception.

This is where we start splitting hairs. If the policeman is hired for off-duty work, is the public really subsidizing? That policeman already has his uniform, weapon and had his training. He/she was going to get that whether they work off-duty or not. Indy like a lot of other cities allow policemen to take their cars home. Isn't that subsidizing the policeman"s lifestyle? I'm sure I'm paying for that and it doesn't bother me. One of my neighbors next to me and another directly across the street are both policemen. I can't attest to it, but I'm guessing the presence of their police cars are something of a deterrent to any criminal who may drive by. Should I pay for the police protection because city owned police cars are in their driveways?

 

[wizards8507]

That is not what the article says. You also should keep reading:

Privatized gains...socialized losses. Par for the course.

Nothing is more annoying when someone tells you "read the article", when you a) have read the article and b) they apparently did not....

Cack did the work for me...

What in the actual fuck are you talking about? The program you're describing is a program of the NYPD. That has nothing to do with Charles Koch hiring an off duty police officer in Wichita fucking Kansas. This off duty officer was NOT in uniform, should NOT have been using his service weapon, and was NOT working in official capacity of the police. Those things only applied to the very specific and narrowly defined NYPD Paid Detail program. The Kansas situation had NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

The article basically says, "What Charles Koch did in Kansas is fucked up because of this program we don't like... that exists in New York City."

Honestly, you guys are better than this.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This is where we start splitting hairs. If the policeman is hired for off-duty work, is the public really subsidizing? That policeman already has his uniform, weapon and had his training. He/she was going to get that whether they work off-duty or not. Indy like a lot of other cities allow policemen to take their cars home. Isn't that subsidizing the policeman"s lifestyle? I'm sure I'm paying for that and it doesn't bother me. One of my neighbors next to me and another directly across the street are both policemen. I can't attest to it, but I'm guessing the presence of their police cars are something of a deterrent to any criminal who may drive by. Should I pay for the police protection?

This gets brought up often in my circle of friends. But it's usually in reference to cops driving their state issued cars for leisure trips and how cops (even off-duty ones) will drive their car somewhere and then leave it running idle for very long periods of time (because they don't pay for the gas). I've never really drawn a hard line in the sand on these topics. Does it bother me? Meh, a little. Not enough to lose my mind over it in such friendly debates. I view it as my tax dollars are funding the police department and these things are just perks of their job. I don't get too riled up about it.

I don't necessarily have an issue with off-duty cops taking shifts as security guards either except in the case (like described in Wooly's article) where "Lawsuits and liability borne from their activities also accrue to the taxpayer." I have a problem with that. Private companies who hire out any kind of third party work should take on those responsibilities.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't necessarily have an issue with off-duty cops taking shifts as security guards either except in the case (like described in Wooly's article) where "Lawsuits and liability borne from their activities also accrue to the taxpayer." I have a problem with that. Private companies who hire out any kind of third party work should take on those responsibilities.

Read my response to that article. The "Lawsuits and liability..." line applies only to a very specific program of the NYPD called "Paid Detail." That program has absolutely nothing to do with Charles Koch hiring an off-duty police officer in Wichita, Kansas.

ETA: If you want to know who to thank for the "lawsuits and liability" clause, that would be the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, i.e. the police union.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York just published an article titled "Decisive Trump victory sends GOP establishment reeling":

MANCHESTER, N.H. — In late January, the New Hampshire Republican Party held a gathering that attracted GOP officials, volunteers, activists, and various other members of the party elite from across the state. At the time, Donald Trump led the Republican presidential race in New Hampshire by nearly 20 points, and had been on top of the polls since July.

What was extraordinary about the gathering was that I talked to a lot of people there, politically active Republicans, and most of them told me they personally didn't know anyone who supported Trump. Asked about the Trump lead, one very well-connected New Hampshire Republican told me, "I don't see it. I don't feel it. I don't hear it, and I spend part of every day with Republican voters."

Readers of the story came to one of two conclusions. Either New Hampshire Republican leaders were so out of touch that they couldn't tell something huge was happening right under their noses, or there really weren't very many Trump voters, and the Trump phenomenon was a mirage that would fade before election day.

Now, with Trump's smashing victory in the New Hampshire primary, we know the answer. There really were a lot of Trump voters out there, and party officials could not, or did not want, to see them.

And what an astonishingly varied group of voters Trump attracted. At his victory celebration in Manchester Tuesday night, I met a young woman, Alexis Chiparo, who four years ago was an Obama-voting member of MoveOn.org. Now she is the Merrimack County chair of the Trump campaign.

"We just delivered Concord!" Chiparo told me excitedly. "We were getting a really excellent response from a very interesting swath of voters — veterans, disabled people, elderly people, women, blue-collar workers."

They were joined, it appears, by an even wider group of their fellow New Hampshirites. According to exit polls, Trump won among men, and he won among women. He won all age groups. All income groups. Urban, suburban, rural. Every issue group. Gun owners and non-gun owners. Voters who call themselves very conservative and those who call themselves moderates.

In short, Trump won everybody.

And he did it in a way that's hard to diminish. In the days before the primary, scores of out-of-town journalists and visiting politicos debated among themselves how to set the rules for the "expectations game." Say Trump won but underperformed his polling, as he did in Iowa; some observers thought he might fall to 25 or 26 percent. And then say some other candidate in second or third place did better than expected. What would the numbers have to be before the opinion makers would declare the other candidate the real winner of the New Hampshire primary? Conversely, how high Trump would have to score before the commentariat would concede that he really won?

In the end, it wasn't even a question. The last RealClearPolitics average of polls before election day had Trump at 31.2 percent, leading his closest rival by 17.2 points. With most of the votes counted, Trump will finish around 35 percent, with an 18-point lead over second-place John Kasich.

The Trump supporters who came to the election night party — they waited outside for a long time in 22-degree weather — saw something unique in his blend of personality and positions on issues.

"I haven't believed in the system in so long, and now it's time for a change," said Muriel Labrie, of Manchester, who is 51 and says she has never voted before Tuesday's primary. "I feel Trump is going to kick ass and take care of us the way our country should be taken care of."

"He speaks from the heart, and he keeps America very close to his heart," said Dan Barter, of Raymond, who described himself as a lifelong Democrat.

"He's outspoken, and he's not afraid to stand up to the establishment," said Dawn Petruzziello, of Manchester.

Dawn's husband Angelo cited the economy and immigration as his reasons for supporting Trump. Angelo is an immigrant himself, he explained; his parents came to the United States from Italy when he was two, after waiting seven years to come here legally. Looking at immigration now, Angelo said, "They've got to fix that, because it's so unfair and it's so wrong."

By the way, Dawn and Angelo told me they made their decision to vote for Trump just yesterday, after attending Trump's election-eve rally at the Verizon Wireless Arena in Manchester. Before that, they had been leaning toward Marco Rubio.

During that state GOP meeting a couple of weeks ago, I asked former Gov. John Sununu, a man with a lifetime of knowledge about New Hampshire politics, if he knew any Trump supporters. Sununu pondered the question for a minute and said he thought a man who lived down the street from him might be for Trump.

Immediately after the story was published, I got an email from a real estate executive and former member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives named Lou Gargiulo, who happens to live down the street from Sununu. "I'm the guy!" Gargiulo told me. "Not only do I support Mr. Trump, I am the Rockingham County chairman of his campaign. The governor would be shocked to know that many of his other neighbors are Trump supporters as well."

I looked for Gargiulo at Trump's victory party Tuesday night. It turned out he was still working the polls in Rockingham County, so I asked him via email why he thought so many members of the state Republican power structure were unable to recognize the extent of Trump's support.

"I think like most establishment Republicans, they thought if they kept promoting the narrative that Trump was a passing fancy and he would collapse, it would happen," Gargiulo told me. "But this phenomena is the result of 25+ years of failed promises and lackluster leadership over multiple administrations from both parties. People have had it, and those in power don't want to accept the reality they can no longer maintain the status quo."

What are the odds that the GOP and the DNC are going to take this populist uprising for the grave warning sign that it is?

 

[wizards8507]

Seriously... can you fuq'n read?

The NYPD example just went in more detail into the practice. In that particular case, it was Lehman Bros. Get your shit together before you start telling other people that they are "better than this".

Use your brain. What spin is the author trying to create. Yes, it's true that Wichita police RECEIVE guns and uniforms from the taxpayer as part of their job. That doesn't mean they USE those state-issued guns and uniforms when they're doing private contract work. They don't.

ETA: Even if they do, that doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. If a police officer receives an $800 firearm to do his job, the bill is $800 regardless of whether he uses that same weapon while working a private job.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Read my response to that article. The "Lawsuits and liability..." line applies only to a very specific program of the NYPD called "Paid Detail." That program has absolutely nothing to do with Charles Koch hiring an off-duty police officer in Wichita, Kansas.

ETA: If you want to know who to thank for the "lawsuits and liability" clause, that would be the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, i.e. the police union.

I'm not so sure. This is specifically from the Wichita Police Department Policy Manual.

"Off-duty work" is defined in the manual as being hired by a private vendor to provide law enforcement services for pay.

http://www.wichita.gov/Government/Departments/WPD/WPDPolicyAndProcedureManual/Policy%20213%20-%20Off-Duty%20Work.pdf

213.16 Officers who are injured while conducting a police related activity while working off-duty shall contact an on-duty
supervisor. The on-duty supervisor shall fill out the proper worker’s compensation form and submit through channels.
The officer’s immediate chain-of-command shall be notified regarding the officer’s injury.

Translation: If you get injured while working off-duty, the PD worker's comp program will take care of it.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Use your brain. What spin is the author trying to create. Yes, it's true that Wichita police RECEIVE guns and uniforms from the taxpayer as part of their job. That doesn't mean they USE those state-issued guns and uniforms when they're doing private contract work. They don't.

ETA: Even if they do, that doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. If a police officer receives an $800 firearm to do his job, the bill is $800 regardless of whether he uses that same weapon while working a private job.

They are permitted to wear their uniforms and use their issued firearms. Read the manual.