Unless Buttigieg's anti-free college stance included help for those who can't afford college who want to go (increasing need based grants, etc) and, perhaps, at least included Obama's free community college stance, it seems like a massive mistake. Because those two are the center-left positions. Saying lets not do anything at all about higher ed costs seem to be more right wing positions than center ones these days.

What Pete Buttigieg Said about Free College in Boston

Good article and appreciate the loads of info. TBH, I didn't read it as centrist, it seemed to be more right leaning than centrist.

Some snippets that caught my eye.


To me, Trump's wall isn't to keep out legal immigration. Its to keep out illegal immigration. It is arguable if Trump wants to keep out the "better educated, more mobile, more networked" but I definitely think we should open the floodgates for the more educated. Only way to keep our population growing (see Japan) and infusing it with talent with the additional bonus of disadvantaging the countries of origin.


I met an Uber driver that won the lottery. He started a family here, his kids have dual citizenship. He doesn't like it here and wants to return. Told him he was lucky vs me going through the process.


I didn't know this about the younger generation.


Didn't know this either. The paragraph state "immigrant", I wonder what an "illegal" immigrant would cost - higher or lower.


I'm not sure I buy "not economic" but agree with social/cultural.

Trump, the master of getting called on bluffs, now says Mexico has a year and then he might close the border.

Didn't realize Tim Ryan was running. Hrm. Guessing he won't be viable in Iowa so what's the point

Well he just declared he was running, so not realizing he was running until now is good ;).

An unthinkably bad idea, both of these two clowns should be laughed out of the room. But Ben Sasse will presumably be "troubled" and then "concerned" and then just curl into his usual position of kneeling and waiting to service his liege.

I guess Wall St really does like Trump.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/70pe...d-in-2020.html

That article is kind of a mess, as it alternates back and forth between referencing Wall Street's belief in a candidate's chance to be elected versus which candidate is thought to be more 'friendly' to wall street, without making any distinction or clarification, whereas I would consider those to be two entirely different topics.

Yeah. The 70% is pretty impressive though.

Yeah, I think that if 70% of Wall Street expects Trump to win election than that does seem remarkable (which does seem to be what it's reporting).

However, if 70% of Wall Street think that Trump is the more *Dow friendly* candidate than {random_democrat} that wouldn't surprise me at all, and I'm still not entirely sure the article/poll isn't conflating those two things.

It's also unclear to me whether I'm supposed to think the collective 'Wall Street' has some actual dedicated insight, analysis and/or tracking regarding the issue, or they just asked some folks who are good at predicting one thing to try and predict another? If it's the latter you could just as well ask bookies at the dog track (which I would totally read too).

Well I'm sure glad the narrative of this economic boom isn't all about the near trillion dollar per year deficit anymore. The idea that it's ok to run these kinds of deficits in a bull economy is crap. We're running this economy hot right now, and even if inflation doesn't creep because apparently, inflation of the old days is dead now, but when the economy does turn down, the current budgets are going double that deficit maybe more, and there's nothing (or minimal at best) the fed will be able to do help it then.

The double standards are amzing

Trump refers to Netanyahu as “your prime minister� in speech to Republican Jews.

I fall into the 30% who would choose the economy. I'm not talking about Beijing like pollution but certainly would take fracking (in the short-term) to buy us time to develop Tesla and the like alternatives.

I am surprised its only 30% TBH.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248243/...gn=syndication

I used to be the same as you, but in recent years my thinking has switched. I think we have reached the point where critical decisions need to be made about the environment. As in, if we don't, there is no turning back, no chance for recovery. Now or never.

The economy, on the other hand, is recoverable and will do so. Any hits economically will eventually adjust and smooth out as revenue streams switch to more environemntally friendly sources.

It appears this puts me in the minority for my party and age group. But that's not a shock as most would probably call me an NPR (non-practicing Republican). I'm strongly averse to both Trumpism and religious social conservatism, which puts me at odds with the primary forces in the GOP these days.

I personally think folks like you who put small gains in their portfolio and short term solutions that kill our environment like fracking are the most toxic people to our country. We have had so many different booms over the last 200+ years, and our economy has always been great. There are of course, ups and downs, but we always recover when we look to the future. Idiots who think that we need to subsidize dying industries like coal that destroy our environment over training for the future need to go to the wayside.

Me supporting fracking to allow Tesla and like to grow is not about stock portfolios. Its about getting away from the dependence of ME oil resulting in us supporting countries we should not be supporting and getting involved in things we should not get involved in.

Innovation and figuring out clean energy and how to keep the planet habitable will bring about so many economic booms.

Absolutely agree. I don't know if Tesla is the solution and not sure I see a "direct path" to alternate energy. Also, its valid to ask if US fracking hinder the development of alternate energy.

But IMO extricating ourselves from ME oil dependence is one of the first steps we need to take. I'm tired to helping ME countries build up their "playgrounds" with little reward other than oil.

For whatever it's worth to anybody: only 40% of America's consumed oil comes from imports these days, Saudi Arabia is typically our second biggest supplier, at about 10% of our oil imports and Canada is our biggest supplier at 30-40% over recent years.

We're already trending pretty well towards oil independence, and it seems like we could probably cut the middle east, and Saudi Arabia in particular, out of the transaction entirely relatively easily right now and transferring the demand to other suppliers (which I would certainly personally support), but I'd imagine it's political interests that keep that connection going rather than straight economics. It appears that most of our oil comes from fracking.

Where does America’s oil come from? | World Economic Forum

I was going to say - I thought we already covered that we are no longer dependent upon the Middle East for oil.

I believe I read that we recently became the #1 oil producer in the world. Some of it through fracking, but mostly because of new oil discoveries because new scanning and extraction technologies have allowed us to reach new sources (or get more out of old ones).

I would love to get out of the ME. It makes me wonder sometimes what happens to that part of the world if oil dries up or the world moves completely away from carbon based fuels. Are there enough resources from other economies to keep the area going?

I can only imagine what a mass population shift away from the ME to other parts of the world would be like. Witness the Syria refugee crisis times by oh maybe a million.

That said, it does seem to be directly related to fracking, and if we weren't blowing up the crust of our own lands we probably would still be firmly on someone's teat.

I'm relatively neutral on fracking, but I think it's worth acknowledging that is probably entirely due to it being out-of-sight-out-of-mind, and if I thought I would have to deal directly with the results I would probably feel a lot differently.

Yeah, I'd imagine the effect of cutting off the middle east's oil income would be pretty far reaching, and basically an entire culture shift to that part of the world.....which might actually do some good?.

My grasp of Middle Eastern history is remedial at best, but it does seem like some Middle Eastern regions ironically went backwards culturally, socially, and even technologically as a result of all that oil money.

Not quite there yet. Maybe time for new refineries to process our own stuff.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/inves...tes/index.html

I do think the US can achieve oil independence (or greatly reduce our dependence). But if we don't buy it, China will for the next X years is my guess so those ME and other oil countries are probably set for next 20-40 years.

But better China than us IMO.

The decline in science/technology in the Muslim world happened a long time ago and it wasn't about oil.

Below article goes further in discussing differences between Christianity & Islam and the last paragraph I quoted may be controversial so take it for what its worth.

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publi...y-from-science

Well sure, that publication probably not going to be kind to Islam.

(this is from a review of another article the journal published, which advocated that no one is "born that way.")


Again, Edward's sources have a distinct tilt to them.

Secretary Nielsin is out as Homeland Security Secretary-hope the Dems make her account for every last family member she separated at the border and hope she's never in a position of authority again.

Found a UAE article that gave kudos to same article I quoted and also Ghazali being the consensus culprit by academia. However, the article did go to say it probably wasn't Al Ghazali but Nizamiyah colleges.

Take it for what its worth. This article is not kind to Islam way back when re: lost of scientific momentum.

How the decline of Muslim scientific thought still haunts - The National

We shouldn't forget how out of line and dangerous this stuff is.

Trump: Russia investigators guilty of "treason". pic.twitter.com/sFEAzUQalB

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) April 10, 2019

if the leader of any other country said this stuff in a slightly authoritative state we'd be saying, "can you believe that shit happens there."

Trump reminds me of Slobodan Milosevic in some ways. There's no doubt he would have fit in perfectly in the Balkans during the 90s as an authoritarian.

Don't think I would vote for Bernie but glad Healthcare reform will become a major issue in 2020.

Sanders vows to blow up Senate rules to pass Medicare for All - POLITICO

Just like Cruz, he's wrong.

Just eliminate the filibuster and make the Senate a majority rule institution. That's a much better plan than exploiting loopholes to do whatever you wish.

Yup. Just kill it. It causes more harm than good.

And I say this as a Democrat knowing that 2016-2018 would had a lot more GOP legislation pass without the filibuster. And I wouldn't have liked that. But in the long run, we are still better off without it.

+1

Assange arrested in London, awaiting extradition to the US


Assange accused of conspiring with Chelsea Manning in 2010 WikiLeaks release, says unsealed U.S. indictment

He sees every matter as a purely one-dimensional, zero-sum "deal" rather than nuances in any way.

He sees every person through a lens of loyalty, rather than right or wrong.

The way he talks makes it evident that his mindset is that of a slumlord or crime kingpin, rather than political leader.

He sees every matter as a reflection of himself.

He needs people who will constantly praise and admire him.

He believes that he is the reason for all success and everyone else for is for his failures.

Oh what the hell, just copy the damn list. Are there any of these that you can't equate with him?

• Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
• Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
• Exaggerate achievements and talents
• Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
• Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
• Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
• Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
• Take advantage of others to get what they want
• Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
• Be envious of others and believe others envy them
• Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
• Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office

AND

Have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism.

and when they do they respond with-

• Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special treatment
• Have significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slighted
• React with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superior
• Have difficulty regulating emotions and behavior
• Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change
• Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection
• Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation

Sounds spot on. Where is this list from? American Psychiatric Association listing of the overt symptoms for sociopathic narcissism?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/syc-20366662

My mom has NPD, and I recognize so many traits she shares with Trump.

I find that one of the easiest ways to spot a narcissist in American culture is what I've termed 'Shitty Customer Disease'. If you know someone who always has an issue with their order at a restaurant, always asks for more work from anyone a service role, or is just far too familiar with the phrase 'let me speak to your manager', that person is very likely a narcissist.

Today's dumbass news is all about how the party of law and order really doesn't care about the law part, and the unethical lengths the dumbass in charge will go to support his narcissism.

Very petty of Trump.

Kinda ironic if it happens (but it won't).

Trump threatens to send undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities - POLITICO

That is some twisted shit. If I can't get my wall to keep these people out I am literally going to have them trucked into the middle of the country and dumped there.

It also seems worth noting that all of the cities Trump lives and works in (DC, NY and Palm Beach) are all sanctuary cities, which seems like it might open the door for unintentional hilarity.

Why is it twisted? It would seem safe to say that sanctuary cities would be better equipped to provide support to illegal immigrants as well as be more welcoming, accepting, and safe from deportation than non-sanctuary cities.

How is it not completely unethical and in direct opposition to the constitutional duties of the president?