Support NeoGAF

[Something Wicked]

I really can't tell at this point if you're simply being unclear, or if you have some kind of fundamental misunderstanding of the stock market. So I'll try again: how does the stock market going up give companies more cash to expand?

Companies go public, in order to have a chance at expanding/growing. That is an extremely basic concept. What educational background do you have in economics and finance?

 

[Plinko]

And you guys laughed at me when I said he had the nomination in the bag.

Again, he has been in zero debates. The vast majority of the voting public doesn't even know about his quote about social security being a "New Deal" program that is terrible for society.

 

[Cyan]

Companies go public, in order to have a chance at expanding/growing. That is an extremely basic concept. What educational background do you have in economics and finance?

You're still not answering the question.

I'm a corporation. The S&P just shot up 3%. How does this affect my cash on hand?

 

[Something Wicked]

3) The U.S. has not enacted any policies that would increase the expense of increasing production in countries with a lower labor cost.

If apart of the WTO, countries just can't toss around tariffs on a whim. Today, there are major consequences if a country, even as powerful as the US, attempts to do so.

 

[Sirpopopop]

You know what grinds my gears?

The amount of gun violence in this country, but the NRA is so fucking powerful, nobody is willing to stand up and say "enough"

---


http://news.yahoo.com/violence-amid-revelry-ny-west-indian-day-parade-031906107.html




http://news.yahoo.com/ihop-gunman-dead-killing-3-wounding-6-193516612.html



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/06/ap/business/main20102220.shtml



http://gothamist.com/2011/09/04/eight_people_shot_injured_at_bronx.php


http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8341584


48 hours in America, ladies and gentlemen.


You know the idiotic "guns dont kill people, people kill people line"? If guns werent the problem, why don't we read about mass stabbings every morning in the paper?


There were more "normal" mass shooting this weekend in America than terrorist attacks on this country in the past year. Something is not right.

As you already know, the NRA won this fight. Look at NEOGAF, at all the people celebrating the Heller ruling as some sort of major constitutional victory.

Despite the fact that the scant available precedent available favored a different ruling, and, much of the scholastic research done to favor the ruling was from questionable sources.

 

[Puddles]

This is the worst article I've ever read in my life:

WSJ - Obama and the Burden of American Exceptionalism

It was forwarded to me by my grandfather today. How can a man who had a 40 year career as a cardiologist be so unwilling to apply some simple critical thinking skills to drivel like this?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

If apart of the WTO, countries just can't toss around tariffs on a whim. Today, there are major consequences if a country, even as powerful as the US, attempts to do so.

That's not so much about tariffs as it is about corporate tax structure.

This is the worst article I've ever read in my life:

WSJ - Obama and the Burden of American Exceptionalism

I think my brain just melted a little.

 

[zou]

You're still not answering the question.

I'm a corporation. The S&P just shot up 3%. How does this affect my cash on hand?

The CEO is more motivated to work, which leads to increased sales and profits.

But only as long as the top tax bracket doesn't change.

Hope this was helpful.

 

[Something Wicked]

You're still not answering the question.

I'm a corporation. The S&P just shot up 3%. How does this affect my cash on hand?

Well, there are a few different S&P indices, but anyway, if you were not an IPO or did not buy back stock and assuming your company was apart of the 3% with a stock price increase, that such increase was the result of people giving you money (well, not directly, but eventually the money will make to the company's accounts if it is invested long enough).

 

[BeautifulMemory]

I'm probably late on this, but Romney's "plan" sounds just like Michael Scott's

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

lolz Super Committee Dems want more cuts
Super Committee Democrats Want More Deficit Reduction
Brian Beutler | September 6, 2011, 4:06PM

The key dilemma facing President Obama and Congressional Democrats is that Republicans are wholly unwilling to support any new job-creating spending projects -- even projects with bipartisan support -- unless they're offset with spending cuts or savings elsewhere in the budget.

Thus, Democrats on the new joint deficit Super Committee will seek more than the $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction they've been tasked with finding, in order to help offset some of those costs.

"All of us would like to set as a target for ourselves even more than $1.5 trillion," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who's also the top House Democrat on the Budget Committee, told reporters at a Tuesday Capitol press conference.

He and other Democrats point out that economic growth will reduce deficits simply by reducing unemployment rolls and increasing tax revenues. But when taken on their own, Democrats' favored jobs proposals (infrastructure spending, or temporary tax cuts) add to the deficit, and will thus make it harder, mathematically for Democrats to reach the Committee's goal of $1.5 trillion in budget savings.

Committee member Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) agrees with Van Hollen, and says he'd be willing to put key progressive programs on the table if it gives Congress more running room to shore up the economy now.

"It's incumbent upon the Congress and the government not to make things worse," Becerra said. "I'm looking at the last six months and I'm not seeing how job growth has come from some of this cutting of services, but again I'll be open to it so long as...there's proof that the proposal will lead to job growth and deficit reduction."

Both Becerra and Van Hollen want new sources of tax revenue to be part of the mix as well. But Republicans won't accept that lying down, and cutting future spending enough to finance stimulus projects now will be tough without taking bites out of entitlement programs and other government services.

.

 

[scorcho]

i must've missed something, but what's with the name change?

 

[Evlar]

In answer to Hokuten: I really don't see many recognizable faces in government right now. Few fellow-travelers, and among them several have recently made it clear they don't take my companionship seriously.

If the voter's place in this country is about picking the boss's A plan (Republicans) or the boss's B plan (Democrats) then I suppose I'll have to go with plan B, if you please sir (don't fire me). If my responsibility as a voter is to express my own preference then neither plan near the top of the alphabet will get my pick.

 

[BeautifulMemory]

i must've missed something, but what's with the name change?

Check the NBA thread you will easily catch up. It's the lockout and off season

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

i must've missed something, but what's with the name change?

I'm now the Captain of NBA-AGE (c next to my name =D)

 

[reilo]

i must've missed something, but what's with the name change?

He was acting a fool and Blackace slapped him around a bit. He's also a joke stealer:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30714647&postcount=22693

 

[Cyan]

Well, there are a few different S&P indices, but anyway, if you were not an IPO or did not buy back stock and assuming your company was apart of the 3% with a stock price increase, that such increase was the result of people giving you money.

It was the result of people giving other people money in exchange for your stock, at an agreed-upon price that was higher than the previous day's agreed-upon price. Your stock's price going up does not result in a gain to your company (except in the trivial-to-this-discussion sense of increased shareholder happiness).

(well, not directly, but eventually the money will make to the company's accounts if it is invested long enough)

Outstanding stock isn't an asset. It doesn't in any way represent money owed to the company.

Even if it did somehow "eventually" make its way to the company's accounts, this wouldn't match with:

The higher the DOW -> more cash companies have to expand

And so I stand by my original assessment.

I hope we've all learned something today.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

He was acting a fool and Blackace slapped him around a bit. He's also a joke stealer:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30714647&postcount=22693

He didn't slap me around! He crowned me as captain.

 

[reilo]

He didn't slap me around! He crowned me as captain.

You're still mumbling because your mouth is black and blue from being slapped around too much.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You're still mumbling because your mouth is black and blue from being slapped around too much.

ANYhow... I'm fully expecting the Dems in the Super*lol*Committee to give up medicare and other programs. FULLY expect.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

To bring Hokuten's point further. Despite what many of us have been propagandaized that revolutions always end up perfectly like the American and French Revolutions, this isn't always so.

Think about it, you are replacing people in power and switching them....to other people in power. Full on government take down revolutions RARELY go smoothly. You read about many of these corrupt democracies around the world, specifically in Africa and Asia. Nearly all of these countries were liberated nations that are still to this day suffering from post revolutionary growing pains.

Another thing is how easily these new nations are often hijacked (often by the far right). Sadly rarely are the most rational are the ones who get the attention, it is often the loudest instead. Many people celebrated this years arab revolutions as it showed that not only were the people demanding democracy but superior social values such as gender equality. However since then the right has come out with much force, and some of the right women previously had in these nations (UNDER DICTATORS) are being stripped away. You can also look this up with many of the revolutions begging for Communism, a single state government...well look how well that turns out.

There is a time and place for revolution, and its usually when the people are united and cannot get the changes they want under their current system. There is a lot I'll say about this country, but saying that, "the democratic system isn't functional", isn't. People aren't even voting, and you want them to engage in revolution? Have the people vote in masses for two decades or so and see no changes, then get back to me.

No it wasn't. Only a third were tax cuts. And the tax cuts weren't the Bush tax cuts.

Ahh I see.

 

[besada]

And you guys laughed at me when I said he had the nomination in the bag.

Well, since I've been saying that since before he entered the race, your "you guys" might be a little broad.

 

[Something Wicked]

Outstanding stock isn't an asset. It doesn't in any way represent money owed to the company.

Even if it did somehow "eventually" make its way to the company's accounts, this wouldn't match with:

Trying to play the semantics card, eh? On a macro-level over time (not fucking individual trades), more investors = more investments = generally a higher stock price = more cash/credit/equity or whatever more specific term you want to define it as = greater flexibility for a company to expand.

 

[Chichikov]

This is the worst article I've ever read in my life:

WSJ - Obama and the Burden of American Exceptionalism

It was forwarded to me by my grandfather today. How can a man who had a 40 year career as a cardiologist be so unwilling to apply some simple critical thinking skills to drivel like this?

Shelby Steele is a real life Uncle Ruckus (no relation).

 

[jamesinclair]

Is everybody ready for the next game of brinksmanship? The GOP is at it again, and Obama is already putting on his "caving" suit.

As calls for a “clean” extension to SAFETEA-LU poured in, Coburn made it clear last week he won’t get with the program. His spokesperson announced that Coburn would try to block the extension if Transportation Enhancements weren’t removed from the bill.

About two percent of the federal transportation budget goes to TE, and of that, 57 percent goes to bike/ped projects, with the rest funding streetscaping, historic preservation and other programs.

It’s hard to underestimate the damage that this Republican movement against TE can do. It will certainly complicate the passage of an extension of SAFETEA-LU, meaning that Sen. Coburn, and possibly other members of Congress, are declaring their willingness to throw the entire transportation industry, as well as commuters, under the bus while they quibble about the pennies spent on bike paths. According to the White House, if the bill is delayed just 10 days, the country would lose over $1 billion in transportation funding — “money we can never get back.”

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/09/0...-extension-unless-bikeped-is-cut/#more-273328


You mean walking doesnt require oil? We cant have that. Cancel all funding for sidewalks, or the gas tax (unraised for 20 years) expires.



As I said before, win-win for the GOP. They either get an expiration of the gas tax (so our nation collapses) or they cut transit + walking + biking money.

Anybody with the brain of a 4 year old could have seen this coming. But Obama and his senate friends passed on extending the transportation bill in 2009.

 

[jamesinclair]

Trying to play the semantics card, eh? On a macro-level over time (not fucking individual trades), more investors = more investments = generally a higher stock price = more cash/credit/equity or whatever more specific term you want to define it as = greater flexibility for a company to expand.

Thats not how it works dude. If the company wants more cash, they sell more stocks, which lowers the price.

 

[Byakuya769]

Thats not how it works dude. If the company wants more cash, they sell more stocks, which lowers the price.

Isn't he just balancing the Assets = Liability + Stockholder's Equity equation, which would make him technically right? Paid in capital would be balanced on the Asset side.

 

[Cyan]

Trying to play the semantics card, eh? On a macro-level over time (not fucking individual trades), more investors = more investments = generally a higher stock price = more cash/credit/equity or whatever more specific term you want to define it as = greater flexibility for a company to expand.

Semantics? It has nothing to do with the terminology you're using. Either an increase in stock price increases your cash/assets/whatever, or it doesn't. I'm not saying that you're using the wrong word, I'm saying that an increase in stock price does not increase your cash/assets/whatever.

Isn't he just balancing the Assets = Liability + Stockholder's Equity equation, which would make him technically right? Paid in capital would be balanced on the Asset side.

IIRC you hold paid-in capital at par, you don't mark to market. Which would mean regardless of what happens in the stock market, there's no effect on your balance sheet.

 

[Byakuya769]

IIRC you hold paid-in capital at par, you don't mark to market. Which would mean regardless of what happens in the stock market, there's no effect on your balance sheet.

Yea, you're definitely right.

 

[Something Wicked]

Semantics? It has nothing to do with the terminology you're using. Either an increase in stock price increases your cash/assets/whatever, or it doesn't. I'm not saying that you're using the wrong word, I'm saying that an increase in stock price does not increase your cash/assets/whatever.

Not sure if you're intentionally trying to derail my overall point or just want a chance to demonstrate your knowledge of accounting terms, regardless I suppose a better way of putting it would be more investors = more investments = generally a higher stock price & more cash/credit/equity = greater flexibility for a company to expand. I never stated stock prices directly cause anything, more so, such prices imply certain conditions under usual circumstances. Or better yet, perhaps I should have just simply said: greater investment = greater flexibility for a company to expand, which was obviously my overarching point. Now, do you want to disagree with that?

 

[Puddles]

Your main point was that businesses aren't hiring chiefly because of uncertainty about tax rates, medical costs, and electricity costs. Do you have any evidence to support that?

 

[Cyan]

Not sure if you're intentionally trying to derail my overall point or just want a chance to demonstrate your knowledge of accounting terms

First you imply I don't know what I'm talking about, now that I'm only disagreeing with you in order to look smart? Dude. Pick one.

Your initial post appeared to contain a common misconception of the stock market, namely that a company's stock price going up directly results in a gain to the company. This is what I and others were disagreeing with. Your eventual answer to my question of how your chain of events worked appeared to confirm that.

If you are in fact saying simply that a stronger investment environment (or an upswing in the cycle) leads to both higher stock prices and to more opportunities for expansion, then yes, I agree. I just wish you'd said that to begin with and saved us both a lot of time!

 

[Incognito]

Got a call from the Obama campaign regarding a job and the interview is in Austin. I turned them down last year (South Texas Field Director for '12) for health reasons but now that my health has improved, I might hear them out just for step ladder purposes.

 

[ElectricThunder]

According to the White House, if the bill is delayed just 10 days, the country would lose over $1 billion in transportation funding — “money we can never get back.”

This hilarious false justification about "money we can never get back" is perhaps one of the most insane, baffling statements I've ever seen from the White House period. Granted, this is the same craven, disgusting outfit that is aiming to swing the Ozone regs in an incredibly bad direction like a duck to water. This is going to be a bloodbath of "bi-partisan" victories the likes of which may well make 2011 pre-break ones capable of striking chords of nostalgia.

Hell, at this rate, they may get both a gas tax decimation or weakening AND this chance to stick it to people trying to commute otherwise and in general.

This is all something worse than watching a train wreck in slow motion...much worse...

 

[PhoenixDark]

There should be no capitulation on the gas tax/transportation bill. This is pure sabotage, and a political battle worth having.

But at the end of the day, this is yet another example of something that could have been done in 09 or even 2010, yet was put on the back burner alongside other issues that could have helped the economy.

 

[Suikoguy]

So, in my Intro to Microeconomics course. Emphasis on the fact it's intro and micro and not macro, the following was shoved down our throats.

1.) Price Gouging is totally acceptable and has a bad name. People should have a right to markup food 200% during a hurricane.
2.) Greed is good, played a clip of the fucktard John Stossle on how the invisible hand always gives everybody handjobs.
3.) The community reinvestment act was responsible for the financial crisis, and there should have been LESS regulation.

This is just one class period.

I did try a little to fight back:
When asked "How can I be greedy and still be providing a service that benefits others". I responded: "Be a Patent Troll". That caught her seriously off guard.

Another student brought up Alan Greenspan's quote which was in effect, how Banks had become so big that they no longer had the interests of their investors in mind. She said she was flabbergasted, and spouted off the CRA nonsense.

 

[RustyNails]

Got a call from the Obama campaign regarding a job and the interview is in Austin. I turned them down last year (South Texas Field Director for '12) for health reasons but now that my health has improved, I might hear them out just for step ladder purposes.

eeeexcellent. One day we will have our very own mole in white house

 

[RustyNails]

So, in my Intro to Microeconomics course. Emphasis on the fact it's intro and micro and not macro, the following was shoved down our throats.

1.) Price Gouging is totally acceptable and has a bad name. People should have a right to markup food 200% during a hurricane.
2.) Greed is good, played a clip of the fucktard John Stossle on how the invisible hand always gives everybody handjobs.
3.) The community reinvestment act was responsible for the financial crisis, and there should have been LESS regulation.

This is just one class period.

I did try a little to fight back:
When asked "How can I be greedy and still be providing a service that benefits others". I responded: "Be a Patent Troll". That caught her seriously off guard.

Another student brought up Alan Greenspan's quote which was in effect, how Banks had become so big that they no longer had the interests of their investors in mind. She said she was flabbergasted, and spouted off the CRA nonsense.

Yeah, you're in for a semester of shit. The sad thing is that such economic viewpoints are so sharply divided along political lines that even if you utter "a regulation or two is needed", you're gonna get branded as a liberal democrat commie. I can accept a notch or two of free marketeering, but "less regulations" despite wall street collapse leads us to believe that your prof is batshit insane. The real problem is that you can't say any keynesian stuff, and expect your prof to grade you "fairly". Proceed with caution and voice your opinions strongly only if you're willing to battle paper by paper, quiz by quiz and exam by exam. Embrace the inner douche.

 

[thekad]

3.) The community reinvestment act was responsible for the financial crisis, and there should have been LESS regulation.

Show her this:

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publicati..._llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-14-08.pdf#page=2

 

[jamesinclair]

Cant trust Obama.

And now I cant trust Nintendo?

This betrayalton is overwhelming.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

So, in my Intro to Microeconomics course. Emphasis on the fact it's intro and micro and not macro, the following was shoved down our throats.

1.) Price Gouging is totally acceptable and has a bad name. People should have a right to markup food 200% during a hurricane.
2.) Greed is good, played a clip of the fucktard John Stossle on how the invisible hand always gives everybody handjobs.
3.) The community reinvestment act was responsible for the financial crisis, and there should have been LESS regulation.

This is just one class period.

I did try a little to fight back:
When asked "How can I be greedy and still be providing a service that benefits others". I responded: "Be a Patent Troll". That caught her seriously off guard.

Another student brought up Alan Greenspan's quote which was in effect, how Banks had become so big that they no longer had the interests of their investors in mind. She said she was flabbergasted, and spouted off the CRA nonsense.

Yeah, I had a very similar micro professor. She even showed us Stossel videos. She acknowledged the bias, but at the point where you're admitting your're showing us a biased video, why not just find a better video?

 

[Piecake]

So, in my Intro to Microeconomics course. Emphasis on the fact it's intro and micro and not macro, the following was shoved down our throats.

1.) Price Gouging is totally acceptable and has a bad name. People should have a right to markup food 200% during a hurricane.
2.) Greed is good, played a clip of the fucktard John Stossle on how the invisible hand always gives everybody handjobs.
3.) The community reinvestment act was responsible for the financial crisis, and there should have been LESS regulation.

This is just one class period.

I did try a little to fight back
Another student brought up Alan Greenspan's quote which was in effect, how Banks had become so big that they no longer had the interests of their investors in mind. She said she was flabbergasted, and spouted off the CRA nonsense.

Its surprising that someone so ill-informed/deluded is a professor. Seriously, how the fuck is it possible for an economics professor to think that the CRA was responsible for the crisis? Did she ever look at the facts concerning sub-prime loans during that period and who issued them?

Boggles the mind.

 

[RustyNails]

Its surprising that someone so ill-informed/deluded is a professor. Seriously, how the fuck is it possible for an economics professor to think that the CRA was responsible for the crisis? Did she ever look at the facts concerning sub-prime loans during that period and who issued them?

Boggles the mind.

Have you seen the documentary Inside Job? That answers your question, and then some.

 

[speculawyer]

Yeah, you're in for a semester of shit. The sad thing is that such economic viewpoints are so sharply divided along political lines that even if you utter "a regulation or two is needed", you're gonna get branded as a liberal democrat commie. I can accept a notch or two of free marketeering, but "less regulations" despite wall street collapse leads us to believe that your prof is batshit insane. The real problem is that you can't say any keynesian stuff, and expect your prof to grade you "fairly". Proceed with caution and voice your opinions strongly only if you're willing to battle paper by paper, quiz by quiz and exam by exam. Embrace the inner douche.

I never took many economics courses because I perceived the field to largely be a 'soft' science where they just argue with each other more than actually prove things and provide substantial useful advice. It seems that nothing has changed.

But it doesn't take a genius to realize that both extremes (total government planning or pure free market mayhem) don't work well. Communism proved the former doesn't work and biological evolution proves the latter isn't so great (with die-offs, entire ecosystem collapses, mass extinctions, etc.) Free markets are clearly the better of the two but they are no panacea.

 

[besada]

Got a call from the Obama campaign regarding a job and the interview is in Austin. I turned them down last year (South Texas Field Director for '12) for health reasons but now that my health has improved, I might hear them out just for step ladder purposes.

Congratulations.

 

[Puddles]

Got a call from the Obama campaign regarding a job and the interview is in Austin. I turned them down last year (South Texas Field Director for '12) for health reasons but now that my health has improved, I might hear them out just for step ladder purposes.

What's your professional background? How does one get into a position to be offered a job like this?

 

[Oblivion]

I have to say I'm a little surprised that I've seen so many in the media (and in this thread) brush off Rick Perry. He may be a loon, but both the establishment Reps AND the tea baggers love him. It's a very rare combination of support.

A 'friend' of mine is posting on facebook about the "government budget is like a household budget" argument. I feel like commenting on it to start a fight, because I do that when I'm bored, but I feel like I'm not educated enough about it and would just embarrass myself.

Ask him/her how many families he knows that bought their houses/cars and paid for their college tuition with straight cash?

edit:

Got a call from the Obama campaign regarding a job and the interview is in Austin. I turned them down last year (South Texas Field Director for '12) for health reasons but now that my health has improved, I might hear them out just for step ladder purposes.

Congrats, homeslice!

 

[Measley]

Maybe I missed this being brought up today but I was pretty surprised;

Sources: Obama Administration to Drop Troop Levels in Iraq to 3,000

The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.

Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

iraq_bombing_AP

Aug. 15: Iraqis inspect the site of a bombing in Kirkuk, Iraq.
Related Video

Sen. Lieberman on Jobs, Iraq

Addressing economic issues on Capitol Hill

Related Stories
Sources: Obama Administration to Drop Troop Levels in Iraq to 3,000

Panetta, touring sites Tuesday in advance of the Sept. 11 10th commemoration, insisted "no decision has been made" on the number of troops to stay in Iraq.

"That obviously will be the subject of negotiations with the Iraqis and as a result of those negotiations. As I said no decision has been made of what the number will be," he said.

Currently, about 45,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. The generals on the ground had requested a reduced number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year, but there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of keeping that many in Iraq. The military's troop-level request was then reduced to 10,000.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/

The GOP is already getting angry about it.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said reducing the troop presence to 3,000 "would put at risk all the United States has fought for in Iraq."

"The biggest winner of a U.S. decision to move to 3,000 troops in Iraq would the Iranian regime. The ayatollahs would rejoice," he said.

Yeah, the Iranian regime was celebrating when we invaded the country and took out Hussein. That left a power vacuum in the region that the Iranians were all too happy to fill.

 

[GhaleonEB]

There should be no capitulation on the gas tax/transportation bill.

Where's the :lol emoticon when you need it?

 

[besada]

I have to say I'm a little surprised that I've seen so many in the media (and in this thread) brush off Rick Perry. He may be a loon, but both the establishment Reps AND the tea baggers love him. It's a very rare combination of support.

Not to mention that he's probably going to raise twice the money of any other candidate. His SuperPAC is already hauling in cash.

Frankly, I think it's wishful thinking on the part of moderate Republicans (who haven't realized they're as relevant as liberal Democrats) and Democrats who apparently think Democrats get a say in who the Republican nominee is going to be.