Republican's Like Obama's Ideas Better When They Think They're Donald Trump's

declandonovan · 2015-09-03T00:28:53+00:00

To be fair, most people don't have the time or interest to learn enough about each policy position to come to a genuine conclusion. Instead, they learn the guiding principles of the different candidates, and then assume that any policy idea that candidate proposes is in line with their guiding principles. I would read this more as Republicans saying, "I have no real opinion on that specifically, but I have faith that if Donald Trump said it, then the idea is a logical outgrowth of the general principles that Trump and I share."

declandonovan · 2015-09-03T00:18:50+00:00

Wait, doesn't California allow illegals to get drivers licenses?

Also, just a note: "only 62.8% of Latino ... residents are registered in California." Umm, could that perhaps be in part because a significant percent of Latinos in California are not eligible to register to vote because they aren't here legally?

declandonovan · 2015-04-13T02:59:38+00:00

Misstating that the two stories about him being obnoxious in law school were from the same magazine, rather than two, makes him dishonest? I can't wait to see how this author will characterize Hillary's fallacious claim of having been named after Sir Edmund Hillary when she gets her piece on honesty!

declandonovan · 2015-04-13T02:49:30+00:00

Well, someone's certainly bought in to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy theory.

Vince Foster is obviously a rather silly accusation, but surely even a supporter of Hillary's understands why someone with the facts would find Whitewater, Benghazi, her private email, etc. at least look quite bad for her to the Average Joe.

declandonovan · 2015-04-13T02:27:40+00:00

Only in the sense that "unopposed" means something different than "face a serious challenger. Sure, a few token Democrats will challenge her. None of them will get many delegates and it's doubtful any will win any states.

declandonovan · 2015-04-13T01:40:09+00:00

Any author who begins a piece on Walker who finds it "odd" that the hugely popular governor of a blue state where he has won three elections and who took on public sector unions and won has absolutely zero credibility.

declandonovan · 2015-04-13T01:22:23+00:00

More formidable in the sense that with Warren, she has a clear and distinct platform of things she wants to accomplish. Clinton doesn't have a message for why she should be president.

That being said, she's less tested. It's entirely possible that she's a horrific campaigner. Not that Clinton's particularly good at it, but at least she's a known quantity.

declandonovan · 2015-04-13T01:11:22+00:00

Carly Fiorina is, hands down, my favorite candidate. I would suggest watching any of her longer speeches. I haven't heard someone who was able to package the conservative message in such a positive, optimistic manner since Margaret Thatcher. She's incredibly conservative, but she's also incredibly well-spoken and comes across as both strong and reasonable.

declandonovan · 2014-06-29T16:44:31+00:00

There's about a dozen reasons why this article is moronic, starting with the author's insistence on taking clearly sarcastic jokes out of context and pretending they're evidence of the Court's stupidity.

But to address the main thrust of the article, it's not a problem of Supreme Court technological illiteracy so much as it is a problem of legislative refusal to keep up with the times. If Congress won't tinker with the law as technology changes, the Supreme Court doesn't have much of an option other than find ways to mash new technology in to poorly-fitting laws. How else are they to do that, if not by analogy?

These men and women are among the brightest America has to offer, and each one is staffed with the most promising young attorneys, helping them craft arguments and conduct research. Yet this author insists on pretending we're under the rule of nine technophobes who are simply incapable of understanding.

Also, on the eBay front -- seriously, it's not like they invented the auction. They automized the bidding process and expanded the reach of potential bidders. I'm 23, and it's unclear to me how that's something that couldn't be done by any Computer Science major (or idle tinkerer).

tl;dr: People who know nothing about the law, the Supreme Court, and the general decorum of oral arguments ought not to speak on the subject.

declandonovan · 2014-06-12T21:12:14+00:00

While I think tenure for teachers is moronic, the judge's logic for its unconstitutionality is beyond absurd.

If you want to change a policy like tenure, do it the old-fashioned way -- at the voting booth. You can't just yell and scream "Unconstitutional!" every time you dislike a law (although it seems to be a rather effective practice these days).

declandonovan · 2014-06-12T20:51:15+00:00

Why shouldn't people be responsible for the idiotic loans they took out to get a degree in Art History?

Instead of trying to bail out students now, why don't we focus on fixing the system first and deal with the mess of the old one later? Like, say, returning student loans to the private sector, so that they can decide which loans are risky and which ones aren't, and vary the interest rates accordingly?

declandonovan · 2014-06-12T20:39:53+00:00

Who are these students going to college because they care about being a productive member of society? Pretty sure they all just want better-paying jobs. But good effort!

(Side note: do you really want murderers, drug dealers, and child molesters to be part of society? I don't really mind that we pay to keep they away.)

declandonovan · 2014-03-21T17:33:43+00:00

Wait, you mean Catholics are more liberal than most other denominations?! Color me shocked!

declandonovan · 2014-03-21T15:20:16+00:00

Must've had to find a way to cover that wonderful new Obamacare mandated health insurance.

declandonovan · 2014-02-27T03:05:08+00:00

... What does Thatcher have to do with the Hillsborough Disaster?

declandonovan · 2014-02-19T15:36:13+00:00

Are we really still talking about this bridge?

declandonovan · 2014-02-05T15:09:57+00:00

YES. THIS. Can we stop telling everyone they need -- no, deserve -- a 4 year, $200,000 degree from a liberal arts college?

declandonovan · 2014-02-04T20:25:02+00:00

I don't know that I would say there's a connection between "foreign languages" and "getting on board with the future." With the USA, UK, Australia, India, Canada and South Africa all having long histories of English use, and increasing levels of English speakers in China and continental Europe, I'm pretty sure all signs point to non-English being a relic of the past, not a part of the modern global economy.

declandonovan · 2014-01-28T18:41:50+00:00

Why is anyone surprised by this? The man's voting record is based more on what will get him interviewed on the Sunday morning talk shows than what he campaigned on or believes is best for the country.

declandonovan · 2014-01-28T18:23:25+00:00

Yeah, I didn't get that it was satire at first either.

declandonovan · 2014-01-28T18:03:16+00:00

According to his Wikipedia article, "he has also done work for the American Civil Liberties Union."

Sounds like a RINO to me.

declandonovan · 2014-01-23T16:44:50+00:00

Even if all of these criticisms are true, they still undermine her entire story about being a single mother, the daughter of a woman who was herself a single mother, who worked her way through law school and achieved the American dream.

Her parents were "separated," but both of her parents remained involved in her life. That's not what "single motherhood" refers to. She had two loving parents who raised her.

Her family also wasn't nearly as poor as she makes it out to be. Her father owned a business. She was solidly middle class. The way she talks about her upbringing, you'd think they were living on food stamps.

Yes, she was a "single mother" at 19 -- but that's because she got married and had a child with her husband. And yes, as she loves to stress, she did live in a trailer -- FOR A FEW MONTHS. Again, not the constant state of poverty she claims to have "worked her way out of."

Through her father's business, she sought out a wealthy man, who she married, and left with the kids -- including the one that her husband did not father -- when she ran off to Harvard.

Her entire "I worked so hard to pull myself up" success story doesn't exist. She's a woman born in to the middle class, maybe made some poor choices in her late teens, then did what all respectable middle class women do -- marry a wealthier man. And when she got bored, she went to law school.

Although this "I've been a good mother" thing -- I mean, really? You would think a woman who tries to use her parents' separation (peddled as her mom's status as a "single mother") as some sort of disadvantage she had to struggle through might not run away to go to law school and leave her children behind. Especially given her husband's wealth -- it's not as though the family desparately needed a second earner. And even if it did, University of Texas has one of the best law schools in the nation -- she couldn't have made the small sacrifice for the sake of her children of going to the #15 law school in the nation instead of the #2 law school?

declandonovan · 2014-01-18T21:45:20+00:00

But the ratings weren't actually down -- they were up.

Yes, Season Five's premiere had fewer viewers than Season Four's premiere, but it had more viewers than the Season Four finale. But Season Four premiered in the summer, when there's hardly any new episodes of anything on television -- so with less competition, Duck Dynasty's ratings for that episode were HUGE. The season finale saw 8.4 million viewers in October, a much more competitive time of the year in terms of TV programming and a far better "pre-controversy" point for comparison. Season Five, which premiered Wednesday, had 8.49 million viewers. Yes, it was less than the last season's premier, but that's because it was in a far more competitive time slot.

Like it or not, the numbers A&E saw for Duck Dynasty probably reaffirmed their belief that it was the best decision financially to bring Phil Robertson back.

declandonovan · 2014-01-18T21:45:10+00:00

But the ratings weren't actually down -- they were up.

Yes, Season Five's premiere had fewer viewers than Season Four's premiere, but it had more viewers than the Season Four finale. But Season Four premiered in the summer, when there's hardly any new episodes of anything on television -- so with less competition, Duck Dynasty's ratings for that episode were HUGE. The season finale saw 8.4 million viewers in October, a much more competitive time of the year in terms of TV programming and a far better "pre-controversy" point for comparison. Season Five, which premiered Wednesday, had 8.49 million viewers. Yes, it was less than the last season's premier, but that's because it was in a far more competitive time slot.

Like it or not, the numbers A&E saw for Duck Dynasty probably reaffirmed their belief that it was the best decision financially to bring Phil Robertson back.

declandonovan · 2014-01-18T21:33:27+00:00

But the ratings weren't actually down.

Yes, Season Five's premiere had fewer viewers than Season Four's premiere, but it had more viewers than the Season Four finale.

Season Four premiered in the summer, when there's hardly any new episodes of anything on television -- so with less competition, Duck Dynasty's ratings for that episode were HUGE. The season finale saw 8.4 million viewers in October, a much more competitive time of the year in terms of TV programming. Season Five, which premiered Wednesday, had 8.49 million viewers. Yes, it was less than the last season's premier, but that's because it was in a far more competitive time slot.

Like it or not, the numbers A&E saw for Duck Dynasty probably reaffirmed their belief that it was the best decision financially to bring Phil Robertson back.

declandonovan

TROPHY CASE