Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
And it's gotten worse, The National Enquirer is accusing Ted Cruz of a sex scandal of having slept with five or more women (not at the same time), and it seems to be gaining traction. Yes, it's a yellow rag, but this looks like it might have to weight to it.
(Equi Blog) Must-read: Avi Rabin-Havt: “Why Is the CBO Concocting a Phony Debt Crisis?”
edited 25th Mar '16 3:28:08 AM by PotatoesRock
Well, it would probably be too intellectually challenging to talk about Cruz' goldbuggery
.
Ah, sorry. That's an editorial page, which the NYT has login walled. Let me see...
This is not, however, a column about Mr. Trump. It is, instead, about Ted Cruz, who has emerged as the favored candidate of the G.O.P. elite now that less disagreeable alternatives have imploded.
In a way, that’s quite a remarkable development. For Mr. Cruz has staked out positions on crucial issues that are, not to put too fine a point on it, crazy. How can elite Republicans back him?
The answer is the same for Mr. Cruz and the elite as it is for Mr. Trump and the base: Leading Republicans support Mr. Cruz, not despite his policy positions, but because of them. They may not like his style, but they agree with his substance.
This is true, for example, when it comes to Mr. Cruz’s belligerent stance on foreign policy. Establishment Republicans may wince at the candidate’s fondness for talking about “carpet bombing” or his choice of a noted anti-Muslim bigot and conspiracy theorist as an adviser.
But both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio chose foreign policy teams dominated by the very people who pushed America into the Iraq debacle, and learned nothing from the experience. I know I wasn’t the only observer who looked at those rosters and thought, “They will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”
And then there’s a subject dear to my heart: monetary policy. You might be surprised to learn that few of the subjects I write on inspire as much passion — or as much hate mail. And it’s a subject on which Mr. Cruz has staked out a distinctive position, by calling for a return to the gold standard.
This is, in case you’re wondering, very much a fringe position among economists. When members of a large bipartisan panel on economic policy, run by the University of Chicago business school, were asked whether a gold standard would be an improvement on current arrangements, not one said yes.
In fact, many economists believe that a destructive focus on gold played a major role in the spread of the Great Depression. And Mr. Cruz’s obsession with gold is one reason to believe that he would do even more economic damage in the White House than Mr. Trump would.
So how can elite Republicans — people who have denounced Mr. Trump in part because they claim that he advocates terrible economic policies — be supporting a candidate with such fringe views? The answer is that many of them are also out there on the fringe.
This wasn’t always true. As recently as 2004, Bush administration economists lauded the very kind of policy activism a return to the gold standard is supposed to prevent, declaring that “aggressive monetary policy can help make a recession shorter and milder.” But today’s leading Republicans, living in their own closed intellectual universe, are a very different breed.
Take, as a not at all arbitrary example, Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House and arguably the de facto leader of the Republican establishment.
As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, Mr. Ryan is fundamentally a con man on his signature issue, fiscal policy. Incidentally, for what it’s worth, Mr. Cruz has been relatively honest by his party’s standards on this issue, openly declaring his intention to raise taxes that hit the poor and the middle class even as he slashes them on the rich.
But Mr. Ryan seems to be a true believer on monetary policy — the kind of true believer whose faith cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. It’s now five years since he accused Ben Bernanke of pursuing inflationary policies that would “debase” the dollar; if the rising dollar and slumping inflation that followed has ever given him pause, he has shown no sign of it.
But what, exactly, is the nature of his monetary faith? The same as the nature of Mr. Cruz’s beliefs: Both men are devotees of Ayn Rand, even if Mr. Ryan now tries to downplay his well-documented Rand fandom.
At one point Mr. Ryan got quite specific about his intellectual roots, declaring that he always goes back to “Francisco d’Anconia’s speech on money” — one of the interminable monologues in Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” — “when I think about monetary policy.” And that speech is a paean to the gold standard and a denunciation of money-printing as immoral.
The moral here is that we shouldn’t be surprised by the Republican establishment’s willingness to rally behind Mr. Cruz. Yes, Mr. Cruz portrays himself as an outsider, and has managed to make remarkably many personal enemies. But while his policy ideas are extreme, they reflect the same extremism that pervades the party’s elite.
There are no moderates, or for that matter, sensible people, anywhere in this story.
So the Cruz sex scandal was broken by the same guy who uncovered John Edwards's infidelity, meaning it has legs. It comes just after the Trump campaign's loud misogyny has forced Cruz to publicly declare how wonderful his wife is and how much he loves her. One of the five women he's supposedly slept with is Katrina Pierson, the national spokesperson for Trump 2016.
This fucking election.
What's precedent ever done for us?Side quip: It's been a while since I've read Atlas Shrugged but that d'Arconia monologue? I don't remember it having anything to do with the gold standard, I remember it being a denunciation of "money is the root of all evil". The book did espouse the gold standard in other ways, I just don't remember that part doing so.
On topic: I don't remember what show it was on but someone was interviewing Ted Cruz about the wife flame war, and he was being all 'you dragged my wife and kids in it now I'm really angry, rah rah' but the part that actually stood out was that the interviewer asked him if he would support Trump if Trump was nominated. He flat out replied "he will not get the nomination" and repeated it when the interviewer re-worded the question.
I'm not sure whether to take that as denial or a sign that he'd be on board with shenanigans at the convention to keep Trump out.
How does the Internet saying goes? Ah, yes. "Pics or it didn't happen!"
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.@Fighteer: Sex scandals are mostly worthwhile when they hit politicians running on religious or "family values," in my opinion.
Ultimately, nobody gave a shit about Clinton getting a little special duty from his intern, and JFK's own sexual behavior stayed pretty much out of the limelight. But if Cruz wants to claim that he's running on Christianity, then he's opened his own values to examination.
Well, the only time I give a damn about sex scandals is when they expose a politician to claims of moral hypocrisy — or abuse of power, in some cases. What's fun about them is how their supporters can at the same time cry out for "family values" yet also call for "Christian forgiveness" when someone they like has their peccadillos exposed. Because they are so willing to forgive political opponents, amirite?
Incidentally, "peccadillo" is a beautiful word that sounds so Freudian when used to describe a sex scandal.
edited 25th Mar '16 8:02:40 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Hence, the guy running on the evangelical ticket really is open to said shot. I mean, I doubt anyone's going to bother accusing Trump of any inappropriate sexual behavior - the result would be a resounding lack of anyone giving a fuck. Cruz, however, is supposedly trying to appeal to values voters.
EDIT: Worth noting that Kim Davis bludgeoned through her own sex scandal by just saying "God forgave me." So it's not like there isn't precedent for a little brazenness in dealing with one's deeds.
edited 25th Mar '16 8:04:20 AM by Ramidel
I find it rather more amusing that Trump might be in a position if he gets elected where his policies with regard to immigration might lead to the claim that he should deport his own wife.
But the point is that these so-called "values voters" show a remarkable lack of fucks given when their candidates violate those values.
edited 25th Mar '16 8:04:32 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"He'll just say he needs a younger one anyway.
Though I consider the current line of attacks on wives in general to be a sign that the people involved have gone completely off the deep end.
edited 25th Mar '16 8:05:32 AM by Ramidel
Yeah, I know someone who complains a lot about Republicans getting dinged by sex scandals while Democrats are way less susceptible, but he never seems to get that Democrats don't generally run on the "I'm a Christian and so moral, you guys" thing, so while a Democrat might cheat on their spouse (which really is bad), they aren't as likely to be going around yammering about the "Sanctity of Marriage" at every opportunity. It comes off more as "that person is a huge jerk" and less as "that person is a hypocrite, and a huge jerk".
![]()
I am not sure whether I prefer it to literal penis-measuring contests. Rubio had an interesting point: when he gave policy speeches, nobody listened, but when he accused Trump of having a tiny dick, it made national news. Why should anyone attempt to have substantive policy discussions in such an environment?
I would ask such a person whether they would vote for a Republican candidate who had a sex scandal. Because if they would, then their "values" mean exactly jack and squat.
edited 25th Mar '16 8:10:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I don't understand the terms you are using. The vast majority of politicians' sex scandals, in both parties, involve male heterosexual infidelity: that is, cheating on one's wife with another woman. There have been a few notable gay sex scandals, but those are relatively rare.
edited 25th Mar '16 8:15:43 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Which makes their castigation of Bill Clinton really absurd, although, to be slightly fair, the public rationale for their anger is that he lied about it under oath.
"Values" voters of the sort we are talking about are the same people who go home to their wives and dream about "schlonging" (to borrow Trump's phrasing) their neighbor or their co-worker. Someone who actually does it is looked down on for getting caught while at the same time looked up to for having the bravery to do it in the first place. It's a remarkable example of male privilege.
edited 25th Mar '16 8:22:26 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, phrases like "out of your league" are pretty common in the cultural consciousness. *shrug* Either way, the whole thing about Melania smacks of sexism. And the fact that Trump would be a terrible president doesn't justify using that rather disgusting argument. Oh no, someone who's a model apparently did nudes. Like, fuck off with that nonsense, Trump's already brought the debate into the mud and we shouldn't be content to wallow in it with him.
I kind of wanted to address that earlier but I probably would have just ended up saying mean things to Jack.
edited 24th Mar '16 9:03:06 PM by AceofSpades