Ten oz

Part of the problem is that in our society we accept as basic standard that some people should be killed. So after the police kill someone we go about trying to decide if the person killed deserved to die; as a matter of character and or action. We are a country that supports the death penalty and the use of drones to autonomously kill people we suspect are doing things we disapprove of. As a basic principle our society is okay with killing people. As a culture that needs to change in order to properly address the various racial and bias elements involved with who winds up dead as a result of our fast and loose view of killing as a standard conflict resolution tool.

Trump has only managed 34% of the vote in the primary thus far. The majority of Republicans are voting for someone else. Not only that but exit polls show that only 49% of Republican primary voters would be okay with Trump as the nominee which is worse than how either Gingrich or Santorum did in exiting polling back in 2012 and Mitt Romney was over 60% by this point. For a "presumptive" nominee Trump is trending weak. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-kind-of-hate-all-their-choices/ It is an interesting situation. On one hand Trump is very successful if we look at the common standards: has won most races to date, gets the most media coverage, and is leading in all the polls. On the other hand he is unsuccesful with key primary points: endorsements, majority party support, and majority delegate count. Win or lose many historical presedences fall. To put it into perspective Bernie Sanders has gotten more Democratic support in the primary to date than Trump has gotten Republican support in the primary. Yet Bernie is being crushed and has no chance of winning and Trump is the "presumptive" nominee. It is a bizarre.

Yes, if nothing changes and Trump continues to track as he had he can win the nomination by collecting the 1,237 he needs. That assumes nothing changes. Primaries are different than the general election in that the results in one state can influence another. we are still weeks and months away from key states. Thus far Trumps advantage has primarily been in the south and eastern states. what happens in the mid west and west could be different. If Kasich takes OH and Rubio manages to get FL Trump will move into April weaker than he sits today. So I am still skeptical. Obviously if he wins NC, FL, and OH it is probably over; he'll be the nominee. He just needs to pull that off before I am 100% ready to say he gots it.

He did not decimate his competition. Trump to day has only received 34% of total votes in the Republican primary. He only managed above 40% in 2 states and has not yet hit 50% or above in a single state. The majority of GOP voters are voting for someone else. "But there’s also the fact that Trump has received only 34 percent of the Republican vote, aggregated across all primaries and caucuses to have voted so far. He did not really improve on that figure on Super Tuesday; Trump had a combined 33 percent of the vote through the first four states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada); he got 34 percent in Super Tuesday states themselves. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/after-super-tuesday-can-republicans-still-take-the-nomination-away-from-trump/ Can Trump run away with the nomination with only one third support in the party? He is winning victories without actually obtaining popular support. It is a problem for him regardless of how the headlines read. He needs to reach 1,237 delegates. If he loses just a couple of key states; any combo of FL, IL, MI, OH, CA his path to 1,237 becomes very difficult. Can he walk into the convention having received just 34% of the vote (without the needed delegates) and demand the nomination? I think we are headed toward a brokered convention.

Trump won at least 192 delegates in Tuesday's contests. Ted Cruz collected at least 132 delegates and Marco Rubio picked up at least 66. John Kasich won at least 19 delegates and Ben Carson won at least three. There were 595 Republican delegates at stake in 11 states. There were still 183 delegates left to be allocated. Overall, Trump leads with 274 delegates. Cruz has 149, Rubio has 82, Kasich has 25 and Carson has eight. It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination for president. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/latest-trump-weary-questions-disavowing-duke-37304309 Tough night for Rubio. Trump beat Rubio in 10 of 11 states. Rubio had to have a better showing and didn't get it. That said Trump still failed to pull away. Ted Cruz over performed in a few places as did Kasich. So the delegate count to Trump (all that really matters) wasn't decissive. Trump only peaked at over 40% of the vote in 2 states and over 50% in none. So Trump reaching the 1,237 delegates needed to be the nominee is still in question.

It is not an example of the checks and balances working at all. Democrats have been earning more votes but losing seats do to redistricting (gerrymandering). "Although Democratic candidates received a nationwide plurality of more than 1.4 million votes (1.2%) in all House elections,the Republican Party won a 33-seat advantage in the state-apportioned totals, thus retaining its House majority by 17 seats." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012

Bill Clintion lost the first 4 primaries in 1992. Did worse in them than Rubio has thus far done. Then Bill Clinton lost 6 of 7 on Super Tuesday. So In the first 11 races in 1992 Bill Clinton only won a single state but still became the nominee. The media is overstating precedence here because headlines about how great Trump is doing are much better click bait than the boring formalities of how primaries work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1992 Rubio has thus far out performed his poll numbers. He was polling third with 18-19% in Nevada but cam in second with 24%. In SC Rubio was also polling third with 18% and finished second with 22%. So more support is there than is being reflected in the media and polls. Primary polls shift fast. In 2004 Howard Dean went from viable contender for the nomination to laughing stock overnight. In 2012 Newt Gingrich won the SC primary with 40% and then saw all his support dry up. The early states are a circus. Daily polling, daily on the ground media blists, campaign rallies, center of the political universe for a day. Ultimately partisans vote in primaries. Whom every wins the primary general earns the support of every primary participant. People who support Howard Dean didn't vote for W Bush over Kerry. Primary voters coalesce behind a candidate once they understand who party (normal the establishment) wants. In this case Republicans has some mixed messages. The media is caling Trump unstoppable meanwhile the party itself is is saying no. Trump has no political endorsements or big money conservative supports. Trump just has a spell over the media. Trump has gotten more free air time than every other candidate put together. Super Tuesday moves into states where we really don't know what is happening. Where there hasn't been the same level of polling or spending and spotlighting by the media. Normally the party takes charge at some point. The party normally controls the voting rules in a state and controls where there will be stations set up and determine how easy it will or won't be for a specific candidate to get their people to the polls. Does Trump have that ground game? Does he have the support and networking to ensure local officials in a place like Oklahoma support districts favorable to him with well staffed and accessible polling stations? That is the invisible side to this that we simple won't know until after. The same media that has exaggerated Trumps success with exaggerate his failure. If Trump loses key states like VA, GA, TX, AR on Super Tuesday the media will pounce and Trump will get stuck in a negative cycle where ever outlet will be calling it a collaspe or a rejection. That will change a lot of things. How Trump responds will be his Howard Dean moment. Ultimately it is all nonsense. If Bill Clinton could lose 10 of the first 11 in 92' and still win the nomination obviously there is still a lot of race left and it is far too soon to know anything for sure. But in 92' there wasn't twitter, facebook, blogs, youtubers, and etc charging that the race was over and done after every primary loss. So what happens next isn't covered by any precedent.

@ overtone, Trump gets tons of free media. He doesn't need to spend money on ads. He is the headline across the board on every major media outlet. No amount of campaign spending can match what Trump is getting for free.

Rubio actually over performed in Nevada. Rubio never polled higher than 19% and was polling at 3rd in NV. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nv/nevada_republican_presidential_caucus-5336.html That is the 3rd state in a row where Rubio over performed by 4-5 points. I doesn't get reported because the media is so hyper focused on all things Trump. End of the day this is about delegates. To win the Nomination 1,237 delegates are needed by the convention. Currently Trump has 79 delegates and Rubio has 15 delegates. Trump hasn't pulled away yet. Not by a long shot regardless of the headlines. I believe on March 1st things turn. So far it has been one small state at a time. That has given candates and the media the ability to bombard those states with coverage. Candates holding election day rallies and media doing specials and street interviews. Huge money spent per individual voter. Supertuesday is a different story. Everyone can't be every at once. I still believe Rubio wins GA, VA, MN and Cruz win TX. The stunner will be Rubio coming in Second in TX. By March 2nd Trump's slim delegate advantage will be gone. All the races have a proportional delegate split from now to March 15. No one (Trump, Rubio, Cruz) can pull away. Once we hit the winner take all states is where it will gett interesting. If Rubio can win FL I don't think Trump has a path to 1,237.

Trump is stuck at a third support. Rubio doesnt need 60%, he just needs a third and change. Trump has underperformed those far. He was suppose to do 36% in NH and did 32%. Same goes for SC. Meanwhile Rubio was projected to get 17% last night and got 22%, Rubio is actually performing better than polled. If That tend holds Rubio beats Trump in GA, wins VA (easy), and perhaps even comes in second behind Cruz in TX. Obviously we will know much more after Super Tuesday. My guess in that Trump has a bad showing on Super Tuesday and that will change the narative significantly.

Rubio was at 13% and Trump was at 37% in SC on Feb. 1st. Last Night Trump finished with 32% and Rubio finished with 22%. The gap shortened quick in SC. Super Tuesday states as it stands today: In GA Rubio and Trump are within a couple points of each other and in VA Rubio is up by 10 points. Cruz is up by 10 in Texas. I think Super Tuesday will be a bad night for Trump with Rubio winning GA and VA and Cruz TX (The 3 big ones). Trump is stuck at a third support. A third support doesn't win the nomination. Jeb dropped and I would imagine the establishment is on the phone right now asking Kasich what it will take to get him out. As the field shrinks I think Rubio rises. All Rubio needs is 34-37% of the party support nationally to beat Trump who is stuck at 32%. Ribio and Haley on paper is a great ticket. Problem is that a huge slice of Trump's third are bigots who would probably just stay home if that were the ticket. So while Rubio and Haley is a more competitive ticket than any ticket including Trump it still loses in November.

@ iNow, I mostly agree. The party itself often forces their politicians into hard positions. However no one is forces someone like Kasich to be a Republican.Kasichs situation is one of his own choosing so it is hard to feel sorry for him. Sanders registered as a Democrat for the sake of entering the primary but is understood to be a liberal independent. Trump is a republican for the sake of the primary but is truly a facist independent. Kasich doesn't have to tip toe around every issue out of fear of what his own party might think. It is overly calculating and morally weak. Is he a good man; perhaps that is a discussion better suited for a philosophy thread. I do believe Kasich tries to be more sympathic to the average person than the other republican candidates.

A verbal caution isn't what Kasich supports. If it were I wouldn't have mention it.

Had he been caught it would have ruined his life. He wasn't caught though so now he gets to campaign to catch others. It is a troubling contradiction imo. If Kasich can use pot and then still get to realize his dreams others should be provided the same and equal opportunity. Rather it is set up like a lottery. Some people get caught and others don't. Be unlucky enough to get caught (race and economic status playing a huge role) and pay the proce for everyone. That is justified as fair so not to send mixed messages to children? Who gets caught shouldn't be more important than the behavior itslef. Kasich is acknowledging inequity in society but then basically saying it isn't as important to him as sending the right message about drugs to kids. Ignoring inequity is not competent governmental leadership.

Law Enforcement already has tools like Stingray that they are using to access peoples phones and record information without their knowledge. http://www.wired.com/2015/10/stingray-government-spy-tools-can-record-calls-new-documents-confirm/ We bank online, our medical records are online, our home security systems can be remotely accessed, and on and on. We need to know our information isn't dangling in the wind. That every time an interested party wants full access to everythig they can have it. We can set the bar at needing a court ordered warrant but with thousands of investigations (drug smuggling, islamic terror, domestic terror, human trafficing, serial killers, kidnappings, etc) going on at any given moment the "justifiable" requests for access can be endless.

@ iNow, Kasich looked really bad on Stephen Colbert's show back in Nov. He admitted to using pot but argued against any messure to decriminalize it. Kasich arrogantly laughed when Colbert questioned what being caught using may have meant for his own future.

Yup!! As print media has been died and more people turned to the quickly digested social media 140 characters of less version of the news content has become secondary to wit, sarcasm, and sensationalism. The news media (for profit) cares more about number of views than anything else. It is why a candidate like Donald Trump, who is so clearly not competent to be president, can dominate news coverage. I suppose on the plus side it appears even amongst conservatives there is not an understanding that Foxnews is bias. So while the overall quality of information coming from news media seems to have fallen so too has the influence of various propaganda.

@TAR, of course it is arbitrary; to imply otherwise is to say there is an ultimate reason or good. Culture is a human creation and not a force of nature. We could choose to all speak one language or become one race (does race even exists) if we chose. There was an East and West German and not there is just German. We can decide to divide or unite. It is all just choice and the only motivating factors generally are ones centered around emotions like trust, fear, pride, greed, etc. It is absolutely arbitrary. You post a lot about picking sides and teams but one controls the conditions of their birth. we have some contol over our choices but nothing else; not really. As for love and people picking one partner out of 8 billion; I don't believe that either. Selecting a mate is a lot more like fishing than it is shopping. There may be 8 billion fish in the water but the avaerage person on the pier with a pole is lucky to catch anything much less have a selection. All the fish are not equally in play. Often people take what they can get. Our biology helps. Sex is still sex and the chance to reproduce is still a chance our biology wants. So any fish is better than no fish. Most people would want the healthiest most attractive mate they can catch. That is how our biology works. Family and friends, and government and church and business, all have their say, but dam near no one is turning down a perfect 10 and committing to a 5 just to please someone else. Of course this gets into the question of control and how much conscious control we actually have over our lives. Anyways it appears that we agree 100% of the threads question:"No one answer to what is the opposite of love, because there is no one answer to what is love in the first place.'

I have listed Republicans I felt were competent. Republican political affiliation isn't a mental condition that renders someone incompetent. However Politics is a team sport. A great player on a bad team still loses despite being great. The party platform is not a competent platform and Republican politicians, competent ones, are stuck wearing it around their necks. When Mike Huckabee ran for president in 2008 he did so on a moderate platform that control for infrastructure spending rather than tax cuts to stimulate the economy: "The problem I have is that taxpayers will spend their $150 billion in rebates to buy imports from China. So whose economy is being stimulated? What I suggested was, we have a nation whose infrastructure is crumbling. Our roads, bridges, airports clogged up. Texas A&M did a study, found that the average American in an urban setting loses 38 hours a year--that’s a full work week--stuck in traffic because of clogged traffic patterns. Now, $150 billion would expand the interstate by two lanes, I-95, from Bangor, Maine, to Miami. There are places all over America where our infrastructure is choked. Every billion dollars we spend on infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs." http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Huckabee_Technology.htm His plan was a lot like plans many Democrats have supported and Republicans fought to block. This year Huckabee centered his campaign around gay marriage; which is a shame.

That was all I have been saying. I do not claim to know the answer. I don't think there is a singular one. As for tribes they too are subjective. While you were in Germany I speculate that people who spoke American english to you as opposed to German or even english with an accent of somekind felt more your tribe. An American born black or latino was more your tribe than the Germans even though the Germans may have appeared more like you genetically? At a crowded ballpark which team jersey a person is wearing more so than their race may make you feel they are with your tribe. It is greatly influenced by ones own perspective.

If it were that simply coastal states like LA, MS, AL, and SC wouldn't be so poor and have below average GDPs. Also inland states like PA, OH, and MD wouldn't do so well. Florida has far more coastline than New York, same size population, better weather, less taxes, yet FL only has half of NY's GDP. Now I am not claiming diversity, high taxes, or illegal immigration create prosperity. Rather I am pointing out that removing those variables are doesn'y appear to improve the economy of an area. That implies that perhaps those variables are simply not as important as many politicians would like to pretend. After all Republicans do not run on a platform of extending coastlines to promote job growth as the UAE has; they run on lowering taxes and deporting immigrants.

I agree with the first half of your post. You are using your pown definitions; thus your own subjective view. I think the second half comes off the tracks. Their are any number of disorders involved with persons being aggressive like ISIS and the KKK. Sexual, physical, or mental abuse of children can drive them to stunted levels of mental development. It is possible that such peoples emotional states are too different from our own for comparison. I can only speculate as to what emotions one must have to lynch or behead someone based on skin color, gender, or religion. I can not empathize with that emotion. Everyone doesn't seem to have all the same emotions to the same degree. So your our team vs their team fails in my eyes because it doesn't address the circumstances.

You have repeated many times over that hate is the opposite of love yet you don't feel hating is the opposite of loving? Rather you say hurting is the opposite of loving . To rip someones heart out would be to hurt them. That can be done for many difference reasons. It can done out of greed, selfishness,hatefully, or even accidently. Nuanced differences to a subjective concept. If hurting rather than hating can serve as the opposite of loving why can hurt serve as the opposite emotion to love? After all doesn't hurt better describe the feeling we have when love is gone or not existent? If a spouse leaves for another, a child rejects a parent, that ripping out of the heart you described is hurt; not hate. Lets replace opposite with direction bearings; if love you had for your daughters went 180 degrees would that be hate, hurt, or both?

It is more than just funding education though. There is a homogeneous relationship between the overall well being of a communities population and its economy-ic strength. Different politicians attempt to demagogue individual groups but the more we are able to do for everyone the better off we all are. Whether the argument is against illigal immigrants, Muslims, drugs, abortion, taxes, etc a quick tour around this country shows that removing those factors doesn't equal prosperity. Wyoming has far less immigrants, muslims, and taxes than New York yet business isn't leaving New York for Wyoming. Conservative Nebraska isn't the innovation and GDP leader of this counrty; illegal immigrant filled, liberal, high tax California is. You side with Replicans over cultural values; can you elaborate? Which values, how are those inacted as policy, and what is the short and long term good accomplished?

Competent - having suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge, experience, etc., for some purpose; properly qualified: Government - the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government%20?s=t How about we just use the actual definintions? A competent Republican is someone suitable to run our government (citzens or inhabitants). So attacking Democrats isn't enough. You need Republican policies that can competently run government. Those far all you have presented it evidence that one of Ted Cruz's professors in college thought we was brillant. Beyond that you have asked us to assume his policies as presented are fakes meant to win him office. It doesn't need to be this difficult. The Republican party has stated goals.