The Fora: A Higher Education Community

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: spork on June 22, 2019, 01:48:12 AM

Title: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on June 22, 2019, 01:48:12 AM
A place for debating issues and candidates, whether local or national.

Why I would never vote for Bernie Sanders: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/jane-omeara-sanders-burlington-college.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/jane-omeara-sanders-burlington-college.html).

To be fair, I never voted for Al Gore when he was married to Tipper because of her PMRC activities.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on June 22, 2019, 07:00:36 AM
AAAUGH! IT'S TOO SOON!

Just had to get that out. I haven't been plugged in yet. Too many candidates to sort through.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on June 22, 2019, 08:23:20 AM
By the same token, I won't vote for Biden because of "Dr." Jill's ridiculous Ed.D. in educational leadership. (Conversely, the fact that, in 2012, he told a black audience that Mitt Romney wanted to "put y'all back in chains" almost makes me admire the old fraud.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: waterboy on June 22, 2019, 11:20:21 AM
Although I admire Elizabeth Warren, I in no way see the country voting for another northeastern liberal.   And I'm from the northeast.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: fast_and_bulbous on June 22, 2019, 11:31:22 AM
It's good to know that the plague of single-issue voting isn't a virus that only ravages lunkheaded rednecks.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on June 22, 2019, 12:38:30 PM
Well, of course, in one person's mind there's just one....

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on June 22, 2019, 12:40:14 PM
I was tied between Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris for president, but now I'm 90% Warren, 10% Harris. I like her and her ideas and I think that the country deserves more than pandering and soundbites.

Now for Veep?

Polling in the "fit for human habitation in the polls list*" are...


So with Warren and Harris that's two women. Are we over ourselves yet?

With Warren and Booker we get a woman and a light-skinned black man. Are we over ourselves thinking we need a white-guy-with-a-haircut on the ticket? Except they are both Yankees. So, there's that...

* Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/21/candidates-that-democratic-voters-most-want-see-drop-out-race/?utm_term=.4baf7d5928bf
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on June 22, 2019, 12:48:05 PM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on June 22, 2019, 11:31:22 AM
It's good to know that the plague of single-issue voting isn't a virus that only ravages lunkheaded rednecks.

I resemble that remark!

I wish the "mainstream media" would give more attention to candidates' statements/positions on immigration policy, given that the President is consistently trying to figure out new ways to demonize non-white immigrants as "terrorists" and "rapists." Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NwlH9r-O6o) is one statement by Elizabeth Warren on the subject, at an Iowa campaign event.

Per waterboy's comment, Senator Warren's voice is terrible for public speaking. She needs someone with expertise -- voice coach, whatever -- to help her.

Edited to add: Representative Katie Porter vs. the CEO of JP Morgan, wow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlJnznzkSf4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlJnznzkSf4).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: drbrt on June 22, 2019, 01:02:55 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 22, 2019, 12:40:14 PM

Polling in the "fit for human habitation in the polls list*" are...


  • Biden - nope. Just.... nope.
  • Sanders - ditto. Just... ditto.
  • Buttegeig - Red State - Run for Senate in Indiana, flip Congress and get more experience.
  • Harris - AWESOME!
  • Booker - Also like him, except is NJ a safe Blue seat?
  • O'Rourke - Red State - ditto on Senate in Texas.
  • Bullock - Who? Sorry, that's as low as I go without scuba gear.

I quite liked Hickenlooper as a governor, but I think his ceiling is VP. I'd rather he was running for senate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on June 22, 2019, 05:54:28 PM
Quote from: drbrt on June 22, 2019, 01:02:55 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 22, 2019, 12:40:14 PM

Polling in the "fit for human habitation in the polls list*" are...


  • Biden - nope. Just.... nope.
  • Sanders - ditto. Just... ditto.
  • Buttegeig - Red State - Run for Senate in Indiana, flip Congress and get more experience.
  • Harris - AWESOME!
  • Booker - Also like him, except is NJ a safe Blue seat?
  • O'Rourke - Red State - ditto on Senate in Texas.
  • Bullock - Who? Sorry, that's as low as I go without scuba gear.

I quite liked Hickenlooper as a governor, but I think his ceiling is VP. I'd rather he was running for senate.

I suspect a lot of these long shots are just positioning themselves for Senate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on June 23, 2019, 05:20:05 AM
Vox has an ongoing series of articles summarizing where each Democratic candidate stands on particular issues: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/23/18304657/vox-guide-2020-democratic-policy-primary

I have been finding the summaries helpful for candidates who get much less coverage in outlets I tend to follow.  What I find interesting is how few of the candidates seem to be running for president as I understand the needs of the position and how many are running for some other position that isn't actually elected.   

I am regularly turned off by assertions that a candidate will fight for me when what I want is someone with vision who will set priorities for leaders in the executive branch to sort out problems.  If the problem cuts across several areas, as many problems do, then the vision is to assemble a team of people tasked with delegating to their employees and outside experts the task of creating the plan to address the problem.

I sigh heavily every time I hear Elizabeth Warren assert she has a plan for that issue, too, because that's not the president's job.  We can't afford a micromanager who keeps switching focus on the very narrow areas in response to whatever group last spoke to that person.  We need someone who spends most of their time at the high level willing to listen to the strategy and tactics that the rest of the group is discussing and then making the hard decisions so the enterprise can go forward.  That's a key distinction between true executive experience and solid experience as a leader of smallish groups.  To be clear, I want people in government who have good plans to address hard problems, but that's not the presidential job and someone will fail as president by thinking they can give orders to follow the presented-from-on-high-with-all-the-details plan and have it implemented in exactly that form.

I'm also not a big fan of many of the plans being proposed because many are overly complicated with means testing and lots of rules about who qualifies and how something is phased out.  Either whatever problem being solved by government money (i.e., our tax money) is a good idea so we should all chip in and then benefit (e.g., more education all around, better health care instead of merely longer insurance documents) or we should think really hard about why only the most direly poor folks should get another pittance instead of really supporting our fellow citizens so they can build and maintain a good life.  The half measure of giving a little money and then spending a ton of money on yet another bureaucracy is a bad plan, regardless of how many people agree that the root problem is truly a problem for government to solve.


Because I think so much in terms of the executive backed by a team of people doing the real work, I really like to see a team coalescing during the campaign.  Who is willing to go on the campaign trail as the mouthpiece asserting that the candidate really cares about everyone, but is only one person and so can't make every appointment?  Right now, Pete Buttigieg is the one I see with a team who has trusted seconds and thirds.  Chasten is really out there stumping for his husband.  Other members of the team are on Twitter interacting and providing a stream of Team Pete, not just handshakes and selfies on the trail with one-off supporters.  Other candidates getting a lot of coverage and campaigning across the US must have teams to make that happen, but I see far less coverage of spouses/children/best friends/second cousins/college roommates acting as trusted members of the team to take the stage and shake all the hands at the coffee shops.

I'm registered Libertarian, but our candidates are currently all crummy (Gary, where are you, man?!) so I'm looking at everyone.  My one big issue is national defense because the president is the commander in chief.  I look at the current state of the world, keep my fingers crossed for now, and make the first slice on a candidate to support based on who acknowledges that command in chief is a real part of the everyday job, not just an "other duties as assigned" possibility that might be invoked at some point some day under some condition.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on June 23, 2019, 08:22:11 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on June 23, 2019, 05:20:05 AM

I sigh heavily every time I hear Elizabeth Warren assert she has a plan for that issue, too, because that's not the president's job.  We can't afford a micromanager who keeps switching focus on the very narrow areas in response to whatever group last spoke to that person.  We need someone who spends most of their time at the high level willing to listen to the strategy and tactics that the rest of the group is discussing and then making the hard decisions so the enterprise can go forward.  That's a key distinction between true executive experience and solid experience as a leader of smallish groups.  To be clear, I want people in government who have good plans to address hard problems, but that's not the presidential job and someone will fail as president by thinking they can give orders to follow the presented-from-on-high-with-all-the-details plan and have it implemented in exactly that form.

I sigh heavily every time some pol says some meaningless blather with no idea how it should be implemented or whether it's even possible/reasonable.

A true leader knows their field and can make proposals with an idea on how to actually get them done and what the pitfalls might be. 

Quote
I'm also not a big fan of many of the plans being proposed because many are overly complicated with means testing and lots of rules about who qualifies and how something is phased out.  Either whatever problem being solved by government money (i.e., our tax money) is a good idea so we should all chip in and then benefit (e.g., more education all around, better health care instead of merely longer insurance documents) or we should think really hard about why only the most direly poor folks should get another pittance instead of really supporting our fellow citizens so they can build and maintain a good life.  The half measure of giving a little money and then spending a ton of money on yet another bureaucracy is a bad plan, regardless of how many people agree that the root problem is truly a problem for government to solve.

Well, at least it's a start. She has done a lot of the good thinking about what the complexities and objections might be and how to get these to work. Will it actually be implemented the way she first laid out? Probably not, but at least she has thought a few steps ahead already and proposed solutions for the snags.

There are plenty of examples of do-gooders throwing money at something, but without a clear plan as to how this money will solve the problem at hand, it just gets wasted.

Example 1: https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-schools-education-newark-mayor-ras-baraka-cory-booker-2018-5

Example 2: https://sfist.com/2019/05/03/marc-benioff-and-wife-fund-30m-study-on-homelessness/
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: fast_and_bulbous on June 23, 2019, 10:58:28 AM
Since Example 2 just was awarded a month ago I think you kind of need to not dismiss it as having been a waste of money. Example 1 though, ugh....
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on June 23, 2019, 11:10:37 AM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on June 23, 2019, 10:58:28 AM
Since Example 2 just was awarded a month ago I think you kind of need to not dismiss it as having been a waste of money. Example 1 though, ugh....

Example 2 is just silly. Instead of giving $30 million to a bunch of already well-fed wonks, why not give it to the people who actually serve the homeless to get them housed?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on June 24, 2019, 06:45:51 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 23, 2019, 08:22:11 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on June 23, 2019, 05:20:05 AM

I sigh heavily every time I hear Elizabeth Warren assert she has a plan for that issue, too, because that's not the president's job.  We can't afford a micromanager who keeps switching focus on the very narrow areas in response to whatever group last spoke to that person.  We need someone who spends most of their time at the high level willing to listen to the strategy and tactics that the rest of the group is discussing and then making the hard decisions so the enterprise can go forward.  That's a key distinction between true executive experience and solid experience as a leader of smallish groups.  To be clear, I want people in government who have good plans to address hard problems, but that's not the presidential job and someone will fail as president by thinking they can give orders to follow the presented-from-on-high-with-all-the-details plan and have it implemented in exactly that form.

I sigh heavily every time some pol says some meaningless blather with no idea how it should be implemented or whether it's even possible/reasonable.

A true leader knows their field and can make proposals with an idea on how to actually get them done and what the pitfalls might be. 

The problem is, at a certain level, no one human being can know enough to consider everything their field at the implementation details level.  For example, Elizabeth Warren has 31 issues on a recent poll (https://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/ew-warrenissuessurvey-om)  and still has ignored several issues that are important enough to me that I notice them missing from what is already an extensive list.

A true leader builds a fabulous team of experts and delegates the details.  One way organizations fail is to keep promoting people who are great at one position into the next position that needs different skills.  Doing things right is not the same as doing the right things.  When no one is setting the priorities and instead treats everything as approximately the same, then it's a crap shoot as to whether the necessary things get done.

Again, I want diligent people who have plans in government, but a true leader sets a vision with 3-5 guiding principles and 3-5 highest priorities while delegating the day-to-day tasks of implementation for new initiatives and just keeping the lights on to the team.  Someone who thinks leading is being the smartest in the room with a lot of detailed plans is not ready to be President of the United States of America.  The best leader assembles a great team of experts and then listens to those experts.  If the leader is the smartest one in the room, then that leader is doing it wrong.

For many of the areas about which I care, I guarantee that information exists that simply is not available to the general public nor to even just the average member of Congress.  What is available to the general public through the Nuclear Posture Review (https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF), the 2019 World Wide Threat Assessment (https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/2019-ATA-SFR---SSCI.pdf), and other official US government documents are not the full story about the state of the world.  That's why we have classifications that include Top Secret (unauthorized disclosure will cause exceptionally grave damage to the US https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/18/3a.11).  Thus, good plans in areas about which I care, including moving around troops and rightsizing the DOD require information that most people running for POTUS don't have in their current roles, even as members of Congress.

In short, I want someone who shows awareness of that the US is one of about 200 entities in the world who are not really getting along and who have very different views of what the world should look like.  At a minimum, I would like people who are running for president to at least show some freakin' awareness of the diplomatic issues and defense issues that cannot be done by a bunch of really interested local parties just banding together.  Some key areas really require a coordinated effort at the national level and some areas are kinda nice to have for a more pleasant society.  I want a leader who knows the difference and will set priorities.

It's really nice that people care about social issues, but POTUS isn't actually directly in charge of many of those areas.  POTUS is commander in chief and the top diplomat.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on June 24, 2019, 06:56:01 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on June 24, 2019, 06:45:51 AM

It's really nice that people care about social issues, but POTUS isn't actually directly in charge of many of those areas.  POTUS is commander in chief and the top diplomat.

Speaking from north of the border, a leader can still cry and apologize a lot, even without being directly in charge. It may not change anything, but gets lots of press.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on June 24, 2019, 07:10:01 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 24, 2019, 06:56:01 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on June 24, 2019, 06:45:51 AM

It's really nice that people care about social issues, but POTUS isn't actually directly in charge of many of those areas.  POTUS is commander in chief and the top diplomat.

Speaking from north of the border, a leader can still cry and apologize a lot, even without being directly in charge. It may not change anything, but gets lots of press.

Yes, it gets lots of press because we'd rather be entertained in our daily lives instead of being informed citizens who know why Sweden has an official policy of no surrender that they have been publicizing for the past year after recently reimplementing the draft.  I can list off many other currentish world events that scare me a hell of a lot more and make me worry for my child far more than much of the handwringing about what Trump tweeted this week that was uncouth or unpleasant for people standing right next to him.

I worry much more about the lack of senior diplomats in the State Department and a continuing turnover in the DOD that really could change life as we know it for the dramatically worse.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on June 27, 2019, 08:20:18 PM
Watched both nights of debates--

I thought Harris totally killed tonight-- she is super effective at presenting policy in a way that is impassioned and personal but still coming across as totally controlled and smart as hell. Her schooling of Biden on segregation was something to behold. I liked her before, but I have no doubt at all now she's who I want facing Trump.

Last night I was most impressed by Castro. He won't be the nominee but made a good case for VP or running for senate. Warren was fine, but didn't really change my impression that she's not quite the right candidate for the current moment.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 27, 2019, 09:59:35 PM
Quote from: Puget on June 27, 2019, 08:20:18 PM
Watched both nights of debates--

I thought Harris totally killed tonight-- she is super effective at presenting policy in a way that is impassioned and personal but still coming across as totally controlled and smart as hell. Her schooling of Biden on segregation was something to behold. I liked her before, but I have no doubt at all now she's who I want facing Trump.


Oh yeah, Biden is totally a racist. That's what made those eight years of the Obama presidency to stressful for liberals.

[End sarcasm]

Reading a little about Kamala. She says this on her webpages:

"Every child deserves a world-class education, regardless of their ZIP code. Of all in-school factors that impact their success, there's nothing more important than our teachers. That's a fact. But we're not acting like it. In America today, there's a drastic teacher pay gap—and it's growing. Public school teachers earn 11 percent less than similar professionals, teachers are more likely than non-teachers to work a second job, and the average teacher makes $1,000 less than 30 years ago.

The teacher pay gap is a national failure that's holding America back. From city schools in major urban centers, to rural schools like those in South Carolina's "Corridor of Shame," we've failed to give teachers the respect and resources they deserve. It's time for a bold, national response.

So let's speak the truth: America's teachers are drastically underpaid and they deserve a raise. That's exactly what Kamala Harris intends to give them as President. We'll make the largest investment in teachers in American history and provide the average teacher a $13,500 raise, entirely closing the teacher pay gap."

This is a pitch that could backfire on liberals. Being that the stronghold of liberalism, academia, runs on serf labor.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on June 28, 2019, 04:54:55 AM
Not sure how to partial quote, but this is from polly_mer:   The best leader assembles a great team of experts and then listens to those experts. 

It was said that Teddy Kennedy wasn't the sharpest crayon in the Senate, but he had excellent staff.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Treehugger on June 28, 2019, 05:29:41 AM
My favorite so far is Elizabeth Warren. I like her intelligence, her policies, her passion. But I think any of the candidates would make an acceptable president except for Yang or Williamson. But it's not like that's going to happen. Actually, I do have pretty strong anti-Biden sentiments (such a stale, lame choice), but if he were elected, I think he would be acceptable.


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on June 28, 2019, 06:08:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 27, 2019, 09:59:35 PM
"So let's speak the truth: America's teachers are drastically underpaid and they deserve a raise. That's exactly what Kamala Harris intends to give them as President. We'll make the largest investment in teachers in American history and provide the average teacher a $13,500 raise, entirely closing the teacher pay gap."
https://kamalaharris.org/teachers/ for those who want to read the rest of the statement including the plan. 

Again, I state that someone is running for the wrong office.  The POTUS has no direct control over local school systems and thus cannot follow through on a promised raise like this.  The plan as stated relies on sending money to states with significant strings attached to do it Kamala's way.  No mention is made of what happens when states decide the cost of dealing with the strings is more trouble than it is worth, as some states did with expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.  No mention is made about how to deal with the looming pension crisis for teachers in many states: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2019/05/20/the-coming-pension-crisis-is-so-big-that-its-a-problem-for-everyone .  No mention is made of previous presidential efforts to affect K-12 change like Obama's Race to the Top (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/education/k-12/race-to-the-top).

No mention is made of what happens when it turns out the problem wasn't just being underpaid.  For example, many of the K-12 teachers who went on strike cited lack of support staff, terrible facilities, lack of supplies, and a growing bureaucratic burden for doing substantial weekly tasks that are unrelated to direct classroom instruction.  https://www.epi.org/publication/school-climate-challenges-affect-teachers-morale-more-so-in-high-poverty-schools-the-fourth-report-in-the-perfect-storm-in-the-teacher-labor-market-series/ puts some numbers on high-poverty schools related to teaching conditions: "In this paper, we look at the shares of teachers who face barriers that impede teaching (such as student poverty and poor student health), threats to their safety, a lack of voice and influence over school policy decisions, and a lack of autonomy in the classroom" (ibid).  A disturbing pattern in the data is how little gap there is between low-poverty schools and high-poverty schools in some areas reflecting many teachers being dissatisfied with teaching conditions even at low-poverty schools. 

No mention is made of the shortage by specialty since not all fields are experiencing shortages the same way.  The American Physical Society did a study related to the teacher shortage in certain STEM subjects and found that teaching conditions were a huge concern for students who didn't opt into teacher education programs in their area of STEM (https://www.aps.org/newsroom/pressreleases/stemeducation.cfm for the press release and https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/upload/POPASTEMReport.pdf). 

One caveat in the APS survey is the bias is probably towards propensity to teach based on how the samples were selected.  Even then, "The main concern about teaching is the worry of dealing with disrespectful, uncontrollable, or uninterested students. This concern showed up four times as often as the next-largest concern, which was low pay. Nearly tied with low pay were dislike for working with kids, and worries about lack of control over curriculum" (ibid, p. 11).

As for salary itself related to STEM teachers: "Lower salary is only one of the reasons that supplying qualified teachers for non-metropolitan areas poses special challenges. STEM teachers in rural areas can be responsible for teaching many different subjects, and find themselves a long distance from any professional support networks" (ibid, p. 12)

and

"Nevertheless, it is striking that students consistently underestimate what teachers actually earn, and when asked what they would want to earn as teachers, students indicate a desired salary very close to the current actual salary. Only in the case of computer science do students express an interest in higher salaries than the market is currently providing"(ibid, p. 15).  For those who didn't go read the report, the salaries being discussed are in the mid-50k to mid-60k dollars, still lower than the salaries for people using their degrees outside of academia in these fields (ibid, Figure 5 on p. 13) by perhaps as much as $25k.  This are averages that include mid-career, not starting salaries.

Again, focusing on what people think about the realties of the teaching job:"While non-teachers overwhelmingly singled out worries about uninterested, misbehaving students, this problem was not at the top of the list of actual teachers. The teachers were more concerned about hostile or nonresponsive school administration and excessive non-teaching activities" (ibid, p. 20).

So, yes, higher teacher pay in some locations may help with some recruitment and retention, but pay alone is not the overwhelming driver for teacher shortages.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on June 28, 2019, 06:11:24 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 28, 2019, 04:54:55 AM
Not sure how to partial quote

To partial quote, click quote on the post to have text show up in the editing box and then edit the text between the header and footer marked with quote in brackets.
[quote author=person...]
This is text.  You can do anything you like to it.

You can add, subtract, multiply, and divide.

[/quote]
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on June 28, 2019, 07:41:00 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 28, 2019, 04:54:55 AM
Not sure how to partial quote, but this is from polly_mer:   The best leader assembles a great team of experts and then listens to those experts. 

It was said that Teddy Kennedy wasn't the sharpest crayon in the Senate, but he had excellent staff.

This assumes that facts and data and policy are somehow neutral.

Take "Health Care for All." Everyone says that, right? So, how do we achieve this?


Strong arguments on both sides. Where your actual policy lands is not a function of objective reality, as much as we like to think it would.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 28, 2019, 08:43:12 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on June 28, 2019, 06:08:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 27, 2019, 09:59:35 PM
"So let's speak the truth: America's teachers are drastically underpaid and they deserve a raise. That's exactly what Kamala Harris intends to give them as President. We'll make the largest investment in teachers in American history and provide the average teacher a $13,500 raise, entirely closing the teacher pay gap."
https://kamalaharris.org/teachers/ for those who want to read the rest of the statement including the plan. 

Again, I state that someone is running for the wrong office.  The POTUS has no direct control over local school systems and thus cannot follow through on a promised raise like this.  The plan as stated relies on sending money to states with significant strings attached to do it Kamala's way.  No mention is made of what happens when states decide the cost of dealing with the strings is more trouble than it is worth, as some states did with expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

Also no mention is made of the decision whether or not to accept the money and the conditions for getting it falling to someone who doesn't agree that teachers deserve more money. Who knows, someone may even think 'if they deserved more money, they would have it already, having made better life choices.'  But I like the idea of a presidential candidate saying we should give teachers more salary because they deserve it. Because you know, then we are thinking of them as people that we have relationships with, instead of something other than that.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on June 28, 2019, 10:28:25 AM
Ultimately, it's easier to find bucks to pay teachers more than to deal with the structural problems that have allowed those kids to continue to behave poorly, or to deal with parasitic administrative bloat and related non teaching activities.  Most parents would probably prefer to pay more taxes than allow more discipline and more traditional behavior expectations to be put upon their kids.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on June 28, 2019, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 28, 2019, 08:43:12 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on June 28, 2019, 06:08:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 27, 2019, 09:59:35 PM
"So let's speak the truth: America's teachers are drastically underpaid and they deserve a raise. That's exactly what Kamala Harris intends to give them as President. We'll make the largest investment in teachers in American history and provide the average teacher a $13,500 raise, entirely closing the teacher pay gap."
https://kamalaharris.org/teachers/ for those who want to read the rest of the statement including the plan. 

Again, I state that someone is running for the wrong office.  The POTUS has no direct control over local school systems and thus cannot follow through on a promised raise like this.  The plan as stated relies on sending money to states with significant strings attached to do it Kamala's way.  No mention is made of what happens when states decide the cost of dealing with the strings is more trouble than it is worth, as some states did with expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

Also no mention is made of the decision whether or not to accept the money and the conditions for getting it falling to someone who doesn't agree that teachers deserve more money. Who knows, someone may even think 'if they deserved more money, they would have it already, having made better life choices.'  But I like the idea of a presidential candidate saying we should give teachers more salary because they deserve it. Because you know, then we are thinking of them as people that we have relationships with, instead of something other than that.

Perhaps you'd like to look at the actual numbers.  Some teachers in some regions are indeed underpaid for what they do, the cost of living adjustments by region don't make up for the difference, and those teachers are unlikely to get the pensions they have been promised (the traditional argument for paying lower now for a guaranteed income in old age).  That's a time bomb waiting to explode, especially in rural areas where $35k doesn't go as far as it used to as the town dried up and medical care is a long drive away.  Housing may be cheap, but everything else becomes more expensive unless one grows one's own food and makes one's own entertainment.

Other teachers have moved to places that value education and fund it.  Some people who have been or could have been teachers opted out (that whole shortage of physics teachers) and thus already have the money they need by doing something else.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 30, 2019, 05:27:54 PM
things will get interesting if black or other voters start complaining about Kamala Harris sending  so many to prison and death row while she takes full advantage of having some (less than 50% probably) African ancestry and calling out Joe Biden for his mixed record on civil rights and wants to campaign as a progressive on crime.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/29/kamala-harris-has-some-explaining-to-do/
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: bioteacher on June 30, 2019, 06:42:41 PM
It's too soon and not soon enough: I detest the 24/7 election cycle that begins as soon as the polls close.
I am sick to my stomach every time I open a newspaper website. Trump and company need to go yesterday. Mitch McConnell needs to crawl back into his shell and retire to a remote island. He can take all his buddies with him.

I like Warren because she has plans. They may be imperfect, but I greatly prefer that to, "Trust me, it will be great!"  Plans are a starting point. I have not followed it all closely, nor will I until my state gets to participate in the process.

At this point, I'll vote for my dog, a garden slug, or a potted plant before I vote for any Republican. This is not because I find Democrats inherently good, but because the current Republican party is doing irrevocable damage and I want to slow them down. If a nine-volt battery or a streaming cow turd ends up winning the Democratic nomination for POTUS, it gets my vote.

I want the concentration camps closed. I want immigrants to be welcomed. I want healthcare I can afford. I want my health care to include my eyes and my teeth. I want clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. I want my country to participate in the world and try to improve the life experience of every human being on the planet.

I don't believe these are radical or unreasonable expectations.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 30, 2019, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: bioteacher on June 30, 2019, 06:42:41 PM
I want immigrants to be welcomed. I want healthcare I can afford. I want my health care to include my eyes and my teeth.

Combining all of this, I am posting a few questions that I ruminate over.
1.  Assuming we had unlimited money available to spend on scientific research and unlimited money and trained personnel with which to treat all health concerns for all people, would the the life expectancy of human beings continue to increase indefinitely and with it the total cost and labor spent on keeping each person alive for as long as possible?
2. Is that what we should try to do?
3. What role does religion play? I ask this as an agnostic in middle age, in only fair health, but a good enough livelihood (for the present anyway) and rewarding activities, with some equity to leave to my child, but no pressure from religion to have a responsibility to keep going. In other words, at some point, suicide should be a sensible option. It's win-win. Less expense and bother for everyone, and no hanging around in miserable shape for me. So, since we look to government to figure everything out, what should they do?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: magnemite on July 01, 2019, 11:26:45 AM
Well, on the one hand it is too soon, and 2020 is going to be totally stressful. But, if 2020 ends with the overthrow of Trump, it cannot start soon enough.

After the first pair of debates, my own view that Biden and Sanders need to go (away from this campaign) was solidified. My hopes ride with Warren, Harris, and Tulsi Gabbard, with Harris being my current preference (and a Harris-Gabbard ticket would be super great). Some of the others would be just fine (and compared to who we have now, would be most excellent).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on July 01, 2019, 02:16:02 PM
In case anyone on this thread doesn't already read 538*, they have an interesting panel poll they sponsored tracking how preferences moved around after each debate, with a data visualization that some apparently find confusing but I find pretty cool: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/

Long story short, Harris gained a bunch of voters (doubled her support to 17%), mostly from Biden but some from Warren. Biden lost a bunch of voters but is still in the lead. Warren gained some voters after the first debate but then lost a bunch of them back to Harris after the second debate. People liked Castro (largest increase in favorables) but didn't move their votes to him. Everyone else stayed about the same. There is a supper sharp drop off in support after the top 5 (Biden, Bernie, Harris, Warren, Buttigieg)-- everyone else is <3% after the second debate.

*No they didn't "get the 2016 election wrong". Their model said Trump had a 30% of winning. Things with a 30% chance of happening should happen. . . 30% of the time, which is really pretty often. Not that I'm accusing any of you, dear forumites, of being probability illiterate, but inability/refusal of some otherwise seemingly intelligent people to understand the basics of how probabilistic models work  just drives me nuts as someone in a stats heavy field.

Quote from: magnemite on July 01, 2019, 11:26:45 AM
(and a Harris-Gabbard ticket would be super great).

Sad to say, I think an all-woman ticket is extremely unlikely. Personally, I'd currently pick Harris-Castro as my top ticket, but that's not very likely either. Conventional wisdom is that if the nominee is a woman, person of color, or both, she/he will pick a seemingly safe white dude as running mate. Presumably that's what a lot of the "Who's he again?" white dudes currently running are actually running for, though historically the VP pick has often been a non-candidate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on July 01, 2019, 06:00:52 PM
Quote from: Puget on July 01, 2019, 02:16:02 PM
In case anyone on this thread doesn't already read 538*, they have an interesting panel poll they sponsored tracking how preferences moved around after each debate, with a data visualization that some apparently find confusing but I find pretty cool: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/

Long story short, Harris gained a bunch of voters (doubled her support to 17%), mostly from Biden but some from Warren. Biden lost a bunch of voters but is still in the lead. Warren gained some voters after the first debate but then lost a bunch of them back to Harris after the second debate. People liked Castro (largest increase in favorables) but didn't move their votes to him. Everyone else stayed about the same. There is a supper sharp drop off in support after the top 5 (Biden, Bernie, Harris, Warren, Buttigieg)-- everyone else is <3% after the second debate.

*No they didn't "get the 2016 election wrong". Their model said Trump had a 30% of winning. Things with a 30% chance of happening should happen. . . 30% of the time, which is really pretty often. Not that I'm accusing any of you, dear forumites, of being probability illiterate, but inability/refusal of some otherwise seemingly intelligent people to understand the basics of how probabilistic models work  just drives me nuts as someone in a stats heavy field.

Quote from: magnemite on July 01, 2019, 11:26:45 AM
(and a Harris-Gabbard ticket would be super great).

Sad to say, I think an all-woman ticket is extremely unlikely. Personally, I'd currently pick Harris-Castro as my top ticket, but that's not very likely either. Conventional wisdom is that if the nominee is a woman, person of color, or both, she/he will pick a seemingly safe white dude as running mate. Presumably that's what a lot of the "Who's he again?" white dudes currently running are actually running for, though historically the VP pick has often been a non-candidate.

Too early for predictions? Trump will dispose of Harris.
I wonder whether, although Harris's flair in the first debate takes polling numbers away from Biden and gives them to her, what does she do to swing voters. How many who might have voted for Biden will vote for Trump if she is the nominee.
Consider:
"Every day in the life of a Dreamer who fears deportation is a long day," Harris said in a statement. "Dreamers cannot afford to sit around and wait for Congress to get its act together. Their lives are on the line."
She added: "As president, while I fight for Congress to pass 21st Century immigration reform, I won't wait. I'll take action to lift barriers Dreamers face to pursuing legal status and put them on a meaningful path to citizenship. These young people are just as American as I am, and they deserve a president who will fight for them from day one."
Wins points for human rights I guess, but also gives Trump the opportunity to say 'Kamala wants to be the kind of president that best serves people that our law says shouldn't be here.' Which is a ways from how Biden would appear.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: bioteacher on July 01, 2019, 06:36:24 PM
I fully expect Trump to win again and democracy will be dead in our borders. I hope I am wrong. I pray I am wrong. I will vote to keep it from happening. There are real and practical limits to what I can legally do against this administration. My vote doesn't matter nearly as much as it should since lobbyists own our representatives.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: bioteacher on July 01, 2019, 07:10:42 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 30, 2019, 10:03:24 PM

Combining all of this, I am posting a few questions that I ruminate over.
1.  Assuming we had unlimited money available to spend on scientific research and unlimited money and trained personnel with which to treat all health concerns for all people, would the the life expectancy of human beings continue to increase indefinitely?

Nope. Basic biology says it ain't gonna happen.
Quote from: mahagonny on June 30, 2019, 10:03:24 PM
2. Is that what we should try to do?
Nope. It won't work; there is no sense trying to nail jell-o to the wall. Google determinate vs indeterminate growth.

Quote from: mahagonny on June 30, 2019, 10:03:24 PM
3. What role does religion play?
Related to questions 1 & 2? None. It's science, plain and simple.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on July 01, 2019, 09:29:55 PM
Quote from: bioteacher on July 01, 2019, 06:36:24 PM
I fully expect Trump to win again and democracy will be dead in our borders. I hope I am wrong. I pray I am wrong. I will vote to keep it from happening. There are real and practical limits to what I can legally do against this administration. My vote doesn't matter nearly as much as it should since lobbyists own our representatives.

Tyranny of the majority. If Trump wins, you and I will be unhappy, but that doesn't mean democracy is not functioning. Is it lobbyists who help Trump, or voters we consider ignorant?
I think Trump, his bombast, and the festering issues of illegal immigration and health insurance costs are an explosive mix that have changed the landscape for the near future. So Biden should not leave the race. He should just be a poised, trustworthy, experienced alternative and go for left of center. He should find the many instances of Trump misstatements of fact and hammer away at them with disbelief. Which he can do. He's considered more likable than Hillary, and he could grab one of the other candidates for a running mate to broaden the appeal.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on July 02, 2019, 04:30:18 AM
Interesting (to me, at least) editorial on the Kamala Harris/Joe Biden exchange durinng the televised "see candidates together on a stage" event: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/harris-biden-busing-debate.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/harris-biden-busing-debate.html). Anti-Harris comments fail to recognize that 1) elections are competitive and Harris succeeded in diminishing a major primary opponent at least temporarily (i.e., her tactic probably worked even better than she and her campaign thought it might), and 2) many Americans don't think that good governance in 2019 means being able to engage with racists in a civil manner.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on July 02, 2019, 06:35:02 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 01, 2019, 09:29:55 PM

Tyranny of the majority. If Trump wins, you and I will be unhappy, but that doesn't mean democracy is not functioning. Is it lobbyists who help Trump, or voters we consider ignorant?
I think Trump, his bombast, and the festering issues of illegal immigration and health insurance costs are an explosive mix that have changed the landscape for the near future. So Biden should not leave the race. He should just be a poised, trustworthy, experienced alternative and go for left of center. He should find the many instances of Trump misstatements of fact and hammer away at them with disbelief. Which he can do. He's considered more likable than Hillary, and he could grab one of the other candidates for a running mate to broaden the appeal.

In what universe is Biden considered poised, trustworthy or experienced?

When I come back, I want to be a distinguished looking old white guy because no matter how many dated jokes or tone-deaf comments I make, I'm still considered poised, trustworthy and experienced.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: octoprof on July 02, 2019, 07:33:45 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on July 02, 2019, 06:35:02 AM
In what universe is Biden considered poised, trustworthy or experienced?

Excellent question. He doesn't talk policy well, he doesn't have any fresh ideas that I can see, and he has a boatload of baggage that make some people (lots of people of color and lots of women and lots of young people) have no interest in voting for him. I can't even...
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: waterboy on July 02, 2019, 07:56:00 AM
I want someone that can stand toe-to-toe with Trump when those debates happen and make him out to be who he really is. That might be Biden (?), could be Harris. I don't see Warren being able to do that. I like Buttigieg, but I can't see him doing that. And that's sad - an intelligent man not being a viable candidate (IMHO) because he doesn't want to sling crap back and forth.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on July 02, 2019, 08:00:24 AM
My perspective, as a Canadian:

I saw part of the 2nd debate while staying in a very small rural community where I have vacation property. On reflection, I was wondering if any of the candidates come across as at all relevant to rural voters. Consider  a few issues;

I could go on, and I'm sure others could as well. My parents both grew up on farms, and I grew up in the country, so this is very familiar to me. I dislike Trump very much, and I truly would be glad to see him gone, but I'm afraid as I see all that comes out of the media (and an this thread) about how awful his "base" is, when in fact many rural people are going to be hard pressed to see anything that even recognizes, let alone addresses, the realities that they face.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: octoprof on July 02, 2019, 08:02:09 AM
Quote from: waterboy on July 02, 2019, 07:56:00 AM
I want someone that can stand toe-to-toe with Trump when those debates happen and make him out to be who he really is. That might be Biden (?), could be Harris. I don't see Warren being able to do that. I like Buttigieg, but I can't see him doing that. And that's sad - an intelligent man not being a viable candidate (IMHO) because he doesn't want to sling crap back and forth.

I can see Warren and/or Harris doing that.

I can't see Joe doing that. It would be a good drinking game for old guys making gaffs.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Hegemony on July 02, 2019, 09:39:42 AM
Marshwiggle, I am not aware of any place in which property taxes pay for electricity, water, sewage, or garbage collection.  I am living in a very rural place right now, and we pay separate bills for all of those things — based on our household usage, which makes sense.  Is there any place in the country, or even the world, where property taxes mean you don't have to pay an electric bill?  Sometimes electricity is included in rent, but not as a property tax, just as part of the rent bill. 

Property taxes are a form of tax that supports local schools, police, the fire department, road construction and maintenance, and local government.  They're more or less keyed to how much your property is worth and therefore more or less proportionate to wealth, which also makes sense.  Even if one road in your area is not constructed by the municipality, I'd bet there is more than one road in the area covered by your property tax, and I'd bet those others are paid for by property tax. 

In my area, the local school building was old and crumbling and would cost untold millions to fix. The options seemed to be to build a new school, and pass a mandate to increase property taxes by a huge amount to fund it, or to give up on having a school in this rural part of the county, and have the kids go 40 minutes to the nearby town to school.  The county voted overwhelmingly to raise taxes and keep the school.  So in certain circumstances, rural areas will certainly pay more taxes.  No question that they have an independent streak.  But I think it's more complicated than saying their taxes don't pay for much so they don't want any.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on July 02, 2019, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: octoprof on July 02, 2019, 08:02:09 AM
Quote from: waterboy on July 02, 2019, 07:56:00 AM
I want someone that can stand toe-to-toe with Trump when those debates happen and make him out to be who he really is. That might be Biden (?), could be Harris. I don't see Warren being able to do that. I like Buttigieg, but I can't see him doing that. And that's sad - an intelligent man not being a viable candidate (IMHO) because he doesn't want to sling crap back and forth.

I can see Warren and/or Harris doing that.

I can't see Joe doing that. It would be a good drinking game for old guys making gaffs.

Does Trump have to debate?

Another prediction: https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/07/02/is-trump-toast-data-model-that-predicted-2018-midterms-says-hell-lose-in-2020/23761415/

Quote from: octoprof on July 02, 2019, 07:33:45 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on July 02, 2019, 06:35:02 AM
In what universe is Biden considered poised, trustworthy or experienced?

Excellent question. He doesn't talk policy well, he doesn't have any fresh ideas that I can see, and he has a boatload of baggage that make some people (lots of people of color and lots of women and lots of young people) have no interest in voting for him. I can't even...

Pretty much all long serving senators have votes that can show them to be hypocritical or inconsistent, yes.

Quote from: spork on July 02, 2019, 04:30:18 AM
Interesting (to me, at least) editorial on the Kamala Harris/Joe Biden exchange durinng the televised "see candidates together on a stage" event: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/harris-biden-busing-debate.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/harris-biden-busing-debate.html). Anti-Harris comments fail to recognize that 1) elections are competitive and Harris succeeded in diminishing a major primary opponent at least temporarily (i.e., her tactic probably worked even better than she and her campaign thought it might), and 2) many Americans don't think that good governance in 2019 means being able to engage with racists in a civil manner.

Harris and the others missed his point about contrasting the civility of normal politicians with Trump and his ilk. It was a  chance for them to make a good point.
I don't love Biden. I just think he might be able to get it done.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on July 02, 2019, 10:41:20 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 01, 2019, 09:29:55 PM

democracy is not functioning.

https://www.newsweek.com/fake-biden-campaign-website-being-run-secretly-trump-campaign-operative-report-1446693
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on July 02, 2019, 10:47:06 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on July 02, 2019, 10:41:20 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 01, 2019, 09:29:55 PM

democracy is not functioning.

https://www.newsweek.com/fake-biden-campaign-website-being-run-secretly-trump-campaign-operative-report-1446693

I'm surprised the Biden campaign didn't manage to get that domain under their control. That's a mistake. To be honest, though, I don't think the site is especially misrepresentative of Biden and his doings. It's telling that the "context" CNN provides for some of those "misrepresentations" doesn't do much to actually turn them around.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: magnemite on July 02, 2019, 10:49:10 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 02, 2019, 10:20:30 AM
Does Trump have to debate?


Harris and the others missed his point about contrasting the civility of normal politicians with Trump and his ilk. It was a  chance for them to make a good point.
I don't love Biden. I just think he might be able to get it done.

A few replies- earlier, you mentioned the "tyranny" of the majority- worth pointing out to you that the current POTUS did not get a majority of the votes cast in the 2016 election. So, a tyranny of the minority, and that is a larger cause for concern.

The point about Trump not debating is a good one- he could decide to do just that, and stick to rally after rally. Especially if he feels someone like Harris would destroy him (which she would). He would likely claim ducking the debate is justified, as they are moderated by fake news, and just give free publicity to his opponent- and would be taking a page from the Putin playbook.

and, Biden needs to go. Your concern about civility at this particular time is perhaps off the mark- it's pretty early in the process, and two months from now nobody will really recall anything in detail about those first debates, and most voters will not pay attention until the primaries start up in 2020- and many will not tune in until after August 2020. There should be a time for civility within the Dems- that will be leading to the convention, and picking the VP, etc. Then it should be Trump take-down.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on July 02, 2019, 10:51:52 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on July 02, 2019, 09:39:42 AM
In my area, the local school building was old and crumbling and would cost untold millions to fix. The options seemed to be to build a new school, and pass a mandate to increase property taxes by a huge amount to fund it, or to give up on having a school in this rural part of the county, and have the kids go 40 minutes to the nearby town to school.  The county voted overwhelmingly to raise taxes and keep the school.  So in certain circumstances, rural areas will certainly pay more taxes.  No question that they have an independent streak.  But I think it's more complicated than saying their taxes don't pay for much so they don't want any.

That's the point. Many of those ares will tend to get written off by the left as "Trump's base" without realizing that they don't necessarily fit all of those stereotypes. But if Democrats want to win, they're going to have to convince many of those people that they are valued and their issues matter.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on July 02, 2019, 10:54:00 AM
     Biden did have a good point about working across the aisle, but he chose the worst possible example to illustrate it. Personally, I think it would have much more powerful had he used the example of a more moderate, fiscal type conservative and called for that type of voter to join him. But by choosing a segregationist as his example, he put a softball on the plate for Harris, Booker et al. to swing at.
    My bigger issue was that his entire pitch seemed to be "I'm buds with Barack".  I need more that than Uncle Joe; and I've always been a fan of his. I thought he might cry when Kamala was taking him down, I think it really did get to him.

   Did no one else see the irony in the only candidate from any party with military experience being the gay man?

   Looking ahead, California has moved up their primary date to Super Tuesday. That will be an ugly, and potentially very strange, fight.
   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: scamp on July 02, 2019, 11:11:24 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on July 02, 2019, 10:54:00 AM
   Did no one else see the irony in the only candidate from any party with military experience being the gay man?


You forgot about Tulsi.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on July 02, 2019, 11:16:20 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on July 02, 2019, 10:54:00 AM
I thought [Biden] might cry when Kamala was taking him down, I think it really did get to him.

Indeed. But I hope Harris's staff are reminding her that Trump will not care when she calls him a racist--that he may, in fact, be the only person she has ever met to whom that charge is meaningless. Quite a bit of Harris's game right now appears to hinge on her presumed moral authority as a woman "of color." Biden certainly quakes before it. Trump won't, and my guess is that Harris will be quite flustered as a result.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: scamp on July 02, 2019, 11:19:07 AM
Quote from: writingprof on July 02, 2019, 11:16:20 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on July 02, 2019, 10:54:00 AM
I thought [Biden] might cry when Kamala was taking him down, I think it really did get to him.

Indeed. But I hope Harris's staff are reminding her that Trump will not care when she calls him a racist--that he may, in fact, be the only person she has ever met to whom that charge is meaningless. Quite a bit of Harris's game right now appears to hinge on her presumed moral authority as a woman "of color." Biden certainly quakes before it. Trump won't, and my guess is that Harris will be quite flustered as a result.

I think she would be prepared for that - if she isn't, then that's on her and her campaign strategist. They better have a back up plan, because I think you are entirely right about Trump here.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on July 02, 2019, 02:47:36 PM
Quote from: writingprof on July 02, 2019, 11:16:20 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on July 02, 2019, 10:54:00 AM
I thought [Biden] might cry when Kamala was taking him down, I think it really did get to him.

Indeed. But I hope Harris's staff are reminding her that Trump will not care when she calls him a racist--that he may, in fact, be the only person she has ever met to whom that charge is meaningless. Quite a bit of Harris's game right now appears to hinge on her presumed moral authority as a woman "of color." Biden certainly quakes before it. Trump won't, and my guess is that Harris will be quite flustered as a result.

Well, I'm pretty sure Harris as district attorney helped young men way blacker than herself to death row. If that matters. What Trump did to
Hillary over calling him a sexual predator: made her into a sexual predator enabler. The guy is shrewd that way.

Biden was worried about losing his Senate seat. That's why he backed away from supporting federally mandated bussing. Those Delaware voters.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on July 02, 2019, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 02, 2019, 10:20:30 AM
[. . . ]

Quote from: spork on July 02, 2019, 04:30:18 AM
Interesting (to me, at least) editorial on the Kamala Harris/Joe Biden exchange durinng the televised "see candidates together on a stage" event: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/harris-biden-busing-debate.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/harris-biden-busing-debate.html). Anti-Harris comments fail to recognize that 1) elections are competitive and Harris succeeded in diminishing a major primary opponent at least temporarily (i.e., her tactic probably worked even better than she and her campaign thought it might), and 2) many Americans don't think that good governance in 2019 means being able to engage with racists in a civil manner.

Harris and the others missed his point about contrasting the civility of normal politicians with Trump and his ilk. It was a  chance for them to make a good point.
I don't love Biden. I just think he might be able to get it done.

I don't consider the rabid segregationists who were in Congress during Biden's formative years in the Senate to be a good standard for civility in 2019. And it's sad that in 2020 America, we might need a white male to defeat a white male whose racist appeals won him the presidency in 2016:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Bbmaj7b5 on July 02, 2019, 07:44:01 PM
My focus on the 2020 elections is on the state level. The next legislative round, which will have many new members (we only meet once every two years), might (in the wake of the SCOTUS ruling) be the one to influence the drawing of districts. Right now the state capitol (far more liberal than the rest of this state) is divided among five different legislative districts - and it is not a very large city, at least not compared to the true behemoths.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on July 02, 2019, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: spork on July 02, 2019, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 02, 2019, 10:20:30 AM
[. . . ]

Quote from: spork on July 02, 2019, 04:30:18 AM
Interesting (to me, at least) editorial on the Kamala Harris/Joe Biden exchange durinng the televised "see candidates together on a stage" event: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/harris-biden-busing-debate.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/harris-biden-busing-debate.html). Anti-Harris comments fail to recognize that 1) elections are competitive and Harris succeeded in diminishing a major primary opponent at least temporarily (i.e., her tactic probably worked even better than she and her campaign thought it might), and 2) many Americans don't think that good governance in 2019 means being able to engage with racists in a civil manner.

Harris and the others missed his point about contrasting the civility of normal politicians with Trump and his ilk. It was a  chance for them to make a good point.
I don't love Biden. I just think he might be able to get it done.

I don't consider the rabid segregationists who were in Congress during Biden's formative years in the Senate to be a good standard for civility in 2019. And it's sad that in 2020 America, we might need a white male to defeat a white male whose racist appeals won him the presidency in 2016:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm)

So Biden has always said weird things, but either the liberal democrats concluded these offbeat things did not express his truest self or they just used him to help Obama get elected.  But he sees himself as a civil rights guy. It's obvious from the hurt look on his face. He's a good gabber but no actor.

I did read the piece you linked, still letting it percolate. Wish I had more education.

Quote from: spork on July 02, 2019, 04:30:18 AM
Interesting (to me, at least) editorial on the Kamala Harris/Joe Biden exchange durinng the televised "see candidates together on a stage" event: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/harris-biden-busing-debate.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/harris-biden-busing-debate.html). Anti-Harris comments fail to recognize that 1) elections are competitive and Harris succeeded in diminishing a major primary opponent at least temporarily (i.e., her tactic probably worked even better than she and her campaign thought it might), and 2) many Americans don't think that good governance in 2019 means being able to engage with racists in a civil manner.

Oh that's a good belief. What could possibly go wrong?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on August 14, 2019, 10:11:14 AM
Signs point to a recession in the USA by the end of the calendar year. In which U.S. Senate elections will the economy be a major factor? John Hickenlooper is supposedly ending his presidential campaign to enter the race for Senate in Colorado. I'm not familiar with how Colorado voters think about national economic policy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on August 14, 2019, 11:04:16 AM
IMO, Democrats need to do something with their congressional majority. Pretty much anything will do, even if it dies in the senate. But if they don't do a damned thing, it'll torpedo their new voter turnout. Especially if their candidate isn't someone who's focused on motivating new voters.

And really, who can blame new voters for staying home? What's the point of electing Democrats if they just twiddle their thumbs all day every day and whine about how they need 75-100% support to do even the smallest things?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on August 14, 2019, 11:18:46 AM
Quote from: spork on August 14, 2019, 10:11:14 AM
Signs point to a recession in the USA by the end of the calendar year. In which U.S. Senate elections will the economy be a major factor? John Hickenlooper is supposedly ending his presidential campaign to enter the race for Senate in Colorado. I'm not familiar with how Colorado voters think about national economic policy.

Former CO resident and just got back from a visit. The CO economy is very hot and has been for a while now (at least along the Front Range-- their are some less prosperous rural areas), thanks to a becoming a tech center and being an attractive place with increasing population and tourism and will probably continue to be so even with a national recession. Concerns are about managing growth, protecting the environment, dealing with a labor shortage in areas like construction, and having enough affordable housing.

It has also become much more blue in the last decade and is edging away from swing state status. Gardner is certainly the most endangered senate incumbent in 2020 and I doubt he has much chance with or without Hick in the race, but certainly a popular moderate former governor would pretty much seal the deal and the nomination is his for the asking. He's certainly not going anywhere in the presidential race, and all signs point to him jumping to the senate race soon.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on August 14, 2019, 01:08:26 PM
It seems that Uncle Joe can say anything and be safe since he appears to be the officially selected candidate.   Speaking of which, who will get the superdelegates this year?  He gets the most media attention and free advertising.  It is nice to learn that the poor kids can be just as smart as the white kids.

Do we have any serious third party spoilers this time around?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: bioteacher on August 14, 2019, 08:02:42 PM
I just want a functioning adult in the Oval Office. I am to the point where said adult doesn't even need to be human. An adult race horse would be fine. A police dog has the bonus of being housebroken. Koko, unfortunately, has passed way but she had excellent communication skills and displayed empathy.

Also, no reptiles with limbs need apply. Snakes are fine, but the turtle in the senate has to go. I'm putting my foot down and insisting on vertebrates (most individuals in Congress appear to be invertebrate, likely annelids).

Adult vertebrate with limbs if endothermic and without limbs if ectothermic. Is it too much to ask?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on August 14, 2019, 08:11:14 PM
Quote from: bioteacher on August 14, 2019, 08:02:42 PM
I just want a functioning adult in the Oval Office. I am to the point where said adult doesn't even need to be human. An adult race horse would be fine. A police dog has the bonus of being housebroken. Koko, unfortunately, has passed way but she had excellent communication skills and displayed empathy.

Also, no reptiles with limbs need apply. Snakes are fine, but the turtle in the senate has to go. I'm putting my foot down and insisting on vertebrates (most individuals in Congress appear to be invertebrate, likely annelids).

Adult vertebrate with limbs if endothermic and without limbs if ectothermic. Is it too much to ask?

Yes, it is. Any such being would not want the job.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ergative on August 14, 2019, 11:38:50 PM
Quote from: bioteacher on August 14, 2019, 08:02:42 PM
Adult vertebrate with limbs if endothermic and without limbs if ectothermic. Is it too much to ask?

Do fins count? What is your view on fish and sharks?

Also, much as I sympathize with your view on invertebrates, it seems to me that cephalopods might be worth giving a chance. I think a squid or octopus would be very good at wriggling legislation through Republican Senate chokeholds.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: bioteacher on August 15, 2019, 04:41:36 AM
I would love cephalopods but was concerned they'd die on land.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: waterboy on August 15, 2019, 07:07:54 AM
I think we all can see the trouble our "leaders" get into with two usable limbs (not counting legs)- I can't imagine what they would do with more. Although an octopus might just be bright enough to figure out to keep its tentacles to itself.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 17, 2019, 05:50:43 AM
Trump is the only president in my lifetime, and perhaps ever, who likes dictators because they are dictators.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on August 17, 2019, 06:30:32 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 17, 2019, 05:50:43 AM
Trump is the only president in my lifetime, and perhaps ever, who likes dictators because they are dictators.

Nonsense. FDR admired Stalin and greatly preferred him to Churchill, as even friendly biographies make clear.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 17, 2019, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: writingprof on August 17, 2019, 06:30:32 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 17, 2019, 05:50:43 AM
Trump is the only president in my lifetime, and perhaps ever, who likes dictators because they are dictators.

Nonsense. FDR admired Stalin and greatly preferred him to Churchill, as even friendly biographies make clear.

I didn't live through FDR and i'm no historian. You'd know better than me.
I guess we can be hypocritical. We can say we don't like dictators and then team up with them when our interests intersect. We can still read 'Yertle The Turtle' to our kids. But how can you see Donald Trump reading 'Yertle The Turtle' to a kid? I can't.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on August 17, 2019, 08:59:04 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 17, 2019, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: writingprof on August 17, 2019, 06:30:32 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 17, 2019, 05:50:43 AM
Trump is the only president in my lifetime, and perhaps ever, who likes dictators because they are dictators.

Nonsense. FDR admired Stalin and greatly preferred him to Churchill, as even friendly biographies make clear.

I didn't live through FDR and i'm no historian. You'd know better than me.
I guess we can be hypocritical. We can say we don't like dictators and then team up with them when our interests intersect. We can still read 'Yertle The Turtle' to our kids. But how can you see Donald Trump reading 'Yertle The Turtle' to a kid? I can't.

I despise Trump, but his ability to read 'Yertle the Turtle' to children is, in my humble opinion, largely irrelevant. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 17, 2019, 09:05:19 AM
Sorry if i seemed to post a flip question. I meant that Americans, true or not, see themselves as opposing dictatorship on principle whereas Trump just thinks it's cool when someone has the bluster and know how to be a big shot and runs things.If we start thinking more like he does, things are changing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 17, 2019, 07:10:17 PM
Sorry I hate post two in a row. And I don't love one-on-one face-offs but I need to finish the thought.

I should have just said I couldn't vote for Trump now if he brought gasoline back down to 30 cents a gallon, because, for example, I think he's a pervert. And I would be amazed if he never availed himself of Epstein's minors for hire island, given what I've seen already.

But I appreciate your strictness. I see what bothered you about my post. Technically, I made an assertion without backing it up. And it's true Jimmy Carter certainly sounded like he admired the Shah of Iran, but it seems more like he thought he had to pretend he did. Whereas, many of us think Trump is fascinated by dictators because the thought of rule for life makes his dick hard. He's already making noises about being in office beyond eight years. And that he would think a story like 'Yertle The Turtle' gives a bum rap to strong, successful people. But these are things I feel in the gut without proving. So enough from me for now! Cheers.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on August 17, 2019, 07:34:43 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 17, 2019, 07:10:17 PM

I should have just said I couldn't vote for Trump now if he brought gasoline back down to 30 cents a gallon, because, for example, I think he's a pervert. And I would be amazed if he never availed himself of Epstein's minors for hire island, given what I've seen already.


There was a lawsuit against him a few years ago, alleging rape and abuse of a child at several of Epstein's parties in the early/mid-nineties. You can read more about it (contemporaneously) here (https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/). An earlier suit was dropped because she couldn't afford to sue; later suits were dropped after she claimed to have been threatened.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on August 25, 2019, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: Anselm on August 14, 2019, 01:08:26 PM
Do we have any serious third party spoilers this time around?
Not yet.  I tend to vote other parties and it's just sad at the moment.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Bede the Vulnerable on August 26, 2019, 01:17:10 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 25, 2019, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: Anselm on August 14, 2019, 01:08:26 PM
Do we have any serious third party spoilers this time around?
Not yet.  I tend to vote other parties and it's just sad at the moment.

I'm a member of a sad little third party.  And yet I will be voting for the Democrat this time.  Whoever he/she/it is.  (I voted Hillary last time:  Trump will do that to you.)

But here's the inside dope from our nanoparty:  We won't be tipping the election one way or the other.  (Shhh.  I'm not supposed to tell.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on August 26, 2019, 05:38:02 AM
Quote from: Bede the Vulnerable on August 26, 2019, 01:17:10 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 25, 2019, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: Anselm on August 14, 2019, 01:08:26 PM
Do we have any serious third party spoilers this time around?
Not yet.  I tend to vote other parties and it's just sad at the moment.

I'm a member of a sad little third party.  And yet I will be voting for the Democrat this time.  Whoever he/she/it is.  (I voted Hillary last time:  Trump will do that to you.)

But here's the inside dope from our nanoparty:  We won't be tipping the election one way or the other.  (Shhh.  I'm not supposed to tell.)

I'm a registered member of a very frustrating party that could do something, has been poised to do something multiple times, and then acts as though every election is a fresh start instead of building on previous successes to have a solid stable of candidates with experience and name-recognition.  Why aren't we running people who have a shot like a couple ex-governors or people who have held national-level or state-level cabinet positions?  But noooooo, let's run some young punks who aren't even names in their own states and let them harp on the far-out talking points instead of the more centrist ideas that got those ex-governors elected and made the state-level cabinet holders moderately popular.

I always vote for whom I want to win because I don't believe in "you only really have two choices on this big slate of candidates, so vote for the lesser evil".  I am, though, casting a broader net this year and have my fingers crossed for a few democratic candidates who would be good enough if they get that far.  Just once I'd like to vote for the winning president to find out what that feels like.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: fast_and_bulbous on August 26, 2019, 05:57:46 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 26, 2019, 05:38:02 AM
I always vote for whom I want to win because I don't believe in "you only really have two choices on this big slate of candidates, so vote for the lesser evil".

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't true. That's the way the system work in the US. Pretending it isn't so is (literally) throwing your vote away. But you get the benefit of feeling better about yourself, so there is that.

It's a lousy system but it's the system we have. Irrelevant third parties use presidential elections as fundraising events, no more, as far as I can see.

But at least President Gary Johnson has really turned things around for the US!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on August 26, 2019, 06:16:39 AM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 26, 2019, 05:57:46 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 26, 2019, 05:38:02 AM
I always vote for whom I want to win because I don't believe in "you only really have two choices on this big slate of candidates, so vote for the lesser evil".

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't true. That's the way the system work in the US. Pretending it isn't so is (literally) throwing your vote away. But you get the benefit of feeling better about yourself, so there is that.

It's a lousy system but it's the system we have. Irrelevant third parties use presidential elections as fundraising events, no more, as far as I can see.

But at least President Gary Johnson has really turned things around for the US!

This. If you live in a non-competitive state then go ahead, vote your conscience-- Until we get rid of the electoral college your vote is just symbolic anyway.  But if you live in a swing state, I think there is a moral obligation to use your vote in the way you think will do the most good and least harm in the world. I get really frustrated with arguments about voting one's conscience from people who's demographic and economic privilege insulates them from most of the consequences of having the "greater of two evils" win.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on August 26, 2019, 06:46:09 AM
Whose conscience should I follow if not mine?

What are my obligations to figuring out whose interests I must support when those interests conflict based on all the information I have?

I get really tired of being told that I'm throwing away my vote by voting for what I want when even the worst choice will be acceptable.

The entire schtick of "that person is so evil that if they become president we're all DOOMED!!!!!!" has been going on my entire adult life and yet somehow, even when that person is elected, the country endures.  When the great savior who is going to fix everything gets elected, things tend to not get fixed in a timely manner and we just go along for the duration of that presidency as well.

I've been screwed over under both Republican and Democrat presidencies and I've had successes under both.  The one person who is at the top matters far less than people like to believe.  Go look at what's happening in other countries and what has historically happened when people feel like they have nothing left to lose and give up entirely on the system.

Yes, I do have the privilege to not care all that much.  That's a result of living the American dream of growing up poor, getting lucky in having a great school system, and taking full advantage of saying, "I want this, so I'm going to work hard for it" instead of accepting what people told me my choices were based on their narrow view of what's possible based on what's currently available.

People who repeatedly tell me things that are contrary to my direct experience and/or research get discounted when I'm just weighing personal opinion.

People who think the system is going to somehow magically changed by putting a different long-standing member of the system in charge are also believing something that makes them feel good rather than truly voting for change.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: fast_and_bulbous on August 26, 2019, 06:50:24 AM
I really sympathize with your position, Polly, but I'm not wrong about throwing away your vote. Math sucks but it's real.

Edit: I share your frustrations, I really do. But when there is a 0% chance of the person you are voting for getting the position, you might as well vote for mickey mouse or stay home. Voting becomes nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

It's the system we have. It's baked in - and the two ruling parties make it very hard to change it.

I'm talking specifically about the presidential election. Smaller elections are a different story and that's where third parties can make a difference, and perhaps grow in popularity such that someday a third party could be viable at the level of president.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on August 26, 2019, 06:54:43 AM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 26, 2019, 06:50:24 AM
I really sympathize with your position, Polly, but I'm not wrong about throwing away your vote. Math sucks but it's real.

And if no one ever votes for anything different, then we'll never get anything different.

Mahagonny is right about the frustration of dealing with people who can explain in great detail what's wrong with a current system, express concern about those wrongs, and yet don't put enough energy into even small steps to fix the parts of the system we know can be different.

There's nothing preventing the US from having several political parties that span a much wider portion of human experience.  But we don't.  Instead, we act as though somewhat different priorities while preserving the same system is the same as being truly diverse.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: fast_and_bulbous on August 26, 2019, 06:58:16 AM
I agree (and edited my original post).

You have to start at the smaller elections and work your way up, not just put all the chips on 24 red every presidential election. That will always be a losing strategy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on August 26, 2019, 08:13:36 AM
Friend - Eric Swalwell/Tim Ryan/Seth Moulton just withdrew.

Me:  You mean THE Eric Swalwell/Tim Ryan/Seth Moulton?

Trump can't win this election, but the Democrats can certainly set themselves up to lose it. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 26, 2019, 08:41:43 AM
Pat Paulsen (Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, for the tots who are reading) explained and defended the right of Americans to vote for the lesser of two evils and maybe how important it is to keep a democracy running. Something like this:

"Recent polling shows many Americans vote negatively. That is, they vote for the candidate they are least afraid of or dislike less than his opponent. We feel that President Nixton, by withdrawing his candidacy, is doing a disservice to these voters."
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on August 26, 2019, 09:28:48 AM
i wish to go on record as endorsing Vermin Supreme for president in 2020.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Diogenes on August 26, 2019, 03:24:19 PM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 26, 2019, 05:57:46 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 26, 2019, 05:38:02 AM
I always vote for whom I want to win because I don't believe in "you only really have two choices on this big slate of candidates, so vote for the lesser evil".

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't true. That's the way the system work in the US. Pretending it isn't so is (literally) throwing your vote away. But you get the benefit of feeling better about yourself, so there is that.

It's a lousy system but it's the system we have. Irrelevant third parties use presidential elections as fundraising events, no more, as far as I can see.

But at least President Gary Johnson has really turned things around for the US!

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7NeRiNefO0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7NeRiNefO0)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on August 26, 2019, 04:37:41 PM
Compared to many European democracies, the USA really has only one party, of the center-right, with two wings. Policy-wise the Republican and Democratic parties are not that different.

Full confession: I voted for Ross Perot. I liked his 30-minute chart presentations.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on August 27, 2019, 01:32:31 PM
I like the title of this one:

   https://www.liberation.fr/planete/2019/08/26/macron-trump-g7-et-match_1747483

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on August 28, 2019, 05:10:57 AM
PollyMer...."have my fingers crossed for a few democratic candidates who would be good enough if they get that far.

Would you share the names of these candidates?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on August 28, 2019, 05:13:33 AM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 26, 2019, 06:58:16 AM
I agree (and edited my original post).

You have to start at the smaller elections and work your way up, not just put all the chips on 24 red every presidential election. That will always be a losing strategy.

I definitely agree with starting small.  I live in a blood red area of a purple/blue state, and am extremely frustrated with those in my area who are very vocal on a national level, but completely ignore local and state candidates.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 28, 2019, 06:18:30 AM
Quote from: spork on August 26, 2019, 04:37:41 PM
Compared to many European democracies, the USA really has only one party, of the center-right, with two wings. Policy-wise the Republican and Democratic parties are not that different.

Full confession: I voted for Ross Perot. I liked his 30-minute chart presentations.

They're different on union labor law, court appointees and abortion. You're right, they are the same deal in most ways. But what would happen if unions donated to both parties just to cover the bases? As an adjunct I happen to have experienced being shut out of a faculty union by liberal democrats. 'Pro union' and 'pro labor' are not synonymous.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on August 28, 2019, 06:21:37 PM
So, if the German bank releases the tax docs, what does that do to the prognostications...?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ergative on August 28, 2019, 10:54:22 PM
Farewell, Gillibrand. The 538 politics podcast crew were much more enthusiastic about her than basically anyone else.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on August 29, 2019, 11:56:08 AM
Quote from: ergative on August 28, 2019, 10:54:22 PM
Farewell, Gillibrand. The 538 politics podcast crew were much more enthusiastic about her than basically anyone else.

Good.  Al Franken may well have deserved a censure ruling from the Senate.  But Gillibrand wanted to burnish her #metoo street cred and basically forced Franken to resign.  Ain't karma a beeatch?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: FishProf on August 30, 2019, 04:15:07 AM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 26, 2019, 05:57:46 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 26, 2019, 05:38:02 AM
I always vote for whom I want to win because I don't believe in "you only really have two choices on this big slate of candidates, so vote for the lesser evil".

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't true. That's the way the system work in the US. Pretending it isn't so is (literally) throwing your vote away. But you get the benefit of feeling better about yourself, so there is that.


If a third party candidate gets 5% of the popular vote, that party becomes eligible for public funding in the next presidential election.  I'm playing the long game.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Descartes on August 30, 2019, 02:03:27 PM
Quote from: FishProf on August 30, 2019, 04:15:07 AM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 26, 2019, 05:57:46 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 26, 2019, 05:38:02 AM
I always vote for whom I want to win because I don't believe in "you only really have two choices on this big slate of candidates, so vote for the lesser evil".

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't true. That's the way the system work in the US. Pretending it isn't so is (literally) throwing your vote away. But you get the benefit of feeling better about yourself, so there is that.


If a third party candidate gets 5% of the popular vote, that party becomes eligible for public funding in the next presidential election.  I'm playing the long game.

And what are the chances of that?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: FishProf on August 30, 2019, 02:11:18 PM
Quote from: Descartes on August 30, 2019, 02:03:27 PM
Quote from: FishProf on August 30, 2019, 04:15:07 AM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 26, 2019, 05:57:46 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 26, 2019, 05:38:02 AM
I always vote for whom I want to win because I don't believe in "you only really have two choices on this big slate of candidates, so vote for the lesser evil".

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't true. That's the way the system work in the US. Pretending it isn't so is (literally) throwing your vote away. But you get the benefit of feeling better about yourself, so there is that.


If a third party candidate gets 5% of the popular vote, that party becomes eligible for public funding in the next presidential election.  I'm playing the long game.

And what are the chances of that?

Well, it has happened 21 times since 1788.  So, greater than zero.  Of course, if folks continue to call that "throwing away your vote" then it is less likely to happen. 

And it happened in the last elections.  Quote from Wikipedia: "The national total for third party candidates and write-ins was well over 5%. In Utah, Evan McMullin received over 20% of the vote, while in Vermont Bernie Sanders received over 5% of the vote despite not appearing on the ballot. Green candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson received over a million votes each nationwide".

However, they split those votes so no one party cleared the threshold.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on August 30, 2019, 02:21:09 PM
Letter to the editor of Bangor Daily News -- unfavorable comparison of Susan Collins with Margaret Chase Smith: https://bangordailynews.com/2019/08/30/opinion/letters/saturday-august-31-2019-differences-between-smith-and-collins-power-lines-through-our-state-internet-investment/ (https://bangordailynews.com/2019/08/30/opinion/letters/saturday-august-31-2019-differences-between-smith-and-collins-power-lines-through-our-state-internet-investment/).

Also Isakson of Georgia is quitting at the end of the year, so both Georgia U.S. Senate seats will be up for grabs in 2020.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: bioteacher on August 30, 2019, 06:04:37 PM
I think the most important thing is that people go to the polls and vote.

I will not tell them how to vote. I want them to do at least minimal research on their options, such as a local chapter of league of women voters website what will put up information about each candidate. Do your homework and vote your conscience. That's all I ask.

The only wasted vote is the one not cast because you didn't show up.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on August 31, 2019, 04:50:23 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on August 28, 2019, 05:10:57 AM
PollyMer...."have my fingers crossed for a few democratic candidates who would be good enough if they get that far.

Would you share the names of these candidates?

Sure.

Pete Buttigieg is a good Midwesterner who has military service and experience leading a big enough, viewpoint-diverse enough collection of people that he's had to learn how to negotiate and keep the bigger picture in view.  I don't agree with everything Pete proposes, but I also don't think some of the more extreme things he proposes have any chance of passing.  I like how Chasten is all in as a fairly traditional political spouse stumping across the country as the personal face with a steady stream of social media that is pretty successful at telling me what I want to hear in terms of Pete being a real person who just wants to serve his country.

Amy Klobuchar is another good Midwesterner who mentions national defense high enough on a small enough list of priorities that she's credible to me in that area.  She has experience at the federal level and would likely be able to draw on a good Rolodex to staff an excellent cabinet.

Julian Castro has a good message with "America isn't just my home and my country — it's always been a promise for a better life."  As someone who also came from very modest beginnings, Castro's story resonates.  Castro's small list of important issues include domestic security concerns without seizing on one easy (and definitely wrong) solution, as well as concerns for the future of wildlife, lead abatement, and the future of indigenous communities.  Castro also has experience as mayor and city council member where negotiation and big picture will matter.

Cory Booker is fourth on the list because he's less compelling as a candidate, but he also has national security on a long list of issues as well as mayoral experience.

I am disheartened by all the current front runners because they won't be a change for the better.  They've been part of the system for decades.  If they were really going to make big changes, then they've had plenty of opportunities to do so.  The front runners aren't even very good at telling me what I'd like to hear as a Midwesterner at heart with a lot of sympathy for the poor-because-they-never-had-a-chance.  I'm watching social media accounts in hopes the front runners could pull it together better than what shows up on the news and it's just sad.

I'll just put it out there that I often don't vote for the lesser of two evils in part because I often can't really tell which one is supposed to be the lesser and neither D/R candidate is truly going to ruin the country to the point that we have death squads roaming the streets and mass starvation due to hoarding.  Septuagenarian, lifelong members of the system (and Trump is one because his money is worth nothing if America really becomes a third-world country) do not radically transform the system because the system works for them in ways that it doesn't work for many.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on August 31, 2019, 09:36:35 AM
Quote from: bioteacher on August 30, 2019, 06:04:37 PM
I think the most important thing is that people go to the polls and vote.

I will not tell them how to vote. I want them to do at least minimal research on their options, such as a local chapter of league of women voters website what will put up information about each candidate. Do your homework and vote your conscience. That's all I ask.

The only wasted vote is the one not cast because you didn't show up.

^ This.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on September 06, 2019, 04:59:21 AM
Vox continues its coverage of all frontrunners on a particular issue with an overview of labor proposed policies: https://www.vox.com/2019/9/5/20847614/2020-democrats-labor-unions-worker-platforms

I find it fascinating that as right-to-work has been making progress state-by-state (even Michigan per https://nrtwc.org/facts/state-right-to-work-timeline-2016/) as rank-and-file Americans push back against unresponsive unions, Democrats are doubling down on unions for all instead of unions where unions would help workers (e.g., very similar job duties where agreement can be reached on how long a task will take for an experienced worker).  Per the Vox article, only 6% of private sector employees are unionized.  That's probably far too low in some sectors including sub-minimum-wage jobs; sector-by-sector unionization makes sense for some of those jobs to promote a new norm.  For historical perspective, peak union membership in the US was only 35% of workers (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/30/union-membership-2/ ).

However, I expect people to come forward to point out that a minimum wage of $15/h is much more likely to accelerate automation of certain jobs, especially in places where $15/h at full-time, year-round employment (~$30k) is currently the median household income, than helping current employees in that job category.  Even in my current small town, self-serve kiosks at restaurants and in the grocery store have sprung up, mostly in response to a local labor shortage even for the unionized grocery checkers.  The technology exists to replace repetitive tasks that don't require human thought and national chains are likely to continue to roll out that technology.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ergative on September 06, 2019, 06:34:59 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 06, 2019, 04:59:21 AM

However, I expect people to come forward to point out that a minimum wage of $15/h is much more likely to accelerate automation of certain jobs, especially in places where $15/h at full-time, year-round employment (~$30k) is currently the median household income, than helping current employees in that job category.  Even in my current small town, self-serve kiosks at restaurants and in the grocery store have sprung up, mostly in response to a local labor shortage even for the unionized grocery checkers.  The technology exists to replace repetitive tasks that don't require human thought and national chains are likely to continue to roll out that technology.

Given how many people need to work two minimum-wage jobs to get by, automization isn't necessarily a problem. I'm willing to bet that someone with two minimum-wage jobs would be pretty happy to have one $15-an-hour job instead. So for people in that demographic, a 50% switchover from service jobs to automation is a pretty good trade.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on September 06, 2019, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: ergative on September 06, 2019, 06:34:59 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 06, 2019, 04:59:21 AM

However, I expect people to come forward to point out that a minimum wage of $15/h is much more likely to accelerate automation of certain jobs, especially in places where $15/h at full-time, year-round employment (~$30k) is currently the median household income, than helping current employees in that job category.  Even in my current small town, self-serve kiosks at restaurants and in the grocery store have sprung up, mostly in response to a local labor shortage even for the unionized grocery checkers.  The technology exists to replace repetitive tasks that don't require human thought and national chains are likely to continue to roll out that technology.

Given how many people need to work two minimum-wage jobs to get by, automization isn't necessarily a problem. I'm willing to bet that someone with two minimum-wage jobs would be pretty happy to have one $15-an-hour job instead. So for people in that demographic, a 50% switchover from service jobs to automation is a pretty good trade.
Perhaps I was unclear:  many of the people currently working two minimum wage jobs will end up with zero jobs as the tasks either go to robots or are foisted onto self-service by the customers.  Having workers be expensive will accelerate eliminating the humans for tasks that are easy to automate or are easy enough to make the public do.  Back offices used to have tons of clerks; now we enter our own class registrations, book orders, and travel expenses.

In addition, jobs that currently pay $30k are unlikely to get a big raise.  That means entry level professionals like K-12 teachers will only be making minimum wage, which seems like a bad way to recruit more teachers to the neediest areas.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 06, 2019, 07:43:46 PM
Regardless, a $12 000 UBI that replaces SNAP, SSI, etc. isn't going to be the solution, especially when it's funded by a VAT that gets passed on to the consumer.

(That said, I'm not at all against VATs!)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 07, 2019, 03:53:32 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 06, 2019, 07:43:46 PM
Regardless, a $12 000 UBI that replaces SNAP, SSI, etc. isn't going to be the solution, especially when it's funded by a VAT that gets passed on to the consumer.

(That said, I'm not at all against VATs!)

On the subject of automation and UBI, Andrew Yang has been profiled by The New York Times and was a guest on WBUR's On Point. In other words, he's getting more free publicity now that he's outlasted some of the other (former) Dem candidates. He makes self-deprecating remarks, in a humorous way, so I doubt he's afflicted by the kind of narcissistic arrogance that Trump has.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 07, 2019, 05:43:53 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 06, 2019, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: ergative on September 06, 2019, 06:34:59 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 06, 2019, 04:59:21 AM

However, I expect people to come forward to point out that a minimum wage of $15/h is much more likely to accelerate automation of certain jobs, especially in places where $15/h at full-time, year-round employment (~$30k) is currently the median household income, than helping current employees in that job category.  Even in my current small town, self-serve kiosks at restaurants and in the grocery store have sprung up, mostly in response to a local labor shortage even for the unionized grocery checkers.  The technology exists to replace repetitive tasks that don't require human thought and national chains are likely to continue to roll out that technology.

Given how many people need to work two minimum-wage jobs to get by, automization isn't necessarily a problem. I'm willing to bet that someone with two minimum-wage jobs would be pretty happy to have one $15-an-hour job instead. So for people in that demographic, a 50% switchover from service jobs to automation is a pretty good trade.
Perhaps I was unclear:  many of the people currently working two minimum wage jobs will end up with zero jobs as the tasks either go to robots or are foisted onto self-service by the customers.  Having workers be expensive will accelerate eliminating the humans for tasks that are easy to automate or are easy enough to make the public do.  Back offices used to have tons of clerks; now we enter our own class registrations, book orders, and travel expenses.


It's fun to speculate, isn't it? The technology for self checkout in the supermarket is hardly new. Yet I find most shoppers choose the lane with a live person in it, for some reason. Maybe we like the contact with human beings.
Then again there are also a few in our society whose blood boils at the idea of an elected official or a union pushing through a change that gives low earners a break, based on the idea that they deserve it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on September 07, 2019, 07:26:34 AM
Quote from: spork on September 07, 2019, 03:53:32 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 06, 2019, 07:43:46 PM
Regardless, a $12 000 UBI that replaces SNAP, SSI, etc. isn't going to be the solution, especially when it's funded by a VAT that gets passed on to the consumer.

(That said, I'm not at all against VATs!)

On the subject of automation and UBI, Andrew Yang has been profiled by The New York Times and was a guest on WBUR's On Point. In other words, he's getting more free publicity now that he's outlasted some of the other (former) Dem candidates. He makes self-deprecating remarks, in a humorous way, so I doubt he's afflicted by the kind of narcissistic arrogance that Trump has.

UBI doesn't solve the problem(s).

1) People want to contribute, not just collect money and sit around.
2) The more automated society becomes, the more tech jobs are created and need to be filled by educated people.
3) Throwing out a few dollars without making sure there is sufficient affordable housing, food and health care doesn't mean the people will have their basic needs met.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on September 07, 2019, 07:46:09 AM
I agree that:
Quote from: ergative on September 06, 2019, 06:34:59 AM
I'm willing to bet that someone with two minimum-wage jobs would be pretty happy to have one $15-an-hour job instead. So for people in that demographic, a 50% switchover from service jobs to automation is a pretty good trade.

and
Quote from: mahagonny on September 07, 2019, 05:43:53 AM
Yet I find most shoppers choose the lane with a live person in it, for some reason.

are true.  However, that doesn't mean that what's going to happen within a system that has limited resources and individual actors have a wide array of individual priorities.  Adding new constraints on the system tends to not yield the exact results that people imposing those constraints would like because humans are individual actors.

For example, my husband will not do self-check out at the grocery store if any lane with a human is available.  When we moved here, my husband did a targeted study of how good the checkers were and would pick a lane based on which of his favorites were on duty. 

However, in the past six months, the grocery store went from 3 self-check stations (themselves new since we moved here not quite 3 years ago) to 20 and eliminated human-staffed lanes to make floor space.  My husband now comes home after every grocery store trip with a complaint about how long he spent in the human-staffed lane. 

I seriously doubt that if the human-staffed lanes went completely away, my husband would walk out of the store, leaving behind a full cart, multiple times until the human lane came back. There's only one grocery store in town and the next nearest comparable store from a different chain is 2 hours round trip of just driving. 

Visiting other chains within reasonable driving distance indicates the changes are not just our local branch.  Self-check is now the way I go unless I have something complicated enough that I will need substantial assistance.  If I'm just scanning bar codes, then I can do that as quickly as any other human and I'd rather get out of the store faster than stand in line longer.

I worry quite a bit what happens to the humans who are in jobs that can be automated/retasked to the general public.  What do we do as a society when we get to an even more severe split that has a minority of adults working very good jobs, some adults underemployed and yet still employed (much like many adjuncts now), and a large enough fraction of adults unable do any of the jobs available because having average intelligence and being of average physical ability is insufficient?  Ciao_yall is right with her points.

On the employing side, a BA/BS degree alone is already not sufficient for many jobs and requires either substantial internship experience or another several years of targeted on-the-job training, even for career-focused degrees like engineering.  It's true that someone who graduates from a good university with any field can be trained in various jobs, but they will always lose to the person who has a similar degree and experience when we don't need every college-degreed person to fill the jobs we have.  We're already seeing this situation on the employing side and this is one reason that many middle-aged adjuncts keep pushing back that they are applying for hundreds of jobs of all types and getting nothing other than another round of classes.

In my lifetime, full-serve gas stations as a standard amenity have gone away.  The secretarial pool is gone in favor of big wigs getting administrative assistants and everyone else dealing with the automated systems and doing their own typing/printing/copying/uploading.   The recent IHE article bemoaning the time we used to just send emails instead of filling out all the forms is a great illustration of the difference between what individual people want and what choices are made to change the system to use technology to shift tasks (https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/09/06/how-software-has-unnecessarily-complicated-academics-communication-opinion).  Technology has replaced the elevator operators, most of the telephone operators, and many other jobs that a person of average intelligence and willingness to learn could do with a little training.  Running a family farm with good machinery and modern business software is something that can be done with one or two individuals and no longer required many hired hands who are skilled, but not academically minded.

The question in my mind isn't how to raise minimum wage or support unions to tinker at the edges of a broken system.  The question in my mind is when we're going to get serious about addressing the increasing anger of people who realize they are getting a raw deal  and who are ready to do violence because the system is broken enough that a violent uprising is a better personal bet than continuing to be shafted under the system.  People who decide they have nothing left to lose tend to be dangerous when they group together.

The Iranian revolution happened in my lifetime and resulted in a modern country turning back the clock to live in third-world squalor.  The Syrian refugees include normal middle-class people who had every reason to believe they could live as their parents did and now the continuing tragedy is they have nowhere to go.  Reports like https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/01/clashes-may-day-protesters-march-cities-across-europe-paris worry me, especially as it becomes clear those were not one-time isolated incidents precipitated by one action.

Asserting that people like me just hate the little guy means missing the bigger picture of our true concerns.  Discussion then fails because viewing people with different priorities as just plain evil means those folks can be dismissed as unworthy of the time/effort required to understand and try to move forward together.  In the extreme situation, people then turn to violence because evil must be defeated and crushed out of existence.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 07, 2019, 11:48:43 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 07, 2019, 07:46:09 AM
I agree that:
Quote from: ergative on September 06, 2019, 06:34:59 AM
I'm willing to bet that someone with two minimum-wage jobs would be pretty happy to have one $15-an-hour job instead. So for people in that demographic, a 50% switchover from service jobs to automation is a pretty good trade.

and
Quote from: mahagonny on September 07, 2019, 05:43:53 AM
Yet I find most shoppers choose the lane with a live person in it, for some reason.

are true.  However, that doesn't mean that what's going to happen within a system that has limited resources and individual actors have a wide array of individual priorities.  Adding new constraints on the system tends to not yield the exact results that people imposing those constraints would like because humans are individual actors.


Are you referring to resources that are limited by an employer's ability to pay or resources limited by an employer's culture of greed? Big supermarket chains could pay an increased minimum wage and remain solvent. or some might think differently.   https://www.inc.com/ilan-mochari/market-basket-loyalty.html

QuoteAsserting that people like me just hate the little guy means missing the bigger picture of our true concerns.  Discussion then fails because viewing people with different priorities as just plain evil means those folks can be dismissed as unworthy of the time/effort required to understand and try to move forward together.  In the extreme situation, people then turn to violence because evil must be defeated and crushed out of existence.

If you're thinking of me, don't worry yourself. The only violence I have experience with is falling in love. But your analysis supposes that everyone works together on everything. It's not true at all. People who don't deserve to be part of a solution can be fought or outvoted.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 07, 2019, 03:32:10 PM
Just saw the climate town hall. Watching Biden was incredibly painful. He's beyond doddering.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 07, 2019, 05:21:03 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 07, 2019, 11:48:43 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 07, 2019, 07:46:09 AM
I agree that:
Quote from: ergative on September 06, 2019, 06:34:59 AM
I'm willing to bet that someone with two minimum-wage jobs would be pretty happy to have one $15-an-hour job instead. So for people in that demographic, a 50% switchover from service jobs to automation is a pretty good trade.

and
Quote from: mahagonny on September 07, 2019, 05:43:53 AM
Yet I find most shoppers choose the lane with a live person in it, for some reason.

are true.  However, that doesn't mean that what's going to happen within a system that has limited resources and individual actors have a wide array of individual priorities.  Adding new constraints on the system tends to not yield the exact results that people imposing those constraints would like because humans are individual actors.


Are you referring to resources that are limited by an employer's ability to pay or resources limited by an employer's culture of greed? Big supermarket chains could pay an increased minimum wage and remain solvent. or some might think differently.   https://www.inc.com/ilan-mochari/market-basket-loyalty.html


This still doesn't solve the problem. A well-meaning employer still faces the choice of whether to raise the wage for all N checkout workers, OR to replace some of them with self-checkout machines and increase wages for the remaining workers even more.  It's the same as the adjunct dilemma; is it better to have part-time jobs for several people, or to consolidate them so you have better, full-time jobs for a much smaller number of people?

The more universal a benefit is, the smaller it will have to be. By targetting it to fewer individuals, it can be bigger.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 07, 2019, 08:57:02 PM
It's better to have something with which to push back against those people who have a cultivated antipathy for the worker at the bottom of the heap, a plan to spread that antipathy around, and time and money to devote to the task.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on September 08, 2019, 06:38:41 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 07, 2019, 11:48:43 AM
Are you referring to resources that are limited by an employer's ability to pay or resources limited by an employer's culture of greed? Big supermarket chains could pay an increased minimum wage and remain solvent. or some might think differently.   https://www.inc.com/ilan-mochari/market-basket-loyalty.html

1) Resources are always limited.  For perspective, the typical profit margin in the grocery business is about 2% (https://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2017/09/24/these-industries-generate-the-lowest-profit-margins/#5dc8ecf5f49d).  That's not a lot of wiggle room to make any errors.

Why can Market Basket do things that other grocery stores do not?  https://www.boston.com/news/business/2014/07/28/how-market-basket-keeps-prices-low indicates that Market Basket succeeds in part by taking the actions that worried proponents for the little guy in the early twentieth century:

"They worried that chains would accrue enough market power to force farmers and manufacturers to accept lower prices. They worried about vertical integration—chain stores acquiring factories that would produce the goods that they would then distribute, closing the economic loop and shutting competitors out of the game."  (http://url=https://newfoodeconomy.org/ap-food-retail-small-business-grocery-chain-store-ban/)

2) Being liked a lot through personal interactions is not the same as being effective at whatever the actual goals of an organization are.  For example, Mahagonny's linked article has zero information regarding why the CEO was being fired.  It turns out that the fired CEO wasn't all that nice a guy in ways that the workers didn't see (https://www.boston.com/news/business/2014/08/27/market-basket-deal-arthur-t-demoulas-to-buy-out-grocery-chain).  One way that Market Basket was unusual was it had had no debt and then it took on debt to put that fired CEO back in charge as a majority stakeholder. 

I'd never heard of Market Basket until Mahagonny's link; one thing I find fascinating is how little of the coverage actually deals with profit/loss and how much is focused on the public outcry that happened.  Even more recent articles focus on the weeks of boycott 5 years ago and not the actual financial figures related to being a successful business. (https://www.unionleader.com/news/business/market-basket-thrives-five-years-after-near-collapse/article_ca040214-6f79-528e-9bc9-f2dfd24a6da2.html) It seems true that "important lesson: If you can sell goods cheaply enough, you can become politically unassailable—even if your approach to doing business makes society less prosperous overall." (https://newfoodeconomy.org/ap-food-retail-small-business-grocery-chain-store-ban/)

3) Nothing stays static. Reading the historical treatment of the changes in grocery stores in the US through the 20th century is pretty interesting, especially as it illustrates what's now normal and was in fact a huge change that greatly affected the little guy worker (https://newfoodeconomy.org/ap-food-retail-small-business-grocery-chain-store-ban/).  For example, the chains eliminated home delivery; those are jobs that were just gone and the net effect is much less convenient for the parent wrangling several small children, the elderly who were essentially housebound, and others for whom just getting to the grocery store is a hardship.  In the time before credit cards, having to pay for groceries upfront was a hardship for many, even if the overall monthly bill eventually went down.

The chains started supporting unions because "It was simply cheaper to work with unions who supported the existence of the chains—essentially buying a supportive constituency—than to see their stores taxed out of existence. Unions, for their part, couldn't get very far organizing independent stores three employees at a time. They, too, needed the chains to survive." (https://newfoodeconomy.org/ap-food-retail-small-business-grocery-chain-store-ban/)  For the record, Market Basket is not unionized.

Predictions for grocery stores of the future don't appear to be preserving what we have.  For example, One prediction is grocery stores will be smaller and carry fewer items (https://www.chainstoreage.com/store-spaces/commentary-the-grocery-store-of-the-future-is-closer-than-you-think/).  Aldi's is listed as an example.  When I worked at Super Dinky, Aldi's was one of the options for grocery shopping.  Yes, their stuff was cheaper than the Walmart 10 minutes away, but the Aldi store was so depressing and had such limited options that we seldom went there except for the handful of things on which we could get a great deal. 

Our local Smith's Food and Drug Store is as good as the one we frequented when we lived in Albuquerque.  We're also in an affluent enough town that people have indeed gone to online ordering and picking up at curbside to save themselves time. I've been in the store often enough when there are more staff doing the shopping with the big order trolleys than regular customers roaming the aisles to believe that trend will continue, especially with a handful of local individuals already advertising their services to pick up your order at Smith's and deliver it to your house.

In that sense, it's possible that we won't need humans staffing check-out lanes for much of the day because there's almost no customers shopping then.  Friday night and weekend afternoons have a packed store, but even now the 20 self-check lanes usually have lines that are shorter than the only one or two open human staffed lanes.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on September 08, 2019, 07:38:41 AM
My rural off-brand grocery store just installed one lane with a gizmo where you roll the item through/under a frame and apparently it checks the price.  Didn't use it, as people were standing around observing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 08, 2019, 12:04:51 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 07, 2019, 08:57:02 PM
It's better to have something with which to push back against those people who have a cultivated antipathy for the worker at the bottom of the heap, a plan to spread that antipathy around, and time and money to devote to the task.

But this gets back to my point: Is concern for the worker at the bottom of the heap better expressed by keeping as many jobs as possible, at whatever level of pay is possible, OR by reorganizing so that there are fewer jobs in total, but with those that are left at higher wages with better benefits? It's not clear to me that there's some sort of objective criteria to identify THE most worker-friendly choice.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on September 21, 2019, 05:41:37 AM
Will 45's demand to Ukraine make any difference...in anything, except my blood pressure?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 21, 2019, 05:57:45 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 21, 2019, 05:41:37 AM
Will 45's demand to Ukraine make any difference...in anything, except my blood pressure?

I can't follow the plot.  Is this the same Biden son who came off looking like a crazy degenerate in a recent New Yorker profile? 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on September 21, 2019, 08:24:54 AM
Well, the Atlantic is mincing no words in summing up the significance of an incumbent President's effort to blackmail a foreign government into maligning a viable candidate (whatever one thinks of Biden, and I've never found him capable, he's still the front-runner at present) for his own benefit.

Can't link here, but they're pretty clear on things.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 21, 2019, 04:47:22 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 07, 2019, 03:32:10 PM
Just saw the climate town hall. Watching Biden was incredibly painful. He's beyond doddering.

Details? I missed this event.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 21, 2019, 05:12:10 PM
Quote from: mamselle on September 21, 2019, 08:24:54 AM
Well, the Atlantic is mincing no words in summing up the significance of an incumbent President's effort to blackmail a foreign government into maligning a viable candidate (whatever one thinks of Biden, and I've never found him capable, he's still the front-runner at present) for his own benefit.

Can't link here, but they're pretty clear on things.

M.

Is this the Atlantic article you're referencing? https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/trumps-ukraine-call-clear-impeachable-offense/598570/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/trumps-ukraine-call-clear-impeachable-offense/598570/)

Quote from: writingprof on September 21, 2019, 05:57:45 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 21, 2019, 05:41:37 AM
Will 45's demand to Ukraine make any difference...in anything, except my blood pressure?

I can't follow the plot.  Is this the same Biden son who came off looking like a crazy degenerate in a recent New Yorker profile? 

This is a sideshow, not the real plot. Trump held back military aid to the Ukrainian government, aid to be used to fight the Russian military's involvement in the separatist war in eastern Ukraine. Who does that benefit? Putin. Ukraine's current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, the person Trump was trying to extort, is a supporter of the Euromaidan movement that ousted Ukraine's corrupt former president and Russian stooge, Viktor Yanukovych.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 21, 2019, 05:22:58 PM
Quote from: spork on September 21, 2019, 04:47:22 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 07, 2019, 03:32:10 PM
Just saw the climate town hall. Watching Biden was incredibly painful. He's beyond doddering.

Details? I missed this event.

It's hard to find, but I can PM you a link to a YouTube video of his performance, if you want to watch him dodder for half an hour. He was just completely incoherent, entirely unable to articulate any kind of vision, let alone his own, contradicted himself or clearly said the opposite of what he meant a number of times, and seriously fumbled his interactions with the citizens asking questions (he ended up looking insensistive and belligerent, in addition to clueless and doddering). And, of course, a blood vessel in his eye burst. But that's neither here nor there.

He sounds exactly like someone with dementia (having taken care of such a person for years, I remember all too well what that sounds like). In fact, he sounds exactly like a person with dementia who doesn't want to give up their driver's license, even though they haven't driven in years, because so much of their identity is bound up in having it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 21, 2019, 05:24:52 PM
Why not post the link here, for any interested parties?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 21, 2019, 05:48:53 PM
Quote from: spork on September 21, 2019, 05:24:52 PM
Why not post the link here, for any interested parties?

Sure. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4WF5VL16eU)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 21, 2019, 06:17:49 PM
Awesome comb-over.

He repeats himself. Not in a good way.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 23, 2019, 03:06:18 PM
Today Greta Thunberg handed the Democrats the most potent weapon they can use against Trump and the GOP. But I'm going to assume that the Democrats are too stupid to recognize just how effective mockery can be.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on October 14, 2019, 05:19:15 AM
Interesting charts on Facebook ad spending by Democratic presidential candidates:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/14/us/politics/democrats-political-facebook-ads.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/14/us/politics/democrats-political-facebook-ads.html).

This is the kind of thing that spells trouble for Senator Susan Collins (R-ME): https://twitter.com/mcm50_karen/status/1183359113058799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1183379276357345280&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2019%2F10%2F13%2F1892132%2F-Portland-Maine-Resident-Takes-Out-Full-Page-Ad-in-Portland-Press-Herald-To-School-Susan-Collins (https://twitter.com/mcm50_karen/status/1183359113058799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1183379276357345280&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2019%2F10%2F13%2F1892132%2F-Portland-Maine-Resident-Takes-Out-Full-Page-Ad-in-Portland-Press-Herald-To-School-Susan-Collins).

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 14, 2019, 09:07:45 AM
An (I hope unlikely) what-if:

In some places, the consistent undermining of world diplomatic and military positions would lead to a coup, or a palace revolt. What if our sweet, naive assumptions that there will BE an election in 2020 were to be wiped out by an uprising?

Because once a leader starts tearing up the fabric of law and basic justice, they lay themselves open to retributive powers willing to employ the same chaotic stratagems against them.

One really wants to be careful about taking things for granted...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on October 14, 2019, 01:12:01 PM

   Along the lines with Mamselle, My great fear is of civil war/revolution after the 2020 election. Trump declares the results fake if he loses and refuses to leave office. He commands the military to arrest the Dem candidate, Pelosi and others on treason charges for colluding with foreign entity or some such. He's already called for the execution of the whistle-blower, so do think he hasn't fantasized about this already. California then takes a stand and may have to secede as a result.
   It's all too close to being a real possibility.
   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on October 14, 2019, 02:19:17 PM
The chances are in reality so infinitesimal that they are effectively zero. Article 25 would be invoked prior to inauguration day or the Senate would vote in favor of impeachment. In neither case would someone like Trump have the support of the military for an attempted coup. There might be a few Pizza Gate-type crazies who would gear up for "war," but 99.9 percent of citizens would focus on working their day jobs so that they could continue to pay their bills.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on October 14, 2019, 02:41:09 PM
My reading of history is that people don't risk everything they have in life to revolt unless their backs are against the wall and have no other choice.  We are not at that point yet.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 14, 2019, 03:00:14 PM
I don't mean to scaremonger, but I don't think it's a completely impossible scenario. Not because "we", (however "we" construe "ourselves") are at any breaking point yet, but because the crazier component of the society so easily goes up in flames over imagined slights and other more serious things.

Last evening's private film fare, showing Trump killing journalists and others who oppose him, to me, brings us just that much closer.

I've thought in the past that he's unstable enough that I hope they keep knives and guns far from him on a daily basis.

The ideation of violence is one of the steps towards its realization.

Savoring such scenarios--like defeating ones enemies or doing away with them for good--may have started with kindergarten cartoons, but the impulses are clearly escalating.

If you've ever lived with a dangerous person, you get a sense of what is likely to happen, and when.

But not always in time.

M.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on October 14, 2019, 03:25:09 PM
This is what will determine election results in many areas of the country, in both presidential and congressional races: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/opinion/ohio-democratic-debate.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/opinion/ohio-democratic-debate.html).

Any candidate who constantly hammers on the message of "I know you're suffering, here's a realistic plan for alleviating some of that suffering, and here's how it can be implemented" will have the advantage. Trump's tactic of blaming immigrants and poor people for income inequality is stale at this point. I don't have the data readily at hand, but I doubt many of the people who consider themselves "middle class" (or think they deserve to be in that group, however they define it) feel like their real incomes have increased significantly since Trump took office.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 14, 2019, 04:22:17 PM
I really, really wish that could be true. And for many, it probably is.

But now we have this:

   https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/14/united-airlines-oks-passenger-with-lynching-journalists-t-shirt.html

An old shirt, to be sure, but the airlines didn't make him change it in order to board.

I've written for journalism, as I'm sure others have. Don't like.

The line between free speech/free speech acts vs. threats of bodily harm is tenuous.

I still think the balance of the population is sane.

But the "lunatic fringe" (whose phrase was that?) is worrisome.

Someone just observed in one of the British papers that (not new news, of course), politicians of a certain stripe feed on chaos, because then their reason for existing and being heroes comes to the fore.

There probably are courses right now using "1984," "Animal Farm," and "The True Believer" for comparanda.

It's just that the people who need to consider those texts are not likely to be taking those courses...(or reading the texts).

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on October 15, 2019, 04:15:40 AM
Quote from: Anselm on October 14, 2019, 02:41:09 PM
My reading of history is that people don't risk everything they have in life to revolt unless their backs are against the wall and have no other choice.  We are not at that point yet.

I agree with this.  I also agree that Trump doesn't have the support of the military to the extent that he could just refuse to leave if the election goes against him and I have full confidence we'll have a 2020 election that is good enough in terms of counting votes.  I expect it will continue to be a mud-slinging, entertainment circus, but we're still at the saying-mean-things-to-each-other stage, not armed uprising in the streets.

Again, other countries (civilized peer countries) have rioting and sustained protests.  For example, France has had protests every weekend for almost the past year (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1181059/paris-riots-climate-change-protests-police-greta-thunberg-extinction-rebellion).  This week saw a riot at the Barcelona airport (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10136114/barcelona-airport-riots-catalonia-independence/).  Brexit continues to be a huge concern on how that will affect the British and much of the Western World (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/how-brexit-might-break-britain-disunited-kingdom-n1062526)

Meanwhile, we have an annual march with people wearing specialty hats and people are annoyed because the hats aren't inclusive enough for their tastes. (https://www.seventeen.com/life/a15854506/stop-wearing-pussy-hats-womens-marches/)

One continuing message in some quarters is how President Trump kept his campaign promises and there are people who have sufficient evidence to believe those assertions because he did keep some of those promises--the same stories that make certain people's blood boil regarding rolling back environmental rules, bringing home US troops, and addressing immigration.

The people who are armed with little enough to lose that they might be thinking violence are by and large those who would favor a Trump second term, not Hillary/Bernie/Elizabeth/Biden supporters.  Even if we have a Trump impeachment that results in removal from office, I don't expect those folks to go violent; I expect them to support the next candidate who isn't a career politician who addresses their concerns.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on October 16, 2019, 09:37:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=yMIF-zD7D1g

Biden is painful to watch in this clip from the recent TV debate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: quasihumanist on October 16, 2019, 10:21:44 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on October 15, 2019, 04:15:40 AM
The people who are armed with little enough to lose that they might be thinking violence are by and large those who would favor a Trump second term, not Hillary/Bernie/Elizabeth/Biden supporters.  Even if we have a Trump impeachment that results in removal from office, I don't expect those folks to go violent; I expect them to support the next candidate who isn't a career politician who addresses their concerns.

As I see it, the problem is that their principle concern is that our society gives too much advantage to those who are educated and those who live near concentrations of educated people.

I don't see a way of addressing this concern other than rolling back our level of civilization and technology, such as by nuclear war or a Pol Pot style genocide.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on October 17, 2019, 06:15:22 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on October 16, 2019, 10:21:44 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on October 15, 2019, 04:15:40 AM
The people who are armed with little enough to lose that they might be thinking violence are by and large those who would favor a Trump second term, not Hillary/Bernie/Elizabeth/Biden supporters.  Even if we have a Trump impeachment that results in removal from office, I don't expect those folks to go violent; I expect them to support the next candidate who isn't a career politician who addresses their concerns.

As I see it, the problem is that their principle concern is that our society gives too much advantage to those who are educated and those who live near concentrations of educated people.

I don't think too much education is their principal concern.  Instead, I see a combination of:

* rapid enough societal change that means people who used to be relatively comfortable by working hard and following the rules are no longer likely to have a good enough shot at continuing to live inside, eat regularly, and be safe in their communities by doing what they did 10 or 20 years ago, let alone new folks starting out who will not be as materially comfortable as their parents.

* individual education is billed as being the new path, but clear evidence exists that a college degree that's within reach for those who start in modest circumstances is not nearly as advantageous as having the social capital afforded by having rich enough parents that one has attended elite schools and traveled in elite circles most of one's life.

* frustration at what is sometimes billed as big societal problems that neglects their daily problems or posits solutions that won't work.  For example, yesterday was National Pronouns Day and tweets from certain candidates were not greeted very positively.   The comments on Elizabeth Warren's tweet regarding her pronouns does not go well for Warren from what shows up early in my Twitter feed; people are angry about pandering to a very small portion of the US population instead of addressing other problems. (https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1184607328898813952)  Feeds for other candidates similarly tend to bring up that we have higher priority problems that must be solved on a national scale than what other people call one as a third-person pronoun.

Arguing relative effects of automation versus trade on job losses don't matter when communities that had relied heavily on manufacturing has been hollowed out so that they are dying as young people move away, old people aren't enough to have a viable community, and middle-aged people are struggling mightily since the new factories aren't mostly reliant on having a good work ethic and a strong back.  Manufacturing has changed and people with experience were left behind.  Even if trade policies were the fix, no guarantee exists that any new manufacturing plants will go back to the same communities that used to have those plants.

* disappointment and sometimes anger about the national media enforced idea that one's career should be primary in one's life until one has enough money to retire.  That's a slap in the face for those who have invested heavily in family, friends, church, and other local community because people matter, not just individual success.  The very evident contrast between "college is for helping one become a good citizen and thoughtful person living one's best life" and the clear mantra of "so you have to postpone family until you've completed your education and been well established in your career that is very likely to be in an urban area that supports all kinds of careers, not just teacher, nurse, and police officer" really doesn't work in some quarters.

The insistence on individual expression at the expense of knuckling under to do what must be done is frightening as one looks around and realized that the trend is transactional everything and one has nothing to trade, despite being a good person and working hard for decades.  As many adjuncts have discovered, a huge problem exists when one finally is mentally ready to sell out for money and it turns out that no one is willing to buy one's soul for money.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: quasihumanist on October 17, 2019, 11:50:49 AM
Polly - I don't think we disagree on what the problems are.

I think that the candidates are not proposing solutions to these problems precisely because no one has a clue on how to solve these problems, because these problems have no solutions short of nuclear war or Pol Pot style genocide (which aren't really solutions).  You can't both live like the Amish (they're the originals as far as prioritizing community, et c) and have technology way beyond what the Amish have.  That's why I think I'll die of aftereffects of nuclear war.


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on October 18, 2019, 06:33:47 AM
Don't forget racism.  I live in a deep red, 98% white rural area with no jobs, declining population, and a completely corrupt ruling elite.  White folks here see people of color as the enemy, as scum...and they hated the n****r president....and yes, that's what they called him.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 18, 2019, 01:20:16 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on October 18, 2019, 06:33:47 AM
Don't forget racism.  I live in a deep red, 98% white rural area with no jobs, declining population, and a completely corrupt ruling elite.  White folks here see people of color as the enemy, as scum...and they hated the n****r president....and yes, that's what they called him.

That's racist all right, but seeing a politician, or politicians in general, as an enemy is nothing new.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on October 19, 2019, 06:24:13 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on October 17, 2019, 11:50:49 AM
I think that the candidates are not proposing solutions to these problems precisely because no one has a clue on how to solve these problems, because these problems have no solutions short of nuclear war or Pol Pot style genocide (which aren't really solutions).  You can't both live like the Amish (they're the originals as far as prioritizing community, et c) and have technology way beyond what the Amish have.  That's why I think I'll die of aftereffects of nuclear war.

Oh, I disagree on degree of problems. 

I think we can have reasonable solutions to some aspects of these problems and that's why I continue to roll my eyes at what gets discussed instead of what could be discussed.

For example, we have the technology to work remotely for many jobs that require significant education, but much of the rural US doesn't have the infrastructure to support it.  Dial-up is still state-of-the-art in places where we could have people doing remote work that relies primarily on communicating through Slack or other electronic channels.  If one is, say, an engineer or salesperson who is based in Atlanta, but spends so much time traveling to remote sites that one is only in Atlanta a few days per month, then why can't one live in Podunk, AR and visit Atlanta as one of the standard monthly trips? 

I know people who have that kind of arrangement, but I'd like to see it be more popular as a recognition that extended family matters in raising children and helping elders.  If we're talking employee benefits, I know far more professional people from modest beginnings who would benefit from extra travel expenses than from paying off the non-existent student loans (the current shiny object to recruit in some tight areas that ignores those who made good choices in their education).

I also know that the existing US infrastructure (e.g., bridges, roads) is in desperate shape in many parts of the country.  I have to wonder if people who already had physical jobs would be willing to retrain as a consistent group and do travel together during the good-weather-for-contruction months to address these problems.  It's not the same as being able to go home after work to one's family, but traveling with kith and having the technology through videoconferencing to spend some evenings with the bitsy kids might be pretty appealing in some quarters.

I also wonder why we can't put some of the new big server farms and similar technology where geographic locale is much less important to places where the handful of people already there would be happy to come up to speed and work for far less than the big city dwellers expect as a minimum wage.  Likewise, call centers seem to be doing pretty well in the cornfields as customers get native English-speakers for more efficient call traffic.

It's bizarre to me to keep trying to raise the minimum wage for city dwellers instead of helping people redistribute so that they can live pretty good lives on $10/hour somewhere else.  Yes, cities have some amenities that rural places don't.  I severely doubt that people squeaking by in the cities are able to spend a lot of money they don't have on fabulous shows, concerts, and shopping.  A few trips a year into the city with saved up money and a weekend devoted to culture might be a good trade in some quarters.

I would very much like to see all health debates focus on the important aspects of providing health care over the annoying metric of health insurance.  I read something like https://slate.com/technology/2019/10/insurance-access-does-not-fully-explain-health-care-problem.html and want to cry.  My family's health insurance premiums next year are $25k of which we only pay a small fraction, but I have to wonder where that money could be better spent to get care for more people instead of bureaucracy.  Again, redistributing the jobs into something else or just making everything less expensive seems like a better bet.

As a card-carrying Libertarian, making people make these changes is morally wrong.  However, if we're raising awareness and help people think through all their choices, not just the handful that currently get a lot of press, then I can be onboard that bus.  That's why Madam I've-got-a-plan-for-that is very unlikely to get my vote unless it's literally a two-person ballot and the other candidate is literally someone currently on trial for genocide.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on October 19, 2019, 10:27:14 AM
Polly, regarding server farms I think many of them are already in Podunk towns.  Ebay customer service is in Utah.  Google has a server farm in Iowa.  One issue is that the bosses might not want to live there. 

What you propose could happen if we had high speed trains, the lack of which is one of my biggest complaints about the USA.

Many people could relocate right now but there seems to be psychological barriers to making the move.  Many people i meet simply won't consider it.  Think of the students who say they want to stay in the same region after graduation. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on October 19, 2019, 10:21:11 PM
Just exactly where in the US can one live 'pretty good lives' for ten bucks an hour?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on October 20, 2019, 07:09:36 AM
Thanks for nothing, Polly_mer and Anselm.  I live in Podunk and cornfields, and certainly am offended, insulted, and just goddamn angry at your caricature of rural America.  As for data centers and call centers:  We have both.  Data centers hire very few local folks, except in low paying positions.  High level computer expertise swoops in and out, staying in a rental house for a few days, or is handled remotely.  Call centers are low paying with high turnover, and certainly don't diversify our economy to any extent.

Since you don't know what you're talking about, just shut up.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on October 20, 2019, 07:11:47 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 19, 2019, 10:21:11 PM
Just exactly where in the US can one live 'pretty good lives' for ten bucks an hour?

Sure as hell not here in Podunk and cornfields  where our better paid academic colleagues are suggesting that call centers and server farms be located.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on October 20, 2019, 07:27:24 AM
For the record, I have lived a substantial portion of my life in the rural cornfields and other rural areas.  There's no one-size-fits all for a dying rural area, but being insulted by specific examples during brainstorming means one has given up on saving the rural life.

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 19, 2019, 10:21:11 PM
Just exactly where in the US can one live 'pretty good lives' for ten bucks an hour?

$10/hour comes out to $20k/year.  That's $40k for a household of two people and it's pretty common when money is tight and family is involved for people to live in households bigger than 2.  Indeed, we keep seeing news stories pointing out a return to living in larger family groups instead of marrying early and splitting off into smaller households. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/realestate/where-are-adults-living-with-their-parents.html)

The money also goes much farther when one can have a garden in the backyard and can do a lot of barter for services with family and friends.  One of the hardest lessons people learn by moving away from a true community where people help each other as members of the community is how very, very expensive having everything be a formal, paid transaction is.

Where specifically? 

Well, AARP along with a cost-of-living calculator has ten cities where one can live on $40k/year that includes Sheboygan WI, Abilene TX, and Sioux Falls, SD (https://www.businessinsider.com/best-american-cities-to-live-on-40000-2016-10#sheboygan-wisconsin-1).

The interactive table that allows one to sort counties by median household income is https://www.mlive.com/news/2018/12/see-map-of-all-us-counties-by-median-household-income.html 

New Mexico reports zero counties with a median household income of under $25k, but my suspicion is that has to do with the extended family that constitutes many households, particularly in poor areas.  A little playing with the cost-of-living calculator indicates:

A salary of $50k in San Francisco, CA can go down to $14k in Socorro NM, home of New Mexico Tech. (https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/socorro-nm/50000)

A salary of $50k in San Francisco can go down to $16k in Albuquerque (https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/albuquerque-nm/50000)

Illinois likewise reports zero counties with a median household income under $25k, but $50k in San Francisco can go down to:

$16k in Edwardsville (home of Southern Illinois University Edwardsville) (https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/edwardsville-il/50000)
$16k in Springfield (capital and home to several colleges) (https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/springfield-il/50000)
$13k in East St. Louis (easy drive to St. Louis with jobs) (https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/east-st.-louis-il/50000)

Idaho reports zero counties with a median household income under $25k, but $50k in San Francisco can go down to:

[url=https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/rexburg-id/50000]$16k in Rexburg, ID (home of Brigham Young University-Idaho) (https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/moscow-id/50000$17k%20in%20Moscow,%20ID%20(home%20of%20University%20of%20Idaho)%5B/url)
$14k in Pocatello, ID (home of Idaho State University) (https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/pocatello-id/50000)

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on October 20, 2019, 09:20:48 AM
Nebo, I am not seeing any caricature here, just a description of economic conditions and possibilities.  I just like Polly advocate that more people consider relocating to these towns.

I am in a depressed Rust Belt town.  $10 per hour is a bit low but there are people raising families on $15 per hour at the slaughterhouse.  At lower incomes you qualify for EIC and school lunches.   Some get by without a car.  You can get a Victorian mansion for $150K.  A modest small home can be had for $50K.   

If Podunk is offensive then I can come up with a more politically correct name such as depopulated economically marginalized micro-urban community.  DEMMUC
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on October 20, 2019, 12:25:21 PM
Potential reliance on welfare to augment one's starvation wages sorrta makes my point.

10 bucks an hour ain't getting you that 50k house neither.

Retirees often have assets well beyond current income.

Most people can't establish Depression-style victory gardens in their backyards, especially if they ain't got no backyard.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on October 21, 2019, 05:01:36 AM
Quote from: Anselm on October 20, 2019, 09:20:48 AM
Nebo, I am not seeing any caricature here, just a description of economic conditions and possibilities.  I just like Polly advocate that more people consider relocating to these towns.

I am in a depressed Rust Belt town.  $10 per hour is a bit low but there are people raising families on $15 per hour at the slaughterhouse.  At lower incomes you qualify for EIC and school lunches.   Some get by without a car.  You can get a Victorian mansion for $150K.  A modest small home can be had for $50K.   

If Podunk is offensive then I can come up with a more politically correct name such as depopulated economically marginalized micro-urban community.  DEMMUC

The issue is not the overblown notion of political correctness.  Caricature and stereotypes are simply unacceptable.   Don't duble down on  your own arrogance.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on October 21, 2019, 05:10:56 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 20, 2019, 12:25:21 PM
Potential reliance on welfare to augment one's starvation wages sorrta makes my point.

10 bucks an hour ain't getting you that 50k house neither.

Retirees often have assets well beyond current income.

Most people can't establish Depression-style victory gardens in their backyards, especially if they ain't got no backyard.

Again, I will point that that most people band together in larger family groups to share resources, as was common throughout human history.  Insisting that people move far from their kith and kin to live a completely transactional life doesn't work for many people and it can't work, as many examples in history have shown us.

One way that rural poverty looks different from urban poverty is often having a backyard in which one can grow vegetables, likely access to cutting one's own wood, and likely access to hunting/fishing/trapping to augment whatever one can raise.  The $50k house isn't purchased outright by one lone person; again, having family who can chip in means more people are supporting that house.

Having less money is less of a problem when one doesn't have to buy literally everything and is indeed living more like people did in the 1940s.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 25, 2019, 09:02:48 AM
Unrelated (directly) to above:

How it starts:

"GOSH, sir, us? Y'mean WE could do something for you? Sure, just name it, sir, anything...

You say you want us to break into the DNC offices and do...what??? break into those closed hearings, scare the witness, and stop the deposition?

SURE, sir. Wouldn't want anything to get in the way of your being re'-elected, sir.

Oh, lunch afterwards? What, that's sure be nice, sir.

Thanks, sir...."
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 14, 2020, 02:57:26 PM
I'll predict that Biden's campaign implodes as a result of the Iowa caucus results.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 14, 2020, 04:21:03 PM
Quote from: spork on January 14, 2020, 02:57:26 PM
I'll predict that Biden's campaign implodes as a result of the Iowa caucus results.

I suspect that's right, unless he wins despite having next to no ground operation in Iowa. If he wins, I kind of suspect (/fear) that everyone's going to decide to line up behind him, due to worries about a long primary.

But I don't think he'll carry it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on January 14, 2020, 04:32:57 PM
It is too early to tell, but for me, I dont know that I can vote FOR anyone this year!  Not one candidate of either party has me sold on their positions.  though I still have time as my state votes on Super Tuesday. 

At this point, while I would not vote FOR Trump, Im not sure that i could bring myself to vote AGAINST Trump if it meant voting for some of the current democratic candidates.

Maybe Blumburg will catch some steam enough to make me look into his campaign promises and the baggage he brings with his campaign. 

Otherwise Every Candidate, as far as I can see just now, has significant weaknesses in one or more areas of importance.  Maybe Im just a little late in joining the ranks of apathetic (or damned if you do, damned if you dont)  voters. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 14, 2020, 05:32:08 PM
Well, if you don't want Trump back, you need to hold your nose and vote for whatever Dem. is nominated who isn't Trump.

That is all.

Really.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 14, 2020, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: clean on January 14, 2020, 04:32:57 PM

Otherwise Every Candidate, as far as I can see just now, has significant weaknesses in one or more areas of importance.

Wait, there were candidates in the past for whom this wasn't true, as far as you're concerned?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on January 14, 2020, 06:15:15 PM
Quote
QuoteWait, there were candidates in the past for whom this wasn't true, as far as you're concerned?

Yes.
I know that I will be asked for examples. However, I refuse to provide any as I dont want to divert this into a 'get clean' thread, and dont want to dredge up the past elections for the 35+ years I could vote in the various local, state, & national elections across the four states I have lived in!   

But yes, there have been elections were both candidates were strong and good picks, and elections were there was but one clear choice (IMHO anyway), and like now it seems anyway, where there are no good choices at all. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on January 15, 2020, 03:58:05 AM
Quote from: clean on January 14, 2020, 06:15:15 PM
Quote
QuoteWait, there were candidates in the past for whom this wasn't true, as far as you're concerned?

Yes.
I know that I will be asked for examples. However, I refuse to provide any as I dont want to divert this into a 'get clean' thread, and dont want to dredge up the past elections for the 35+ years I could vote in the various local, state, & national elections across the four states I have lived in!   

But yes, there have been elections were both candidates were strong and good picks, and elections were there was but one clear choice (IMHO anyway), and like now it seems anyway, where there are no good choices at all.

Thank god for your purity.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 15, 2020, 04:10:44 AM
Quote from: clean on January 14, 2020, 06:15:15 PM
Quote
QuoteWait, there were candidates in the past for whom this wasn't true, as far as you're concerned?

Yes.
I know that I will be asked for examples. However, I refuse to provide any as I dont want to divert this into a 'get clean' thread, and dont want to dredge up the past elections for the 35+ years I could vote in the various local, state, & national elections across the four states I have lived in!   

But yes, there have been elections were both candidates were strong and good picks, and elections were there was but one clear choice (IMHO anyway), and like now it seems anyway, where there are no good choices at all.

This is not a "get 'Clean'" effort: I respect your discretion and good citizenship here.

But you do see how this leads to someone like Trump being elected, right?

Those who do not vote for his strongest, most-likely-to-win opponent, enable his election.

It's not always possible to stay untouched by distressing complications in human situations...life gets messier than that, sometimes.

_=_=_=_

In other news....so, what (or who) was the impetus behind surveillance of a duly-posted U.S. ambassador by compadres of the POTUS' "man-on-the-ground-behind-the-scenes (i.e., Mr. Guiliani's friends)?????

Was that their own little rogue plot or was someone more highly placed behind it?

And as Maddow suggested, was the "sudden pullout" of said ambassador to protect her?

But if so, then why end it by saying, essentially, in gov-speak, "You're fired..."?

More rotten Danish apples to be excavated? And by the impeachment team, or....??

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on January 15, 2020, 07:19:05 AM
My surprisingly low standard this election is "not a crook."

Which is turning into ABT (Anyone But Trump).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 15, 2020, 07:25:46 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 15, 2020, 07:19:05 AM
My surprisingly low standard this election is "not a crook."

Which is turning into ABT (Anyone But Trump).

A fascinating twist from the leadup to the 2016 election, when it was laughable to even imagine that Trump could win. Now he's impossible to beat.

(I'm definitely not a Trump fan, and since I'm a Canadian it's not my battle, but it's amazing and sad to see the Democrats so obsessed with progressivism that they can't connect with mainstream voters. Being "anti-trump" has replaced simply good governance as the goal.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 15, 2020, 07:31:53 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 15, 2020, 04:10:44 AM
Quote from: clean on January 14, 2020, 06:15:15 PM
Quote
QuoteWait, there were candidates in the past for whom this wasn't true, as far as you're concerned?

Yes.
I know that I will be asked for examples. However, I refuse to provide any as I dont want to divert this into a 'get clean' thread, and dont want to dredge up the past elections for the 35+ years I could vote in the various local, state, & national elections across the four states I have lived in!   

But yes, there have been elections were both candidates were strong and good picks, and elections were there was but one clear choice (IMHO anyway), and like now it seems anyway, where there are no good choices at all.

This is not a "get 'Clean'" effort: I respect your discretion and good citizenship here.

But you do see how this leads to someone like Trump being elected, right?

Those who do not vote for his strongest, most-likely-to-win opponent, enable his election.

It's not always possible to stay untouched by distressing complications in human situations...life gets messier than that, sometimes.

There's no one very much like Trump. But it may be that clean likes some of what Trump has been doing. If that's the case I would be interested in hearing specifics for this reason: not all of the voters who would prefer Trump to the alternative or accept his reelection without  a great deal of anguish are uneducated. But I also understand if Clean opts not to take the discussion further at this time. It can be stressful or just tiring to swim against an online tide.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 15, 2020, 09:44:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2020, 07:25:46 AM
but it's amazing and sad to see the Democrats so obsessed with progressivism that they can't connect with mainstream voters. Being "anti-trump" has replaced simply good governance as the goal.)

I'd diagnose the problem in the opposite direction, but concur with the final assessment.

FWIW, as far as I'm concerned, it's totally legitimate for people, when faced with what they take to be "lesser of two evils" situations, to refuse to participate. If we didn't have as many political options as we do here in Canada, I might not always vote, because I refuse to be complicit in enabling policies which I take to be morally wrong, or which I think do nothing substantive to address the issues we face. Certainly, if I was voting in the US and my choice was Trump or Biden, or Trump or Buttigieg, I'd opt to stay away from the polls.

To my mind, the goal can't just be to replace Trump. That's setting the bar far too low. I (for my part!) demand substantive changes in government policy. Or, I would, if I could. My partner does, anyway.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on January 15, 2020, 10:30:38 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 15, 2020, 07:31:53 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 15, 2020, 04:10:44 AM
Quote from: clean on January 14, 2020, 06:15:15 PM
Quote
QuoteWait, there were candidates in the past for whom this wasn't true, as far as you're concerned?

Yes.
I know that I will be asked for examples. However, I refuse to provide any as I dont want to divert this into a 'get clean' thread, and dont want to dredge up the past elections for the 35+ years I could vote in the various local, state, & national elections across the four states I have lived in!   

But yes, there have been elections were both candidates were strong and good picks, and elections were there was but one clear choice (IMHO anyway), and like now it seems anyway, where there are no good choices at all.

This is not a "get 'Clean'" effort: I respect your discretion and good citizenship here.

But you do see how this leads to someone like Trump being elected, right?

Those who do not vote for his strongest, most-likely-to-win opponent, enable his election.

It's not always possible to stay untouched by distressing complications in human situations...life gets messier than that, sometimes.

There's no one very much like Trump. But it may be that clean likes some of what Trump has been doing. If that's the case I would be interested in hearing specifics for this reason: not all of the voters who would prefer Trump to the alternative or accept his reelection without  a great deal of anguish are uneducated. But I also understand if Clean opts not to take the discussion further at this time. It can be stressful or just tiring to swim against an online tide.

There are two extremes in which one would choose not to vote for either candidate.

1) The voter is going to do very well under either candidate, and they have no single issue that tips them one way or another.

In 2016 this was suburban white women, who were Republicans in general for other issues (taxes, etc), had health insurance through their own or husband's employers, and either personally against abortion or not convinced that the Supreme Court would ever overturn Roe, or that it wouldn't be their problem. Because they all know a podiatrist who does extra services when one wishes to be discreet and not pass by their church friends when slipping in and out of Planned Parenthood.

2) The voter is going to do very poorly under either candidate, and they have no single issue that tips them one way or the other.

In 2016 this was voters of color. African-Americans hadn't forgotten Bill's "tough on crime" policies which ran up the incarceration rates. Latinos were not convinced that deportations were going to stop under either party. And a little voter suppression didn't hurt, either.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 15, 2020, 05:38:12 PM
WTF was on the back of Steyer's left hand in last night's debate? It was a grid with just four quadrants, and a large cross in each one.

Nobody seems to be asking this crucial question.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: namazu on January 15, 2020, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 15, 2020, 05:38:12 PM
WTF was on the back of Steyer's left hand in last night's debate? It was a grid with just four quadrants, and a large cross in each one.

Nobody seems to be asking this crucial question.
The BBC asked and answered: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51118025
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 15, 2020, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: namazu on January 15, 2020, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 15, 2020, 05:38:12 PM
WTF was on the back of Steyer's left hand in last night's debate? It was a grid with just four quadrants, and a large cross in each one.

Nobody seems to be asking this crucial question.
The BBC asked and answered: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51118025

Aha, thank you! (And thank you, BBC!)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on January 15, 2020, 07:49:22 PM
Random thought s

1.  The dems need to stop actually using the term 'socialism', which, like it or not, is a cancerous term for most Americans, and nowadays almost meaningless as well, and replace it with something that more accurately explains what their progressive economic policies would be, why they are good, and why Republicans have engineered lots of socialism for the rich policies today which are emphatically not good for the average bloke.
2. Marshy is right of course.  Emphasis on secular left social policies coupled with still not uncommon contempt for Trump country working class whites, especially evangelicals, especially in light of the sadly ongoing electoral college, is a recipe for disaster.
3.what strategies does anyone have for getting the folks I refer to above to actually consider those political facts that run contrary to the prevailing neoliberal narrative many of them have been consistently fed by various propaganda and religious sources that they regularly consume?  For instance, how to convince them that some serious public health insurance really is the best and most moral policy going forward?
4. What do you all think is the real likelihood the supreme Court will effectively reverse Roe, especially when ultimately most establishment folks in both parties really want it to continue?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on January 16, 2020, 04:25:05 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 15, 2020, 07:49:22 PM
Random thought s

I often disagree with you, but I appreciate your very thoughtful points above....Good to ponder.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 16, 2020, 05:18:57 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 15, 2020, 07:49:22 PM
Random thought s

1.  The dems need to stop actually using the term 'socialism', which, like it or not, is a cancerous term for most Americans, and nowadays almost meaningless as well, and replace it with something that more accurately explains what their progressive economic policies would be, why they are good, and why Republicans have engineered lots of socialism for the rich policies today which are emphatically not good for the average bloke.

Absolutely. As many have pointed out, what most on the American left call "socialism" isn't remotely socialism; it is basic social democratic policy. The countries they admire don't refer to themselves as "socialist", but the left would rather use a one word slogan "socialism" to contrast with "capitalism" rather than admit the nuance that doesn't fit in a tweet or on a placard. (The countries they admire are all pretty capitalistic, just with more social programs.)


Quote
2. Marshy is right of course.  Emphasis on secular left social policies coupled with still not uncommon contempt for Trump country working class whites, especially evangelicals, especially in light of the sadly ongoing electoral college, is a recipe for disaster.
3.what strategies does anyone have for getting the folks I refer to above to actually consider those political facts that run contrary to the prevailing neoliberal narrative many of them have been consistently fed by various propaganda and religious sources that they regularly consume?  For instance, how to convince them that some serious public health insurance really is the best and most moral policy going forward?

Even though I'm a Canadian, and in favour of public health insurance, having seen the tumultuous debate over Obamacare, I think realistically the most that can be achieved is much more modest than any sort of widespread (let alone universal) public healthcare.
If it is something that people can opt into, it may have a chance, especially if it (like Obamacare) makes it easier to obtain by people who don't have employer-sponsored healthcare.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on January 16, 2020, 05:52:43 AM
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-bernie-sanders-cnn-kass-20200116-avuaiaxbfvdkbb2w6y4yoiafuq-story.html

What CNN did to Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic presidential debate — stabbing him with the gender card on behalf of a weakened Elizabeth Warren — was cheap and unfair.

And it was shameful.


This is why I prefer "fake news" bloggers over CNN.  They could have spent this time talking about budgets, defense, education, healthcare, science, etc.  Instead they want to be more like The View.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 16, 2020, 06:02:04 AM
But it is important to sort out.

We already have a "lie and don't tell" figure in the White House...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on January 16, 2020, 06:24:32 AM
The NY Times is publishing a series of interviews with all the Dem candidates prior to the announcement of who they endorse. I've been working through them, and found them much more illuminating than the debates. Things I have noticed so far.
   Andrew Yang may actually have the best grasp of the underlying economic issues that are transforming our society. While I don't think he has a shot in h## at the nomination, I do think we should all pay more attention to the issues that he raises. Universal Basic income isn't the only solution to these problems, but it is an interesting idea.
   I could barely make my way though the interview with Elizabeth Warren.  She seems to be incapable to explaining any of her plans succinctly. She also has multiple plans for each problem, so I can't tell which is actually Plan A. She's also VERY argumentative, and comes across as defensive much of time- even in writing. These are HUGE problems for the general electorate. BIG weaknesses.
   I just started the one for Mayor Pete this morning, but I was impressed with how he presented his time at McKinsey. He's someone who knows how to crunch numbers and manage a database. Of course that would appeal to the academic. - I haven't finished his yet, so other issues may weigh in.
   The one I've found most convincing to date (No Uncle Joe yet), is Amy Klobuchar. He has a real knowledge of how to govern, an impressive record of getting bills passed, and a list of really realistic actions that could have real effects on America. She's the only candidate out there who has said that not every American needs to go to college, and we should better train early for jobs that don't need a 4 year degree. AMEN! I hadn't given her much thought prior to this because I find her personality, and all the jokes in the debate, off-putting.
  So I'm just waiting for the one on Uncle Joe, and need to see if they have one for Bloomberg.
   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on January 16, 2020, 06:51:46 AM
This is an interesting quiz by WaPo. Klobacher won for me, but most of the others were actually pretty close.

WaPo: Which Candidate? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/?fbclid=IwAR2OVl2L992y0WTnDhnTshJbqtRbiFNJLvWetfaUjgFOISiESfywQqkSu-k)

Great point made at the debate - the two women on stage had more political experience than all the men except Biden. Yeah, Bernie talks a lot but he's from a tiny state, and what are his legislative accomplishment?


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 16, 2020, 07:36:21 AM
Quote from: clean on January 14, 2020, 06:15:15 PM
Quote
QuoteWait, there were candidates in the past for whom this wasn't true, as far as you're concerned?

Yes.
I know that I will be asked for examples. However, I refuse to provide any as I dont want to divert this into a 'get clean' thread, and dont want to dredge up the past elections for the 35+ years I could vote in the various local, state, & national elections across the four states I have lived in!   

But yes, there have been elections were both candidates were strong and good picks, and elections were there was but one clear choice (IMHO anyway), and like now it seems anyway, where there are no good choices at all.

What clean said.  When I look back at the 2016 election I keep being reminded of Spain in 1936.  Whoever wins, society and the nation will lose.  Unfortunately it appears that 2020 will be the same.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 16, 2020, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 16, 2020, 06:02:04 AM
But it is important to sort out.

We already have a "lie and don't tell" figure in the White House...

M.

CNN had no interest in finding out. If they did, they would have asked Sanders and Warren to explain what was actually said in that conversation (and they would not have assumed, in all their questions, that Sanders is lying). The most likely explanation, to my mind, is that Sanders commented on the misogyny a female candidate will face--just like all the pundits have done for the last four years, and just like Clinton did in her book on what happened in 2016--and that Warren either (1) misunderstood what he meant as being a comment to the effect that women could never be President, or (2) has misrepresented the content of that conversation now, when it's politically expedient.

Frankly, I'm sorry to say that of those options, I think (2) is most likely. I think that for several reasons:

(1) Warren has a history of self-serving misrepresentations (e.g. saying she opposes elite fundraisers but having them herself, saying her campaign is 100% grassroots funded, claiming she's Indigenous [for 70 years!], misrepresenting her corporate law record, claiming to support Medicare for All, claiming her children went to public schools, claiming--with zero evidence--she was the first nursing mother to take the Jersey bar, taking credit for Occupy Wall Street, saying her supporters are the "most diverse" (in the last debate!), etc.). A lot of these are relatively small misrepresentations that turn on misusing quantifiers or exploiting ambiguities. But that's just like what I think most plausibly happened here, so...

(2) Warren pulled a similar trick in the last debate when she was answering (and pivoting from) this question: she said only the women onstage had defeated incumbent Republicans at any point in the last 30 years. That's false, since Sanders beat an incumbent Republican for Congress 29 years and 2 months before the debate. It's basically true, but not literally true--and it was clearly a move designed to elicit the response it did, which makes it look like Sanders doesn't believe women and cares more about tiny, unimportant details. Witness her fake-counting the years between 1990-2020. This is exactly the same kind of misrepresentation which I suspect of having happened with respect to that conversation.

(3) The Warren campaign's claim that Sanders has been attacking them for the last several weeks is total bullshit, and exactly the kind of misrepresentation that I think is at issue here. Even if Sanders personally authorized that campaign script, it merely points out differences between the candidates--which is especially relevant given that for almost a year, everyone has been saying they're basically 'identical' policy-wise (which they aren't). That's not an attack by any stretch. It's not even being especially critical.

(4) Sanders has a long and public record of saying and doing the exact opposite of what he's being accused of saying (including encouraging Warren to run in 2015, and encouraging Gabbard in 2018). People don't always practice what they preach, but I think all the evidence here indicates that we should believe Sanders does, by and large. And that motivates the conclusion that if this conversation happened, there was either a miscommunication, or it's being misrepresented. (1)-(3) have me believing it's being misrepresented for political gain.


Warren is not doing well, and hasn't been since she distanced herself from Medicare for All and abandoned the left ground to Sanders. Her move to the centre has not paid off, and it's squeezed her between Sanders and Buttigieg. This is a transparent (and desperate) attempt to move back left and try to recapture some of that support. I don't think it's a good move (I think she'd be more successful if she ate into Biden and Buttigieg at this point), but it's a rational bit of politicking. Warren has absorbed staffers from a lot of the other failed campaigns (Gillibrand, Harris, etc.--though why you'd do that is a little beyond me). This is exactly the kind of tactic those campaigns were into.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 16, 2020, 09:12:28 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 16, 2020, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 16, 2020, 06:02:04 AM
But it is important to sort out.

We already have a "lie and don't tell" figure in the White House...

M.

CNN had no interest in finding out. If they did, they would have asked Sanders and Warren to explain what was actually said in that conversation (and they would not have assumed, in all their questions, that Sanders is lying). The most likely explanation, to my mind, is that Sanders commented on the misogyny a female candidate will face--just like all the pundits have done for the last four years, and just like Clinton did in her book on what happened in 2016--and that Warren either (1) misunderstood what he meant as being a comment to the effect that women could never be President, or (2) has misrepresented the content of that conversation now, when it's politically expedient.

Frankly, I'm sorry to say that of those options, I think (2) is most likely. I think that for several reasons:

(1) Warren has a history of self-serving misrepresentations (e.g. saying she opposes elite fundraisers but having them herself, saying her campaign is 100% grassroots funded, claiming she's Indigenous [for 70 years!], misrepresenting her corporate law record, claiming to support Medicare for All, claiming her children went to public schools, claiming--with zero evidence--she was the first nursing mother to take the Jersey bar, taking credit for Occupy Wall Street, saying her supporters are the "most diverse" (in the last debate!), etc.). A lot of these are relatively small misrepresentations that turn on misusing quantifiers or exploiting ambiguities. But that's just like what I think most plausibly happened here, so...

(2) Warren pulled a similar trick in the last debate when she was answering (and pivoting from) this question: she said only the women onstage had defeated incumbent Republicans at any point in the last 30 years. That's false, since Sanders beat an incumbent Republican for Congress 29 years and 2 months before the debate. It's basically true, but not literally true--and it was clearly a move designed to elicit the response it did, which makes it look like Sanders doesn't believe women and cares more about tiny, unimportant details. Witness her fake-counting the years between 1990-2020. This is exactly the same kind of misrepresentation which I suspect of having happened with respect to that conversation.

(3) The Warren campaign's claim that Sanders has been attacking them for the last several weeks is total bullshit, and exactly the kind of misrepresentation that I think is at issue here. Even if Sanders personally authorized that campaign script, it merely points out differences between the candidates--which is especially relevant given that for almost a year, everyone has been saying they're basically 'identical' policy-wise (which they aren't). That's not an attack by any stretch. It's not even being especially critical.

(4) Sanders has a long and public record of saying and doing the exact opposite of what he's being accused of saying (including encouraging Warren to run in 2015, and encouraging Gabbard in 2018). People don't always practice what they preach, but I think all the evidence here indicates that we should believe Sanders does, by and large. And that motivates the conclusion that if this conversation happened, there was either a miscommunication, or it's being misrepresented. (1)-(3) have me believing it's being misrepresented for political gain.


Warren is not doing well, and hasn't been since she distanced herself from Medicare for All and abandoned the left ground to Sanders. Her move to the centre has not paid off, and it's squeezed her between Sanders and Buttigieg. This is a transparent (and desperate) attempt to move back left and try to recapture some of that support. I don't think it's a good move (I think she'd be more successful if she ate into Biden and Buttigieg at this point), but it's a rational bit of politicking. Warren has absorbed staffers from a lot of the other failed campaigns (Gillibrand, Harris, etc.--though why you'd do that is a little beyond me). This is exactly the kind of tactic those campaigns were into.

So, you're a misogynist?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Ruralguy on January 16, 2020, 09:45:25 AM
It might be that a gruffy guy like Sanders joked "A woman won't win because I'm going to win, and I'm a man." That could have been misinterpreted as him think that a woman *couldn't* win, even in principle.  But yeah, I'm no Sanders fan, but I'd be willing to bet that some sort of statement to this effect or the one previously stated by a poster here was mischaracterized, possibly purposefully. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 16, 2020, 10:01:04 AM
I would predict (though I'm not expert) a woman who wants to talk about patriarchy, male privilege, misogyny, mansplaining, and the like, would lose when running against a woman who mentions these things much less often. And all other qualifications being equal, I would prefer that the second woman would win.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 16, 2020, 10:01:58 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 16, 2020, 09:12:28 AM

So, you're a misogynist?

I'm a feminist. That doesn't inoculate me from error, of course--in fact, sometimes I say things that are sexist, or act in ways that are rooted in misogyny. Not often, but it does happen. And maybe that's the case here, too, although I rather doubt it.

Look, I think it's important to believe women when they talk about their experiences, and I think that belief is a useful default, especially when it comes to public revelations. I also think it's a defeasible stance, and I think that the circumstances here are sufficient to defeat it absent more significant corroboration. In particular, I think that it's clear that Warren and her campaign think they stand to gain from this accusation, and so it's significant that they're the ones who leaked it. Likewise, it's significant that Warren has a long history of misrepresenting the truth when she stands to gain politically from that misrepresentation. And it's significant that she has misrepresented the truth for political advantage (and to Sanders's detriment) not just in the last two weeks, but that she did so during the debate itself.

These are not things that are generally true of accusations of this kind (or, indeed, of the more serious ones we've become accustomed to seeing over the last four years). Those women don't just not stand to gain from their accusations, they stand to lose quite a lot (and, indeed, they have).

If we really want to get to bottom of this allegation, then someone needs to ask Warren and Sanders to report exactly what was said in this conversation, rather than vaguely gesturing to the gist of it. And as I've explained, I rather suspect that the details (as long as they're true--but I suspect their stories would basically converge here) will point to what is at best a misunderstanding. And, honestly, it would be a pretty small-potato misunderstanding, considering that it's been a favourite pastime of the punditocracy for the last five years to opine about whether the US is ready for a female President, and considering that the last female candidate attributes a major part of her loss to widespread sexism and misogyny.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 16, 2020, 10:10:05 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 16, 2020, 10:01:58 AM

If we really want to get to bottom of this allegation, then someone needs to ask Warren and Sanders to report exactly what was said in this conversation, rather than vaguely gesturing to the gist of it. And as I've explained, I rather suspect that the details (as long as they're true--but I suspect their stories would basically converge here) will point to what is at best a misunderstanding. And, honestly, it would be a pretty small-potato misunderstanding, considering that it's been a favourite pastime of the punditocracy for the last five years to opine about whether the US is ready for a female President, and considering that the last female candidate attributes a major part of her loss to widespread sexism and misogyny.

I agree with this ^^. But I meant this ironically:

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 16, 2020, 10:01:58 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 16, 2020, 09:12:28 AM

So, you're a misogynist?

I'm a feminist. That doesn't inoculate me from error, of course--in fact, sometimes I say things that are sexist, or act in ways that are rooted in misogyny. Not often, but it does happen. And maybe that's the case here, too, although I rather doubt it.


Meaning, you would have to be a misogynist to notice the things Elizabeth Warren has done and said that are not above board, then comment on them. I think writingprof knows what I mean.



Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 16, 2020, 10:13:12 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 16, 2020, 10:01:58 AM
And, honestly, it would be a pretty small-potato misunderstanding, considering that it's been a favourite pastime of the punditocracy for the last five years to opine about whether the US is ready for a female President, and considering that the last female candidate attributes a major part of her loss to widespread sexism and misogyny.

Has there ever been a candidate anywhere who has attributed a loss to their not having the leadership qualities people were looking for? As far as I know, every failed candidate ever has ascribed it to smears, misrepresentations, voter manipulation, etc.
(The number of  women didn't vote for Clinton limits the scope of the "sexism and misogyny" claim, for instance.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on January 16, 2020, 10:54:25 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 16, 2020, 10:13:12 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 16, 2020, 10:01:58 AM
And, honestly, it would be a pretty small-potato misunderstanding, considering that it's been a favourite pastime of the punditocracy for the last five years to opine about whether the US is ready for a female President, and considering that the last female candidate attributes a major part of her loss to widespread sexism and misogyny.

Has there ever been a candidate anywhere who has attributed a loss to their not having the leadership qualities people were looking for? As far as I know, every failed candidate ever has ascribed it to smears, misrepresentations, voter manipulation, etc.
(The number of  women didn't vote for Clinton limits the scope of the "sexism and misogyny" claim, for instance.)

They usually don't blame others in their concession speech.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: bioteacher on January 23, 2020, 03:28:03 PM
All I want is someone more qualified than a broken stapler that doesn't have me logging in to my computer every morning and doing a Captain Picard imitation where I bark out "Damage report" when opening my primary news sites.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 25, 2020, 04:01:32 PM
Quote from: bioteacher on January 23, 2020, 03:28:03 PM
All I want is someone more qualified than a broken stapler that doesn't have me logging in to my computer every morning and doing a Captain Picard imitation where I bark out "Damage report" when opening my primary news sites.

So, not Sanders?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 01, 2020, 03:08:27 PM
Klobuchar, Burttigieg and especially Biden are taking money from 'labor management' (union avoidance) legal firms. Is it surprising? Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders  picks up a big endorsement from the nurse's union. The guy I remember who was most antagonistic to teacher unions was Chris Christie. Even more so than Trump, perhaps. Regarding the future of collective bargaining rights, would there be any difference between another term with President Trump versus President Biden? Trump has a ruthless side in business, but also a practical one.
I suppose the growth of union avoidance firms means that union drives have been picking up steam.

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/31/joe-biden-donors-anti-union-lawyers/?fbclid=IwAR3xtHGKU5TV-oz1bPGrzdKvEF5m0kDTIFbdx4032f-yTWtsiHqxrSneF0M
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on February 01, 2020, 06:48:20 PM
In this Sunday's "Washington Post Magazine" print issue (2/2/20), there's a drawing featuring Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg walking through a cornfield. The artist's explanation is the 4 candidates emerging as the leads going into the Iowa Caucus on Fed. 3rd.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 02, 2020, 10:57:33 AM
As things stand in Iowa right now, it looks like a vote for Warren is a vote for Biden.

I really hope that's not how it plays out.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 03, 2020, 05:12:57 AM
I've been thinking that the interesting election will be in 2024.  The Republicans will be having the kind of existential crisis that the Democrats are having now. Trump is a one-off, whether you love him or hate him. Any candidate that is popular with the party establishment will have limited appeal, and anyone appealing to the fringe voters will get lots of attention but not appeal to the mainstream.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 03, 2020, 05:18:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 03, 2020, 05:12:57 AM
I've been thinking that the interesting election will be in 2024.  The Republicans will be having the kind of existential crisis that the Democrats are having now. Trump is a one-off, whether you love him or hate him. Any candidate that is popular with the party establishment will have limited appeal, and anyone appealing to the fringe voters will get lots of attention but not appeal to the mainstream.

If Trump is reelected in 2020 and his health is looks pretty good for the time being, I expect him to act to get the two term limit repealed.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 03, 2020, 06:38:12 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 03, 2020, 05:12:57 AM
I've been thinking that the interesting election will be in 2024.  The Republicans will be having the kind of existential crisis that the Democrats are having now. Trump is a one-off, whether you love him or hate him. Any candidate that is popular with the party establishment will have limited appeal, and anyone appealing to the fringe voters will get lots of attention but not appeal to the mainstream.

I wouldn't be too sure about this. While Trump is an imbecilic version of George Wallace, he has been just as successful, if not more so, at making the bigotry and willful stupidity that exists in much of U.S. society more acceptable than it used to be.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: backatit on February 03, 2020, 06:40:26 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 03, 2020, 05:18:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 03, 2020, 05:12:57 AM
I've been thinking that the interesting election will be in 2024.  The Republicans will be having the kind of existential crisis that the Democrats are having now. Trump is a one-off, whether you love him or hate him. Any candidate that is popular with the party establishment will have limited appeal, and anyone appealing to the fringe voters will get lots of attention but not appeal to the mainstream.

If Trump is reelected in 2020 and his health is looks pretty good for the time being, I expect him to act to get the two term limit repealed.

He doesn't even have to. He has versions II and III waiting in the wings...
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on February 03, 2020, 07:41:21 AM
I agree with Mahggonny. Regardless of the 2020 outcome, Trump will try to run again in 2024. He will not go quietly. And I think Don Jr. is being groomed to be his heir.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 03, 2020, 07:41:58 AM
"The Atlantic" has an interesting article on censure...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 03, 2020, 09:39:40 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on February 03, 2020, 07:41:21 AM
I agree with Mahggonny. Regardless of the 2020 outcome, Trump will try to run again in 2024. He will not go quietly. And I think Don Jr. is being groomed to be his heir.

Doesn't he hate Don Jr. and think he's pathetic?


For my part, I'm undertaking a total news blackout today, so that I can have a look at the Iowa results when I get home tonight (I assume most of the results will be in by then). It's a lot harder than it sounds, given how much of a political news junkie I am.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on February 04, 2020, 04:56:38 AM
Where are all the posts about the Iowa caucuses? Don't you all care that Trump and the Russians replaced the state's Democratic operatives with Manchurian candidates who, when activated, forget how to use an app or make a phone call?

But, seriously, let's never forget that these are the people who want to command the entire U.S. economy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 05:24:08 AM
There has been some conspiracy theory talk that the Iowa Democrats wanted Biden to win, but Sanders was ahead in the polls so ..

I absolutely do not buy that there was a specific plot to damage Sanders or promote Biden. But I think it's plausible that there was some element of collective passive aggression involved. Sanders is leading in the polls? Why bother losing sleep over whether or not all the precinct captains are trained properly or the app actual works?

Let's face it, if the Democrat leadership absolutely cared that everything went off without a hitch, they probably would have taken more care to anticipate problems, conduct better training sessions, etc. But apparently, they didn't care that much.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 04, 2020, 06:50:28 AM
A bunch of old white people and an untested  smartphone app?  What could go wrong? 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Ruralguy on February 04, 2020, 06:56:37 AM
I am trying to wrap my brain around the relevance of "white" here. I get the ageist, but at least somewhat relevant "old."
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 07:14:41 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 04, 2020, 06:56:37 AM
I am trying to wrap my brain around the relevance of "white" here. I get the ageist, but at least somewhat relevant "old."

Right. It seems that humans just have this itch to bash entire groups of people. Such a good thing that we can still bash old white men and feel good about ourselves. Otherwise what else would we do?!?!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 07:22:36 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 04, 2020, 06:56:37 AM
I am trying to wrap my brain around the relevance of "white" here. I get the ageist, but at least somewhat relevant "old."

You mean you didn't know that old, black dudes are tech wizzes?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 07:33:39 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 07:22:36 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 04, 2020, 06:56:37 AM
I am trying to wrap my brain around the relevance of "white" here. I get the ageist, but at least somewhat relevant "old."

You mean you didn't know that old, black dudes are tech wizzes?

Nah, it's the fact that tech which was developed by mostly white people was designed to exclude non-white people, so non-white people had to become extra tech-savvy to use it in order to overcome the oppression.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 04, 2020, 07:39:56 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 07:33:39 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 07:22:36 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 04, 2020, 06:56:37 AM
I am trying to wrap my brain around the relevance of "white" here. I get the ageist, but at least somewhat relevant "old."

You mean you didn't know that old, black dudes are tech wizzes?

Nah, it's the fact that tech which was developed by mostly white people was designed to exclude non-white people, so non-white people had to become extra tech-savvy to use it in order to overcome the oppression.

Has anyone designed the course about this yet? I've got some free time this weekend.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on February 04, 2020, 07:42:46 AM
Quote from: spork on February 04, 2020, 06:50:28 AM
A bunch of old white people and an untested  smartphone app?  What could go wrong?

The rubes who actually decide elections are constantly told that people "of color" are uniquely victimized by racism, but what such voters actually see is that casual racism against white people is ubiquitous and never punished.  So keep it up, Spork and friends.  There are many more Trumps where Trump came from.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 08:00:33 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 07:33:39 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 07:22:36 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 04, 2020, 06:56:37 AM
I am trying to wrap my brain around the relevance of "white" here. I get the ageist, but at least somewhat relevant "old."

You mean you didn't know that old, black dudes are tech wizzes?

Nah, it's the fact that tech which was developed by mostly white people was designed to exclude non-white people, so non-white people had to become extra tech-savvy to use it in order to overcome the oppression.

Not sure of the tone here. Hope marshwiggle is joking.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 04, 2020, 08:01:26 AM
Quote from: spork on February 04, 2020, 06:50:28 AM
A bunch of old white people and an untested  smartphone app?  What could go wrong?

Switch target groups and see what this sounds like. I know, because I was there. My roommate in college actually said this once. We were waiting in line somewhere and things were moving slowly. He said 'oh! I see what the problem is. They've got a bunch of coons working here.'

Quote from: writingprof on February 04, 2020, 07:42:46 AM
Quote from: spork on February 04, 2020, 06:50:28 AM
A bunch of old white people and an untested  smartphone app?  What could go wrong?

The rubes who actually decide elections are constantly told that people "of color" are uniquely victimized by racism, but what such voters actually see is that casual racism against white people is ubiquitous and never punished.  So keep it up, Spork and friends.  There are many more Trumps where Trump came from.

I wish they would stop. Then eventually the republicans would have to search their souls and neighborhoods for some values like civility and truth telling.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on February 04, 2020, 08:18:08 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 04, 2020, 08:01:26 AM
Quote from: writingprof on February 04, 2020, 07:42:46 AM
The rubes who actually decide elections are constantly told that people "of color" are uniquely victimized by racism, but what such voters actually see is that casual racism against white people is ubiquitous and never punished.  So keep it up, Spork and friends.  There are many more Trumps where Trump came from.

I wish they would stop. Then eventually the republicans would have to search their souls and neighborhoods for some values like civility and truth telling.

My neighborhood has plenty of civility. So do most people's. This is only one of the reasons why the "revolution" will never come.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2020, 08:30:03 AM
I think you're right, Treehugger.

If the claims I'm seeing that the Buttigieg campaign was involved in financing the app are true, then... that's deeply troubling. In general, I mean.

Also: wtf is Buttigieg doing, declaring victory wheneven his own internal polling shows he was solidly second?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 04, 2020, 08:38:35 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 07:14:41 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 04, 2020, 06:56:37 AM
I am trying to wrap my brain around the relevance of "white" here. I get the ageist, but at least somewhat relevant "old."

Right. It seems that humans just have this itch to bash entire groups of people. Such a good thing that we can still bash old white men and feel good about ourselves. Otherwise what else would we do?!?!

Ever see a 12-year old, of any racial or ethnic group, use a smartphone? Or how about someone from a non-European/non-North American country where landline telephone networks were never an intermediate technology?

Iowa is predominantly white. Demographically its population is old. People who participate in Democratic caucuses in Iowa are primarily white. And primarily from an older demographic. Building a process with a hard deadline around a technology that most users have little experience with, never were adequately trained on, and for which there is no redundancy or fail-over option is, as I said before, a recipe for disaster.

I'm white. And old. Get over yourselves.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 08:46:13 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 08:00:33 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 07:33:39 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 07:22:36 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 04, 2020, 06:56:37 AM
I am trying to wrap my brain around the relevance of "white" here. I get the ageist, but at least somewhat relevant "old."

You mean you didn't know that old, black dudes are tech wizzes?

Nah, it's the fact that tech which was developed by mostly white people was designed to exclude non-white people, so non-white people had to become extra tech-savvy to use it in order to overcome the oppression.

Not sure of the tone here. Hope marshwiggle is joking.

I hoped the "nah" would signal that. Seriously, though, the victim mentality that views everything as suspect is tiresome.

I'm left-handed, and I sometimes get frustrated with technology designed to be used right-handed. Do I think "RIGHT-HANDED ENGINEERS HATE LEFT-HANDED PEOPLE AND WANT TO DESTROY THEM!!!"?

No.

While some decisions may be intentional, e.g. "90% of the population  is right-handed, so that's who I'm designing for", but probably much of it is unintentional and simply automatically according to their own preferences with no intent to make it difficult for anyone else.

Identity politics is bad for society and a threat to democracy, since it divides people explicitly.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on February 04, 2020, 09:11:21 AM
Did everyone have to use the notorious app?  I assumed that the elderly whites would just show up and do things the traditional way and that the app was for the people who could not come to the caucus locations.  It is true that the elderly are less likely to use new technology.  My own mother refuses to learn how to use computers and smart phones.  I avoid new tech just to keep my life simple.

I can not and will never trust electronic voting technology.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: scamp on February 04, 2020, 09:21:01 AM
Quote from: Anselm on February 04, 2020, 09:11:21 AM
Did everyone have to use the notorious app?  I assumed that the elderly whites would just show up and do things the traditional way and that the app was for the people who could not come to the caucus locations.  It is true that the elderly are less likely to use new technology.  My own mother refuses to learn how to use computers and smart phones.  I avoid new tech just to keep my life simple.

I can not and will never trust electronic voting technology.

The app was for reporting results from the caucus. You could alternatively call in the results to a hotline.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2020, 09:22:05 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 08:46:13 AM

I hoped the "nah" would signal that. Seriously, though, the victim mentality that views everything as suspect is tiresome.

I'm left-handed, and I sometimes get frustrated with technology designed to be used right-handed. Do I think "RIGHT-HANDED ENGINEERS HATE LEFT-HANDED PEOPLE AND WANT TO DESTROY THEM!!!"?

No.

While some decisions may be intentional, e.g. "90% of the population  is right-handed, so that's who I'm designing for", but probably much of it is unintentional and simply automatically according to their own preferences with no intent to make it difficult for anyone else.

Identity politics is bad for society and a threat to democracy, since it divides people explicitly.

Just because the direct intention is not a discriminatory one, does not mean that the effects aren't discriminatory--or, indeed, that the action wasn't incidentally discriminatory. Environmental racism usually works this way. Take Flint's water supply, for instance. Nobody twirled their moustache and decided to switch from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department's water to the Flint River to poison Black people. They did it to reduce costs, because Flint is a poor city. They didn't decide not to install corrosion inhibitors to poison Black people, either. They did it to save $140 per day. So the direct reasons were all economic--but the effect of those decisions was that 98% of the city was exposed to elevated levels of lead, including up to 12 000 children, and 12 people died of Legionnaire's disease. And almost all of them were black and brown. And the reasons for the city's poverty are intimately intertwined with the story of race in America. And, finally, the reason the crisis went on and on and on (and possibly on until this day, although the water is supposedly back at normal lead levels now) is that Black people have to fight a lot harder to bring attention to their concerns.

And while the particulars of any one case may look like a tragic accident, the fact is that there's a pattern that exists throughout the country: people of colour in the US are more than two times more likely than white people to live without potable water and modern sanitation, they represent 56% of the people who live near toxic waste dumps, they have 95% of their claims dismissed by the EPA, they show much higher rates of exposure to harmful compounds, etc. The direct reasons are almost always economic, but when household income and race are so deeply intertwined, we shouldn't be surprised that race-based patterns emerge and shadow economic factors. It's like the gerrymandering of districts, where political discrimination is OK, racial discrimination is banned, and political discrimination in this day and age is so fine-tuned and fine-grained that it amounts to a proxy for racial discrimination.

Besides. We shouldn't accept the premise that economic discrimination is acceptable in the first place. The doctrine of double effect doesn't apply.

I'd argue the same about your handedness example. In fact, where design is concerned, it seems to me that design should be intentional, and that the needs and interests of the left-handed should be considered. And to fail to consider them seems like a moral failing to me. Maybe not a huge one, but a failing nonetheless.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 04, 2020, 09:23:31 AM
QuoteI'm white. And old. Get over yourselves.

But you've got a job. Part of my job is hustling for one. So I'm not all in on your group self-effacement.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 09:35:02 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2020, 09:22:05 AM

I'd argue the same about your handedness example. In fact, where design is concerned, it seems to me that design should be intentional, and that the needs and interests of the left-handed should be considered. And to fail to consider them seems like a moral failing to me. Maybe not a huge one, but a failing nonetheless.

"Failing to consider" is not a moral failing.

The secular left has become more puritanical than the religious right, and it's just as annoying. As the old saying goes, "Never ascribe to malice what can accurately be explained by ignorance." That makes it a lot easier to get people onside with making changes to fix things by treating them as normal, fallible human beings rather than treating them as cold heartless evil villains.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2020, 10:04:18 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 09:35:02 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2020, 09:22:05 AM

I'd argue the same about your handedness example. In fact, where design is concerned, it seems to me that design should be intentional, and that the needs and interests of the left-handed should be considered. And to fail to consider them seems like a moral failing to me. Maybe not a huge one, but a failing nonetheless.

"Failing to consider" is not a moral failing.

  • If it is in total ignorance, it's a failure of competence.
  • If it is intentional, based on economics, it's a business decision. (In many ways, a bad one, as far as I am concerned, because it's ignoring an identifiable market. But it's not a moral failing.)
  • If it is intentional, based on some dislike for left-handed people,then it is a moral failing.

The secular left has become more puritanical than the religious right, and it's just as annoying. As the old saying goes, "Never ascribe to malice what can accurately be explained by ignorance." That makes it a lot easier to get people onside with making changes to fix things by treating them as normal, fallible human beings rather than treating them as cold heartless evil villains.


Failure to consider another party's interests is not a moral failure in and of itself (and that's not at all what I said). But the failure to consider morally relevant interests is. Just what constitutes a morally relevant interest will depend on which meta-ethical frameworks you subscribe to (e.g. for a utilitarian, moral interests are determined by the capacities to suffer and be happy; for a deontologist, it will be determined by the moral law; for an ethicist of care, it will be determined by the caring relationships you are involved in, including kinship ties, and so on for the other ethical frameworks).

Ignorance can absolutely be morally vicious, even if the ignorant party did not explicitly endorse any kind of morally vicious position. That's why we think it's useful to distinguish culpable ignorance, for instance. Even the law finds it useful to distinguish between negligence and culpable negligence. (Hell, that's why Republicans are so interested in prosecuting women who have abortions.)

Where your "total ignorance" is concerned, moral viciousness could be nonexistent, accidental, or incidental. We don't need to worry about the nonexistent or accidental cases, because... well, for obvious reasons. But incidental viciousness does and should matter to us. An effect is incidental when you intend to Ψ, and Ψ-ing entails the satisfaction of the conditions for Φ (the incidental effect). In those circumstances, you don't need to know that Ψ-ing entails Φ to be properly described as (indirectly or incidentally) intending to Φ. Although again, it's useful and important to distinguish between directly and indirectly intending to Φ. So, for example, if I directly intend to raise my arm, that's an indirect attempt to send action potentials from my brain, through my nervous system, and to the motor neurons that innervate the relevant muscle fibres, resulting in the relevant muscle contractions--regardless of whether I know anything about human anatomy. It's perfectly appropriate to describe what I do as intending to do those things, even if that intention isn't directly manifested under that particular description. It's just a matter of adopting an internal vs. an external perspective.

Similarly, simply labelling something 'a business decision' doesn't insulate it from moral praise/blameworthiness. If you should have considered someone's interests but didn't (not because you hate them, but because it would have been expensive to do so), that's absolutely a moral failing. We're starting from the premise that you should have considered their interests, after all. (And again, environmental cases like Flint are clear illustrations of just this. The city had a duty towards its citizens, and by prioritizing the bottom line it failed in that duty in a thoroughly culpable manner.)

Sayings are all well and good, but they cannot be allowed to replace careful deliberation. Especially when it comes to ethics. Nor should we just rely on our intuitions to guide us.


We're getting pretty far off-topic, though. Perhaps it would be best to return to the 2020 elections.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 10:14:12 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2020, 10:04:18 AM
Similarly, simply labelling something 'a business decision' doesn't insulate it from moral praise/blameworthiness. If you should have considered someone's interests but didn't (not because you hate them, but because it would have been expensive to do so), that's absolutely a moral failing. We're starting from the premise that you should have considered their interests, after all. (And again, environmental cases like Flint are clear illustrations of just this. The city had a duty towards its citizens, and by prioritizing the bottom line it failed in that duty in a thoroughly culpable manner.)

But that's the point; Flint was responsible for providing services to its residents, including potable water. A different situation would be if residents of an apartment building in Flint wanted to sue their landlord for failing to provide safe water. Should the landlord be liable, since technically the landlord supplies water to the units?


Quote
Sayings are all well and good, but they cannot be allowed to replace careful deliberation. Especially when it comes to ethics. Nor should we just rely on our intuitions to guide us.


We're getting pretty far off-topic, though. Perhaps it would be best to return to the 2020 elections.

This is very relevant to the elections. How much damage did Hillary do to herself with the "deplorables" comment? A lot of politicians seem to miss the point that their job is to try and connect with voters, not tell them how degenerate and/or stupid they are.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2020, 10:22:10 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 10:14:12 AM

But that's the point; Flint was responsible for providing services to its residents, including potable water. A different situation would be if residents of an apartment building in Flint wanted to sue their landlord for failing to provide safe water. Should the landlord be liable, since technically the landlord supplies water to the units?

It's not the landlord's ignorance that exculpates them. It's that they did everything they needed to do (they fulfilled their obligations), including complying with local building codes, and the party responsible for failing in its moral and legal duty was the city. If, on the other hand, the landlord's buildings featured corroded lead pipes which they either didn't know about (but should have) or decided to leave be because fixing them would be too expensive, then they'd be at least partially responsible, even if the city's failure overdetermined things.

But, of course, we have to be careful here: law and morality are not one and the same. It's perfectly possible for a moral failing to be legal, or for a law to be immoral. So one's legal and moral responsibiilities may not always be one and the same.



Quote

This is very relevant to the elections. How much damage did Hillary do to herself with the "deplorables" comment? A lot of politicians seem to miss the point that their job is to try and connect with voters, not tell them how degenerate and/or stupid they are.

I'm not sure that her comment did anything like as much damage as James Comey did, for example, or not campaigning in key states like Pennsylvania and Michigan because she took them for granted, or focusing her campaign on attacking Trump's character and temperament rather than speaking to issues and selling voters on her vision for the country.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2020, 10:22:10 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 10:14:12 AM

But that's the point; Flint was responsible for providing services to its residents, including potable water. A different situation would be if residents of an apartment building in Flint wanted to sue their landlord for failing to provide safe water. Should the landlord be liable, since technically the landlord supplies water to the units?

It's not the landlord's ignorance that exculpates them. It's that they did everything they needed to do (they fulfilled their obligations), including complying with local building codes, and the party responsible for failing in its moral and legal duty was the city. If, on the other hand, the landlord's buildings featured corroded lead pipes which they either didn't know about (but should have) or decided to leave be because fixing them would be too expensive, then they'd be at least partially responsible, even if the city's failure overdetermined things.

But, of course, we have to be careful here: law and morality are not one and the same. It's perfectly possible for a moral failing to be legal, or for a law to be immoral. So one's legal and moral responsibiilities may not always be one and the same.

So should people living now be blamed for things that happened before they were born, like slavery and colonialism? What moral failing does their birth represent?

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ex_mo on February 04, 2020, 10:33:12 AM
Y'all know Hillary isn't running this time, right?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 04, 2020, 10:53:04 AM
Meanwhile, when facing a general election opponent who is a master of social media trolling and who solicits foreign hacking into opponents' campaigns, Democrats:

And we're not talking the construction of an equivalent to Amazon here. I think less than 2,000 people were supposed to download and use the app to report caucus results, which the software was supposed to tally.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2020, 11:01:10 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2020, 10:31:36 AM

So should people living now be blamed for things that happened before they were born, like slavery and colonialism? What moral failing does their birth represent?

I don't know, but I would imagine that in at least some cases, present generations bear some responsibility for the ongoing historical harms that certain communities face, especially when the present generation is still busy reaping the rewards of that historical injustice.

So, for example, I grew up on unceded land (i.e. land not covered by any treaties with the French or English crowns), and I live and work in a different unceded part of the country now. Whereas large chunks of Canada are covered by historical and modern treaties, vast swathes aren't. That's a serious (historical and ongoing) harm to the relevant indigenous communities, and I do think it means that I, as a citizen living and working on that land, bear some responsibility towards the relevant indigenous communities. I derive substantial benefits, after all, from an ongoing historical injustice. At the same time, of course, the problem is much larger than any individual, and that's why reconciliation in this country is being taken up at different institutional levels, and why the provincial and federal governments bear ultimate responsibility.

And, of course, there's a long history of our governments not honouring existing treaties, consultation processes, etc. And not just in the distant past, either. And I think that those failures on the government's part trickle down into moral duties and responsibilities on my part, as an individual. Just as I think responsibility for the Bush and Obama administrations' war crimes trickle down to individual Americans. Our representatives represent us and our interests (even when we didn't vote for them), and their crimes and misdeeds are crimes and misdeeds in which we're complicit, even if not to the same extent as they are.

And that's why they have (or: should have) such a serious duty to obtain consent from the relevant indigenous communities for major industrial or infrastructure projects that would cross or affect their land, such as the TransMountain pipeline. For my part, as an individual I'm still figuring out how to address that responsibility. I have worked to educate myself, because my education in these matters was nigh-nonexistent. I teach my students about it when it's relevant, and I've made some research-related efforts to bring indigenous perspectives to the subfield's attention. I also do what I can to support political solutions which I think will make important strides in the right direction, and to oppose those which I think won't. I plan to take some time in the nearish future to start learning a local indigenous language. That may or may not be a sufficient set of responses on my part, taking into account my situation. I don't know. I'm still thinking about it, and about what I ought to do.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: magnemite on February 04, 2020, 11:58:36 AM
Quote from: spork on February 04, 2020, 10:53:04 AM
Meanwhile, when facing a general election opponent who is a master of social media trolling and who solicits foreign hacking into opponents' campaigns, Democrats:

  • Throw money at a less-than-reputable app developer with shady ties to the DNC instead of using a competitive RFP process.
  • Give the developer two months to build the product.
  • Don't test the product for bugs before implementation.
  • Don't train users of the product, many of whom are not familiar with/don't otherwise use the technology, prior to the time the product has to be used.
  • Don't have real-time technical support in place when things go wrong.

And we're not talking the construction of an equivalent to Amazon here. I think less than 2,000 people were supposed to download and use the app to report caucus results, which the software was supposed to tally.

Yup, not ready for prime time, which is #SAD, given that this was not exactly an unscheduled and unforeseen event. If a party is going to use a caucus system to allocate delegates, it seems important to have a working system.

On the other hand, let's take a deep breath, realize that the caucus meetings happened, the results in each were tallied up, so it's just a matter of collecting and reporting those- and also keeping this in a more proper perspective, realizing that the preferences of a party members in Iowa need to be as privileged as we've set up narrative of the primaries to play out. Let's see how March 3 and March 10 unfold...
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on February 04, 2020, 02:00:30 PM
From washingtonpost.com: Live blog/updates of Iowa results
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/iowa-caucuses-2020-live-updates/2020/02/04/23561bd6-4707-11ea-bc78-8a18f7afcee7_story.html?itid=hp_rhp-bignews3_iowa-ticker%3Aprime-time%2Fpromo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/iowa-caucuses-2020-live-updates/2020/02/04/23561bd6-4707-11ea-bc78-8a18f7afcee7_story.html?itid=hp_rhp-bignews3_iowa-ticker%3Aprime-time%2Fpromo)
You can click the top banner to go to the homepage and view more content.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 02:07:21 PM
Quote from: magnemite on February 04, 2020, 11:58:36 AM
Quote from: spork on February 04, 2020, 10:53:04 AM
Meanwhile, when facing a general election opponent who is a master of social media trolling and who solicits foreign hacking into opponents' campaigns, Democrats:

  • Throw money at a less-than-reputable app developer with shady ties to the DNC instead of using a competitive RFP process.
  • Give the developer two months to build the product.
  • Don't test the product for bugs before implementation.
  • Don't train users of the product, many of whom are not familiar with/don't otherwise use the technology, prior to the time the product has to be used.
  • Don't have real-time technical support in place when things go wrong.

And we're not talking the construction of an equivalent to Amazon here. I think less than 2,000 people were supposed to download and use the app to report caucus results, which the software was supposed to tally.

Yup, not ready for prime time, which is #SAD, given that this was not exactly an unscheduled and unforeseen event. If a party is going to use a caucus system to allocate delegates, it seems important to have a working system.

On the other hand, let's take a deep breath, realize that the caucus meetings happened, the results in each were tallied up, so it's just a matter of collecting and reporting those- and also keeping this in a more proper perspective, realizing that the preferences of a party members in Iowa need to be as privileged as we've set up narrative of the primaries to play out. Let's see how March 3 and March 10 unfold...

But why even have an app at all? There were never problems in the past with reporting results. (There were problems, but not with reporting results). There are, I am betting, pretty much the same number of precincts this election cycle as the last one, so it's not like the caucuses were suddenly scaled up in a way that required automation. It seems like the app was a solution, or <cough, cough>  "solution" in search of a problem. I can't even imagine there was that much money to be made, if indeed, there were some shady connections between the app developers and the Iowa Democrats. The market was small with not a whole lot of opportunity for growth.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 04, 2020, 03:30:13 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on February 04, 2020, 02:07:21 PM
Quote from: magnemite on February 04, 2020, 11:58:36 AM
Quote from: spork on February 04, 2020, 10:53:04 AM
Meanwhile, when facing a general election opponent who is a master of social media trolling and who solicits foreign hacking into opponents' campaigns, Democrats:

  • Throw money at a less-than-reputable app developer with shady ties to the DNC instead of using a competitive RFP process.
  • Give the developer two months to build the product.
  • Don't test the product for bugs before implementation.
  • Don't train users of the product, many of whom are not familiar with/don't otherwise use the technology, prior to the time the product has to be used.
  • Don't have real-time technical support in place when things go wrong.

And we're not talking the construction of an equivalent to Amazon here. I think less than 2,000 people were supposed to download and use the app to report caucus results, which the software was supposed to tally.

Yup, not ready for prime time, which is #SAD, given that this was not exactly an unscheduled and unforeseen event. If a party is going to use a caucus system to allocate delegates, it seems important to have a working system.

On the other hand, let's take a deep breath, realize that the caucus meetings happened, the results in each were tallied up, so it's just a matter of collecting and reporting those- and also keeping this in a more proper perspective, realizing that the preferences of a party members in Iowa need to be as privileged as we've set up narrative of the primaries to play out. Let's see how March 3 and March 10 unfold...

But why even have an app at all? There were never problems in the past with reporting results. (There were problems, but not with reporting results). There are, I am betting, pretty much the same number of precincts this election cycle as the last one, so it's not like the caucuses were suddenly scaled up in a way that required automation. It seems like the app was a solution, or <cough, cough>  "solution" in search of a problem. I can't even imagine there was that much money to be made, if indeed, there were some shady connections between the app developers and the Iowa Democrats. The market was small with not a whole lot of opportunity for growth.

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-04/clinton-campaign-vets-behind-2020-iowa-caucus-app-snafu (https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-04/clinton-campaign-vets-behind-2020-iowa-caucus-app-snafu)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 06, 2020, 09:20:26 AM
So what I'm seeing at the moment, based on comparison of caucus chair results and IDP results, and other reports from the ground, is that ~1500 Bernie votes have been wrongly attributed to Deval Patrick and others, and several hundred Warren votes have been wrongly attributed to Tom Steyer.

So...
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on February 06, 2020, 12:16:05 PM
This news story came out earlier today--DNC Chair Tom Perez has called for a re-canvass in Iowa:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-chair-calls-for-recanvas-in-iowa/2020/02/06/0ec4dc4c-4906-11ea-9164-d3154ad8a5cd_story.html?itid=hp_rhp-top-table-low_iowa-dnc-1245pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans#comments-wrapper (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-chair-calls-for-recanvas-in-iowa/2020/02/06/0ec4dc4c-4906-11ea-9164-d3154ad8a5cd_story.html?itid=hp_rhp-top-table-low_iowa-dnc-1245pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans#comments-wrapper)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on February 06, 2020, 02:51:21 PM
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination

Bernie is in the lead with people wagering money on the elections on this website. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 08, 2020, 03:08:07 PM
You know... I've started thinking that the real takeaway from the Iowa debacle is that we should have been asking the IDP to show its work for the last fifty years. Instead, we've just blindly accepted their verdicts, with no way to check for ourselves.

I mean. The problem can't just be having to report the raw numbers of votes (if we can call them that). They always had to know what those numbers were, so that they could start assigning SDEs. Clearly, what's caused all the trouble here is that they can't do the math for themselves.


And that's actually a pretty astonishing revelation.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on February 08, 2020, 03:14:53 PM
QuoteI've started thinking that the real takeaway from the Iowa debacle is that we should have been asking the IDP to show its work for the last fifty years. Instead, we've just blindly accepted their verdicts, with no way to check for ourselves.

I mean. The problem can't just be having to report the raw numbers of votes (if we can call them that). They always had to know what those numbers were, so that they could start assigning SDEs. Clearly, what's caused all the trouble here is that they can't do the math for themselves.

I could clearly be wrong, but it was my impression that the final Iowa results have always been pretty easy to determine.  This time, the DNC  (or the candidates) required more information. They didnt just want the Final tabulations (one count), but the intermediate results.  (how the sausage was made)  What was the First vote (before the lower vote getting candidates were eliminated?)  Where did the voters go to when their first vote was declared un-viable?

Again, I may have misinterpreted the news, but it seems that the problem was not that the final tallies, especially in the past, are now suspect, but when asked to answer multiple questions, something failed. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 08, 2020, 03:41:34 PM
Quote from: clean on February 08, 2020, 03:14:53 PM
QuoteI've started thinking that the real takeaway from the Iowa debacle is that we should have been asking the IDP to show its work for the last fifty years. Instead, we've just blindly accepted their verdicts, with no way to check for ourselves.

I mean. The problem can't just be having to report the raw numbers of votes (if we can call them that). They always had to know what those numbers were, so that they could start assigning SDEs. Clearly, what's caused all the trouble here is that they can't do the math for themselves.

I could clearly be wrong, but it was my impression that the final Iowa results have always been pretty easy to determine.  This time, the DNC  (or the candidates) required more information. They didnt just want the Final tabulations (one count), but the intermediate results.  (how the sausage was made)  What was the First vote (before the lower vote getting candidates were eliminated?)  Where did the voters go to when their first vote was declared un-viable?

Again, I may have misinterpreted the news, but it seems that the problem was not that the final tallies, especially in the past, are now suspect, but when asked to answer multiple questions, something failed.

Maybe I've misunderstood, but wouldn't they have always had to know the "intermediate" results in order to determine the final result? This should just have been a case of collecting and preserving the same information they've always collected.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on February 08, 2020, 03:55:33 PM
QuoteMaybe I've misunderstood, but wouldn't they have always had to know the "intermediate" results in order to determine the final result? This should just have been a case of collecting and preserving the same information they've always collected.

No, IF you go to a car dealer and buy a car, does the tax collector know the different prices that you and the dealer negotiate, or just the final price that results? 

Unlike a primary where there is only one election result, in a caucus the crowds of supporters can and do change through the night. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 08, 2020, 04:16:42 PM
Quote from: clean on February 08, 2020, 03:55:33 PM
QuoteMaybe I've misunderstood, but wouldn't they have always had to know the "intermediate" results in order to determine the final result? This should just have been a case of collecting and preserving the same information they've always collected.

No, IF you go to a car dealer and buy a car, does the tax collector know the different prices that you and the dealer negotiate, or just the final price that results? 

Unlike a primary where there is only one election result, in a caucus the crowds of supporters can and do change through the night.

But you have to count them, don't you?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 08, 2020, 05:19:22 PM
Under current conditions, a different question:

Under what conditions might elections be pre-empted, cancelled, or voided?

I realize this may seem presumptive.

But the only stupid question is the one you already know the answer to, and I don't know the answer to this one.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 08, 2020, 05:23:36 PM
Quote from: mamselle on February 08, 2020, 05:19:22 PM
Under current conditions, a different question:

Under what conditions might elections be pre-empted, cancelled, or voided?

I realize this may seem presumptive.

But the only stupid question is the one you already know the answer to, and I don't know the answer to this one.

M.

Not an answer, but one of my supervisors once told me--just before I gave a presentation!--that there was no such thing as a stupid question. Only stupid answers.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on February 08, 2020, 08:14:47 PM
QuoteBut you have to count them, don't you?
No.  As I understand the caucus system, at the start of the evening everyone gathers. Then they start by saying, "everyone for Bob go to that corner, and everyone for Ellen go to that corner, eveyone for Ted over there...."  They know how many are in the room as they had to check in upon arrival. If the smallest groups are less than 15% of the number in the room, those candidates are not viable.  Those standing in the corners for nonviable candidates are courted by the bigger crowds and people shuffle about.  Only at the end do they need to count the people standing in the corners for the final, viable candidates. 
This time, the DNC or whoever, wanted to know, as I understand it, how many were in each corner initially, and ideally, where the people from the nonviable candidates went. 

SO if Ted is deemed nonviable, they wanted to know that 40% of his supporters went to Bob, while 59% became Ellen Supporters and 1% went home. 
In the past, only the final count, and not the details of how many went where were collected.  No counts of the initial conditions were created.

There are other states the caucus.  IF you have experience, please explain the process, especially IF I misunderstand the process. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 09, 2020, 04:36:58 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 08, 2020, 05:19:22 PM
Under current conditions, a different question:

Under what conditions might elections be pre-empted, cancelled, or voided?

I realize this may seem presumptive.

But the only stupid question is the one you already know the answer to, and I don't know the answer to this one.

M.

A generic answer: primary contests are controlled by the political parties that run them, so it is up to the DNC and the Iowa branch of the Democratic Party to decide whether to re-run the caucus. But that won't happen because the optics would be terrible and participation by Iowa Democrats would be close to non-existent.

Iowa contributes 49 delegates to the Democratic presidential nomination process, with only 41 pledged to specific candidates on the basis of the caucus results. This is out of a total of 3,949 total pledged delegates nationally, so numerically it's actually an insignificant. But because Americans like to delude themselves into thinking archaic traditions not reflective of the mass of the existing population are essential to "democracy," and the media needs to fill its 24-hour news cycle with pointless blather, I doubt the Democratic party's primary process is going to change meaningfully anytime soon.

Different subject, sort of -- Biden said ""This guy's not a Barack Obama!" in New Hampshire, about Buttigieg. Guess who also isn't a Barack Obama? That's the reflexive thought this comment will generate among New Hampshire primary voters.  (Disclaimer: I'm neither pro- nor anti-Buttigieg. Pretty much the same goes for Biden, though I don't think Biden is a viable candidate given politics in 2020.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 05:38:39 AM
Interested in your last thought, particularity...

Is that because of the high-level mudslinging generated by the impeachment process + the "promised"/threatened investigation now potentially in process against him and his son?

Or...??

My original question was actually less granular....is there a danger that if the polls suggest an upcoming loss for Trump he could find a way to cancel the elections entirely?

I don't think his paranoid megalomania, enabled by his rabid fan base, is incapable of it, given what we've just seen in the peremptory firing of those who testified against him...he wouldn't even listen to those who suggested it was a bad idea, and I think he's now more dangerous than ever.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Ruralguy on February 09, 2020, 07:30:20 AM
He isn't afraid of personal punishment, obviously. His own re-election, probably, but that's months off. What he doesn't care about is the Senators and Reps who will lose because of him.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 09, 2020, 09:29:14 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 05:38:39 AM
Interested in your last thought, particularity...

Is that because of the high-level mudslinging generated by the impeachment process + the "promised"/threatened investigation now potentially in process against him and his son?

Or...??


Two reasons:

1. He's damaged goods now because of Hunter, Burisma, and Trump. Burisma was obviously trying to buy political access by hiring the VP's son. Not illegal, but it was wrong and stupid for Hunter to accept the job and his father to let him accept. Joe Biden is tainted in the eyes of many of the rural white voters that the Democratic candidate most needs to attract.

2. He's never been a great candidate on the national stage -- lying about his academic record, plagiarizing a speech, talking past people in generalities in a non-inspiring manner -- but actually he's simply old. He doesn't understand the need to leverage technology into an effective ground game. And he didn't build a team capable of doing it for him. His message is "behold my call to return back to a gentler time, when things like the Internet, cell phones, climate change, and gross economic inequality didn't exist." I.e., "Make America Great Again But Without The Misogyny And Racism."

Quote

My original question was actually less granular....is there a danger that if the polls suggest an upcoming loss for Trump he could find a way to cancel the elections entirely?

I don't think his paranoid megalomania, enabled by his rabid fan base, is incapable of it, given what we've just seen in the peremptory firing of those who testified against him...he wouldn't even listen to those who suggested it was a bad idea, and I think he's now more dangerous than ever.

M.

The rural hordes will not heed any hint Trump makes at armed insurrection. If he loses the election but refuses to leave the White House because he thinks it will strengthen his brand and therefore be profitable, he'll end up getting frogmarched out and tossed on the pavement. What is more likely is even greater amounts of Russian interference with social media and attempts to hack ballot systems, to introduce as much confusion, sense of insecurity, and apathy among the U.S. public as possible -- with the goal of lessening the legitimacy and effectiveness of U.S. political institutions, to in turn weaken the U.S. internationally.

Side note: I find it dispiriting that the media has consistently depicted Biden as the white Obama for black voters. A bunch of white media celebrities speculating about a white candidate and not investigating whether black voters actually think the way the media celebrities are saying they do. I predict Biden's campaign will continue its downward spiral and that he will get crushed in South Carolina if his campaign lasts that long.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 09:52:09 AM
I've been on the fence about Biden for years because I view his Foot-in-Mouth disease (weird, worrisome gaffes) as something other than cute--but I do feel strongly that this is not the time to indulge cute, wide-eyed, eyeglass-wearing economics students (or older, more grizzled ones) in their more radical utopian hopes when faced with the lying orange grizzly bear they're going to be up against.

The nuanced arguments needed to prove or disprove specific points of democratic socialism are going to glaze over the eyes of those not already aware of and in agreement with them....and they'll go vote for the grizzly bear.

I'd like to like Warren, but can't warm to her, and wouldn't mind Buttigieg as VP but he's too wet behind the ears to be President, yet. Ditto Klobuchar.

If Romney crossed over, I'd take him in a heartbeat, but we need him where he is; same with Pelosi (I know, she's not running, but a woman can dream, can't she?). 

That leave Bloomberg--at least he has experience and isn't financially beholden--Biden--whose pull in various quarters can't be dismissed, yet (although it's weakening, and the "white Obama" thing is weird, I agree, as well as worrying)--and Clinton, if she suddenly declares, which might yet be possible. (Could Michelle run? THAT I'd like to see!)

Dunno.

That's my rundown...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on February 09, 2020, 10:05:00 AM
In 2016 I thought Sanders was just a slightly more liberal version of Trump. Both loudmouths with a lot to say, surprisingly similar things to say in many areas, but for some reason getting attention. Guess it was more entertaining than the experienced woman in the room with real solutions.

Now I see the two lightest weight, biggest blowhards in the D primary (Sanders, Buttigieg) sucking up all the oxygen while the experienced women (Warren, Klobuchar) get left behind.

The UK has a similar situation to Trump vs Sanders - Johnson vs Corbyn.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 11:11:53 AM
I'm with you on Clinton.

Warren reminds me more of Segolene Royale: strong theoretical base but no clue about how to put wheels on it and make it go. I haven't been much impressed either way in her effectiveness on the state level.

I'd say I like Sanders better than Corbyn...the latter just finds different weird things to say for effect than Johnson, whom I can't stand....

I will say Klobuchar spoke truth to power...or asked the right questions of power...when it mattered.

But I still say it was instructive that the US could both nominate and vote for a black male before it could elect a white female...the gender issue, I think, is more of a sticking point, still, than anything else (Yang might disagree, I suppose....).

So I'm being pragmatic.

Whatever will work to clear the Cheeto wrappers out of the White House is what has to move forward.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 09, 2020, 12:05:04 PM
Quote from: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 09:52:09 AM


The nuanced arguments needed to prove or disprove specific points of democratic socialism are going to glaze over the eyes of those not already aware of and in agreement with them....and they'll go vote for the grizzly bear.


One of the best things they could do to appeal to mainstream voters is to stop using the term "socialism" so glibly. Many of the policies the left likes in other countries are in places where they have never elected a "socialist" government. Many (most?) communist governements call/called themselves "socialist" to sound less authoritariian. The point is, even for people who are fairly centrist or slightly left-leaning, there are all kinds of legitimate reasons that "socialism" is not a desirable alternative to the status quo.

Their eyes aren't glazed over; they're wide open.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 09, 2020, 03:02:13 PM
The New York Times is reporting that the tally sheets used to report results in the Iowa caucuses are rife with basic math errors, but state party officials are not going to try to fix errors.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on February 09, 2020, 03:23:16 PM
Random thoughts:
1.  Warm up to Warren?  Why can't you do that?  Obviously since you too are a woman, it ain't misogyny, so why?  She is vastly more qualified than Klobuchar, and does not have the latter's very problematic record when it comes to the treatment of her Senate staffer.
2. Like it or not, we've gotta beat Drumpf, and as such, we need to face reality, namely that Bernie's socialism AND Buttigieg's homosexuality both strongly limit the overall number if voters, especially in swing States where it'll matter, who would vote for them, even if many such voters would publicly assert otherwise, a la Bradley effect, no matter how hard that might be for coastal urban and suburban secular elites to grasp.  Warren, Steyer, Yang, etc, probably have less of this sort of problem, as, yuck, likely also does Bloomberg.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 04:00:01 PM
I know, I know.

I do, and did, very much, respect her bright, strong cunning when it came to reading the Coretta Scott King passage she was barred from reading in the Senate:

   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-elizabeth-warren-barred-speaking-impugning-sen-jeff-sessions-n718166

and

   https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/jeff-merkley-mark-udall-elizabeth-warren/index.html

and the video:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8L4bGJt4a0

live.

And the full reading she gave, right afterwards, outside:

   https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/318429-warren-reads-coretta-scott-king-letter-opposing-sessions-from-outside-senate

Very proud of her.


But there's a difference between that very brave effort (and the calm way she kept insisting on her right, and really, CSKing's right, to be heard in the Senate chambers) and the day-to-day balancing of pragmatic issues and needs.

Her speeches (to me) seem to be getting more theoretical, and while I'm in favor of people knowing why they're doing what they're doing, and being able to explain it to others, it seems to me as if she's losing her way and trying to out-Bernie the Bernie-and-AOL show (which might, again, be fine in another setting, but we're in too tight a situation now, I think, to be able to indulge that level of dreaming...)

Very basic, very simple stuff is what is going to put things back in order, it seems to me, at the moment, and I worry that she's not going there.

And there has to be that nagging, irritating issue answered: Is a woman electable in this country?? (And I proudly voted for Clinton, and would again, but I'm not one of the voters who has to be wooed away from the Cheeto-consumer.

It's not about gender; opposition to a female candidate need not be about their gender, but their qualifications.

It's about electability, and exact fitness for the office. We really only get one shot at this.

It has to be absolutely right.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 09, 2020, 04:35:36 PM
Quote from: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 04:00:01 PM

And there has to be that nagging, irritating issue answered: Is a woman electable in this country?? (And I proudly voted for Clinton, and would again, but I'm not one of the voters who has to be wooed away from the Cheeto-consumer.


Are there any data on how many peoplewho were not already strong Democrat supporters voted for Clinton? What percentage of independent voters picked Clinton and what percentage picked Trump?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 06:24:22 PM
Dunno offhand, but the bigger problem there were Jill Stein and dear ol'Bernie.

I had several friends (n=6, maybe, total) who said things like, "Well, Clinton's going to win so I'm going to vote for Bernie (or Stein) since it's safe to do so."


Oops....


M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 10, 2020, 05:02:31 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 06:24:22 PM
Dunno offhand, but the bigger problem there were Jill Stein and dear ol'Bernie.

I had several friends (n=6, maybe, total) who said things like, "Well, Clinton's going to win so I'm going to vote for Bernie (or Stein) since it's safe to do so."


Oops....


M.

I'm confused; Bernie wasn't even on the ballot! (And if people were sufficiently ambivalent about Clinton to write-in, that says something in itself.)

My original point was that it's not clear to me that Clinton gained any support from voters; the people who voted for her would probably have voted for whatever Democratic candidate was on offer.

However, if that's actually the case, that overconfidence in the Democrats winning had a significant impact, then in 2020 they should have no problem beating Trump. (I'm not holding my breath.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on February 10, 2020, 06:14:38 AM
Let's do keep in mind that Hilary won more votes than 45*.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 10, 2020, 07:27:23 AM
These people exercised their right to write-in their spoiler candidate of choice.

M.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on February 10, 2020, 08:05:14 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 10, 2020, 05:02:31 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 06:24:22 PM
Dunno offhand, but the bigger problem there were Jill Stein and dear ol'Bernie.

I had several friends (n=6, maybe, total) who said things like, "Well, Clinton's going to win so I'm going to vote for Bernie (or Stein) since it's safe to do so."


Oops....


M.

I'm confused; Bernie wasn't even on the ballot! (And if people were sufficiently ambivalent about Clinton to write-in, that says something in itself.)

My original point was that it's not clear to me that Clinton gained any support from voters; the people who voted for her would probably have voted for whatever Democratic candidate was on offer.

However, if that's actually the case, that overconfidence in the Democrats winning had a significant impact, then in 2020 they should have no problem beating Trump. (I'm not holding my breath.)

There were also a lot of people who convinced themselves that Clinton and the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, so at that point a vote for Clinton validated, even rewarded the stealing.

Sanders also sounded a lot like Trump, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Obama-to-Trump switchers were one-time Sanders voters. Sanders and Trump were very much about restricting imports and immigrants, while Clinton was a (shudder) globalist.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 10, 2020, 08:07:28 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 10, 2020, 07:27:23 AM
These people exercised their right to write-in their spoiler candidate of choice.

M.

But why???? This is like the people they interviewed in the U.K. after the Brexit vote who didn't want to leave but voted for Brexit because they wanted to "send a message" to the government and were sure the "Remain" side would win anyway.

I understand "strategic" voting; i.e. voting for someone who is not your favouorite to keep the one you don't want from winning.  I also understand "voting your principles" where you feel registering your vote is more important than strategic voting. However, I don't remotely understand being OK with strategic voting but not doing it because "they're going to win anyway". That's ridiculously short-sighted and snowflakey.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on February 10, 2020, 08:39:05 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 10, 2020, 08:07:28 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 10, 2020, 07:27:23 AM
These people exercised their right to write-in their spoiler candidate of choice.

M.

But why???? This is like the people they interviewed in the U.K. after the Brexit vote who didn't want to leave but voted for Brexit because they wanted to "send a message" to the government and were sure the "Remain" side would win anyway.

I understand "strategic" voting; i.e. voting for someone who is not your favouorite to keep the one you don't want from winning.  I also understand "voting your principles" where you feel registering your vote is more important than strategic voting. However, I don't remotely understand being OK with strategic voting but not doing it because "they're going to win anyway". That's ridiculously short-sighted and snowflakey.

I suspect some of those voting patterns had to do with the fact that Hillary was expected to beat Cheeto Jesus like a rented mule.  I followed the polls in the run up to the election and Hillary was tipped to win big.  It seemed safe enough to cast a protest vote to send a message to the DNC.  Turns out it was not and people apparently lie to pollsters about what they are planning to do.  Who knew??
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on February 10, 2020, 08:45:35 AM
I heard similar things said about Nader in 2000 and 2004 as is being said about Stein in 2016.  Keep in mind that the GOP also has competition for their votes from the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, write in votes, not voting or switching to the Democratic Party.    The fact that a 3rd party can change an election outcome is precisely where their power lies and why no one is wasting their vote.  You force the two major parties to earn your vote.  I don't remember the Democrats doing a single thing to reach out to Nader and his supporters other than whine.  And yes, the DNC did screw Bernie over in several ways, most especially with the superdelegates.   Why have a primary when you really want a coronation?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: backatit on February 10, 2020, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on February 10, 2020, 08:39:05 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 10, 2020, 08:07:28 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 10, 2020, 07:27:23 AM
These people exercised their right to write-in their spoiler candidate of choice.

M.

But why???? This is like the people they interviewed in the U.K. after the Brexit vote who didn't want to leave but voted for Brexit because they wanted to "send a message" to the government and were sure the "Remain" side would win anyway.

I understand "strategic" voting; i.e. voting for someone who is not your favouorite to keep the one you don't want from winning.  I also understand "voting your principles" where you feel registering your vote is more important than strategic voting. However, I don't remotely understand being OK with strategic voting but not doing it because "they're going to win anyway". That's ridiculously short-sighted and snowflakey.

I suspect some of those voting patterns had to do with the fact that Hillary was expected to beat Cheeto Jesus like a rented mule.  I followed the polls in the run up to the election and Hillary was tipped to win big.  It seemed safe enough to cast a protest vote to send a message to the DNC.  Turns out it was not and people apparently lie to pollsters about what they are planning to do.  Who knew??

I have a really jaded view of Bernie supporters which is wholly unfairly based on an ex-wife of a good friend of mine. She is an avid Bernie supporter who calls Hillary "Killary," and is now calling Buttigeg "Pete the Cheat" and refusing to vote for him (good gracious am I glad she's an ex, but she is a member of our local horse club so I'm forced to be socially polite to her although it's straining me to the limit these days). She's equally vehement in her hatred of the Wotsit currently in charge, but that doesn't seem to matter as much to her. I really hope she's not representative - I think she's just an example of the worst sort of "Bernie Bro" that makes good copy, much like the people who attend Trump rallies.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 10, 2020, 09:51:47 AM
Iowa caucus has been a sham for decades: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/us/politics/iowa-democratic-caucuses.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/us/politics/iowa-democratic-caucuses.html).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 10, 2020, 10:21:34 AM
Quote from: clean on February 08, 2020, 08:14:47 PM

No.  As I understand the caucus system, at the start of the evening everyone gathers. Then they start by saying, "everyone for Bob go to that corner, and everyone for Ellen go to that corner, eveyone for Ted over there...."  They know how many are in the room as they had to check in upon arrival. If the smallest groups are less than 15% of the number in the room, those candidates are not viable.  Those standing in the corners for nonviable candidates are courted by the bigger crowds and people shuffle about.  Only at the end do they need to count the people standing in the corners for the final, viable candidates. 

This time, the DNC or whoever, wanted to know, as I understand it, how many were in each corner initially, and ideally, where the people from the nonviable candidates went. 

SO if Ted is deemed nonviable, they wanted to know that 40% of his supporters went to Bob, while 59% became Ellen Supporters and 1% went home. 
In the past, only the final count, and not the details of how many went where were collected.  No counts of the initial conditions were created.

There are other states the caucus.  IF you have experience, please explain the process, especially IF I misunderstand the process.

That's a great explanation, and I don't mean to be a stubborn contrarian and take away from it, but... you still have to do some counting. You need to know how many people showed up total to figure out what 15% of that is, and unless someone has a huge blowout or a catastrophic failure, you can't just eyeball the number of their supporters standing in their corner.

I can see, however, that officials wouldn't need to keep track of that count for reporting purposes. It just seems silly not to, once you're already in the business of ascertaining whether thresholds are satisfied. And it hardly seems like much of an added burden, much less a complication!

Quote from: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 05:38:39 AM

My original question was actually less granular....is there a danger that if the polls suggest an upcoming loss for Trump he could find a way to cancel the elections entirely?

I don't think his paranoid megalomania, enabled by his rabid fan base, is incapable of it, given what we've just seen in the peremptory firing of those who testified against him...he wouldn't even listen to those who suggested it was a bad idea, and I think he's now more dangerous than ever.

M.

I don't think this should be a real worry, nor do I see any evidence of it. What I do think you should worry about is elections 10, 15, 20 years down the road. There's been a significant erosion of democratic norms over the last twelve years, and you can expect it to continue. In particular, I suspect that presidential term limits will go to the chopping block soon--possibly if Trump wins again (although he's old and unhealthy and unlikely to be alive or well enough to take advantage), more likely under the next Republican or two, if they're popular enough. Another Trump term seems likely to see the end of impeachment, however.




Quote from: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 09:52:09 AM
That leave Bloomberg--at least he has experience and isn't financially beholden--Biden--whose pull in various quarters can't be dismissed, yet (although it's weakening, and the "white Obama" thing is weird, I agree, as well as worrying)--and Clinton, if she suddenly declares, which might yet be possible. (Could Michelle run? THAT I'd like to see!)


Bloomberg might just make it through Super Tuesday to a brokered convention, at which point his chances go up significantly. I think he's a recipe for an electoral trouncing, though.

For one thing, policy-wise he's going to alienate a lot of Democrats--not least because he's actually a Republican (until about a year ago, when he decided he wanted to run). Similarly, if he gets to the ticket via a brokered convention (and the party elite weighing in) rather than by dominating primaries, I can guarantee that the left will largely stay home. If it's down to Bernie vs. Bloomberg and the party decides Bloomberg while the people decide Bernie, the people will not show up for Bloomberg. And even if he can win over some Republicans (which I doubt), he can't win over that many. Just as importantly, however, he's got a lot (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/02/a-republican-plutocrat-tries-to-buy-the-democratic-nomination) of baggage in his past, and it will be trivially easy for Trump and the Republicans to make him look bad. (Note: that link is to a hit piece. That said, the things it says about Bloomberg are all true and well-documented.)



Quote from: ciao_yall on February 09, 2020, 10:05:00 AM
In 2016 I thought Sanders was just a slightly more liberal version of Trump. Both loudmouths with a lot to say, surprisingly similar things to say in many areas, but for some reason getting attention. Guess it was more entertaining than the experienced woman in the room with real solutions.

Now I see the two lightest weight, biggest blowhards in the D primary (Sanders, Buttigieg) sucking up all the oxygen while the experienced women (Warren, Klobuchar) get left behind.

The UK has a similar situation to Trump vs Sanders - Johnson vs Corbyn.

There's so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin. So I won't, except to say that Sanders is a lot more liberal than Trump, has an infinitely better and more morally-upstanding character, and is proposing perfectly substantive plans (rather than Buttigieg's empty platitudes). I'm sorry/not sorry, but if you think otherwise you're deluding yourself, and should lay off the pundit kool-aid.

You don't have to like him or his policies, and you're absolutely free to think that other candidates have better or more substantive policies. But come on.

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 09, 2020, 12:05:04 PM

One of the best things they could do to appeal to mainstream voters is to stop using the term "socialism" so glibly. Many of the policies the left likes in other countries are in places where they have never elected a "socialist" government. Many (most?) communist governements call/called themselves "socialist" to sound less authoritariian. The point is, even for people who are fairly centrist or slightly left-leaning, there are all kinds of legitimate reasons that "socialism" is not a desirable alternative to the status quo.


This is largely a response to being tarred with the "socialist" or "communist" brush. Democratic socialism is a real thing, including in our country, and it has nothing to do with authoritarianism.

Besides which, the key policies of social democrats in the US (e.g. universal healthcare) would only serve to bring the country in line with the rest of the world, including countries with very strong conservative governments.

Quote from: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 04:00:01 PM

It's about electability, and exact fitness for the office. We really only get one shot at this.

It has to be absolutely right.


Electability is not something we can eyeball, or that we should trust pundits or party machinery to tell us about. Luckily, we don't have to: we can look to the primaries, and we can look to rigorous polling data.

More importantly, however, I think your sentiment above is misplaced. It's true that you'll only get one shot at this, but the 'this' is not 'replacing Donald Trump'. Even if he wins, he will be replaced in 2024. But who and what you replace him with matters. You really do only have one shot at dealing with catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, and that window is now. You have one more shot this generation to provide adequate healthcare to the entire population (thereby remedying a huge source of income inequality and a serious contributing factor to racist racial disparities). You have one last shot to actively shore up your democratic institutions (simply having someone in power who doesn't ruffle too many institutional feathers won't cut the mustard when the next demagogue gets into office), and that shot is now.

Replacing Trump with someone who doesn't make headlines every day will make you feel better about things, but it won't actually make things any better. If you don't push for substantive change now, I don't think you'll get another shot at it for a couple generations.




Quote from: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 06:24:22 PM
Dunno offhand, but the bigger problem there were Jill Stein and dear ol'Bernie.

I had several friends (n=6, maybe, total) who said things like, "Well, Clinton's going to win so I'm going to vote for Bernie (or Stein) since it's safe to do so."


Oops....


Again, I think this is the wrong way to think about it. No politician should be able to take your vote for granted. That's what allows them to stop representing your interests. Clinton took masses of voters for granted in key states, which she then lost. And that's entirely on her.

I agree that voting for Jill Stein or writing in a candidate is a bad idea. But voters do that because the main candidates have not earned their votes, and that's a campaigning politician's job. Blaming Jill Stein voters is just offloading responsibility from Clinton and her campaign, from James Comey and his interference, etc. And that's bullshit. That election was so close (despite her crushing popular vote win) that any number of factors could have made the difference.

Quote from: ciao_yall on February 10, 2020, 08:05:14 AM

There were also a lot of people who convinced themselves that Clinton and the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, so at that point a vote for Clinton validated, even rewarded the stealing.

Sanders also sounded a lot like Trump, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Obama-to-Trump switchers were one-time Sanders voters. Sanders and Trump were very much about restricting imports and immigrants, while Clinton was a (shudder) globalist.

Some Sanders voters went for Trump, yes. Though not an enormous number of them, and it's perfectly in keeping with the number of other primary candidates' supporters who defect to the other party in the general (indeed, more Clinton 2008 voters defected to McCain than Sanders supporters defected to Trump). More Sanders supporters stayed home. But the overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton (something like 85%-90% of them).

Moreover, if you believe that a significant number of Sanders supporters voted Trump over Clinton, that should be an indication that Sanders has significant Republican appeal, which is the whole (mistaken, IMO!) reason everybody wants a moderate in the first place.

And let's be honest: Sanders campaigned hard for Clinton, and exhorted his voters to support her. In fact, Clinton's campaign asked him to campaign less hard on her behalf.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on February 10, 2020, 10:39:48 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 10, 2020, 10:21:34 AM
Sanders campaigned hard for Clinton, and exhorted his voters to support her. In fact, Clinton's campaign asked him to campaign less hard on her behalf.

Is this true? If so, she really is a bad politician.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 10, 2020, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 10, 2020, 10:21:34 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 09, 2020, 12:05:04 PM

One of the best things they could do to appeal to mainstream voters is to stop using the term "socialism" so glibly. Many of the policies the left likes in other countries are in places where they have never elected a "socialist" government. Many (most?) communist governements call/called themselves "socialist" to sound less authoritariian. The point is, even for people who are fairly centrist or slightly left-leaning, there are all kinds of legitimate reasons that "socialism" is not a desirable alternative to the status quo.


This is largely a response to being tarred with the "socialist" or "communist" brush. Democratic socialism is a real thing, including in our country, and it has nothing to do with authoritarianism.

Besides which, the key policies of social democrats in the US (e.g. universal healthcare) would only serve to bring the country in line with the rest of the world, including countries with very strong conservative governments.

This is the point. Social democratic governments rarely call themselves "socialist", and anyone who lived through much of the previous century (or studied it) knows why. Simply telling voters "Don't worry, when we say 'socialism' we mean something kinder and gentler than those 'other' versions" isn't likely to work, and for good reason.  Being clear about what limits on government control there should be in a social democratic government would be a good way to address the concerns of mainstream voters.


Quote
Quote from: mamselle on February 09, 2020, 06:24:22 PM
Dunno offhand, but the bigger problem there were Jill Stein and dear ol'Bernie.

I had several friends (n=6, maybe, total) who said things like, "Well, Clinton's going to win so I'm going to vote for Bernie (or Stein) since it's safe to do so."


Oops....


Again, I think this is the wrong way to think about it. No politician should be able to take your vote for granted. That's what allows them to stop representing your interests. Clinton took masses of voters for granted in key states, which she then lost. And that's entirely on her.

I agree that voting for Jill Stein or writing in a candidate is a bad idea. But voters do that because the main candidates have not earned their votes, and that's a campaigning politician's job. Blaming Jill Stein voters is just offloading responsibility from Clinton and her campaign, from James Comey and his interference, etc. And that's bullshit. That election was so close (despite her crushing popular vote win) that any number of factors could have made the difference.



I absolutely agree on this.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on February 10, 2020, 07:46:06 PM
Quoteand I don't mean to be a stubborn contrarian and take away from it, but... you still have to do some counting. You need to know how many people showed up total to figure out what 15% of that is, and unless someone has a huge blowout or a catastrophic failure, you can't just eyeball the number of their supporters standing in their corner.

QuoteNo.  As I understand the caucus system, at the start of the evening everyone gathers. Then they start by saying, "everyone for Bob go to that corner, and everyone for Ellen go to that corner, eveyone for Ted over there...."  They know how many are in the room as they had to check in upon arrival. If the smallest groups are less than 15% of the number in the room, those candidates are not viable.  Those standing in the corners for nonviable candidates are courted by the bigger crowds and people shuffle about.  Only at the end do they need to count the people standing in the corners for the final, viable candidates.

Quoter a catastrophic failure, you can't just eyeball the number of their

The catastrophic failures are easy, and probably not uncommon.  Someone in charge calls 'time' and that round is over and any group with less than 15%.... these are not necessarily large crowds, either.  IF there are 100 checking in, and one group has < 15 ("catastrophic failure") then those people need to find a new home with another group. 
From the videos I saw, these events are not the Fill the stadium size crowds. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on February 11, 2020, 02:19:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 10, 2020, 10:56:03 AM
Quote
Again, I think this is the wrong way to think about it. No politician should be able to take your vote for granted. That's what allows them to stop representing your interests. Clinton took masses of voters for granted in key states, which she then lost. And that's entirely on her.

I agree that voting for Jill Stein or writing in a candidate is a bad idea. But voters do that because the main candidates have not earned their votes, and that's a campaigning politician's job. Blaming Jill Stein voters is just offloading responsibility from Clinton and her campaign, from James Comey and his interference, etc. And that's bullshit. That election was so close (despite her crushing popular vote win) that any number of factors could have made the difference.



I absolutely agree on this.

We are talking 78,000 voters spread across 3 swing states. Statistically, that is rounding error. Not Jill Stein's or Spoiler-Bernie's fault at all.

Like trying to blame Ralph Nader for Gore losing. Nope, that was the whacked out voting in Florida and the Supreme Court stopping the recount. Anyone remember "Jews for Buchanan" in Palm Beach?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 11, 2020, 05:58:33 AM
Quote from: clean on February 10, 2020, 07:46:06 PM


The catastrophic failures are easy, and probably not uncommon.  Someone in charge calls 'time' and that round is over and any group with less than 15%.... these are not necessarily large crowds, either.  IF there are 100 checking in, and one group has < 15 ("catastrophic failure") then those people need to find a new home with another group. 
From the videos I saw, these events are not the Fill the stadium size crowds.

Fair enough!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on February 11, 2020, 06:30:46 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 11, 2020, 05:58:33 AM
Quote from: clean on February 10, 2020, 07:46:06 PM


The catastrophic failures are easy, and probably not uncommon.  Someone in charge calls 'time' and that round is over and any group with less than 15%.... these are not necessarily large crowds, either.  IF there are 100 checking in, and one group has < 15 ("catastrophic failure") then those people need to find a new home with another group. 
From the videos I saw, these events are not the Fill the stadium size crowds.

Fair enough!

I've caucused in two states (both have since switched to primaries, and to 100% vote by mail, which is far, far more democratic)-- the counting really isn't that hard.

Remember, this is being done at the precinct level, and precincts are generally fairly small geographic areas, and turn-out in caucuses is low (which is why they aren't very democratic). Each caucus site generally hosts multiple precincts, which usually are together for speeches by candidate supporters and other party business like the platform before splitting up to vote, so when you see photos of big crowds or lines, that's why. For the actual voting, we're generally talking way fewer than 100 people in a room, and although the precinct captain does the official counting, people in each candidate's group are also counting -- believe me, if the precinct captain makes a mistake, it is loudly corrected by those in the undercounted group (or other groups in case of an over-count), and then the count is done again until everyone agrees it is correct.

Groups that are on the edge of viability know it long before the official count starts and work frantically to get members of the obviously non-viable groups to move over. A lot of folks in obviously non-viable groups know they will be, and just want to be counted for them in the first round, with their second choice candidate already picked out for realignment.

So while caucuses are problematic because they make it hard for lots of people to participate, the actual counting part is really not the problem usually.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on February 11, 2020, 06:40:13 AM
Quote from: Puget on February 11, 2020, 06:30:46 AM
I've caucused in two states (both have since switched to primaries, and to 100% vote by mail, which is far, far more democratic).

What is the current thinking on voting by mail and ballot security? It seems like it could invite cheating in a way that in-person voting doesn't.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on February 11, 2020, 07:00:10 AM
Quote from: backatit on February 10, 2020, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on February 10, 2020, 08:39:05 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 10, 2020, 08:07:28 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 10, 2020, 07:27:23 AM
These people exercised their right to write-in their spoiler candidate of choice.

M.

But why???? This is like the people they interviewed in the U.K. after the Brexit vote who didn't want to leave but voted for Brexit because they wanted to "send a message" to the government and were sure the "Remain" side would win anyway.

I understand "strategic" voting; i.e. voting for someone who is not your favouorite to keep the one you don't want from winning.  I also understand "voting your principles" where you feel registering your vote is more important than strategic voting. However, I don't remotely understand being OK with strategic voting but not doing it because "they're going to win anyway". That's ridiculously short-sighted and snowflakey.

I suspect some of those voting patterns had to do with the fact that Hillary was expected to beat Cheeto Jesus like a rented mule.  I followed the polls in the run up to the election and Hillary was tipped to win big.  It seemed safe enough to cast a protest vote to send a message to the DNC.  Turns out it was not and people apparently lie to pollsters about what they are planning to do.  Who knew??

I have a really jaded view of Bernie supporters which is wholly unfairly based on an ex-wife of a good friend of mine. She is an avid Bernie supporter who calls Hillary "Killary," and is now calling Buttigeg "Pete the Cheat" and refusing to vote for him (good gracious am I glad she's an ex, but she is a member of our local horse club so I'm forced to be socially polite to her although it's straining me to the limit these days). She's equally vehement in her hatred of the Wotsit currently in charge, but that doesn't seem to matter as much to her. I really hope she's not representative - I think she's just an example of the worst sort of "Bernie Bro" that makes good copy, much like the people who attend Trump rallies.

I'm finding the same attitude from my local Bernie Bros.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on February 11, 2020, 07:55:59 AM
Quote from: writingprof on February 11, 2020, 06:40:13 AM
Quote from: Puget on February 11, 2020, 06:30:46 AM
I've caucused in two states (both have since switched to primaries, and to 100% vote by mail, which is far, far more democratic).

What is the current thinking on voting by mail and ballot security? It seems like it could invite cheating in a way that in-person voting doesn't.

Each ballot goes by US mail to a registered voter, who has been vetted by the usual process. Registration is encouraged by programs like driver license registration, so people are encouraged to vote.

If a ballot is lost or damaged it can be replaced, and there are records of one voter - one ballot.

They are returned by US mail to a centralized place. No need to take time off, find one's polling place, worry about the registrar getting rid of all the polling places in your area, etc.

Pretty much impossible to cheat.

Oregon does this now and has had great results.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 11, 2020, 08:06:35 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 11, 2020, 07:55:59 AM
Quote from: writingprof on February 11, 2020, 06:40:13 AM
Quote from: Puget on February 11, 2020, 06:30:46 AM
I've caucused in two states (both have since switched to primaries, and to 100% vote by mail, which is far, far more democratic).

What is the current thinking on voting by mail and ballot security? It seems like it could invite cheating in a way that in-person voting doesn't.

Each ballot goes by US mail to a registered voter, who has been vetted by the usual process. Registration is encouraged by programs like driver license registration, so people are encouraged to vote.

If a ballot is lost or damaged it can be replaced, and there are records of one voter - one ballot.

They are returned by US mail to a centralized place. No need to take time off, find one's polling place, worry about the registrar getting rid of all the polling places in your area, etc.

Pretty much impossible to cheat.



Questions:
Do they use registered mail so that there is some way to verify that the actual voter receives the ballot?
Is there some time period from when a ballot is returned before it is processed? (i.e. If a ballot was returned, and then it was reported to not have been received, would the one actually returned be unprocessed so it could be eliminated?)

"Impossible" is a very high bar to achieve.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on February 11, 2020, 08:55:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 11, 2020, 08:06:35 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 11, 2020, 07:55:59 AM
Quote from: writingprof on February 11, 2020, 06:40:13 AM
Quote from: Puget on February 11, 2020, 06:30:46 AM
I've caucused in two states (both have since switched to primaries, and to 100% vote by mail, which is far, far more democratic).

What is the current thinking on voting by mail and ballot security? It seems like it could invite cheating in a way that in-person voting doesn't.



Each ballot goes by US mail to a registered voter, who has been vetted by the usual process. Registration is encouraged by programs like driver license registration, so people are encouraged to vote.

If a ballot is lost or damaged it can be replaced, and there are records of one voter - one ballot.

They are returned by US mail to a centralized place. No need to take time off, find one's polling place, worry about the registrar getting rid of all the polling places in your area, etc.

Pretty much impossible to cheat.



Questions:
Do they use registered mail so that there is some way to verify that the actual voter receives the ballot?
Is there some time period from when a ballot is returned before it is processed? (i.e. If a ballot was returned, and then it was reported to not have been received, would the one actually returned be unprocessed so it could be eliminated?)

"Impossible" is a very high bar to achieve.


Not registered mail, but the ballot goes into a security envelope, which then goes into a numbered outer envelope which is signed and dated by the voter. The signature is checked against the signature on file for that voter, and the number of the envelope is checked against the number sent to that voter. If they match, the voter is recorded as having voted, the inner security envelop with the ballot is removed and separated from the outer envelop (to preserve the secret ballot), and then the ballots are removed and counted the same as usual (generally these are optical scan, no chads involved). If a replacement ballot is requested the old number envelop is marked as voided and would not be counted if it did appear. As a voter, you can check to see if your ballot was received and accepted. So the whole thing is very secure while making it easy for everyone to participate.

I now live in a state that requires in person voting, and I miss vote by mail. Especially when there are many referendums its nice to be able to slowly fill it out as you do your research on each.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 11, 2020, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: Puget on February 11, 2020, 08:55:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 11, 2020, 08:06:35 AM


Questions:
Do they use registered mail so that there is some way to verify that the actual voter receives the ballot?
Is there some time period from when a ballot is returned before it is processed? (i.e. If a ballot was returned, and then it was reported to not have been received, would the one actually returned be unprocessed so it could be eliminated?)

"Impossible" is a very high bar to achieve.


Not registered mail, but the ballot goes into a security envelope, which then goes into a numbered outer envelope which is signed and dated by the voter. The signature is checked against the signature on file for that voter, and the number of the envelope is checked against the number sent to that voter. If they match, the voter is recorded as having voted, the inner security envelop with the ballot is removed and separated from the outer envelop (to preserve the secret ballot), and then the ballots are removed and counted the same as usual (generally these are optical scan, no chads involved). If a replacement ballot is requested the old number envelop is marked as voided and would not be counted if it did appear. As a voter, you can check to see if your ballot was received and accepted. So the whole thing is very secure while making it easy for everyone to participate.

I now live in a state that requires in person voting, and I miss vote by mail. Especially when there are many referendums its nice to be able to slowly fill it out as you do your research on each.

Thanks, that was really helpful.

The vector for fraud that seems most possible this way is someone basically stealing the vote from a neighbour or relative, such as someone with dementia. As far as I know, you couldn't accompany an elderly relative into a voting booth, but it seems you could vote "for them" this way and go completely undetected.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on February 11, 2020, 11:18:25 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 11, 2020, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: Puget on February 11, 2020, 08:55:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 11, 2020, 08:06:35 AM


Questions:
Do they use registered mail so that there is some way to verify that the actual voter receives the ballot?
Is there some time period from when a ballot is returned before it is processed? (i.e. If a ballot was returned, and then it was reported to not have been received, would the one actually returned be unprocessed so it could be eliminated?)

"Impossible" is a very high bar to achieve.


Not registered mail, but the ballot goes into a security envelope, which then goes into a numbered outer envelope which is signed and dated by the voter. The signature is checked against the signature on file for that voter, and the number of the envelope is checked against the number sent to that voter. If they match, the voter is recorded as having voted, the inner security envelop with the ballot is removed and separated from the outer envelop (to preserve the secret ballot), and then the ballots are removed and counted the same as usual (generally these are optical scan, no chads involved). If a replacement ballot is requested the old number envelop is marked as voided and would not be counted if it did appear. As a voter, you can check to see if your ballot was received and accepted. So the whole thing is very secure while making it easy for everyone to participate.

I now live in a state that requires in person voting, and I miss vote by mail. Especially when there are many referendums its nice to be able to slowly fill it out as you do your research on each.

Thanks, that was really helpful.

The vector for fraud that seems most possible this way is someone basically stealing the vote from a neighbour or relative, such as someone with dementia. As far as I know, you couldn't accompany an elderly relative into a voting booth, but it seems you could vote "for them" this way and go completely undetected.

You can actually, at least in many states-- anyone is allowed to have someone help them vote if they need assistance. So for example someone with visual or motor impairments can ask a poll worker for help, but they can also elect to have a friend or relative help them. As long as coercion isn't suspected it is OK.

Also, I don't see how this would be more likely with mail-in ballots-- the voter still has to sign and have their signature matched to the voting roles. If they can't physically sign due to a disability there is a whole procedure for getting that documented and alternative forms of verification.

At any rate, voter fraud has been repeatedly demonstrated be a non-issue-- there are vanishingly few non-eligible voters attempting to vote, in fact almost no documented cases. The problem is too little participation, not too much.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: magnemite on February 11, 2020, 11:29:09 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 11, 2020, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: Puget on February 11, 2020, 08:55:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 11, 2020, 08:06:35 AM


Questions:
Do they use registered mail so that there is some way to verify that the actual voter receives the ballot?
Is there some time period from when a ballot is returned before it is processed? (i.e. If a ballot was returned, and then it was reported to not have been received, would the one actually returned be unprocessed so it could be eliminated?)

"Impossible" is a very high bar to achieve.


Not registered mail, but the ballot goes into a security envelope, which then goes into a numbered outer envelope which is signed and dated by the voter. The signature is checked against the signature on file for that voter, and the number of the envelope is checked against the number sent to that voter. If they match, the voter is recorded as having voted, the inner security envelop with the ballot is removed and separated from the outer envelop (to preserve the secret ballot), and then the ballots are removed and counted the same as usual (generally these are optical scan, no chads involved). If a replacement ballot is requested the old number envelop is marked as voided and would not be counted if it did appear. As a voter, you can check to see if your ballot was received and accepted. So the whole thing is very secure while making it easy for everyone to participate.

I now live in a state that requires in person voting, and I miss vote by mail. Especially when there are many referendums its nice to be able to slowly fill it out as you do your research on each.

Thanks, that was really helpful.

The vector for fraud that seems most possible this way is someone basically stealing the vote from a neighbour or relative, such as someone with dementia. As far as I know, you couldn't accompany an elderly relative into a voting booth, but it seems you could vote "for them" this way and go completely undetected.

Yes, it is possible that anyone with access to the person's mail could fill out the ballot. There still needs to be a signature, and that will be manually checked, and this is a serious, bona-fide check (as I discovered when I was too hasty in scrawling my signature). You can also, but are not required to, supply an email or phone number for the county auditor to call/contact you if there is a question. Finally, you can look up your name on the county web site to verify that you have voted, which also indicates if your ballot was accepted or not. This way, if you send in your ballot a few days early, you can see if there has been an issue, and ask to have that looked at.

Vote by mail is certainly not perfect, but it is less expensive (no need to have voting devices all over, to have polling places and workers), can be more easily secured (the vote counting machines can be (and are, in Pokemon State) air-gapped (sorry, Russians!), have a paper ballot as record, and eliminate nearly all of the voting access/restriction shenanigans that nefarious political parties favor to discourage folks from voting. The way our state runs these, you get your ballot two-three weeks before the election, and all you need to do is either get it in the mail, or drop it in an official drop box, by the end of the election day.

Two downsides to point out. The most serious is you need a mailing address, and I would be very interested to know to what extent that requirement is, or is not, a barrier to voting. The other is a media/cultural issue- you do not often have the final result for a week or so after the election (if the vote is close), because the mail-related deadline is a post-mark on election day (not receipt of the ballot by election day). This is an important point for citizens serving overseas, college students who go to college out of state (and do not register there)- it is important to make sure their vote counts, so the election-day post-mark deadline is by far the fairest. But, every election, there is a bit of whining about not having the result NOW!. To which I say, chill.

So, vote by mail should be the thing, nationwide.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 11, 2020, 05:41:52 PM
Quote from: spork on February 09, 2020, 09:29:14 AM

[. . .]

I predict Biden's campaign will continue its downward spiral and that he will get crushed in South Carolina if his campaign lasts that long.

I am going to continue with this prediction.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 12, 2020, 07:08:24 AM
Hmmm...Klobuchar?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on February 12, 2020, 07:56:35 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 12, 2020, 07:08:24 AM
Hmmm...Klobuchar?

M.

No. She thinks that Democrats who don't wish to dismember babies might have a place in the party.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: magnemite on February 12, 2020, 11:08:44 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 12, 2020, 07:08:24 AM
Hmmm...Klobuchar?

M.

Yes!

Biden looks to continue the downward spiral, and I think Bernie is not ideal for several reasons (and being 78 is one of them). Not sure we're ready to believe Mayor Pete is really ready, so that means Elizabeth, or Amy, and I'm going to start rooting for Amy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 12, 2020, 12:28:08 PM
Klobuchar is at least honest about not wanting people to have things like health care. I can accept her as the "moderate" candidate in a way that I could never accept Biden or Buttigieg, although I also think it would be a pretty disastrous nomination (because I think a win would be extremely difficult for her, but also because I think she'd effectively squander a win and set big, structural changes back another decade or more).

The real question for Klobuchar is whether she can start picking up donors and volunteers in NV and SC, while it looks like she has momentum. I'm not sure about that, but we'll see.

My guess is that Bloomberg chokes out whatever's left of the moderate field on Super Tuesday. Although why everybody seems to want to keep playing moderate-candidate-roulette is beyond me. Frankly, I'd vastly prefer Klobuchar and her nobody-gets-anything-nice policies to him, his vicious policies, and his anti-democratic attempts to buy the nomination.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on February 12, 2020, 01:17:35 PM
Quote from: mamselle on February 12, 2020, 07:08:24 AM
Hmmm...Klobuchar?

M.

I told friends of mine last summer that she was the dark horse to watch out for.  She is the one saying that she can't promise everyone the Moon.  Whether or not she is correct, that makes her more likable to the wealthy party donors.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on February 12, 2020, 01:28:12 PM
The Mayor Pete Platitude Generator . . .

http://www.mayopete.io/

. . . my god. 

"The shape of our Federal income tax is the Medicare for all who want it that affects every other Medicare for all who want it."

Et cetera. Forever. I could play all day.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on February 12, 2020, 01:31:33 PM
Walking to my car this afternoon, a full-sized pickup truck drove by.  It was flying 2 huge MAGA/Trump 2020 banners and the occupants were yelling pro-Trumpy things out the window.

Somebody upthread (I think it was this thread) noted that an acquaintance on the Democratic side was a confirmed Bernie Bro-ette and claimed she could never vote for "Killary" or whatever pejorative she used to describe Mayor Pete.

Lord help us all.  The idiots in both parties have captured the democratic process and anybody who is willing to at least consider that the other side is not made up entirely of homicidal lunatics bent on destroying the country has become the enemy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 12, 2020, 07:00:04 PM
It was a lot like that in the 60s-70s, though, too.

Some of my sang-froid comes from the actual "been there, seen that" experiences, I guess.

It's interesting being on the other side this time around.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 13, 2020, 05:05:59 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on February 12, 2020, 01:31:33 PM
Lord help us all.  The idiots in both parties have captured the democratic process and anybody who is willing to at least consider that the other side is not made up entirely of homicidal lunatics bent on destroying the country has become the enemy.

Preach it! And the consequence of that is that any moderate, rational policy ideas that actually resonate with a lot of mainstream voters will get shot down in flames by the zealots on both ends. (And in the media pandering to each side as well.)


Interesting side note from a CBC article (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/sanders-bloomberg-primary-newhampshire-1.5460655):
Quote
A Gallup poll released Tuesday shows that of a range of possible presidential characteristics — race, religion, age — only socialism is a turn-off for a majority of Americans. Just 45 per cent say they could support a socialist for president. Even atheists do better at 60 per cent.
(emphasis added)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 13, 2020, 08:01:19 AM
Trump won 2016 with 46% of the vote; Clinton had 48%. 45% can absolutely carry you over the finish line, especially when your party is whipping up support and drumming out turnout. Hell, you're Canadian: 30-33% is all it takes here!

Besides which, I'm not sure how much we should read into poll anyway. It's asking an abstract question, rather than the concrete question you're using it to inform. And the question it's asking is about supporting someone who's your party's nominee and ticks the relevant box, so there's no surprise that Republicans wouldn't want a socialist nominee (17%); Democrats, by contrast, are pretty OK with it (76%). Independents are pretty evenly split (45%). Here's the thing, though: while we know Americans don't trust the 'socialist' label, we also know they overwhelmingly favour socialist policies when they're presented to them independently.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 13, 2020, 08:20:20 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 13, 2020, 08:01:19 AM
Trump won 2016 with 46% of the vote; Clinton had 48%. 45% can absolutely carry you over the finish line, especially when your party is whipping up support and drumming out turnout. Hell, you're Canadian: 30-33% is all it takes here!

Besides which, I'm not sure how much we should read into poll anyway. It's asking an abstract question, rather than the concrete question you're using it to inform. And the question it's asking is about supporting someone who's your party's nominee and ticks the relevant box, so there's no surprise that Republicans wouldn't want a socialist nominee (17%); Democrats, by contrast, are pretty OK with it (76%). Independents are pretty evenly split (45%). Here's the thing, though: while we know Americans don't trust the 'socialist' label, we also know they overwhelmingly favour socialist policies when they're presented to them independently.

Exactly. So stop saying "socialist" and say "social democrat" instead! Why alienate potential allies by using a term they find offensive when you can use an inoffensive term and get them to listen to your policy ideas which they will probably support??!!

For people who are, in theory, trying to win votes, they seem pretty cavalier about blowing off so many. (AND these are people who are upset because they CAME SO CLOSE last time.  So again, why risk that AGAIN just by using stupid language??!!)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on February 13, 2020, 09:06:44 AM
Marshwiggle, my suggestion is that they just start calling them democratic policies. Remind everyone that it's the DNC that brought you Social Security and Medicare. Right now the idea of doing much anything "for the common good" is likely to get gaslit. So just avoid it entirely and stay on brand.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 13, 2020, 09:26:04 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on February 13, 2020, 09:06:44 AM
Marshwiggle, my suggestion is that they just start calling them democratic policies. Remind everyone that it's the DNC that brought you Social Security and Medicare. Right now the idea of doing much anything "for the common good" is likely to get gaslit. So just avoid it entirely and stay on brand.

With identity politics, it's not clear that there is such a thing as "common good". Anything which claims to benefit "everyone" will therefore benefit both "victims" and "oppressors", and thus be unacceptable.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Myword on February 17, 2020, 07:25:19 AM
How about Nancy Pelosi for president?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 17, 2020, 08:29:10 AM
I've been saying that.

In a heartbeat.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 17, 2020, 08:35:10 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 13, 2020, 09:26:04 AM


With identity politics, it's not clear that there is such a thing as "common good". Anything which claims to benefit "everyone" will therefore benefit both "victims" and "oppressors", and thus be unacceptable.

You've got that wrong. It's the centrists in the race who are complaining about universalist policies. Free college? God forbid that a millionaire who now has to pay a lot more in taxes to support the program should also be able to send their children to college for free! Much better to tax him less and employ thousands of bureaucrats to apply onerous, inscrutable, and often unfair means-testing! Healthcare for everyone? But what about all those fancy healthcare plans which you won't need (or be able) to buy any more? It would be better to have an insolvent option you could buy into, whose network of coverage would be shittier, whose bargaining power would be nil, and which would re-introduce an individual mandate--costing up to $7000!

Quote from: Myword on February 17, 2020, 07:25:19 AM
How about Nancy Pelosi for president?

I don't think that politicians who are less popular than Clinton are a great idea. Nor is it a good idea to drop in someone who hasn't participated at all in the race.

Maybe I'm wrong, and she's marginally more popular than Clinton. But parachuting her in would be a cataclysmic mistake. Almost as bad as letting Bloomberg buy the nomination.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 17, 2020, 10:35:26 AM
Well, I do agree with the optics at this point.

But she's shown the most savvy, the most awareness of policy and the most willingness to speak truth to (idiotic) power.

To the degree it is a popularity contest, yeah, I suppose so.

But she has the governmental chops to do some good in the world.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apostrophe on February 17, 2020, 11:09:23 AM
Pelosi seems to be very effective at the job she has, as is McConnell from a certain point of view.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 17, 2020, 08:35:10 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 13, 2020, 09:26:04 AM


With identity politics, it's not clear that there is such a thing as "common good". Anything which claims to benefit "everyone" will therefore benefit both "victims" and "oppressors", and thus be unacceptable.

You've got that wrong. It's the centrists in the race who are complaining about universalist policies. Free college? God forbid that a millionaire who now has to pay a lot more in taxes to support the program should also be able to send their children to college for free! Much better to tax him less and employ thousands of bureaucrats to apply onerous, inscrutable, and often unfair means-testing! Healthcare for everyone? But what about all those fancy healthcare plans which you won't need (or be able) to buy any more? It would be better to have an insolvent option you could buy into, whose network of coverage would be shittier, whose bargaining power would be nil, and which would re-introduce an individual mandate--costing up to $7000!

I enjoyed that, heh heh.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 18, 2020, 05:06:20 AM
"Political correctness functions as an emergent system that can push new ideas even when few people actually believe in them."   and

'"Brexit-supporting Paul Embery, for instance, was kicked out of the Fire Brigades Union for criticizing the union's position on Brexit. This, they alleged, made him an accomplice of the "nationalist Right" and thus a "disgrace to the traditions of the Labour movement." No wonder few on the Left are willing to move right on culture.'

https://www.lawliberty.org/2020/02/13/why-the-left-is-losing/
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 06:58:40 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 17, 2020, 08:35:10 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 13, 2020, 09:26:04 AM


With identity politics, it's not clear that there is such a thing as "common good". Anything which claims to benefit "everyone" will therefore benefit both "victims" and "oppressors", and thus be unacceptable.

You've got that wrong. It's the centrists in the race who are complaining about universalist policies. Free college? God forbid that a millionaire who now has to pay a lot more in taxes to support the program should also be able to send their children to college for free!

There are about 17 million students enrolled in college in the U.S., according to Google. So, if each student pays about $10k per year, that works out to and annual cost of 170 BILLION dollars a year. That works out to a tax increase of about $500 per person. Do you really think that's possible by only increasing taxes for "millionaires"? (And if so, do you think sending their own kids to college free will remotely pay for that????)

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 09:07:09 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 06:58:40 AM


There are about 17 million students enrolled in college in the U.S., according to Google. So, if each student pays about $10k per year, that works out to and annual cost of 170 BILLION dollars a year. That works out to a tax increase of about $500 per person. Do you really think that's possible by only increasing taxes for "millionaires"? (And if so, do you think sending their own kids to college free will remotely pay for that????)

If I have a choice between paying $500 more in taxes and paying $10 000 a year in tuition for four years, obviously the tax increase is the rational choice.

Or: if all 18.6 million American millionaires paid $9700, then that's your $180 biliion right there.


But remember, these plans also explicitly aim to reduce tuition and fees, just like M4A and per-unit pricing. And IIRC, the plans are to make public institutions tuition-free (possibly only in-state tuition? I don't recall, and it probably depends on whose plan we're talking about), which brings the average tuition cost down significantly.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 09:23:02 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 09:07:09 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 06:58:40 AM


There are about 17 million students enrolled in college in the U.S., according to Google. So, if each student pays about $10k per year, that works out to and annual cost of 170 BILLION dollars a year. That works out to a tax increase of about $500 per person. Do you really think that's possible by only increasing taxes for "millionaires"? (And if so, do you think sending their own kids to college free will remotely pay for that????)

If I have a choice between paying $500 more in taxes and paying $10 000 a year in tuition for four years, obviously the tax increase is the rational choice.

That's $500 for everyone for life. People earning minimum wage probably won't be keen on $500 extra in taxes.

Quote
Or: if all 18.6 million American millionaires paid $9700, then that's your $180 biliion right there.

How many of those "millionaires" are retired people with less than 5 million that has to cover all of their expenses including care for another 30 or 40 years potentially? $10000 a year extra in taxes for them would be very problematic.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 18, 2020, 09:34:44 AM
The average U.S. voter is far more concerned about things they already have being taken away than possibly getting things they don't have now. Especially if the latter means immigrants and poor people also getting those things.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 09:38:39 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 09:23:02 AM

That's $500 for everyone for life. People earning minimum wage probably won't be keen on $500 extra in taxes.


Which, as you well know, they wouldn't have to pay. Nobody who's advocating for free college is also saying a flat tax is needed to pay for it.

It's interesting, however, that some government activities never need to be financially accountable--only benefits (especially universal ones) do. If the US hadn't invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, that's $2.5ish TRILLION that could have been used for education or healthcare. How was that money raised?


Quote

How many of those "millionaires" are retired people with less than 5 million that has to cover all of their expenses including care for another 30 or 40 years potentially? $10000 a year extra in taxes for them would be very problematic.

Cry me a river and work until 65-75 like the rest of us, who then make do with meagre payments from investments, social security, and employer pensions (if we get them). If you have $2.5 mil socked away earning 2% interest, that still leaves you with $40k a year just from the interest. Plus your pension, etc.

But it's silly for us to just postulate wildly. Let's pick a plan and look at its costing mechanisms instead.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 09:47:53 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 09:38:39 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 09:23:02 AM

That's $500 for everyone for life. People earning minimum wage probably won't be keen on $500 extra in taxes.


Which, as you well know, they wouldn't have to pay. Nobody who's advocating for free college is also saying a flat tax is needed to pay for it.

It's interesting, however, that some government activities never need to be financially accountable--only benefits (especially universal ones) do. If the US hadn't invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, that's $2.5ish TRILLION that could have been used for education or healthcare. How was that money raised?


Quote

How many of those "millionaires" are retired people with less than 5 million that has to cover all of their expenses including care for another 30 or 40 years potentially? $10000 a year extra in taxes for them would be very problematic.

Cry me a river and work until 65-75 like the rest of us, who then make do with meagre payments from investments, social security, and employer pensions (if we get them). If you have $2.5 mil socked away earning 2% interest, that still leaves you with $40k a year just from the interest. Plus your pension, etc.

A decent retirement residence (WITHOUT nursing care) runs $5k per MONTH around here. Any care needed on top of that could multiply that number.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 10:00:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 09:47:53 AM

A decent retirement residence (WITHOUT nursing care) runs $5k per MONTH around here. Any care needed on top of that could multiply that number.

Which is why you avoid going into for-profit elder care for as long as you possibly can (or: at all, if you can get into a government care facility). But the point is that you don't spend 30-40 years in there. And if you have $1 mil in savings, or earn more than 2% interest on your money, or get a pension/social security (or CPP) or whatever on top of it, you're more than good to go. With a million dollars, you're good to go for 16 years at $5k a month.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on February 18, 2020, 11:46:17 AM
QuoteCry me a river and work until 65-75 like the rest of us, who then make do with meagre payments from investments, social security, and employer pensions (if we get them). If you have $2.5 mil socked away earning 2% interest, that still leaves you with $40k a year just from the interest. Plus your pension, etc.

But it's silly for us to just postulate wildly. Let's pick a plan and look at its costing mechanisms instead.

I am one of the new 401K (or 403b in my case) millionaires.  I have no pension of any kind.  What is in my account is all that I will have to live on for the rest of my life plus the life of my bride to be (10 years younger than I).  Further, my 403b account is far and above the largest asset I have.  Adding $10000 to my tax bill is a huge percentage increase in my tax rate, not to mention a huge increase in the actual tax bill. 

For someone earning $50,000, taxing 10K is already a 20% tax... on 50 Fucking K!!  I suppose that you will still tax them for their share of state and federal income taxex, not to mention sales and property taxes, otherwise who will you tax to educate the primary school aged children? 

Wealth and Income are not the same thing!  Would you argue that  anyone else living on 50K pay 20% of their income to educate other's children? 

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 11:58:51 AM
Quote from: clean on February 18, 2020, 11:46:17 AM
QuoteCry me a river and work until 65-75 like the rest of us, who then make do with meagre payments from investments, social security, and employer pensions (if we get them). If you have $2.5 mil socked away earning 2% interest, that still leaves you with $40k a year just from the interest. Plus your pension, etc.

But it's silly for us to just postulate wildly. Let's pick a plan and look at its costing mechanisms instead.

I am one of the new 401K (or 403b in my case) millionaires.  I have no pension of any kind.  What is in my account is all that I will have to live on for the rest of my life plus the life of my bride to be (10 years younger than I).  Further, my 403b account is far and above the largest asset I have.  Adding $10000 to my tax bill is a huge percentage increase in my tax rate, not to mention a huge increase in the actual tax bill. 

For someone earning $50,000, taxing 10K is already a 20% tax... on 50 Fucking K!!  I suppose that you will still tax them for their share of state and federal income taxex, not to mention sales and property taxes, otherwise who will you tax to educate the primary school aged children? 

Wealth and Income are not the same thing!  Would you argue that  anyone else living on 50K pay 20% of their income to educate other's children?

You're right, wealth and income are separate. But if you have accumulated principle of $1 mil (presumably in addition to a home!), and you're earning $50k interest just by having it sit in a bank account, then I'm not at all worried about your retirement. I'd be even less worried about you in a country with a robust social safety net that included universal healthcare and elder care, as some candidates are proposing. All my worry is taken up by the hundreds of millions of people who are worse off than you.

And again, let's be clear. We're not discussing any actual plan. We're discussing numbers pulled out of the air. I'm not an actuary or an economist. I have no idea what the best way of funding the plan is. I'm simply pointing out that even with our magic air-numbers, it's doable. Smart people with experience and the appropriate training can hammer out details which will be broadly workable and will fairly distribute both the benefits and the costs. In particular, they can tell us how to fairly scale up so that the 1.3 million decamillionaires contribute more than the mere millionaires.

Under the current system, the costs are mostly externalized or offloaded onto the people least able to afford them. And that's a  recipe for misery.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on February 18, 2020, 12:18:03 PM
quote]Cry me a river and work until 65-75 like the rest of us, who then make do with meagre payments from investments, social security, and employer pensions[/quote]

I have saved and saved so that I do NOT have to "work until 65-75 like the rest of us".  Isnt it interesting that we are NOW advocating working until 75 when in other parts of this and the last forum, there are advocates for the return of Mandatory Retirement because the 'old people' should make way for the fresh blood... that the tenured owe a duty to make way for the new crop on the job market.  But then IF we do manage to scrimp and save our way to being a paper millionaire in wealth terms so that we live on 50K (less than median household income in the US), we have to pay 1% of our wealth each year; 20% of our meager earnings.  Oh, and social security, assuming our state pays into it and we qualify, is also taxed!  What a wonderful world you are creating. 

IF these are the new rules of the game then the 'winner' is the old fart that keeps on teaching, doing the bare minimum of research, and spends as much time as he/she desires on conspicuous consumption (lest we build taxable wealth) and traveling as much and as often as possible on short trips, as we wont be able to travel in the retirement we now wont enjoy... long weekends here, Christmas Break there, Summers somewhere else.... After all I must be relaxed enough to publish my one paper every 2 years or is the minimum 3 years?   Clearly this is the outcome that must be chosen to optimize the new objective functions  by taking 20% of the meager $50K in income derived from the evil one who dared acquire 2.5million in the example quoted above. 

Remember, that the $2.5 million is at least observable.  Those on a state pension have no such 'wealth'. They simply have a promised lifetime income. But that is not shown as a balance anywhere.  My balance is all that I have and when it is gone so is the income.  Someone who ends a 30 year career making 100K may be promised $60K a year in retirement benefits FOR LIFE, but they would not be subject to the $10K a year surtax because they will not, on paper, show the source of that income as wealth, so they are Not (evil) millionaires.
Oh, and should the market tank, so will my paper 403b status
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 12:28:14 PM
Once again: we're not talking about any actual plans. We're talking purely abstractly about numbers pulled from the air. As long as we're doing that, we're free to stipulate whatever we want. Pick a candidate's free college plan, and we can talk about its funding mechanisms in as much detail as you like (/as much detail as they've given us).

Here, I'll help. Here's the Sanders plan (https://berniesanders.com/issues/free-college-cancel-debt/), and here's the Warren plan (https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/affordable-higher-education). Here's Biden's (https://joebiden.com/beyondhs/), and here's Buttigieg's (https://peteforamerica.com/policies/higher-education/).. Bloomberg's will be released later today.

Which one do you want to talk about? Or should we continue discussing this in purely abstract, made-up terms and then straw-man the candidates on that basis?


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 18, 2020, 12:36:44 PM
Most of us will live longer than we should. That runs into money. I'm giving this serious thought, regarding myself. We seem to think we owe it to the Almighty to stick around, often to the point of ridiculousness.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on February 18, 2020, 12:43:22 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 18, 2020, 12:36:44 PM
Most of us will live longer than we should. That runs into money. I'm giving this serious thought, regarding myself. We seem to think we owe it to the Almighty to stick around, often to the point of ridiculousness.

Exactly, Mahagonny! Speaking with Bismarck: The trick is knowing when to stop. :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 12:59:37 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 12:28:14 PM
Once again: we're not talking about any actual plans. We're talking purely abstractly about numbers pulled from the air. As long as we're doing that, we're free to stipulate whatever we want. Pick a candidate's free college plan, and we can talk about its funding mechanisms in as much detail as you like (/as much detail as they've given us).

Here, I'll help. Here's the Sanders plan (https://berniesanders.com/issues/free-college-cancel-debt/), and here's the Warren plan (https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/affordable-higher-education). Here's Biden's (https://joebiden.com/beyondhs/), and here's Buttigieg's (https://peteforamerica.com/policies/higher-education/).. Bloomberg's will be released later today.

Which one do you want to talk about? Or should we continue discussing this in purely abstract, made-up terms and then straw-man the candidates on that basis?

Sanders and Warren both include:
Quote
Cancel all student loan debt for the some 45 million Americans who owe about $1.6 trillion and place a cap on student loan interest rates going forward at 1.88 percent.

Pocket change; easy-peasy
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 01:06:55 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 12:59:37 PM

Pocket change; easy-peasy

Well, that's money that's already been spent, so yeah. Easy peasy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 01:11:44 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 01:06:55 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 12:59:37 PM

Pocket change; easy-peasy

Well, that's money that's already been spent, so yeah. Easy peasy.

Already? By the students, yes, but it needs to be paid back to who they borrowed it from; or should the government just tell banks to eat the loss? That will certainly make government loan guarantees in the future worth their weight in rabbit pellets.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 01:46:03 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 01:11:44 PM

Already? By the students, yes, but it needs to be paid back to who they borrowed it from; or should the government just tell banks to eat the loss? That will certainly make government loan guarantees in the future worth their weight in rabbit pellets.

We're quickly entering territory about which I know very little, so I'll gladly defer to those in the know. But my understanding is that the Federal Direct Student Loan Program is (1) directly administered by the federal government, and thus directly lends the money to students (in other words, it's already spent) and (2) is currently worth about $1 trillion.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on February 18, 2020, 01:56:08 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 01:46:03 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 01:11:44 PM

Already? By the students, yes, but it needs to be paid back to who they borrowed it from; or should the government just tell banks to eat the loss? That will certainly make government loan guarantees in the future worth their weight in rabbit pellets.

We're quickly entering territory about which I know very little, so I'll gladly defer to those in the know. But my understanding is that the Federal Direct Student Loan Program is (1) directly administered by the federal government, and thus directly lends the money to students (in other words, it's already spent) and (2) is currently worth about $1 trillion.

Marsh is right. While the money has already been spent, it was loaned; thus it must be paid back. The only question is who will pay it back -- to banks, to the government, to whomever. Who whom? :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: dismalist on February 18, 2020, 01:56:08 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 01:46:03 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 01:11:44 PM

Already? By the students, yes, but it needs to be paid back to who they borrowed it from; or should the government just tell banks to eat the loss? That will certainly make government loan guarantees in the future worth their weight in rabbit pellets.

We're quickly entering territory about which I know very little, so I'll gladly defer to those in the know. But my understanding is that the Federal Direct Student Loan Program is (1) directly administered by the federal government, and thus directly lends the money to students (in other words, it's already spent) and (2) is currently worth about $1 trillion.

Marsh is right. While the money has already been spent, it was loaned; thus it must be paid back. The only question is who will pay it back -- to banks, to the government, to whomever. Who whom? :-)

For perspective, from thebalance.com (https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-iraq-war-timeline-economic-impact-3306301):
Quote
The Iraq War was a military conflict that lasted seven years, from 2003 to 2011, and cost $1.06 trillion.


So the student debt is equal to the cost of the Iraq war. Would the same people who consider that amount of student loan forgiveness a bargain consider the Iraq war to be similarly inexpensive?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 02:15:49 PM
Well, what were the returns on the Iraq war? Qui bono?

And who benefits/is harmed by loan forgiveness?


To my mind, one of those looks like an investment (with fairly predictable returns), and the other like setting money (and, more importantly, one million people, their country, and a whole region of the world) on fire. I know that Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and Blackwater did pretty well out of it, but I wouldn't consider that a victory for the American people.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on February 18, 2020, 02:31:04 PM
Most people will be able to pay off their loans on time.  A small minority are in trouble and need some relief.   In the long run we need to get to the root of the problem which is the high cost of higher ed and too many people spending too long in school.   If we can bail out the big banks and home owners then I think we can lend a hand to people drowning in debt.  Some of those loans never should have been allowed in the first place.  Bring back old fashioned fiduciary common sense in lending.     Just don't touch my retirement funds
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on February 18, 2020, 03:05:59 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: dismalist on February 18, 2020, 01:56:08 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 01:46:03 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 01:11:44 PM

Already? By the students, yes, but it needs to be paid back to who they borrowed it from; or should the government just tell banks to eat the loss? That will certainly make government loan guarantees in the future worth their weight in rabbit pellets.

We're quickly entering territory about which I know very little, so I'll gladly defer to those in the know. But my understanding is that the Federal Direct Student Loan Program is (1) directly administered by the federal government, and thus directly lends the money to students (in other words, it's already spent) and (2) is currently worth about $1 trillion.

Marsh is right. While the money has already been spent, it was loaned; thus it must be paid back. The only question is who will pay it back -- to banks, to the government, to whomever. Who whom? :-)

For perspective, from thebalance.com (https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-iraq-war-timeline-economic-impact-3306301):
Quote
The Iraq War was a military conflict that lasted seven years, from 2003 to 2011, and cost $1.06 trillion.


So the student debt is equal to the cost of the Iraq war. Would the same people who consider that amount of student loan forgiveness a bargain consider the Iraq war to be similarly inexpensive?

Interestingly, the Iraq war, too, was financed by debt. The similarity in order of magnitude is merely chance. In both cases, however, future individuals or generations pay off the loans. One can argue about who in the future should pay off the loan.

So, both debt loads are sitting there. What shall we do with them?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on February 18, 2020, 05:30:59 PM
Poll shows Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in a statistical tie with her Democratic opponent:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/483544-poll-susan-collins-in-statistical-tie-with-democratic-challenger (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/483544-poll-susan-collins-in-statistical-tie-with-democratic-challenger).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on February 20, 2020, 09:53:05 AM

Is it possible that our President and a candidate, Mr. Bloomberg, are New York guys capable of doing a "dog and pony" show on the 2020 electorate?  If so, is it likely?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on February 23, 2020, 06:10:26 AM
Looks like we have a nominee . . . unless he dies between now and the election, which is quite possible.  I'd love to know how confident you all are about Sanders' chances in the general.  It will help me calibrate my own level of fear.

(At a glance, and as of today, I think he'll beat Trump.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on February 23, 2020, 06:41:10 AM
Quote from: writingprof on February 23, 2020, 06:10:26 AM
Looks like we have a nominee . . . unless he dies between now and the election, which is quite possible.  I'd love to know how confident you all are about Sanders' chances in the general.  It will help me calibrate my own level of fear.

(At a glance, and as of today, I think he'll beat Trump.)

45* will become 46*
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on February 23, 2020, 08:08:06 AM
Quote from: writingprof on February 23, 2020, 06:10:26 AM
Looks like we have a nominee

We don't have a nominee.  I came here specifically to complain about the media outlets that are bad at critical thinking that involves more than just one number.

The official rules indicate that someone has to get 1991 delegates before June to win the nomination outright.  So far, the projected-including-Nevada results (AKA almost no delegates awarded when the number needed is almost 2000) are: (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/delegate-count?icid=election_results)

34 Sanders
23 Buttigieg
8 Warren
7 Klobuchar
6 Biden

That's not a commanding lead with just one person still in the race.  Any reports to the contrary are people who don't seem to understand the rules of the game.  South Carolina alone has 54 pledged delegates that will be divvied up in the coming week.  Super Tuesday is 30% of the overall delegates.

Calling a winner after Super Tuesday may be appropriate.  Calling it now indicates some flawed critical thinking based on something other than the context and numbers that matter.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 23, 2020, 08:19:14 AM
Lyndon Johnson had a heart attack in 1955, lived another 17 years. Remember when everyone thought Dick Cheney was a goner?

A few months ago the vultures were circling Bernie's campaign. He's got some kind of connection with voters that gets underestimated.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/30/bernie-sanders-2020-election-decline-228755

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 23, 2020, 09:03:47 AM
Quote from: writingprof on February 23, 2020, 06:10:26 AM
Looks like we have a nominee . . . unless he dies between now and the election, which is quite possible.  I'd love to know how confident you all are about Sanders' chances in the general.  It will help me calibrate my own level of fear.

(At a glance, and as of today, I think he'll beat Trump.)

Possible, but unlikely. Certainly less like than Trumputin's chances of dying in the same period of time.

I think his chances in the general are very good--as long as all the old people and centrists swallow their own medicine, hold their noses, and vote for him. But it's possible they'll decide that beating Trump is no longer their first priority. If that happens, then I think his chances are still good, but it'll be a much tougher election, and the sooner he's out of primary mode and out on the general stump, the better.

Quote from: polly_mer on February 23, 2020, 08:08:06 AM

Calling a winner after Super Tuesday may be appropriate.  Calling it now indicates some flawed critical thinking based on something other than the context and numbers that matter.

I mostly agree, especially since Super Tuesday is so close. I was especially consternated by the media declaring a victory in Nevada with just 4% of precincts reporting. I imagine it was based on exit polling, and that polling seems to have borne out so far, but still. The counters got to 50% last night, and that was a perfectly fine time for the call to be made.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 23, 2020, 10:44:23 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 23, 2020, 09:03:47 AM
Quote from: writingprof on February 23, 2020, 06:10:26 AM
Looks like we have a nominee . . . unless he dies between now and the election, which is quite possible.  I'd love to know how confident you all are about Sanders' chances in the general.  It will help me calibrate my own level of fear.

(At a glance, and as of today, I think he'll beat Trump.)

Possible, but unlikely. Certainly less like than Trumputin's chances of dying in the same period of time.

I think his chances in the general are very good--as long as all the old people and centrists swallow their own medicine, hold their noses, and vote for him. But it's possible they'll decide that beating Trump is no longer their first priority. If that happens, then I think his chances are still good, but it'll be a much tougher election, and the sooner he's out of primary mode and out on the general stump, the better.


In his favour, Sanders doesn't have the same contempt for white working class voters that many on the far left do. However, his advertised solution, i.e. "socialism", is something that any of them old enough to remember much of the last century realize is no improvement over the status quo in the long run. If he could back off on the extreme left talking points he might succeed, but if not, I don't think it's likely.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Ruralguy on February 23, 2020, 11:00:31 AM
I agree that "we" don't yet have a nominee. Biden and Bloomberg still (or maybe for Bloomberg, will ) have an (admittedly narrowing) path.  Of the rest, I don't see much of a path, though I suppose Warren or Klobuchar could make something of both 1 or 2 wins on ST and good showings elsewhere, but that's really a narrow path indeed (especially since they aren't favored in delegate rich states).  I see less hope for Buttigieg, and not much for Steyer after next weekend. Everyone else (is there anyone else but Tulsi?) is out, obviously. Still, 6 or even 7 candidates getting delegates is unusual and interesting.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on February 23, 2020, 11:16:40 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 23, 2020, 10:44:23 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 23, 2020, 09:03:47 AM
Quote from: writingprof on February 23, 2020, 06:10:26 AM
Looks like we have a nominee . . . unless he dies between now and the election, which is quite possible.  I'd love to know how confident you all are about Sanders' chances in the general.  It will help me calibrate my own level of fear.

(At a glance, and as of today, I think he'll beat Trump.)

Possible, but unlikely. Certainly less like than Trumputin's chances of dying in the same period of time.

I think his chances in the general are very good--as long as all the old people and centrists swallow their own medicine, hold their noses, and vote for him. But it's possible they'll decide that beating Trump is no longer their first priority. If that happens, then I think his chances are still good, but it'll be a much tougher election, and the sooner he's out of primary mode and out on the general stump, the better.


In his favour, Sanders doesn't have the same contempt for white working class voters that many on the far left do. However, his advertised solution, i.e. "socialism", is something that any of them old enough to remember much of the last century realize is no improvement over the status quo in the long run. If he could back off on the extreme left talking points he might succeed, but if not, I don't think it's likely.

Also in his favor - Russian bots.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 23, 2020, 12:47:58 PM
Yes. They've decided he will be a) the easiest for Trump to trounce; b) the closest theoretically to their version of a communist world view; c) the most fun to impugn with signs of meddling.

Or some combination of those.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 23, 2020, 01:05:59 PM
But Russia is not communist any more, and under Putin it has had nothing even resembling a communist worldview. So (b) is out.

Remember, though, that the reports come from anonymous sources in the intelligence community. We can't vet the information, nor can we assess their trustworthiness (and again, remember what Comey did to Clinton: they can't be trusted). It could just as easily be Trumputin supporters in the intelligence community flailing about trying to damage the person who looks like they'll be the nominee as early as they can, to see if the narrative will stick. The administration just finished doing this to Joe Biden, remember.

It seems to me that the perception of Russian help--especially in the form of a troll army--can only damage the Democratic party, and Sanders in particular (because people are happy to conflate everyday internet nastiness with the candidate himself, thanks to a narrative that's stuck). And it doesn't even have to be true to be damaging, and to help Trump both-sides his way through the election. If we accept that Russia helped Trump in the last election, then I'm inclined to think we should accept that's still the primary goal. And, TBH, helping Sanders is probably win-win for them anyway (provided they're thinking he'll be a net positive for them)--if nobody finds out, then either their puppet wins or their benign candidate wins. If someone finds out, then it helps the puppet.

So, either way, I can only shrug.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 23, 2020, 01:57:48 PM
Points taken.

I can't quite shrug off the worry, though.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on February 23, 2020, 05:11:04 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 23, 2020, 11:00:31 AM
I agree that "we" don't yet have a nominee. Biden and Bloomberg still (or maybe for Bloomberg, will ) have an (admittedly narrowing) path.  Of the rest, I don't see much of a path, though I suppose Warren or Klobuchar could make something of both 1 or 2 wins on ST and good showings elsewhere, but that's really a narrow path indeed (especially since they aren't favored in delegate rich states).  I see less hope for Buttigieg, and not much for Steyer after next weekend. Everyone else (is there anyone else but Tulsi?) is out, obviously. Still, 6 or even 7 candidates getting delegates is unusual and interesting.

Why don't you see any hope for Buttigieg or Steyer?  I'm amused every time I read "Mayo Pete" and think, yes, Midwesterners want someone with minimal drama who is running for the office of commander in chief/diplomat in chief.  Mayo Pete is currently a strong second in actual delegates--the only metric that matters in June for an uncontested convention.

My family caught an interview with Steyer recently and thought he had some very good things to say.  Indeed, we were starting to root against the interviewer who was clearly pressuring Steyer to drop out before getting to the states in which Steyer is polling at real numbers, like South Carolina (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-primary-polls-2020-biden-sanders-steyer-democrats-cbs-news/).

Personally, I'm hoping for either someone I like to pull ahead or to have a contested Democratic convention to let the adults (not at all the same as physical age) sort out someone who will be a good leader for the country instead of someone who doesn't have a majority even among the Democrats (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/22/us/politics/democratic-primary-dnc-superdelegates.html).

I really, really want to be able to vote for the person I want to win in November instead of having to vote for Trump because the Democrats can't get it together and pick someone who is actually worse than Trump by the available information in the areas I care about including national defense and global security.  Someone who is proud of voting against funding our military has no business being commander in chief.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on February 23, 2020, 05:22:11 PM
Bernie was the lead story/interview with Anderson Cooper on CBS's "60 Minutes" tonight.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 23, 2020, 05:55:44 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 23, 2020, 01:05:59 PM
But Russia is not communist any more, and under Putin it has had nothing even resembling a communist worldview. So (b) is out.

This is what I'm curious about. For Democrats who think socialism is a good thing, then  it seems to me one of two things must be true:

So which is it? Even if communism was farther to the left than "ideal" socialism, it would make more sense that successful politicians in Russia would be closer to that ideal socialism than  to American capitalism.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on February 23, 2020, 07:20:45 PM
Well, I have a soft spot in my heart for conspiracy theories and this sudden news about Russia helping Bernie right as he is doing so well seems like a recycled script, a desperate attempt to steal his momentum.   I have lots of disagreements with Bernie but "socialism" has been abused too much to be used in meaningful discussions.  As a congressman he was not that far to the left, favoring gun rights and tight borders policies.  Democratic Socialism means that you get the government services that you vote for such as parks, fire protection, police, schools, etc.  I have not seen any evidence that he wants the older definition of socialism which would mean state ownership of the means of production.   His supporters point to Scandinavia where in some ways they have a freer economy than ours.  Anyhow, I like to see him shake things up a bit.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 23, 2020, 07:29:58 PM
A.k.a. fiddling while Rome burns.

This is not the year for shaking things up to that extent.

I'm back to my Jennifer-one-note question: is he electable, over and above the Trumpets?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 23, 2020, 08:22:42 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 23, 2020, 05:11:04 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 23, 2020, 11:00:31 AM
I agree that "we" don't yet have a nominee. Biden and Bloomberg still (or maybe for Bloomberg, will ) have an (admittedly narrowing) path.  Of the rest, I don't see much of a path, though I suppose Warren or Klobuchar could make something of both 1 or 2 wins on ST and good showings elsewhere, but that's really a narrow path indeed (especially since they aren't favored in delegate rich states).  I see less hope for Buttigieg, and not much for Steyer after next weekend. Everyone else (is there anyone else but Tulsi?) is out, obviously. Still, 6 or even 7 candidates getting delegates is unusual and interesting.

Why don't you see any hope for Buttigieg or Steyer?  I'm amused every time I read "Mayo Pete" and think, yes, Midwesterners want someone with minimal drama who is running for the office of commander in chief/diplomat in chief.  Mayo Pete is currently a strong second in actual delegates--the only metric that matters in June for an uncontested convention.

My family caught an interview with Steyer recently and thought he had some very good things to say.  Indeed, we were starting to root against the interviewer who was clearly pressuring Steyer to drop out before getting to the states in which Steyer is polling at real numbers, like South Carolina (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-primary-polls-2020-biden-sanders-steyer-democrats-cbs-news/).

Personally, I'm hoping for either someone I like to pull ahead or to have a contested Democratic convention to let the adults (not at all the same as physical age) sort out someone who will be a good leader for the country instead of someone who doesn't have a majority even among the Democrats (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/22/us/politics/democratic-primary-dnc-superdelegates.html).

I really, really want to be able to vote for the person I want to win in November instead of having to vote for Trump because the Democrats can't get it together and pick someone who is actually worse than Trump by the available information in the areas I care about including national defense and global security.  Someone who is proud of voting against funding our military has no business being commander in chief.

Besides, Trump sticks it to worker's rights and the NLRB. Stand by your guy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Hegemony on February 23, 2020, 10:37:11 PM
Basically most people are using "socialism" in Sanders' case to refer to Medicare for All.  The attitude of the vast majority of Americans is that everything government-financed that we have already (police services, fire services, roads and highways, bridges, parks, street lights, free K-12, courts, jails, drivers' licenses, passports, laws, army, etc etc) is not socialism, but that if we add anything to that, it will mean a) totalitarianism and b) everyone will get terminally lazy because they don't have to pay at point of service and the moral fabric of the country will disintegrate.

My insurance company already effectively keeps me from consulting the doctor I want, by making him "out of network," and I already have to wait many months for a specialist appointment, which was especially challenging when I damaged my knee and couldn't walk, but apparently we're okay with having an ineffective brutal system as long as it is a private, for-profit ineffective brutal system.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on February 24, 2020, 02:55:56 AM
I may not be supporting him politically, but I am very sorry to hear of the news commentator who invoked Hitler's breaching of the Maginot line as an analogy for the Super Tuesday win of a candidate who lost most of his family in the Holocaust.

Whether by accident or intention, that kind of cruelty is uncalled for.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 24, 2020, 05:02:22 AM
Quote from: Anselm on February 23, 2020, 07:20:45 PM
Well, I have a soft spot in my heart for conspiracy theories and this sudden news about Russia helping Bernie right as he is doing so well seems like a recycled script, a desperate attempt to steal his momentum.   I have lots of disagreements with Bernie but "socialism" has been abused too much to be used in meaningful discussions.  As a congressman he was not that far to the left, favoring gun rights and tight borders policies.  Democratic Socialism means that you get the government services that you vote for such as parks, fire protection, police, schools, etc.  I have not seen any evidence that he wants the older definition of socialism which would mean state ownership of the means of production.   His supporters point to Scandinavia where in some ways they have a freer economy than ours.  Anyhow, I like to see him shake things up a bit.

Where is Inigo Montoya when you need him?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on February 24, 2020, 05:51:46 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 23, 2020, 08:22:42 PM
Besides, Trump sticks it to worker's rights and the NLRB. Stand by your guy.

Trump is not my guy.  Remember, I'm a registered Libertarian who thinks government should do what needs to be done at that collective level.  Trump does not fall into that category.

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.  The democratic Socialist countries are not appealing to me, in large part because I am living the American Dream in having started from a very modest beginning (lowest decile) and now being in the professional class (second highest decile and still climbing) with free time for my family and hobbies that includes reading lots of books and partaking of the local performing arts offerings.

Thus, education and infrastructure matter and are governmental functions, but only to the extent resources in those areas are being used effectively instead of checkboxes that are just jobs for those who either are willing to rip off their fellow citizens or were failed themselves to the extent they don't know they are ripping people off.  I'd much rather have free-for-those-who-can-benefit-from-it education and eliminate the need for student loans all together than to piddle around with even more bureaucracy on who gets what forgiven once and who is needy enough to be given money.  Nope, first we figure out who will benefit from education and then we allocate the resources to do it.  One high favorite of mine is flat out closing institutions that aren't providing education to anyone and then redistribute those resources to where they could be effective.

All the social stuff is not the president's job and anyone who is running for president to change social aspects is running for the wrong job.  I don't care about unionizing qua unionizing; I care a lot about fooling around with a different bureaucracy answering to no one that still doesn't fix the underlying problems.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 24, 2020, 06:01:38 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 24, 2020, 05:51:46 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 23, 2020, 08:22:42 PM
Besides, Trump sticks it to worker's rights and the NLRB. Stand by your guy.

Trump is not my guy.  Remember, I'm a registered Libertarian who thinks government should do what needs to be done at that collective level.  Trump does not fall into that category.

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.


Very seldom a change in presidents really fixes anything. Usually it's about tradeoffs. Unions are not chosen because they fix things. They get chosen because anything about having a union that doesn't make perfect sense still makes more sense than not having one at all. When you talk about why you wouldn't vote for Sanders you acknowledge that. But you sound like you expect some voters to assess in terms of 'fix' versus 'doesn't fix.'
Perhaps most of us do that. Attribution error?
I also doubt the war drums tactic of Trump's tweeting bothers everyone equally, among those who are looking for someone else to get behind. For me, there is no option other than to take offense at his tactics, style, personality.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 24, 2020, 06:55:00 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 24, 2020, 06:01:38 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 24, 2020, 05:51:46 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 23, 2020, 08:22:42 PM
Besides, Trump sticks it to worker's rights and the NLRB. Stand by your guy.

Trump is not my guy.  Remember, I'm a registered Libertarian who thinks government should do what needs to be done at that collective level.  Trump does not fall into that category.

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.


Very seldom a change in presidents really fixes anything. Usually it's about tradeoffs. Unions are not chosen because they fix things. They get chosen because anything about having a union that doesn't make perfect sense still makes more sense than not having one at all.

This is the "Hummer" strategy. Some people buy the biggest vehicle possible so they will be safe in an accident. An alternative is the "motorcycle" strategy. A small, highly maneuverable vehicle will be able to avoid many accidents that the Hummer can't.

You may not agree with the motorcycle strategy, but it is a valid choice for some people. Highly competent, adaptable employees may not want a union since they feel they can negotiate better on their own. For them, a union does not make more sense than no union.

Quote
For me, there is no option other than to take offense at his tactics, style, personality.
I think this is even true for many who voted for him. In any election, many (most?) people aren't voting for someone great; they're voting for the "least bad" choice available.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 24, 2020, 06:59:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 24, 2020, 06:55:00 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 24, 2020, 06:01:38 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 24, 2020, 05:51:46 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 23, 2020, 08:22:42 PM
Besides, Trump sticks it to worker's rights and the NLRB. Stand by your guy.

Trump is not my guy.  Remember, I'm a registered Libertarian who thinks government should do what needs to be done at that collective level.  Trump does not fall into that category.

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.


Very seldom a change in presidents really fixes anything. Usually it's about tradeoffs. Unions are not chosen because they fix things. They get chosen because anything about having a union that doesn't make perfect sense still makes more sense than not having one at all.

This is the "Hummer" strategy. Some people buy the biggest vehicle possible so they will be safe in an accident. An alternative is the "motorcycle" strategy. A small, highly maneuverable vehicle will be able to avoid many accidents that the Hummer can't.

You may not agree with the motorcycle strategy, but it is a valid choice for some people. Highly competent, adaptable employees may not want a union since they feel they can negotiate better on their own. For them, a union does not make more sense than no union.


We had a guy a bit like that in our department. He could have thought that way since he was a bigger name than most of us. But he was strongly pro-union because he thought all of us were pitching in. He probably also knew that his teaching effectiveness was not a result of more teaching talent. More a result of his being more celebrated in the field.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on February 24, 2020, 08:48:34 AM
Re: Russian meddling.

Less concerned that some actor is making troll bots to get the pubic all riled up about something. Domestic, foreign, whatever. Trolls are trolls, propaganda is propaganda.

More concerned if Americans are actually falling for it because they lack the critical thinking skills to adjust.

Remember when Gore-Lieberman were running? All of a sudden the "Left Behind" series became very popular. It starts with a Jewish POTUS which, in turn, leads to the Rapture and the Apocalypse.

One would think the Super-Christians would think this is a good thing, but maybe they wanted a few more years of earthly life before being Raptured?

Always wondered about that connection.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on February 24, 2020, 08:59:39 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 24, 2020, 05:51:46 AM

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.  The democratic Socialist countries are not appealing to me, in large part because I am living the American Dream in having started from a very modest beginning (lowest decile) and now being in the professional class (second highest decile and still climbing) with free time for my family and hobbies that includes reading lots of books and partaking of the local performing arts offerings.

You realize, of course, that it's all the stuff people call SOCIALIST that allowed you to move across social boundaries and enjoy the life you live, correct?


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 24, 2020, 09:07:37 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 24, 2020, 08:59:39 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 24, 2020, 05:51:46 AM

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.  The democratic Socialist countries are not appealing to me, in large part because I am living the American Dream in having started from a very modest beginning (lowest decile) and now being in the professional class (second highest decile and still climbing) with free time for my family and hobbies that includes reading lots of books and partaking of the local performing arts offerings.

You realize, of course, that it's all the stuff people call SOCIALIST that allowed you to move across social boundaries and enjoy the life you live, correct?


  • The WPA probably built the electric, telephone and sewer systems in your region so you could have light bulbs and flush toilets at home.
  • Labor unions so your grandparents and parents could have weekends and living wages and job security.
  • Your family might even have relied on food stamps and Medicaid at some point to keep you fed and healthy.
  • Free public education and affordable higher education were made available to you.
  • Social Security so your grandparents didn't consume resources that your parents needed to support you.
  • Medicare so that you aren't going broke keeping up with your own parents' health needs.
  • Never mind all that radical stuff like votes for all citizens, not just white male property owners; environmental protection; blah blah blah.

Only a fraction of countries with those sorts of programs would call themselves socialist; most would call themselves social democratic. Why use the term that was and is preferred by the oppressive totalitarian countries and tell people "We don't really mean it that way" instead of using the term used by the non-totalitarian countries?????

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on February 24, 2020, 10:12:17 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 24, 2020, 08:59:39 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 24, 2020, 05:51:46 AM

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.  The democratic Socialist countries are not appealing to me, in large part because I am living the American Dream in having started from a very modest beginning (lowest decile) and now being in the professional class (second highest decile and still climbing) with free time for my family and hobbies that includes reading lots of books and partaking of the local performing arts offerings.

You realize, of course, that it's all the stuff people call SOCIALIST that allowed you to move across social boundaries and enjoy the life you live, correct?


  • The WPA probably built the electric, telephone and sewer systems in your region so you could have light bulbs and flush toilets at home.
  • Labor unions so your grandparents and parents could have weekends and living wages and job security.
  • Your family might even have relied on food stamps and Medicaid at some point to keep you fed and healthy.
  • Free public education and affordable higher education were made available to you.
  • Social Security so your grandparents didn't consume resources that your parents needed to support you.
  • Medicare so that you aren't going broke keeping up with your own parents' health needs.
  • Never mind all that radical stuff like votes for all citizens, not just white male property owners; environmental protection; blah blah blah.

Where did the money come from to pay for those things?  How is it determined who will pay for them and who will get the benefits?  This is my biggest problem with any government program, the way they they pick winners and losers.  I've known people in dire straits, including myself, who could not qualify for these programs.   One example is unemployment insurance.  If you sit on the couch and watch TV you get a check.  If you take one college class you are ineligible unless your job got shipped to Mexico under NAFTA and then you can go to college for free and get unemployment checks. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 24, 2020, 10:39:46 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 23, 2020, 05:11:04 PM

Why don't you see any hope for Buttigieg or Steyer?  I'm amused every time I read "Mayo Pete" and think, yes, Midwesterners want someone with minimal drama who is running for the office of commander in chief/diplomat in chief.  Mayo Pete is currently a strong second in actual delegates--the only metric that matters in June for an uncontested convention.

Buttigieg has a real, serious race problem. It's one that started under his mayorship, and one which he's been exceptionally poor at defusing (or, indeed: accepting). Consider, for instance, his rollout of his "Douglass Plan", half of whose "Black" supporters were in fact white, and for which he publicly claimed support from a number of prominent Black politicians who, it turns out, did not support his candidacy at all (the campaign emailed them the plan and said that unless they got a negative response, they'd assume positive support). That was a bad, unforced error. Stupid, but one can accept that this stuff sometimes happens. What boggles my mind is that he then did the exact same thing a second time just before Nevada. The result is that he polls at about 0% among Black people in South Bend, not to mention nationally. That's bad news for his candidacy.

But wait! He also polls at between 1%-5% nationally among Latinos! Now there's another path to victory! His outreach to Latino communities has been virtually nonexistent.

Those are serious problems for his candidacy. Maybe not fatal in and of themselves--though definitely red flags!--but when other candidates are doing a lot better on those scores, and when so many major ST states have significant minority voting communities, you have to conclude that he's in very bad shape despite currently being second in delegates. His best hope is probably a brokered convention, but that's not much to hang your hat on.

And I haven't even begun to talk about all the reasons why he sucks as a presidential candidate.


Steyer's a different story. I can't tell why he's in the race at all, except that some people stoked up his ambitions for grift. He's sunk a ton of money into the race (including Nevada; something like $172 million overall, and 43 million in NV, if memory serves), which is about half what Bloomberg's spent and almost five times what Sanders has spent (which itself is way, way more than any other candidate). But look at where it's getting him: nowhere. Short of pulling a ST surprise, his only hope seems to be a brokered convention, too. But who's going to pick him?

Neither Buttigieg nor Steyer is running a very good campaign on the ground. They're being out-organized, and it shows. And if you want to win the presidency...

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on February 24, 2020, 01:18:46 PM
To claim that Buttegieg is not running good ground campaign is simply ridiculous. The Iowa campaign was terrific, and so was New Hampshire. I think this is a good first effort, and if he puts in the work in the African American and Latino communities over the next four years he'll be a strong contender in 2024.

I favored Warren and Booker, and was depressed that Booker had to drop out. I liked Buttegieg once I got to know him, and Klobuchar. But, Klobuchar should have dropped out after Iowa; it was clear she couldn't win anywhere but maybe Minnesota and the Dakotas.

I've said since the beginning I wouldn't vote for another old man. (FTR, I'm 67). I'll probably sit out the general election if the nominee is any of Sanders, Biden or Bloomberg (Jesus, why is this even a possibility!). I'm in a state where unless there is a change in the Electoral process my vote will mean nothing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 24, 2020, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 24, 2020, 01:18:46 PM
To claim that Buttegieg is not running good ground campaign is simply ridiculous. The Iowa campaign was terrific, and so was New Hampshire. I think this is a good first effort, and if he puts in the work in the African American and Latino communities over the next four years he'll be a strong contender in 2024.


I'm willing to walk my assessment back. The reason I gave it, however, is because Buttigieg has poured all his resources into the first four states, and of those, he poured most of his resources into Iowa. That paid off in Iowa, and the bump helped him a lot in NH, where he spent a fair bit of effort (but still significantly less). But his efforts in Nevada were a joke, and his efforts in South Carolina aren't much better. And remember, these are two of the four states into which he poured all of his energy. That kind of ground game can't go the distance, and significantly underperforms his fundraising assets and positive media exposure.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on February 24, 2020, 03:28:08 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 24, 2020, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 24, 2020, 01:18:46 PM
To claim that Buttegieg is not running good ground campaign is simply ridiculous. The Iowa campaign was terrific, and so was New Hampshire. I think this is a good first effort, and if he puts in the work in the African American and Latino communities over the next four years he'll be a strong contender in 2024.


I'm willing to walk my assessment back. The reason I gave it, however, is because Buttigieg has poured all his resources into the first four states, and of those, he poured most of his resources into Iowa. That paid off in Iowa, and the bump helped him a lot in NH, where he spent a fair bit of effort (but still significantly less). But his efforts in Nevada were a joke, and his efforts in South Carolina aren't much better. And remember, these are two of the four states into which he poured all of his energy. That kind of ground game can't go the distance, and significantly underperforms his fundraising assets and positive media exposure.





I almost completely agree. However, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't even be on the radar if he hadn't expended all kinds of his capital in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I don't think what happened in Nevada completely supports your assertions except about his support (none) in communities of color. He easily beat Biden in all but two Nevada counties, but one of those was Clark. There, he got thrashed.


He has made some nice connections with James Clyburn's family in South Carolina. Won't make a difference this time, but could in the future.

Sadly, I don't think he can ever win (at least in my lifetime) a statewide race in Indiana.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 24, 2020, 03:45:50 PM
Fair enough.

(And in the interest of full disclosure (if it's needed): I absolutely detest him, and hope he ceases to inflict himself upon the American electorate. Not that he will, and not that my Canadian opinions matter in the slightest!)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pigou on February 24, 2020, 05:18:27 PM
The problem with M4A isn't on the patient side: clearly a plan with no deductible, no co-pay, no co-insurance, and no networks is vastly superior for patients. And if you pay for it through general taxation, then it's going to get cheaper for the median household than paying for it via premiums. The problem is that assuming costs will stay the same when there's unlimited coverage is insane.

Take dental cleanings (will also be covered under M4A). There are no medical benefits to getting twice annual cleanings versus annual cleanings, even for high risk groups. But dental plans generally cover two, so dentists do substantial outreach to make sure people get their "free" cleaning. Many plans now offer 3 cleanings per year, and so dentists are scheduling those patients every 4 months -- again, with no known clinical benefits. But if you can have an assistant spend half an hour on a checkup and pocked $200, that's a pretty good deal and you're going to do more of it.

The same will happen in healthcare broadly (it already happens, but to a lesser extent). A plan with no co-pay means the patient doesn't pay any more for a $1,500 MRI than a $50 x-ray. For a $1,000/month brand name drug vs. a $100/month generic. For lower back surgery vs. therapy (no known clinical benefits in the vast, vast majority of cases). And the fact that there's no "network" means there is no way to exclude doctors and hospitals who continue to do the procedures that get them paid the most rather than that benefit their patients.

GoFundMe campaigns are often brought up as a thing that shouldn't exist. But if you look at what they're raising money for: it's primarily scam treatments that have absolutely no established medical benefits. There are lots of places that fleece patients who have nowhere else to go and insurance companies rightfully refuse to pay for them. But you can't prohibit people from spending their own money (or that of donors). There's already pretty widespread abuse of addiction recovery facilities, dialysis centers, etc.

Which is to say, it's definitely not that the current system is perfect and prevents abuses. Far from it: there's a lot of reform that really needs to happen (including an end to surprise medical billing, which just failed after lobbying from hospitals). But M4A is going to make a lot of these things much worse and doesn't have a path to actually saving costs. Insurance company profits are a laughable $50bn/year out of over $3,000bn in spending. Lower back alone is more than $100bn/year.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 24, 2020, 05:35:13 PM
All the M4A proposals involve price controls, including (and especially) on per-unit pricing. It wouldn't be doable otherwise.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: backatit on February 24, 2020, 05:36:31 PM
Specifically in reference to your claim about gofundme efforts, the four I've seen this week have been for 1) insulin treatment for a Type 1 diabetic, 2) coverage for a friend who lost her job and insurance when she couldn't work due to sepsis, 3) a friend who is asthmatic and can't afford her inhaler, and 4) a friend who has neck cancer and needs help with supporting his insurance premiums because he'll be out of work due to treatments and will have to go on COBRA for his insurance. Most of those would directly be eliminated by M4A.

I may just have a particularly good friend group (although they are not particularly affluent- my family and friends tend to be more working class as I'm first-gen in college).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on February 24, 2020, 06:13:40 PM
Quote from: Anselm on February 24, 2020, 10:12:17 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 24, 2020, 08:59:39 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 24, 2020, 05:51:46 AM

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.  The democratic Socialist countries are not appealing to me, in large part because I am living the American Dream in having started from a very modest beginning (lowest decile) and now being in the professional class (second highest decile and still climbing) with free time for my family and hobbies that includes reading lots of books and partaking of the local performing arts offerings.

You realize, of course, that it's all the stuff people call SOCIALIST that allowed you to move across social boundaries and enjoy the life you live, correct?


  • The WPA probably built the electric, telephone and sewer systems in your region so you could have light bulbs and flush toilets at home.
  • Labor unions so your grandparents and parents could have weekends and living wages and job security.
  • Your family might even have relied on food stamps and Medicaid at some point to keep you fed and healthy.
  • Free public education and affordable higher education were made available to you.
  • Social Security so your grandparents didn't consume resources that your parents needed to support you.
  • Medicare so that you aren't going broke keeping up with your own parents' health needs.
  • Never mind all that radical stuff like votes for all citizens, not just white male property owners; environmental protection; blah blah blah.

Where did the money come from to pay for those things?  Taxes. How is it determined who will pay for them and who will get the benefits? Voters.  This is my biggest problem with any government program, the way they they pick winners and losers. You are a voter. Lobby for change if you have better ideas.  I've known people in dire straits, including myself, who could not qualify for these programs.   One example is unemployment insurance. Consider yourself lucky.  If you sit on the couch and watch TV you get a check.  If you take one college class you are ineligible unless your job got shipped to Mexico under NAFTA and then you can go to college for free and get unemployment checks. That's the end result of choosing "winners" and "losers" and being all judgy about who deserves help instead of having flexible benefits available.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pigou on February 24, 2020, 06:18:43 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 24, 2020, 05:35:13 PM
All the M4A proposals involve price controls, including (and especially) on per-unit pricing. It wouldn't be doable otherwise.

Medicare already negotiates prices for inpatient and outpatient care, just not for prescription drugs. And private insurers generally tie their reimbursement rates to that of Medicare. For prescription drugs, there's already only a couple pharmacy benefits managers that negotiate drug prices on behalf of insurance companies -- unlikely that the government could get that much more in savings. But prescription drugs are about 10% of health care spending, so even if you somehow got that down by 50% (not even remotely possible), that's enough to bring us back to the health care costs of... 2018. Things weren't great then either.

Even so, no amount of negotiation is going to bring the cost of an MRI down to that of an x-ray, and hospitals and doctors will always make more money with more specialized care. And a surgeon is still going to make more money when performing a surgery than telling their patient to try therapy for 3 months first. What we really need is a mechanism that makes it in the financial interest of a physician to do an x-ray when that's good enough and to save MRIs for when they're needed. But a M4A system is almost surely going to make such a mechanism politically impossible.

The UK sort-of gets it done by having most physicians as government employees and having state-run hospitals. But if you look at their salaries, there's no way that'd fly in the US: nobody is going to go through med school to make $50,000 a year when they could take their bio degree and go into a biotech startup or pharmaceutical company instead. It's not even sustainable in the UK, which has been relying on doctors from Eastern Europe for years and that supply is drying up, too. If you look at what matters most -- the growth of health care costs -- then the UK is really just a few years behind the US. This isn't a problem any system has solved, because it's actually hard.

For what it's worth, I came across a cool paper a couple years ago that compared the price of veterinary care in the US vs. other countries. This is a case where none of the systemic differences that explain differences in prices for human health care apply. And it basically looks exactly the same: the US is spending much more per capita on pets, too.

Quote from: backatit on February 24, 2020, 05:36:31 PM
I may just have a particularly good friend group (although they are not particularly affluent- my family and friends tend to be more working class as I'm first-gen in college).
It's hard to get good data on it, but it's overall not looking good: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/hundreds-of-health-crowdfunding-campaigns-are-for-sham-treatments/

There are obviously people who fall through various cracks -- not least when the states they lived in failed to expand Medicaid and so they're stuck too rich to qualify for public insurance, but too poor to receive insurance through the ACA. Just to be clear: I'm not opposed to additional reforms that increase access to care.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on February 25, 2020, 05:09:41 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 24, 2020, 08:59:39 AM
You realize, of course, that it's all the stuff people call SOCIALIST that allowed you to move across social boundaries and enjoy the life you live, correct?

Why must people automatically go to an inaccurate label instead of looking at the tradeoffs between individual government actions, as I already wrote?

Yes, that's the infrastructure I wrote about being a good use of public funds.
I come from farmers who don't really do weekends, wages, or job security.  I worked my ass off for years in school where again weekends weren't really a thing.  As a member of the professional class, I don't work 9-5, but instead work until the work is done.
Nope, again, that farmer thing means I have helped the family in many ways since I was knee-high-to-a-grasshopper including flat out labor during harvest and hunting season.  You could make a case for farm subsidies as being a targeted tax-funded program under which I have personally benefited as someone on a small family farm in some lean years.
Yes, I believe I wrote in support of public education for those who can benefit.  Because I come from an excellent public school system in a rural area, I know that not everyone will/can benefit from even an excellent education available.  Humans are diverse and interesting that way.
Nope, the culture of marrying young and having children right away means I was an adult before most of my grandparents were old enough to collect.  My great-grandmother lived with us when I was small because that was the way to ensure she was taken care of.  Likewise, the grandmother who was old enough to collect was supported by my family in various ways including taking food, sewing clothes, and other material benefits since money was tight and Social Security isn't nearly enough.
At multiple times during my adult life, I have sent money to various family members to ensure that they don't sink entirely under a bad couple of months.  I am currently supporting parts of 4 households because I am a professional success and can afford to do so.  Taking away my personal extra capacity means all those folks will be worse off.
Not socialism so I'm unclear why this item is on the list.



I have definitely benefited from the US having tax-supported public goods like infrastructure, schools, roads, libraries, environmental protection laws, good police protection in stable communities, and a strong military.  I'll grant that currently we're spending a lot of money on health-administrative-activities that would be better spent on health-care.

No one running as a Democrat is against those things.  Thus, Sanders doesn't stand out as a fabulous choice to avoid losing very important things that aren't really even at risk under Trump no matter how loudly some folks keep saying it.  However, since Sanders' plans are all expensive, I worry a lot about someone who has stated that people like me are the enemy and we don't need to have our earned stuff.  Asking us to continue to pay for the good of the country is one thing; taking away our extra capacity to help our families, friends, and communities as we see fit is quite another thing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on February 25, 2020, 05:24:35 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 24, 2020, 10:39:46 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 23, 2020, 05:11:04 PM

Why don't you see any hope for Buttigieg or Steyer?  I'm amused every time I read "Mayo Pete" and think, yes, Midwesterners want someone with minimal drama who is running for the office of commander in chief/diplomat in chief.  Mayo Pete is currently a strong second in actual delegates--the only metric that matters in June for an uncontested convention.

Buttigieg has a real, serious race problem. It's one that started under his mayorship, and one which he's been exceptionally poor at defusing (or, indeed: accepting). Consider, for instance, his rollout of his "Douglass Plan", half of whose "Black" supporters were in fact white, and for which he publicly claimed support from a number of prominent Black politicians who, it turns out, did not support his candidacy at all (the campaign emailed them the plan and said that unless they got a negative response, they'd assume positive support). That was a bad, unforced error. Stupid, but one can accept that this stuff sometimes happens. What boggles my mind is that he then did the exact same thing a second time just before Nevada. The result is that he polls at about 0% among Black people in South Bend, not to mention nationally. That's bad news for his candidacy.

But wait! He also polls at between 1%-5% nationally among Latinos! Now there's another path to victory! His outreach to Latino communities has been virtually nonexistent.

What percentage of the people who are likely to vote are <racial group of your choice> and how are they geographically distributed in the US?  One does not need to get the overall popular vote to be the candidate.  If one 100% <racial group of your choice> precinct is lost while several other precincts are won, that's mathematically likely to work out in terms of delegates and then again in terms of a general election.

I disbelieve the assertion that Buttigieg has not done outreach to Latino communities since his Twitter feed has had Spanish tweets for a year that are campaign talking points.  I live in a Hispanic-majority region and I see national ads along with local signs and bumper stickers.  I find that amusing since our primary usually is irrelevant since it's so late in the season and has very few delegates.  That's why the Bloomberg and Steyer ads stand out since we usually don't get too many political ads in the local market for national candidates.

Thus, I again have to wonder how the polls are done and whether they are truly representative or whether they were convenient for people who still have a landline or are in big enough cities that polls on the street of people who have a specific skin tone are not representative of "everyone" with that skin tone.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 25, 2020, 05:33:40 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 25, 2020, 05:09:41 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 24, 2020, 08:59:39 AM
You realize, of course, that it's all the stuff people call SOCIALIST that allowed you to move across social boundaries and enjoy the life you live, correct?

Why must people automatically go to an inaccurate label instead of looking at the tradeoffs between individual government actions, as I already wrote?


It recently occurred to me that people on the left who use the term "socialism" as also people most concerned with prohibiting the use of "offensive" language. Maybe if they can be convinced that many people find the term "socialist" offensive, they may be convinced to change it for a better term so people can actually hear what they are talking about.

(And as a Canadian, who favours things like national healthcare, I am offended by being called a "socialist", because I am NOT.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 25, 2020, 06:01:25 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 25, 2020, 05:09:41 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 24, 2020, 08:59:39 AM
You realize, of course, that it's all the stuff people call SOCIALIST that allowed you to move across social boundaries and enjoy the life you live, correct?

Why must people automatically go to an inaccurate label instead of looking at the tradeoffs between individual government actions, as I already wrote?


  • The WPA probably built the electric, telephone and sewer systems in your region so you could have light bulbs and flush toilets at home.
Yes, that's the infrastructure I wrote about being a good use of public funds.
  • Labor unions so your grandparents and parents could have weekends and living wages and job security.
I come from farmers who don't really do weekends, wages, or job security.  I worked my ass off for years in school where again weekends weren't really a thing.  As a member of the professional class, I don't work 9-5, but instead work until the work is done.
  • Your family might even have relied on food stamps and Medicaid at some point to keep you fed and healthy.
Nope, again, that farmer thing means I have helped the family in many ways since I was knee-high-to-a-grasshopper including flat out labor during harvest and hunting season.  You could make a case for farm subsidies as being a targeted tax-funded program under which I have personally benefited as someone on a small family farm in some lean years.

If there are any farmers reading, Polly_Mer is a respected scholar, member/architect of this online community and proud advocate of the 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps' slogan. She's against government programs that subsidize people that a few bleeding heart activists think are in meritorious position, such as farmers. OK with you?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on February 25, 2020, 07:32:33 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 25, 2020, 06:01:25 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 25, 2020, 05:09:41 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 24, 2020, 08:59:39 AM
You realize, of course, that it's all the stuff people call SOCIALIST that allowed you to move across social boundaries and enjoy the life you live, correct?

Why must people automatically go to an inaccurate label instead of looking at the tradeoffs between individual government actions, as I already wrote?


  • The WPA probably built the electric, telephone and sewer systems in your region so you could have light bulbs and flush toilets at home.
Yes, that's the infrastructure I wrote about being a good use of public funds.
  • Labor unions so your grandparents and parents could have weekends and living wages and job security.
I come from farmers who don't really do weekends, wages, or job security.  I worked my ass off for years in school where again weekends weren't really a thing.  As a member of the professional class, I don't work 9-5, but instead work until the work is done.
  • Your family might even have relied on food stamps and Medicaid at some point to keep you fed and healthy.
Nope, again, that farmer thing means I have helped the family in many ways since I was knee-high-to-a-grasshopper including flat out labor during harvest and hunting season.  You could make a case for farm subsidies as being a targeted tax-funded program under which I have personally benefited as someone on a small family farm in some lean years.

If there are any farmers reading, Polly_Mer is a respected scholar, member/architect of this online community and proud advocate of the 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps' slogan. She's against government programs that subsidize people that a few bleeding heart activists think are in meritorious position, such as farmers. OK with you?

Even white folk can be graduates of the Clarence Thomas (I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps) subsidized College of Delusional Thought.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pigou on February 25, 2020, 07:36:05 AM
My primary concern with Sanders isn't so much the policies he advocates for, but that he seems to have a genuine belief that there are no trade-offs in policy. It's evident in M4A where you can get a plan that is better on every dimension and it will cost you less (unless you're a billionaire -- but there are only 500 of them in the US). His economic adviser is Stephanie Kelton, one of the pre-eminent supporters of modern monetary theory. This is an extreme fringe view that basically says the government should just print money to pay for things and hyperinflation cannot happen in the United States. This is why the question "how do we pay for it" doesn't phase Sanders: his economic policy is that we'll just print the money and so don't need to worry about raising the revenue.

People who don't believe in trade-offs frighten me. They pursue their goals with the drive of a religious zealot. Because when there are no trade-offs, people who oppose you must genuinely be evil -- they want others to suffer when there's no cost to stopping their suffering. But of course there always are costs, they're sometimes just not as obvious. And in the case of "let's just print money" we actually have plenty of precedent and it's always ended in disaster.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on February 25, 2020, 07:45:06 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on February 25, 2020, 07:32:33 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 25, 2020, 06:01:25 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on February 25, 2020, 05:09:41 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 24, 2020, 08:59:39 AM
You realize, of course, that it's all the stuff people call SOCIALIST that allowed you to move across social boundaries and enjoy the life you live, correct?

Why must people automatically go to an inaccurate label instead of looking at the tradeoffs between individual government actions, as I already wrote?


  • The WPA probably built the electric, telephone and sewer systems in your region so you could have light bulbs and flush toilets at home.
Yes, that's the infrastructure I wrote about being a good use of public funds.
  • Labor unions so your grandparents and parents could have weekends and living wages and job security.
I come from farmers who don't really do weekends, wages, or job security.  I worked my ass off for years in school where again weekends weren't really a thing.  As a member of the professional class, I don't work 9-5, but instead work until the work is done.
  • Your family might even have relied on food stamps and Medicaid at some point to keep you fed and healthy.
Nope, again, that farmer thing means I have helped the family in many ways since I was knee-high-to-a-grasshopper including flat out labor during harvest and hunting season.  You could make a case for farm subsidies as being a targeted tax-funded program under which I have personally benefited as someone on a small family farm in some lean years.

If there are any farmers reading, Polly_Mer is a respected scholar, member/architect of this online community and proud advocate of the 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps' slogan. She's against government programs that subsidize people that a few bleeding heart activists think are in meritorious position, such as farmers. OK with you?

Even white folk can be graduates of the Clarence Thomas (I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps) subsidized College of Delusional Thought.

Okay, let's all move to a farm and plant Victory Gardens.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on February 27, 2020, 05:36:37 AM
Watched the South Carolina debate last night. It was far and away the worst of them all, and it's entirely CBS's fault. They did an appallingly poor job, and were clearly just trying to get a fight going to save their ratings.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on February 27, 2020, 05:46:36 AM
Quote from: pigou on February 25, 2020, 07:36:05 AM
People who don't believe in trade-offs frighten me. They pursue their goals with the drive of a religious zealot. Because when there are no trade-offs, people who oppose you must genuinely be evil -- they want others to suffer when there's no cost to stopping their suffering. But of course there always are costs, they're sometimes just not as obvious.

This is particularly problematic in the U.S. which is basically a two party system. In Canada, there are at least 3 parties with seats, and more often 4 or 5. Even though only the two most popular have a hope of forming the government, the existence of the others is a reminder that there are not only two ways of looking at any issue. (Technically, even if there are only two viewpoints, they don't have to be diametrically opposed, but in practice, that is often the perception.)

Ironically (to me anyway) is that this is why the primaries in the U.S. can be so chaotic, like this one. Since there are so many candidates, (i.e. more than two), then there are more than two perspectives on many issues, and the chaos comes from that being so unfamiliar.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 01, 2020, 10:12:01 PM
Buttigieg has... Petered out.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on March 02, 2020, 10:12:55 AM
QuoteButtigieg has... Petered out.

Im surprised that he pulled out on Sunday, only 48 hours before Super Tuesday. Is there a strategic reason to suspend NOW?  I suppose that IF he puts his support behind Biden now, he may be able to make the VP play, but Im not sure that the weaknesses he has on his candidacy will be a positive to the ticket. 

The latest polls show my state leaning toward Sanders.  Im not sure who Ill vote for on Tuesday.  I wasnt sure before Pete's news, but Im not sure that Im eager to vote for anyone over 70 and that leaves Amy, and she doesnt seem to have any chance, from what I can see.   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 02, 2020, 10:16:59 AM
I'm moving back towards Warren....believe it or not.

We're pickled...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on March 02, 2020, 10:40:47 AM
Amy just suspended too, throwing her support to Biden.
NO under 70 now.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: magnemite on March 02, 2020, 10:48:28 AM
Quote from: clean on March 02, 2020, 10:40:47 AM
Amy just suspended too, throwing her support to Biden.
NO under 70 now.

Drats, but at least she did so before I've voted. I was hoping she would choose to hang in after Mayor Pete threw in the towel.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: magnemite on March 02, 2020, 10:49:32 AM
So, now I'm back to voting for Warren
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 02, 2020, 10:57:59 AM
Quote from: clean on March 02, 2020, 10:12:55 AM
QuoteButtigieg has... Petered out.

Im surprised that he pulled out on Sunday, only 48 hours before Super Tuesday. Is there a strategic reason to suspend NOW?  I suppose that IF he puts his support behind Biden now, he may be able to make the VP play, but Im not sure that the weaknesses he has on his candidacy will be a positive to the ticket. 


Good question. I assume it's mostly to avoid the negative impression that would result from a major shellacking in CA and TX, and possibly elsewhere, since that might damage his future congress/senate/whatever prospects, or his viability with billionaire donors.

Plus maybe he figured he could boost Biden? Although I'd have expected an endorsement before ST if that's the case. Could be he's weighing a Warren endorsement. Shrug.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on March 02, 2020, 12:36:50 PM
At a dinner event on February 24th:

My name is Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate

This may be his most serious gaffe to date.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on March 02, 2020, 04:41:35 PM
Besides Buttigieg and Sen. Klobuchar ending their campaigns, Tom Steyer ended his bid at the close of the SC primary.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on March 02, 2020, 05:05:14 PM
Quote from: Anselm on March 02, 2020, 12:36:50 PM
At a dinner event on February 24th:

My name is Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate

This may be his most serious gaffe to date.

Well, he did say that 150 million Americans had been killed by gun violence.  On the other hand, people on these fora may not be aware that that's wrong.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 02, 2020, 05:55:51 PM
I had long thought that Biden had the best chance to beat Trump. I questioned my own judgement as he spoke over recent months. But now things look cool: Bernie vs. Biden in the finals before the real finals.

And remember: Politics is not about policy! :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 02, 2020, 06:20:50 PM
Interesting prediction by Paul Begala (CNN).

To upstage the DNC announcement, Begala figures Pence will be replaced on the ticket by Nikki Haley via an announcement from the Florida Camp David.

Reason: He will have done badly in overseeing the coronavirus mess....

   https://thehill.com/homenews/media/485562-cnns-begala-trump-will-dump-pence-for-haley-on-day-of-democratic-nominees

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Diogenes on March 03, 2020, 07:24:43 AM
Quote from: mamselle on March 02, 2020, 06:20:50 PM
Interesting prediction by Paul Begala (CNN).

To upstage the DNC announcement, Begala figures Pence will be replaced on the ticket by Nikki Haley via an announcement from the Florida Camp David.

Reason: He will have done badly in overseeing the coronavirus mess....

   https://thehill.com/homenews/media/485562-cnns-begala-trump-will-dump-pence-for-haley-on-day-of-democratic-nominees

M.

He needs the evangelical vote too much to ditch someone like Pence. Haley has moderate appeal but he'd need a Pence clone.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: RatGuy on March 03, 2020, 08:37:04 AM
Quote from: Diogenes on March 03, 2020, 07:24:43 AM
Quote from: mamselle on March 02, 2020, 06:20:50 PM
Interesting prediction by Paul Begala (CNN).

To upstage the DNC announcement, Begala figures Pence will be replaced on the ticket by Nikki Haley via an announcement from the Florida Camp David.

Reason: He will have done badly in overseeing the coronavirus mess....

   https://thehill.com/homenews/media/485562-cnns-begala-trump-will-dump-pence-for-haley-on-day-of-democratic-nominees

M.

He needs the evangelical vote too much to ditch someone like Pence. Haley has moderate appeal but he'd need a Pence clone.

I disagree. In my experience -- and this is coming from a red state in a predominately Baptist area -- the evangelicals I know already view Trump as the second coming of Christ. I've mentioned before that I have neighbors and colleagues who have Trump's autograph on their Bibles. They view all his actions as righteous, given that almost all define "liberal" or "left" or "not Republican" as literally diabolical. As that one politician from Alabama said, "we'd vote for Satan himself before we'd elect a Democrat." I don't think that's just rhetoric, at least around here. Evangelicals don't "hold their nose" as they defend Trump -- they defend him as if they're defending their own faith.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on March 03, 2020, 09:31:55 AM
Quote from: RatGuy on March 03, 2020, 08:37:04 AM
As that one politician from Alabama said, "we'd vote for Satan himself before we'd elect a Democrat."

And there are people on the left who would say basically the same thing if you replaced "Democrat" with "Republican". That sort of polarization (on both ends of the political spectrum) is the true danger to democracy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on March 03, 2020, 12:25:15 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on March 03, 2020, 07:24:43 AM
Quote from: mamselle on March 02, 2020, 06:20:50 PM
Interesting prediction by Paul Begala (CNN).

To upstage the DNC announcement, Begala figures Pence will be replaced on the ticket by Nikki Haley via an announcement from the Florida Camp David.

Reason: He will have done badly in overseeing the coronavirus mess....

   https://thehill.com/homenews/media/485562-cnns-begala-trump-will-dump-pence-for-haley-on-day-of-democratic-nominees

M.

He needs the evangelical vote too much to ditch someone like Pence. Haley has moderate appeal but he'd need a Pence clone.

As one of the "evangelicals" you're talking about, I assure you that we'd all be fine with Haley and don't care about Pence one way or the other now that Trump has proven himself to us.  [Note: I despise Trump.]  I personally would enjoy a Haley candidacy, if only to see the Left beclown itself with "She's not a woman 'of color'; she's a Republican" bumper stickers.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on March 03, 2020, 12:40:14 PM
A bit of a change of topic....

I'm starting to wonder if the attention paid to who wins the presidency is a bit over-rated.  Trump (and Obama before him) has had much (most?) of his success more by executive order than by legislation.  He is staffing the executive branch with like minded sycophants.  I'm not happy with it, but all of that can be undone with a signature by a later Democratic administration.

The one that scares me is Mitch McConnell who is stacking the federal courts with people who will be able to influence the nature of the country for 2 generations.  That's the kind of influence that changes a country for a long time, not the tweet of the moment stuff that serves as red meat to the deplorables Trumpists.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 04, 2020, 07:47:44 AM
Looks like those last-minute withdrawals and endorsements paid off for Biden and resurrected his campaign last night. Ugh.

On the other hand, I welcome the narrowing of the race, and it's far from over. In fact, it's still neck-and-neck.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on March 04, 2020, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: spork on February 11, 2020, 05:41:52 PM
Quote from: spork on February 09, 2020, 09:29:14 AM

[. . .]

I predict Biden's campaign will continue its downward spiral and that he will get crushed in South Carolina if his campaign lasts that long.

I am going to continue with this prediction.

I am comfortable enough in my masculinity to admit that my prediction was wrong.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on March 05, 2020, 06:23:47 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on March 03, 2020, 12:40:14 PM
A bit of a change of topic....

I'm starting to wonder if the attention paid to who wins the presidency is a bit over-rated.  Trump (and Obama before him) has had much (most?) of his success more by executive order than by legislation.  He is staffing the executive branch with like minded sycophants.  I'm not happy with it, but all of that can be undone with a signature by a later Democratic administration.

The one that scares me is Mitch McConnell who is stacking the federal courts with people who will be able to influence the nature of the country for 2 generations.  That's the kind of influence that changes a country for a long time, not the tweet of the moment stuff that serves as red meat to the deplorables Trumpists.

He scares the living sh*t out of me.  We're screwed by SCOTUS until after I'm dead.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 05, 2020, 09:17:47 AM
Are there parliamentary systems in which we could end up with a combination like Pelosi for President and McCormack for Veep?

THAT would be interesting...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: magnemite on March 05, 2020, 10:22:40 AM
Quote from: spork on March 04, 2020, 06:24:53 PM
Quote from: spork on February 11, 2020, 05:41:52 PM
Quote from: spork on February 09, 2020, 09:29:14 AM

[. . .]

I predict Biden's campaign will continue its downward spiral and that he will get crushed in South Carolina if his campaign lasts that long.

I am going to continue with this prediction.

I am comfortable enough in my masculinity to admit that my prediction was wrong.

You are not alone.

Now that Warren is out, I have to revise my preference again before voting on Tuesday.

I am not thrilled by the prospect of being certain we'll have a president who is older than 73 starting in 2021. #notOKboomer!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on March 05, 2020, 12:02:34 PM
Quote from: mamselle on March 05, 2020, 09:17:47 AM
Are there parliamentary systems in which we could end up with a combination like Pelosi for President and McCormack for Veep?

THAT would be interesting...

M.

Did you mean Mitch McConnell?  I seem to recall reading that in the earliest elections the VP would be from a different party than the president's own party.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 05, 2020, 12:33:46 PM
Who is McCormack?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Cheerful on March 05, 2020, 12:40:22 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 05, 2020, 12:33:46 PM
Who is McCormack?

Not be confused with Willoughby M. McCormick (1864–1932), founder of spice and condiments company in U.S.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on March 05, 2020, 01:02:30 PM
Quote from: RatGuy on March 03, 2020, 08:37:04 AM
Quote from: Diogenes on March 03, 2020, 07:24:43 AM
Quote from: mamselle on March 02, 2020, 06:20:50 PM
Interesting prediction by Paul Begala (CNN).

To upstage the DNC announcement, Begala figures Pence will be replaced on the ticket by Nikki Haley via an announcement from the Florida Camp David.

Reason: He will have done badly in overseeing the coronavirus mess....

   https://thehill.com/homenews/media/485562-cnns-begala-trump-will-dump-pence-for-haley-on-day-of-democratic-nominees

M.

He needs the evangelical vote too much to ditch someone like Pence. Haley has moderate appeal but he'd need a Pence clone.

I disagree. In my experience -- and this is coming from a red state in a predominately Baptist area -- the evangelicals I know already view Trump as the second coming of Christ. I've mentioned before that I have neighbors and colleagues who have Trump's autograph on their Bibles. They view all his actions as righteous, given that almost all define "liberal" or "left" or "not Republican" as literally diabolical. As that one politician from Alabama said, "we'd vote for Satan himself before we'd elect a Democrat." I don't think that's just rhetoric, at least around here. Evangelicals don't "hold their nose" as they defend Trump -- they defend him as if they're defending their own faith.

Well, they feel their faith needs defending.  During the last election many were deeply frightened that a Clinton presidency would lay the groundwork for religious persecution against them.  Voting for the Republican candidate, even though it was somebody like Trump, was an act of desperation.  It seems, in the near term, to have paid off, and so attitudes have hardened in response to the criticisms of them for having done it.  Telling people that their actions represent a sell-out and a loss of integrity has a tendency to provoke such defensive reactions.

My own sense as an evangelical voter since the last election is that our society has reached a point where there is no national candidate we can in good conscience support.  I refuse to vote for either party at the national level.  It disturbs me greatly to see so many evangelical Christians looking to such a godless man for their salvation.  I'd much rather take a chance on getting on a slippery slope to persecution with integrity than sacrificing integrity in a craven effort to have a secular protector.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 05, 2020, 01:31:54 PM
Quote from: Anselm on March 05, 2020, 12:02:34 PM
Quote from: mamselle on March 05, 2020, 09:17:47 AM
Are there parliamentary systems in which we could end up with a combination like Pelosi for President and McCormack for Veep?

THAT would be interesting...

M.

Did you mean Mitch McConnell?  I seem to recall reading that in the earliest elections the VP would be from a different party than the president's own party.

Yeah, the 12th Amendment [1804] made that all but impossible, after Tommy Jefferson and John Adams damned near killed each other.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 05, 2020, 06:33:39 PM
Arrgh!  Yes, McConnell.

My error this time....tempting to blame it on auto-correct, but that one's on me...!

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 08, 2020, 12:16:00 PM
Looks like 10% of the votes in Dallas County (https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/dallas-county-asks-to-recount-election-after-44-thumb-drives-discovered/287-84e19400-81bc-4256-bcb3-e25df380d699?fbclid=IwAR1LHMwFBJ28Qs2qiEL-JDrw1iqjda-8SvJ8M7GbxHZ27jUVTtlOw4RCV_8) weren't counted at all.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on March 08, 2020, 06:30:15 PM
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-threshold-for-next-presidential-debate-likely-rules-out-tulsi-gabbard
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on March 08, 2020, 06:44:55 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 08, 2020, 12:16:00 PM
Looks like 10% of the votes in Dallas County (https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/dallas-county-asks-to-recount-election-after-44-thumb-drives-discovered/287-84e19400-81bc-4256-bcb3-e25df380d699) weren't counted at all.

Oops! Fortunately, the future of our nation doesn't depend on fair, free, and accurate elections, and nobody at the national level is accusing states of having fraud in their electoral process.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 10, 2020, 10:33:35 AM
Biden just said, in an interview, that he'd veto M4A if it managed to pass through the House and got to his desk.

So: what a unity candidate!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on March 10, 2020, 11:03:01 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 10, 2020, 10:33:35 AM
Biden just said, in an interview, that he'd veto M4A if it managed to pass through the House and got to his desk.

So: what a unity candidate!

First, thanks for your pm re your opposition to Buttegieg. Didn't find it for awhile, as my ridiculous email quarantined it.

From Biden's interview:

Biden seemed to be hesitant about the projected cost of such a bill and whether implementing it would affect citizens in the short-term.
"I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of health care being available now. If they got that through and by some miracle, there's an epiphany that occurred and some miracle occurred that said, 'OK, it's passed.' Then you got to look at the cost," Biden said.

The former vice president continued:

"I want to know how did they find the $35 trillion dollars? What is that doing? Is it going to significantly raise taxes on the middle class? Which it will. What's going to happen? Look, my opposition isn't to the principle that you should have Medicare. Health care should be a right in America. My opposition relates to whether or not: a.) it's doable. Two, what the cost is and what the consequences for the rest of the budget are. How are you going to find $35 trillion dollars over the next 10 years without having profound impacts on everything from taxes for middle class and working class people as well as the impact on the rest of the budget?"
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on March 10, 2020, 11:52:22 AM
Regarding the cost I can offer this tidbit.   In 2006 I paid out of pocket for COBRA.  The cheapest option with BCBS was $60 per month with a high deductible and that was maybe $3000.  That lead me to two conclusions.  Many of the millions of people without health insurance could have afforded that.  Secondly, the federal government could have paid for that small amount and then we would all be covered, including the smaller group of people with serious pre-existing conditions.   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 10, 2020, 12:58:25 PM
There are different levels of "afford," however. For some people, that $60.00 buys a week's groceries.

The theoretical need for health coverage for a non-present illness or injury vs. three kids crying for milk on their cereal in the AM might need to be factored into that part of it. (Just sayin'.)

But, yes, I agree otherwise; governmental coverage could probably handle it.


M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on March 10, 2020, 01:55:12 PM
Not to divert this thread to the olden and now defunct ACA debates...but...

QuoteThere are different levels of "afford," however. For some people, that $60.00 buys a week's groceries.

My students argue that they can not afford to even rent a text for $40 a term, while they surf the  net or texting about the next party on their cell phones and try to avoid knocking over their Starbucks coffee. 

You never NEED insurance until you NEED insurance.  By then, it is too late, so clearly it is the responsibility of the government (or charity hospital) to provide what you were unable/unwilling to provide for yourself, right?

Anyway, when this first reached the Supreme Court, I m pretty sure that it was ruled that requiring health insurance was not an abuse of power by the US government.  (And the other arguments about it were thwarted because it was dealt with through tax penalties... which were then eliminated by the current administration/congress, again calling into question the constitutionality of the issues as there was now no tax penalty for failing to carry coverage). 

IF Health Care is a Right (as I often hear these days) Then why isnt Having Health Insurance a Responsibility?

Im pretty sure in my state, IF you get pulled over and dont have liability insurance, they can tow your car (at your expense, of course) and you walk home (or text your buddies to pick you up on their way home from Starbucks or the party (see above).  Driving is a privilege, having liability insurance is a responsibility ( and the law!)

To take the extreme case, and quote my second favorite (after Darth Vader) screen character, Ebeneezer Scrooge... IF you dont have insurance, go to the charity hospital.  Cant make it to the charity hospitality, then Scrooge would advocate that you "Decrease the Surplus Population." 

Call me Clean.  A supporter of the ACA, including the mandate that people have insurance, even if subsidized by the government for those that are at the lower end of the income scales. 

So yes,
QuoteThere are different levels of "afford,"
and setting those levels is not necessarily a rational decision but often a 'convenience' decision.  (milk for their store bought, brand name cereal for instance...  Full price Captain Crunch??? BS! --buy off brand Ensign Krunch and THEN we will talk!.  Oreo Cookies?  Hell Hydrox cookies (that's what I got!) ... and why are you feeding them cookies anyway?

but I rant.
Ignore and resume normal programming. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 10, 2020, 02:06:51 PM
Maybe the higher-end stores carry off-brand items, but most regular grocery stores--or the tiny stores near enough to the projects that you can get there and back without a car, with each kid carrying a bag of groceries--do not.

For the rest, it just sounds like our experiences and our outlook about them have differed.

That's OK.

M.


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on March 10, 2020, 02:19:00 PM
Quote from: clean on March 10, 2020, 01:55:12 PM

IF Health Care is a Right (as I often hear these days) Then why isnt Having Health Insurance a Responsibility?


If having health insurance is a right and also kicking in to it is a requirement then it should be priced the same irrespective of whether you have have employment designated as full time, employment designated as part-time, or no employment. Or, if it were treated like progressive tax, then more 'affordable' to those with less ability to pay.


Whereas...

If health insurance were treated like car insurance then people who neglect to take care of themselves would pay more.


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on March 10, 2020, 02:53:19 PM
Paying into the system already is a responsibility if you consider the part time worker who gets no health insurance from work but provides cost savings to this employer who then pays part of the premium of other employees as well as giving them access to buyer pool. While this part time worker who doesn't purchase health insurance is more expensive to the system if he uses free care but doesn't go to the doctor regularly, only when he has a health crisis.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on March 10, 2020, 02:58:25 PM
QuoteMaybe the higher-end stores carry off-brand items, but most regular grocery stores--or the tiny stores near enough to the projects that you can get there and back without a car, with each kid carrying a bag of groceries--do not.

Even Dollar General (or The Dollar Store, I confuse them) have their own off brands.  From my investment research, these stores are often found 
Quotenear enough to the projects that you can get there and back without a car, with each kid carrying a bag of groceries--do not.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on March 10, 2020, 03:06:54 PM
QuoteIf having health insurance is a right
Please reread my quote:

QuoteIF Health Care is a Right (as I often hear these days) Then why isnt Having Health Insurance a Responsibility?

I will grant that one of the biggest arguments against "Obama-Care" was affordability of the plans that were obtainable, even though there were government subsidies

Quotethen it should be priced the same irrespective of whether you have have employment designated as full time, employment designated as part-time, or no employment. Or, if it were treated like progressive tax, then more 'affordable' to those with less ability to pay.

While my employer provided health care is ok, i think, it is not cheap for my employer. It costs more than $500 a month to insure single ole me, and I still have deductibles and copays.  The inability of the 'private market', even when subsidized by the government to find affordable plans was a problem.  Adding the young group (to subsidize the older crowd and those of us with preexisting conditions and no lifetime limits)  did not reduce the prices as much as hoped. I wont say "as thought" because I have no idea 'what they were thinking!'
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 03:13:05 PM
"Call me Clean.  A supporter of the ACA, including the mandate that people have insurance, even if subsidized by the government for those that are at the lower end of the income scales. "

Couldn't agree more. It is the mandate that makes something like Social Security work, for without it, only those who expect to live a long time would purchase such an annuity, killing the market. Health insurance runs this in reverse, in that only those who expect to be sick buy it voluntarily.

[The constitutional question is idiotic, arising only because the ACA promoters didn't want to call premiums a tax. Of course, they are an earmarked tax, just like the federal gasoline tax.]

[Those w/o health insurance are taken care of, for better or worse, by explicitly mandated care and implicit charities, so they are not subsidizing those with insurance.]
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 10, 2020, 03:33:42 PM
Don't forget that the cost of insurance is not te cost of your premium. It's the premium plus the copay and deductible every time they're invoked, plus what's left over when you've maxed your coverage.

As for rights and responsibilities: it's a human right, and as with other human rights, it's the government's responsibility to guarantee them. Driving is a right, but not a human right.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 03:41:14 PM
"Lifetime & Annual Limits

The current law prohibits health plans from putting annual or lifetime dollar limits on most benefits you receive.
Lifetime Limits

Under the current law, lifetime limits on most benefits are prohibited in any health plan or insurance policy. Previously, many plans set a lifetime limit — a dollar limit on what they would spend for your covered benefits during the entire time you were enrolled in that plan. You were required to pay the cost of all care exceeding those limits.
Annual Limits

The current law bans annual dollar limits that all job-related plans and individual health insurance plans can put on most covered health benefits. Before the health care law, many health plans set an annual limit — a dollar limit on their yearly spending for your covered benefits. You were required to pay the cost of all care exceeding those limits."

https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/benefit-limits/index.html
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on March 10, 2020, 03:48:42 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 03:13:05 PM

[Those w/o health insurance are taken care of, for better or worse, by explicitly mandated care and implicit charities, so they are not subsidizing those with insurance.]

Well I paid something like $2000 out of pocket for a crown on one of my molars some ten years ago. Maybe I'm an idiot and I didn't know I didn't have to? I didn't look into it. The dentist told me the cost and I thought 'I think she's a good dentist. Let's get it done.'  The amount was not enough to enter on my Schedule B form. Whereas insurance premiums are paid in pre-tax dollars. So yes, I am subsidizing the dental insurance for my full time colleagues.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 03:52:19 PM
Not you personally, but uninsured people on average.

And yes, there is no reason at all that employer paid health insurance premia are not taxed as income. A fluke, from WW II, decided by the IRS alone.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on March 10, 2020, 04:02:20 PM
QuoteAs for rights and responsibilities: it's a human right, and as with other human rights, it's the government's responsibility to guarantee them.

Not to be too argumentative, but Where is the List?  When were the listed items added to the list?  (Im behind the times, I suppose,)

(And remember, if you find my ranting post, I did suggest that it be ignored and that we return to normal 2020 election posting)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on March 10, 2020, 04:03:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 03:52:19 PM
Not you personally, but uninsured people on average.


So the uninsured are having teeth pulled instead?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 04:05:05 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 10, 2020, 04:03:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 03:52:19 PM
Not you personally, but uninsured people on average.


So the uninsured are having teeth pulled instead?

Well, yeah.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on March 10, 2020, 05:26:40 PM
QuoteSo the uninsured are having teeth pulled instead?

In my experience, dental insurance, like glasses insurance, is not cost effective(you pay a lot more than you ever, ever get) .  My dental policy is about as expensive as getting my teeth cleaned. However, when I needed a root canal and crown recently, it paid all of $750 toward the cost of the treatment.  AND that is all that I will have covered for the rest of the year, until September! 

Supposedly, IF I could find a dentist that took the coverage, then I would not have paid as much as I did, but my current dentist stopped taking our insurance long, long ago. I dont know of any dentist in my town that is taking it, but that is not to say that there isnt one.

Same with Eye Glass Insurance. Most are probably just as well off to pay for the glasses through the Health Care Savings account/plan.  When I had the glasses insurance, and found a place that took it, I was limited to only "these" frames . I now just pay out of pocket and get reimbursed by the Health Savings Account and I can shop anywhere for anything I want (for the most part) and I get the tax deduction for the health care savings contributions. While not a selling point,I can get the glasses in September when the plan year starts, and use the full health care amount and then have the deduction go over the rest of the year. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 05:51:34 PM
Quote from: clean on March 10, 2020, 04:02:20 PM

...

(And remember, if you find my ranting post, I did suggest that it be ignored and that we return to normal 2020 election posting)

By the way, there are these primaries tonight.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 10, 2020, 06:05:24 PM
Noting seems to be posted yet that I can find.

Or else I'm looking in the wrong places....but...."NYT?" is still ghosted with the 2016 results for comparison, no entries yet.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on March 10, 2020, 07:11:33 PM
Quote from: clean on March 10, 2020, 05:26:40 PM
QuoteSo the uninsured are having teeth pulled instead?

In my experience, dental insurance, like glasses insurance, is not cost effective(you pay a lot more than you ever, ever get) .  My dental policy is about as expensive as getting my teeth cleaned. However, when I needed a root canal and crown recently, it paid all of $750 toward the cost of the treatment.  AND that is all that I will have covered for the rest of the year, until September! 

Supposedly, IF I could find a dentist that took the coverage, then I would not have paid as much as I did, but my current dentist stopped taking our insurance long, long ago. I dont know of any dentist in my town that is taking it, but that is not to say that there isnt one.

Same with Eye Glass Insurance. Most are probably just as well off to pay for the glasses through the Health Care Savings account/plan.  When I had the glasses insurance, and found a place that took it, I was limited to only "these" frames . I now just pay out of pocket and get reimbursed by the Health Savings Account and I can shop anywhere for anything I want (for the most part) and I get the tax deduction for the health care savings contributions. While not a selling point,I can get the glasses in September when the plan year starts, and use the full health care amount and then have the deduction go over the rest of the year.

I think I've probably paid more in premiums for regular health insurance that I got. It's to protect my home from being seized in the event
of the long serious illness.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 07:15:43 PM
By the way, there are these primaries tonight. :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 10, 2020, 09:15:58 PM
Results showing now: CNN has Biden winning the 3Ms (Mississippi, Missouri, and Michigan; he's leading in Idaho with 1/3 of the results in (counting is going slowly), NorthDakota is also going slowly per 5-3-8, and they're also saying ABC gives 120 electoral college votes to Biden, and 64 to Sanders, with 181 still unallocated.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on March 11, 2020, 07:41:47 AM
Quote from: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 04:05:05 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 10, 2020, 04:03:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 10, 2020, 03:52:19 PM
Not you personally, but uninsured people on average.


So the uninsured are having teeth pulled instead?

Well, yeah.

I live in a poor, rural area where once a year, medical professionals set up at the local fairgrounds to provide as much care as possible over 3 days.  LOTS of teeth get pulled.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on March 12, 2020, 09:23:13 AM
I hope all those white wealthy suburbanites who voted for Trump in 2016 because they thought he would do a better job protecting their money than Clinton are looking at their 401Ks right now.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on March 12, 2020, 03:51:45 PM
The day Trump took office, the Dow was just over 19,800, so those
Quotewhite wealthy suburbanites who voted for Trump in 2016 because they thought he would do a better job protecting their money than Clinton are looking at their 401Ks right now.
and seeing that the market is still up from the day he took office.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on March 12, 2020, 08:18:32 PM
Hmm.... What about Rep. Katie Porter for VP slash president of the future?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on March 13, 2020, 05:20:38 PM
Quote from: clean on March 12, 2020, 03:51:45 PM
The day Trump took office, the Dow was just over 19,800, so those
Quotewhite wealthy suburbanites who voted for Trump in 2016 because they thought he would do a better job protecting their money than Clinton are looking at their 401Ks right now.
and seeing that the market is still up from the day he took office.

There is still time for a drop of about 500 points on the S & P 500.

Heard Trump on the radio this afternoon. The guy is a total fucking moron.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 15, 2020, 02:01:10 PM
Aw, hell, the market will fluctuate! :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on March 16, 2020, 05:24:39 AM
Quote from: spork on March 13, 2020, 05:20:38 PM
Quote from: clean on March 12, 2020, 03:51:45 PM
The day Trump took office, the Dow was just over 19,800, so those
Quotewhite wealthy suburbanites who voted for Trump in 2016 because they thought he would do a better job protecting their money than Clinton are looking at their 401Ks right now.
and seeing that the market is still up from the day he took office.

There is still time for a drop of about 500 points on the S & P 500.

Heard Trump on the radio this afternoon. The guy is a total fucking moron.

UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE CENTURY!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on March 16, 2020, 06:10:03 AM
What is it that you folks think someone else would have done as leader in this very unusual situation that would make a difference?

What do you think the markets would have done in response to whatever that thing is when the rest of the world is still the rest of the world and we're still all highly connected?

I watched the Democratic debate last night.  No one has a plan for a situation like this.

We're in a mental/emotion place in which people who have picked teams are quite sure their team is doing fabulously well and that other team is just flat out stupid, regardless of what the actual actions, plans, and results are.  FiveThirtyEight has poll results that show such a split with Democrats strongly disapproving of Trump's Covid-19 performance and Republicans strongly approving (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-concerned-are-americans-about-coronavirus-so-far/).  Perhaps people don't know that Trump's overall approval rating is still in the low 40s--about the same level it has been for most of his term. (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on March 16, 2020, 06:59:45 AM
Quote from: dismalist on March 15, 2020, 02:01:10 PM
Aw, hell, the market will fluctuate! :-)

Yes, but only 200 points to go before the S & P 500 is lower than it was at the time of Trump's inauguration.

And just to be fair, I think the best political outcome would be for Biden to serve less than a single term.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Diogenes on March 16, 2020, 08:08:54 AM
Was it just me or did Biden sound like a 90's Republican last night? He alluded to trickle down economics multiple times and kept using the words "surge" and "war"
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: AmLitHist on March 16, 2020, 08:41:47 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on March 16, 2020, 06:10:03 AM
What is it that you folks think someone else would have done as leader in this very unusual situation that would make a difference?


Well, probably not spending the past three years cutting the hell out of the size and funding of various health/wellness concerns within the Federal government, and not acting like all science is complete bullshit and hoaxes aimed at bringing down the Grand Cheetoh in Chief, for starters?  That seems like a fair assumption, since these things didn't get done under the prior two administrations.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 16, 2020, 10:04:02 AM
Quote from: Diogenes on March 16, 2020, 08:08:54 AM
Was it just me or did Biden sound like a 90's Republican last night? He alluded to trickle down economics multiple times and kept using the words "surge" and "war"

I'm sure all the war talk played well, but... yeah. (The war talk was especially ominous when he talked about making China "face the consequences".)

The number of outright lies about his voting record was pretty astounding, too.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on March 16, 2020, 10:51:23 AM
Quote from: Diogenes on March 16, 2020, 08:08:54 AM
Was it just me or did Biden sound like a 90's Republican last night? He alluded to trickle down economics multiple times and kept using the words "surge" and "war"

Malarkey!  Play the record player for the kids at night.  The poor kids are just as smart as the white kids.  I'm running for the US Senate.  Vote for me on Super Thursday.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dr_codex on March 16, 2020, 01:35:04 PM
Quote from: clean on March 12, 2020, 03:51:45 PM
The day Trump took office, the Dow was just over 19,800, so those
Quotewhite wealthy suburbanites who voted for Trump in 2016 because they thought he would do a better job protecting their money than Clinton are looking at their 401Ks right now.
and seeing that the market is still up from the day he took office.

Well, that was quick.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 16, 2020, 01:57:04 PM
Quote from: dr_codex on March 16, 2020, 01:35:04 PM
Quote from: clean on March 12, 2020, 03:51:45 PM
The day Trump took office, the Dow was just over 19,800, so those
Quotewhite wealthy suburbanites who voted for Trump in 2016 because they thought he would do a better job protecting their money than Clinton are looking at their 401Ks right now.
and seeing that the market is still up from the day he took office.

Well, that was quick.

I appreciate that many people don't like Trump.

However, the Corona outbreak has nothing to do with him, and how the outbreak is being handled, strangely, is not different from many other diverse countries which botched things in one way or another from the beginning. Thus, there is no point associating Trump with the current stock market crash.

When thinking about the upcoming election it's better to suspend one's tribalism for a moment and ask WHY people voted for Trump in 2016. The core of his voters don't own stocks, I might add.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on March 16, 2020, 02:06:03 PM
QuoteQuote from: clean on March 12, 2020, 03:51:45 PM
The day Trump took office, the Dow was just over 19,800, so those
Quote
white wealthy suburbanites who voted for Trump in 2016 because they thought he would do a better job protecting their money than Clinton are looking at their 401Ks right now.
and seeing that the market is still up from the day he took office.

Well, that was quick.
as of today 3/16/20, after a 3000 point drop, the dow is still higher (20,188.52)
And that was as of the day Trump took office. I m sure that if/when we fall below that number, he will go back to the close on Election day as the next support level.

"The Dow Jones industrial average closed up more than 250 points at 18,589, with Goldman Sachs and Caterpillar contributing the most to gains."  So i dont know if the 18589 number would be correct, or 18359, the close on election day itself.  (18589-250 as I didnt look the actual day's closing price)   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 16, 2020, 02:08:01 PM
Ummm....so, for those who have portfolios, that's very nice news.

For the rest of us....it's not the same.

Really, it's not.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on March 16, 2020, 02:56:20 PM
Quote from: clean on March 16, 2020, 02:06:03 PM
QuoteQuote from: clean on March 12, 2020, 03:51:45 PM
The day Trump took office, the Dow was just over 19,800, so those
Quote
white wealthy suburbanites who voted for Trump in 2016 because they thought he would do a better job protecting their money than Clinton are looking at their 401Ks right now.
and seeing that the market is still up from the day he took office.

Well, that was quick.
as of today 3/16/20, after a 3000 point drop, the dow is still higher (20,188.52)
And that was as of the day Trump took office. I m sure that if/when we fall below that number, he will go back to the close on Election day as the next support level.

"The Dow Jones industrial average closed up more than 250 points at 18,589, with Goldman Sachs and Caterpillar contributing the most to gains."  So i dont know if the 18589 number would be correct, or 18359, the close on election day itself.  (18589-250 as I didnt look the actual day's closing price)

I am down well into the 6 figures and the bottom is not in sight.  But if all this causes a couple dozen investment bankers and hedge fund dude bros to hang themselves with their suspenders, I can't say as I'll be too upset.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 16, 2020, 03:15:37 PM
Oh, Christ, people: And this, too, shall pass.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: sprout on March 16, 2020, 03:18:21 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 16, 2020, 03:15:37 PM
Oh, Christ, people: And this, too, shall pass.
As someone who's a good 20+ years from retirement, this is my philosophy on the stock market nosedive. But, man, I feel for colleagues who are planning to retire in a couple months or years.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on March 16, 2020, 03:21:30 PM
Quoteam down well into the 6 figures and the bottom is not in sight.  But if all this causes a couple dozen investment bankers and hedge fund dude bros to hang themselves with their suspenders, I can't say as I'll be too upset.

In the last month, Me too!  BUT since the lows of 2008/2009, Im still up a lot.  Even compared to the numbers of the 2016 election, Im still up.

For what it is worth, and something that you can do if you think that the virus impact will be short lived (even if that means 6 months)  is that you can change your 403b or IRA contributions so that your contributions are going in earlier.  I max out my 403b contribution, and I just adjusted it so that I am over-allocating now.  I upped my contributions so that I will meet the max by October so that more will be invested now, and none will be invested in November and December (as I will have reached the cap in October).  IF you are not fully funding your retirement accounts, and have the ability to do so, this may be the time to take advantage of the down market. AFter all, many things are now ON SALE.

IF you have the ability to save more, remember that your may be able to contribute to IRA (roth and traditional), 403b (roth or traditional) and you may be able to contribute to a 457 plan.  In addition, if you have cash and income available, you can simply add to a regular ETrade or Edward Jones type account.

Still, IF you have concerns about the market, and have debt, then paying off the debt offers a risk free return!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 16, 2020, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: sprout on March 16, 2020, 03:18:21 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 16, 2020, 03:15:37 PM
Oh, Christ, people: And this, too, shall pass.
As someone who's a good 20+ years from retirement, this is my philosophy on the stock market nosedive. But, man, I feel for colleagues who are planning to retire in a couple months or years.

Agreed!

Retirement cannot be planned as though wealth were certain. Some will be able to postpone retirement and some will have to tighten the proverbial belt. I must add that the current level of Social Security payments are not certain for much longer, either.

Reality sucks.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on March 16, 2020, 04:43:58 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 16, 2020, 01:57:04 PM
Quote from: dr_codex on March 16, 2020, 01:35:04 PM
Quote from: clean on March 12, 2020, 03:51:45 PM
The day Trump took office, the Dow was just over 19,800, so those
Quotewhite wealthy suburbanites who voted for Trump in 2016 because they thought he would do a better job protecting their money than Clinton are looking at their 401Ks right now.
and seeing that the market is still up from the day he took office.

Well, that was quick.

I appreciate that many people don't like Trump.

However, the Corona outbreak has nothing to do with him, and how the outbreak is being handled, strangely, is not different from many other diverse countries which botched things in one way or another from the beginning. Thus, there is no point associating Trump with the current stock market crash.

When thinking about the upcoming election it's better to suspend one's tribalism for a moment and ask WHY people voted for Trump in 2016. The core of his voters don't own stocks, I might add.

I would rephrase that to "some of the people who voted for him in 2016 don't own stocks." I know of upscale suburban neighborhoods that went entirely to Trump because of the belief that he would do a better job "protecting" their money. 

My original reason for bringing this up: the belief among many voters that the president's actions (or non-actions) directly control the price of gasoline and the performance of the stock market. Trump himself crowed about the stock market multiple times, taking responsibility for its climb, yet has criticized others as responsible for its fall.

I'm no fan of Biden or Sanders. But as someone married to a female Muslim immigrant from the Middle East, I have seen first hand what his presidency has done to the U.S. government and U.S. society. Russia's compromat campaign has worked far better than Putin thought it would. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on March 16, 2020, 05:42:53 PM
Quote from: spork on March 16, 2020, 04:43:58 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 16, 2020, 01:57:04 PM
Quote from: dr_codex on March 16, 2020, 01:35:04 PM
Quote from: clean on March 12, 2020, 03:51:45 PM
The day Trump took office, the Dow was just over 19,800, so those
Quotewhite wealthy suburbanites who voted for Trump in 2016 because they thought he would do a better job protecting their money than Clinton are looking at their 401Ks right now.
and seeing that the market is still up from the day he took office.

Well, that was quick.

I appreciate that many people don't like Trump.

However, the Corona outbreak has nothing to do with him, and how the outbreak is being handled, strangely, is not different from many other diverse countries which botched things in one way or another from the beginning. Thus, there is no point associating Trump with the current stock market crash.

When thinking about the upcoming election it's better to suspend one's tribalism for a moment and ask WHY people voted for Trump in 2016. The core of his voters don't own stocks, I might add.

I would rephrase that to "some of the people who voted for him in 2016 don't own stocks." I know of upscale suburban neighborhoods that went entirely to Trump because of the belief that he would do a better job "protecting" their money. 

My original reason for bringing this up: the belief among many voters that the president's actions (or non-actions) directly control the price of gasoline and the performance of the stock market. Trump himself crowed about the stock market multiple times, taking responsibility for its climb, yet has criticized others as responsible for its fall.

I'm no fan of Biden or Sanders. But as someone married to a female Muslim immigrant from the Middle East, I have seen first hand what his presidency has done to the U.S. government and U.S. society. Russia's compromat campaign has worked far better than Putin thought it would.

My 75% blood red, poor, rural area is getting fu*ked big time.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 16, 2020, 09:07:18 PM
Speaking of the terrible, terrible things Cuba's autocracy does: they're taking in a cruise ship wiht 5 COVID-19 cases turned away by everyone else. (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article241228736.html)

No praise, only blame!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on March 16, 2020, 09:43:12 PM
Quote from: clean on March 16, 2020, 03:21:30 PM
Quoteam down well into the 6 figures and the bottom is not in sight.  But if all this causes a couple dozen investment bankers and hedge fund dude bros to hang themselves with their suspenders, I can't say as I'll be too upset.

In the last month, Me too!  BUT since the lows of 2008/2009, Im still up a lot.  Even compared to the numbers of the 2016 election, Im still up.

For what it is worth, and something that you can do if you think that the virus impact will be short lived (even if that means 6 months)  is that you can change your 403b or IRA contributions so that your contributions are going in earlier.  I max out my 403b contribution, and I just adjusted it so that I am over-allocating now.  I upped my contributions so that I will meet the max by October so that more will be invested now, and none will be invested in November and December (as I will have reached the cap in October).  IF you are not fully funding your retirement accounts, and have the ability to do so, this may be the time to take advantage of the down market. AFter all, many things are now ON SALE.

IF you have the ability to save more, remember that your may be able to contribute to IRA (roth and traditional), 403b (roth or traditional) and you may be able to contribute to a 457 plan.  In addition, if you have cash and income available, you can simply add to a regular ETrade or Edward Jones type account.

Still, IF you have concerns about the market, and have debt, then paying off the debt offers a risk free return!

That's generally sound advice.  I'm already shoveling as much money into TIAA-CREF and Roth IRAs as I can while still keeping 3--6 months cash on hand.  I may be closer to retirement age than you are.  I only hope the market recovers by the time I hang it all up.  And if it does, that will leave me exactly where I was 4 weeks ago.  I had rather hoped for a final 6-7 years of portfolio growth before I retired.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on March 21, 2020, 03:31:23 AM
Updating: Sanders is obviously toast.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 21, 2020, 05:44:28 PM
Quote from: spork on March 21, 2020, 03:31:23 AM
Updating: Sanders is obviously toast.

Yeah. And it's too bad, because this is the time for the new New Deal he's been talking about, and it's the time when the country needs his policies and when that need is at its most evident. Hell, it's the time when crappy short-term versions of those policies are being seriously proposed!

I'm pretty sure Biden is toast now too, though. He's been nowhere, and it's a time when he, as the presumptive nominee, should be rallying Democrats together and doing his utmost to ensure that they get to work on quick, effective, and wide-ranging policy. It's his chance to show his leadership skills and point out incessantly how Trump and the Republicans are dropping the ball. Instead, the Democrats are completely out of touch and ineffectual (which isn't surprising, since they've spent the last year dithering and trying to smother the Sanders agenda, which is exactly what they now need to enact). The Republicans and the President are worse, to be sure, but that's not what it's going to look like when the dust settles and they've had months to point to things they tried and did and to spin the narrative.

I suspect that the leadership vacuum favours the status quo, and Trump's current polling (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/20/poll-majority-of-americans-now-approve-of-trumps-coronavirus-management-138570) seems to bear that out.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apostrophe on March 22, 2020, 03:42:33 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 21, 2020, 05:44:28 PM
Quote from: spork on March 21, 2020, 03:31:23 AM
Updating: Sanders is obviously toast.

Yeah. And it's too bad, because this is the time for the new New Deal he's been talking about, and it's the time when the country needs his policies and when that need is at its most evident. Hell, it's the time when crappy short-term versions of those policies are being seriously proposed!

I'm pretty sure Biden is toast now too, though. He's been nowhere, and it's a time when he, as the presumptive nominee, should be rallying Democrats together and doing his utmost to ensure that they get to work on quick, effective, and wide-ranging policy. It's his chance to show his leadership skills and point out incessantly how Trump and the Republicans are dropping the ball. Instead, the Democrats are completely out of touch and ineffectual (which isn't surprising, since they've spent the last year dithering and trying to smother the Sanders agenda, which is exactly what they now need to enact). The Republicans and the President are worse, to be sure, but that's not what it's going to look like when the dust settles and they've had months to point to things they tried and did and to spin the narrative.

I suspect that the leadership vacuum favours the status quo, and Trump's current polling (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/20/poll-majority-of-americans-now-approve-of-trumps-coronavirus-management-138570) seems to bear that out.

Too soon to roast/toast Biden. The narratives of the current crisis are only just being written and will be revised continuously in the weeks to come.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on March 22, 2020, 05:40:40 AM
Quote from: apostrophe on March 22, 2020, 03:42:33 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 21, 2020, 05:44:28 PM
Quote from: spork on March 21, 2020, 03:31:23 AM
Updating: Sanders is obviously toast.

Yeah. And it's too bad, because this is the time for the new New Deal he's been talking about, and it's the time when the country needs his policies and when that need is at its most evident. Hell, it's the time when crappy short-term versions of those policies are being seriously proposed!

I'm pretty sure Biden is toast now too, though. He's been nowhere, and it's a time when he, as the presumptive nominee, should be rallying Democrats together and doing his utmost to ensure that they get to work on quick, effective, and wide-ranging policy. It's his chance to show his leadership skills and point out incessantly how Trump and the Republicans are dropping the ball. Instead, the Democrats are completely out of touch and ineffectual (which isn't surprising, since they've spent the last year dithering and trying to smother the Sanders agenda, which is exactly what they now need to enact). The Republicans and the President are worse, to be sure, but that's not what it's going to look like when the dust settles and they've had months to point to things they tried and did and to spin the narrative.

I suspect that the leadership vacuum favours the status quo, and Trump's current polling (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/20/poll-majority-of-americans-now-approve-of-trumps-coronavirus-management-138570) seems to bear that out.

Too soon to roast/toast Biden. The narratives of the current crisis are only just being written and will be revised continuously in the weeks to come.

Where is Biden?  Now, admittedly, I tend only to read the headlines, but I haven't seen his name in the news very much this last week.  I'm not saying he should be setting up a shadow government, but it's definitely in his interest that we remember that he exists and think of him as at least intellectually active during this period.

I wonder if his advisers are telling him, "Just keep your head down, sir.  Trump will f--k this up, and you'll be the only alternative.  No need to say anything."  That may work, but it's risky business.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on March 22, 2020, 10:21:48 AM
Quote from: writingprof on March 22, 2020, 05:40:40 AM
Quote from: apostrophe on March 22, 2020, 03:42:33 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 21, 2020, 05:44:28 PM
Quote from: spork on March 21, 2020, 03:31:23 AM
Updating: Sanders is obviously toast.

Yeah. And it's too bad, because this is the time for the new New Deal he's been talking about, and it's the time when the country needs his policies and when that need is at its most evident. Hell, it's the time when crappy short-term versions of those policies are being seriously proposed!

I'm pretty sure Biden is toast now too, though. He's been nowhere, and it's a time when he, as the presumptive nominee, should be rallying Democrats together and doing his utmost to ensure that they get to work on quick, effective, and wide-ranging policy. It's his chance to show his leadership skills and point out incessantly how Trump and the Republicans are dropping the ball. Instead, the Democrats are completely out of touch and ineffectual (which isn't surprising, since they've spent the last year dithering and trying to smother the Sanders agenda, which is exactly what they now need to enact). The Republicans and the President are worse, to be sure, but that's not what it's going to look like when the dust settles and they've had months to point to things they tried and did and to spin the narrative.

I suspect that the leadership vacuum favours the status quo, and Trump's current polling (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/20/poll-majority-of-americans-now-approve-of-trumps-coronavirus-management-138570) seems to bear that out.

Too soon to roast/toast Biden. The narratives of the current crisis are only just being written and will be revised continuously in the weeks to come.

Where is Biden?  Now, admittedly, I tend only to read the headlines, but I haven't seen his name in the news very much this last week.  I'm not saying he should be setting up a shadow government, but it's definitely in his interest that we remember that he exists and think of him as at least intellectually active during this period.

I wonder if his advisers are telling him, "Just keep your head down, sir.  Trump will f--k this up, and you'll be the only alternative.  No need to say anything."  That may work, but it's risky business.

I would rather Biden be proposing smart things to do than just taking whiny potshots at whatever Trump does.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on March 22, 2020, 11:43:45 AM
Riskier than letting him speak?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on March 22, 2020, 12:38:57 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 22, 2020, 11:43:45 AM
Riskier than letting him speak?

It's lines like this that make me think that Trump's strategy--convince America that Sleepy Joe will nap all day while hard leftists run the country in his name--has a chance to work.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on March 22, 2020, 01:33:28 PM
Quote from: writingprof on March 22, 2020, 12:38:57 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 22, 2020, 11:43:45 AM
Riskier than letting him speak?

It's lines like this that make me think that Trump's strategy--convince America that Sleepy Joe will nap all day while hard leftists run the country in his name--has a chance to work.

I want to hear more of his stories about Corn Pop.   

I guess that we are seeing less of him since you can't have mass gatherings anymore.   TV interviews may be pointless since people are more interested in the current pandemic. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Ruralguy on March 22, 2020, 01:46:47 PM
Are they?  I'm at my limit. When I want to, I can look up stats online.
If I feel like reading a story,  I will, but I am sick of all of tv being the 24-7 Corona Network.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on March 22, 2020, 02:22:36 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on March 22, 2020, 01:46:47 PM
Are they?  I'm at my limit. When I want to, I can look up stats online.
If I feel like reading a story,  I will, but I am sick of all of tv being the 24-7 Corona Network.


You need to change your channel. Right now for example one of the Lifetime channels is airing Psycho Stripper (I am a guide checker). I actually texted my daughter one night last week when they were showing Revenge for Daddy. It reminded of the wonderful line from that classic(?) Red Dawn, "Avenge me son! Avenge me!"

Yes, you will have to lower your standards, but the awfulness is amazingly enjoyable, and quite the palate cleanse from reality.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on March 22, 2020, 04:38:20 PM
I can't hear enough about his travails in South African prisons.  "You can't arrest me!  I'm Middle-Class Joe!"
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 22, 2020, 04:45:43 PM
Quote from: Anselm on March 22, 2020, 01:33:28 PM

I guess that we are seeing less of him since you can't have mass gatherings anymore.   TV interviews may be pointless since people are more interested in the current pandemic.

Partly. But just before the pandemic, his team was already hard at work to limit his public appearances (he even started handing out FAQ leaflets to journalists in lieu of answering questions). The pandemic is clearly a convenient way of providing cover for the strategy they always planned to adopt anyway.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on March 22, 2020, 05:18:44 PM
Let him stay indoors. I hope Old Joe doesn't get sick. I'm hoping to vote for him. He's not perfect but he'll do.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 22, 2020, 06:09:11 PM
Meanwhile, (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/21/not-done-yet-bernie-sanders-campaign-mobilizes-donors-coronavirus-relief-and-raises) the Sanders campaign has been using its staffers and volunteers to raise money for coronavirus relief.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 23, 2020, 11:58:33 PM
Here's a what-if....

What if Romney somehow got the Republican nomination (say Trump just completely lost it, or something...), and Biden were up against him?

Having seen the former's integrity, it might be a harder choice between the two than one might think.

Other things equal, I might still take Biden...have seen R. in action before, and he's not perfect, either.

But it just occurred it me.

What if?

M.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on March 24, 2020, 03:42:41 AM
Will never happen. Trump has hollowed out the Republican party and Elaine Chao is still Secretary of Transportation.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on March 24, 2020, 07:18:44 AM
Quote from: spork on March 24, 2020, 03:42:41 AM
Will never happen. Trump has hollowed out the Republican party and Elaine Chao is still Secretary of Transportation.

From the NY Time Sunday Magazine article on Bernie:

"In defeat, Sanders has prompted a reckoning within the Democratic Party. He has forced upon it an airing of ideological differences, compelling progressives and moderates to choose their leader and then make the case in public. Since the rise of the Tea Party, self-described "principled conservatives" like Senators Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton have claimed that they, too, yearn for such a debate with the Republican Party's center-right establishment, only to opt for Trumpism instead."

So Bernie (and probably Warren) have started actions that may result in a Tea Party equivalent of the left (The Herbal Tea Party??).  This is a good thing.  As both parties stand right now, they act to amplify the passions of the social justice left or the  red meat right.  If the Tea Party would actually cleave off into a separate party and there was an equivalent from the left, then both the R's and the D's would have to operate from the middle - where most people live.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: RatGuy on March 24, 2020, 07:55:44 AM
My experience may not be reflective of the nation as a whole, as I live in a deeply red state. My college town seems to be split between Warren and Sanders supporters. My Warren friends are saying they'll hold their nose and vote for Biden. My Sanders colleagues and friends (both here and online) are claiming that they're all voting for Trump. Since we've left campus, at least two of my colleagues--instructors in my department!!-- have posted to social media that COVID-19 is a "hoax" designed by the DNC to take the wind out of the Sanders campaign's sails. Four years ago they loved "Uncle Joe", and now they want to bury him. It's all very bewildering.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on March 24, 2020, 08:01:57 AM
Quote from: RatGuy on March 24, 2020, 07:55:44 AM
My Sanders colleagues and friends (both here and online) are claiming that they're all voting for Trump.

This is a fascinating glimpse into the power of populism, regardless of ideology. I don't think many people would have imagined this kind of thing even 10 years ago.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on March 24, 2020, 08:09:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 24, 2020, 08:01:57 AM
Quote from: RatGuy on March 24, 2020, 07:55:44 AM
My Sanders colleagues and friends (both here and online) are claiming that they're all voting for Trump.

This is a fascinating glimpse into the power of populism, regardless of ideology. I don't think many people would have imagined this kind of thing even 10 years ago.

It's not really that surprising.  A big chunk of Obama voters went for Trump the last time out.  Hope and Change v1.0 did not work for them (and they hated Hillary's guts) so they went for Hope and Change v2.0 with Trump. 

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on March 24, 2020, 08:30:20 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on March 24, 2020, 08:09:13 AM

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

Early on they were very similar. Anti-global trade, anti-immigrant, even both talking about raising certain taxes.

The difference in 2016 was Globalists (Clinton, plus other moderate R's and D's) and Nationalists (Trump, Sanders, labor unions).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Diogenes on March 24, 2020, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 24, 2020, 08:30:20 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on March 24, 2020, 08:09:13 AM

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

Early on they were very similar. Anti-global trade, anti-immigrant, even both talking about raising certain taxes.

The difference in 2016 was Globalists (Clinton, plus other moderate R's and D's) and Nationalists (Trump, Sanders, labor unions).

Trump may very well be a Nationalist but unions and Sanders are not. I think Isolationist is a more appropriate term. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on March 24, 2020, 08:47:57 AM
Quote from: Diogenes on March 24, 2020, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 24, 2020, 08:30:20 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on March 24, 2020, 08:09:13 AM

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

Early on they were very similar. Anti-global trade, anti-immigrant, even both talking about raising certain taxes.

The difference in 2016 was Globalists (Clinton, plus other moderate R's and D's) and Nationalists (Trump, Sanders, labor unions).

Trump may very well be a Nationalist but unions and Sanders are not. I think Isolationist is a more appropriate term.

So would voters who would have considered both Sanders and Trump be "deplorables" or not?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on March 24, 2020, 09:29:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 24, 2020, 08:47:57 AM
Quote from: Diogenes on March 24, 2020, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 24, 2020, 08:30:20 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on March 24, 2020, 08:09:13 AM

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

Early on they were very similar. Anti-global trade, anti-immigrant, even both talking about raising certain taxes.

The difference in 2016 was Globalists (Clinton, plus other moderate R's and D's) and Nationalists (Trump, Sanders, labor unions).

Trump may very well be a Nationalist but unions and Sanders are not. I think Isolationist is a more appropriate term.

So would voters who would have considered both Sanders and Trump be "deplorables" or not?

And how about college administrators who were democratic party elected officials building their career with support from unions? They are now opposing adjunct faculty unions and they love having a steady supply of cheap disenfranchised labor unable to fight anti-labor schemes like *part time*, term contracts. Which party wants them?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on March 24, 2020, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 24, 2020, 09:29:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 24, 2020, 08:47:57 AM
Quote from: Diogenes on March 24, 2020, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 24, 2020, 08:30:20 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on March 24, 2020, 08:09:13 AM

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

Early on they were very similar. Anti-global trade, anti-immigrant, even both talking about raising certain taxes.

The difference in 2016 was Globalists (Clinton, plus other moderate R's and D's) and Nationalists (Trump, Sanders, labor unions).

Trump may very well be a Nationalist but unions and Sanders are not. I think Isolationist is a more appropriate term.

So would voters who would have considered both Sanders and Trump be "deplorables" or not?

And how about college administrators who were democratic party elected officials building their career with support from unions? They are now opposing adjunct faculty unions and they love having a steady supply of cheap disenfranchised labor unable to fight anti-labor schemes like *part time*, term contracts. Which party wants them?

If you want to continue to turn every post, thread or sparrow that falls from the tree over to this this worked over, done to death, discussed to exhaustion, fvck me not this again subject, why don't you all join this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party) party
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 25, 2020, 09:51:48 AM
Aaaaaand we now get a Biden rape allegation from 1993 (https://soundcloud.com/katie-halper/joe-bidens-accuser-finally-tells-her-full-story?fbclid=IwAR1EVlfxX6OgqXhDXQjFWV1OFIhxiEXHxyTYp1hR6XFurXZ29ekaQUpA1k8) (the entire interview has not yet been released, but will be soon).


EDIT: It also looks like Anita Dunn, Biden's senior advisor (and now de facto campaign manager) may have been involved (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4A0SM3wOSw&fbclid=IwAR2xb63xpuEIazyCb-UceBwhogDeGW87WAIlXgDTbsASuyLNYNTgv5Qm36s) in shutting down a request to investigate the allegation in 2019. At the very least, that's a suspicious connection between Biden's campaign and the non-profit's decision not to investigate further out of misplaced concerns about tax law.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on March 29, 2020, 08:11:58 AM
Quote from: Caracal on March 29, 2020, 07:52:14 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 29, 2020, 07:48:51 AM
Quote from: Caracal on March 29, 2020, 07:22:40 AM

Have you been hanging out in Bernie bro spaces on twitter? This is such bullcrap.

Nah. I've just been following the campaign extremely closely. And I have years of experience caring for someone who had dementia. Biden has always been stupid, but he hasn't always been this inarticulate. Even in the recent past. And no, it's not a stutter.

But you know what? Even if I were to concede that Biden seems every bit as mentally with-it as he was five years ago, and that his outrageous lies and general inability to put together coherent sentences unprompted (there are exceptions, but it's the rule) are just a "stutter", that still leaves

1. His lack of control over the coronavirus narrative.
2. His lack of leadership with respect to the coronavirus crisis.
3. Credible rape allegations.

And those things alone are enough to sink even a good candidacy. Which his manifestly isn't.

(And: yes, my preference, as an outsider, would have been Bernie. That hardly makes me a "Berniebro". And: no, I don't tweet.)

How is he supposed to control any of it? He's a presidential candidate, not the president. Genuinely perplexing take.

It sometimes happens, in this country, that opposition party leaders do not yet have a seat in the Commons (indeed, sometimes it's even the leader of the official opposition). When that happens, they're at a distinct disadvantage, especially when Important Things are happening. There's no question about that.

That doesn't stop them, however. They relentlessly critique the government from the sidelines. They push out their preferred alternative policy proposals. They rally the party around them. They coordinate with the party's deputy leader in the House of Commons to make sure that the party is on-message, and pushing the right policies and asking the right questions during Question Time. They tour the country to rally support and get a sense of what work needs to be done where.

Biden has the political connections. He's got friends across both sides of the aisle. He has people's ear. He has the support of every other candidate who dropped from the race, some of whom are in Congress/the Senate. He could and should be working hard behind-the-scenes to coordinate the Democratic response, and to smooth the passage of legislation with sympathetic Republicans. He should be the party's spokesperson. He should be showing Americans what the alternative to Trump should look like. He should be relentless and specific in his criticism of the administration and in his policy proposals, not tepid and vague. Hell, he could even be turning his campaign towards raising money for relief. It's really not that hard to give the impression that you're doing something.

Instead he was completely absent for the first couple weeks, declining television appearances by claiming that he needed time to "build a studio" in his house. Then, after donors complained, he finally showed up and did a bad job (in a poorly-constructed home "studio"). He traded in platitudes and looked weak and confused. This is not good leadership. It's textbook bad leadership. He's supposed to be the party leader, and he should be leading from the front.

Saying that he's not in office is BS, and a convenient dodge. He doesn't need a title to do the job of the presumptive nominee, to look like a president-in-waiting.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on March 29, 2020, 08:26:25 AM
Funny, being a candidate who gives the advantage to Trump by being accused of sexual harassment, which Trump himself approves of and boasts about tasking full advantage of the opportunity for. So maybe the debate (if there is one) could plausibly as each candidate 'in your view, as powerful man in politics, is sexual harassment ever OK? And if so, when?'
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on March 29, 2020, 11:46:49 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 29, 2020, 08:11:58 AM
Quote from: Caracal on March 29, 2020, 07:52:14 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 29, 2020, 07:48:51 AM
Quote from: Caracal on March 29, 2020, 07:22:40 AM

Have you been hanging out in Bernie bro spaces on twitter? This is such bullcrap.

Nah. I've just been following the campaign extremely closely. And I have years of experience caring for someone who had dementia. Biden has always been stupid, but he hasn't always been this inarticulate. Even in the recent past. And no, it's not a stutter.

But you know what? Even if I were to concede that Biden seems every bit as mentally with-it as he was five years ago, and that his outrageous lies and general inability to put together coherent sentences unprompted (there are exceptions, but it's the rule) are just a "stutter", that still leaves

1. His lack of control over the coronavirus narrative.
2. His lack of leadership with respect to the coronavirus crisis.
3. Credible rape allegations.

And those things alone are enough to sink even a good candidacy. Which his manifestly isn't.

(And: yes, my preference, as an outsider, would have been Bernie. That hardly makes me a "Berniebro". And: no, I don't tweet.)

How is he supposed to control any of it? He's a presidential candidate, not the president. Genuinely perplexing take.

It sometimes happens, in this country, that opposition party leaders do not yet have a seat in the Commons (indeed, sometimes it's even the leader of the official opposition). When that happens, they're at a distinct disadvantage, especially when Important Things are happening. There's no question about that.

That doesn't stop them, however. They relentlessly critique the government from the sidelines. They push out their preferred alternative policy proposals. They rally the party around them. They coordinate with the party's deputy leader in the House of Commons to make sure that the party is on-message, and pushing the right policies and asking the right questions during Question Time. They tour the country to rally support and get a sense of what work needs to be done where.

Biden has the political connections. He's got friends across both sides of the aisle. He has people's ear. He has the support of every other candidate who dropped from the race, some of whom are in Congress/the Senate. He could and should be working hard behind-the-scenes to coordinate the Democratic response, and to smooth the passage of legislation with sympathetic Republicans. He should be the party's spokesperson. He should be showing Americans what the alternative to Trump should look like. He should be relentless and specific in his criticism of the administration and in his policy proposals, not tepid and vague. Hell, he could even be turning his campaign towards raising money for relief. It's really not that hard to give the impression that you're doing something.

Instead he was completely absent for the first couple weeks, declining television appearances by claiming that he needed time to "build a studio" in his house. Then, after donors complained, he finally showed up and did a bad job (in a poorly-constructed home "studio"). He traded in platitudes and looked weak and confused. This is not good leadership. It's textbook bad leadership. He's supposed to be the party leader, and he should be leading from the front.

Saying that he's not in office is BS, and a convenient dodge. He doesn't need a title to do the job of the presumptive nominee, to look like a president-in-waiting.

Sadly, you are right. I'm not a Bernie fan at all.

Maybe this will bump Amy Klobuchar to the top of the ticket (Midwestern Moderate) and Elizabeth Warren as VP (Progressive Coastal Intellectual).

Or vice versa, that's cool too.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on March 29, 2020, 11:58:22 AM
Cuomo/Klobuchar could beat Trump, probably easily. I just don't see any other pair that could win. [Not that Biden couldn't win in principle. He most certainly could, but he's losing it.]
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on March 29, 2020, 12:27:37 PM
Quote from: dismalist on March 29, 2020, 11:58:22 AM
Cuomo/Klobuchar could beat Trump, probably easily. I just don't see any other pair that could win. [Not that Biden couldn't win in principle. He most certainly could, but he's losing it.]

But Sandra Lee would be First Girlfriend or whatever. and I don't think we can deal with a Semi-Homemade White House.

Will the inaugural cake be an angel food cake from a mix, with marshmallows stuffed into the hole, canned frosting and boxed cookies? And a cocktail of red, white and blue jello shots?

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 29, 2020, 12:58:51 PM
Warren/Klobuchar might push the "female electability" envelope in an interesting way.

As In, "There's No Hidin' Place Down Here!"

But it could also be a re-play of 2016.

What about Pelosi/Warren? Or Wareen/Pelosi?

That's a balanced ticket: one from the House, one from the Senate....

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Cheerful on March 29, 2020, 04:34:45 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 29, 2020, 12:27:37 PM
But Sandra Lee would be First Girlfriend or whatever. and I don't think we can deal with a Semi-Homemade White House.
Will the inaugural cake be an angel food cake from a mix, with marshmallows stuffed into the hole, canned frosting and boxed cookies? And a cocktail of red, white and blue jello shots?

Governor Andrew Cuomo and Sandra Lee parted quite some time ago.

Creative cake idea!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on March 29, 2020, 04:42:36 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 29, 2020, 04:34:45 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 29, 2020, 12:27:37 PM
But Sandra Lee would be First Girlfriend or whatever. and I don't think we can deal with a Semi-Homemade White House.
Will the inaugural cake be an angel food cake from a mix, with marshmallows stuffed into the hole, canned frosting and boxed cookies? And a cocktail of red, white and blue jello shots?

Governor Andrew Cuomo and Sandra Lee parted quite some time ago.

Creative cake idea!

Did you ever watch the show? YouTube some clips. It's... disturbing.

Her recipe for clam chowder... starts with a can of clam chowder.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on March 29, 2020, 04:44:10 PM
Quote from: mamselle on March 29, 2020, 12:58:51 PM
Warren/Klobuchar might push the "female electability" envelope in an interesting way.

As In, "There's No Hidin' Place Down Here!"

But it could also be a re-play of 2016.

What about Pelosi/Warren? Or Wareen/Pelosi?

That's a balanced ticket: one from the House, one from the Senate....

M.

Pelosi is too old.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on March 29, 2020, 04:46:25 PM
Well, OK, yeah, maybe--but have you seen anyone else with the fortitude, energy, and chutzpah to stand up to the orange-tufted gooney bird?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on April 08, 2020, 04:02:34 AM
A fairly good summary of the recent performance of the Trump Administration:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/americans-are-paying-the-price-for-trumps-failures/609532/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/americans-are-paying-the-price-for-trumps-failures/609532/).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on April 08, 2020, 05:14:09 AM
Quote from: spork on April 08, 2020, 04:02:34 AM
A fairly good summary of the recent reality showperformance of the Trump Administration:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/americans-are-paying-the-price-for-trumps-failures/609532/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/americans-are-paying-the-price-for-trumps-failures/609532/).

Bolding is my insertion.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on April 08, 2020, 10:07:01 AM
Sanders has suspended his campaign.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: RatGuy on April 08, 2020, 10:50:35 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 08, 2020, 10:07:01 AM
Sanders has suspended his campaign.

My facebook feed is lighting up with Sanders supporters singing the praises of Trump. It's actually getting pretty nasty.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on April 08, 2020, 01:36:44 PM
Oh, dear.

Politics is inscrutable sometimes.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on April 08, 2020, 01:49:41 PM
Quote from: RatGuy on April 08, 2020, 10:50:35 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 08, 2020, 10:07:01 AM
Sanders has suspended his campaign.

My facebook feed is lighting up with Sanders supporters singing the praises of Trump. It's actually getting pretty nasty.

Well, of course. Sanders supporters want to burn it all down. If they can't burn it all down with Sanders, they'll burn it all down with Trump. Meanwhile, reasonable conservatives have no political representatives, and the representative of reasonable progressives, Joe Biden, is the crypt-keeper.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on April 08, 2020, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: writingprof on April 08, 2020, 01:49:41 PM
Quote from: RatGuy on April 08, 2020, 10:50:35 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 08, 2020, 10:07:01 AM
Sanders has suspended his campaign.

My facebook feed is lighting up with Sanders supporters singing the praises of Trump. It's actually getting pretty nasty.

Well, of course. Sanders supporters want to burn it all down. If they can't burn it all down with Sanders, they'll burn it all down with Trump. Meanwhile, reasonable conservatives have no political representatives, and the representative of reasonable progressives, Joe Biden, is the crypt-keeper.

Or, it's Russian bots trying to stir it up, as they did last time.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on April 08, 2020, 02:17:59 PM
Quote from: writingprof on April 08, 2020, 01:49:41 PM

Well, of course. Sanders supporters want to burn it all down. If they can't burn it all down with Sanders, they'll burn it all down with Trump. Meanwhile, reasonable conservatives have no political representatives, and the representative of reasonable progressives, Joe Biden, is the crypt-keeper.

It may be representative of Ratguy's FB feed, but it's not representative of Sanders's support. All the evidence indicates that a perfectly normal percentage of them will defect, just like in 2016 (when fewer Sanders voters defected to Trump than Hillary supporters to McCain in 2008).


I said before that if Biden gets the nomination, I'd stop following the election quite so closely. I still plan to do this, even though it's a pretty big behavioural change. I'll watch the debates, such as they are and if there are any. But I'm giving up on my podcasts, news-bingeing, and everything else for the duration. And possibly for the next four years, too. I just don't think I can handle it, as an outside observer. I want you all to have nice things, but...

(On the plus side, he's not Bloomberg.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on April 08, 2020, 02:24:04 PM
Blaming the Russkies has been a convenient way of avoiding thought. Interest in understanding why Trump won has been zero, in both parties, I might add.

The word "populism" may be useful now, perhaps to describe those for whom the American Dream came up short.  There are some left populists, some Sanders folk, and there are the not-so-left populists, the Trump folk. It is only natural that the more left populists join the not-so-left populists now that their standard bearer has withdrawn, for they have in common that they have been short changed.

Interim bottom line: Sanders' loss is Trump's gain.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on April 08, 2020, 02:40:46 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 08, 2020, 02:24:04 PM
Blaming the Russkies has been a convenient way of avoiding thought. Interest in understanding why Trump won has been zero, in both parties, I might add.

The word "populism" may be useful now, perhaps to describe those for whom the American Dream came up short.  There are some left populists, some Sanders folk, and there are the not-so-left populists, the Trump folk. It is only natural that the more left populists join the not-so-left populists now that their standard bearer has withdrawn, for they have in common that they have been short changed.

Interim bottom line: Sanders' loss is Trump's gain.

That's dismal analysis.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on April 08, 2020, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 08, 2020, 02:24:04 PM
Blaming the Russkies has been a convenient way of avoiding thought. Interest in understanding why Trump won has been zero, in both parties, I might add.

The word "populism" may be useful now, perhaps to describe those for whom the American Dream came up short.  There are some left populists, some Sanders folk, and there are the not-so-left populists, the Trump folk. It is only natural that the more left populists join the not-so-left populists now that their standard bearer has withdrawn, for they have in common that they have been short changed.

Interim bottom line: Sanders' loss is Trump's gain.

I don't have any knowledge of what research has been done by either party on why Trump won, but the academic research indicates that racist attitudes among large proportions of the electorate in key districts played a big role.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on April 08, 2020, 05:02:42 PM
Quote from: spork on April 08, 2020, 04:53:39 PM
I don't have any knowledge of what research has been done by either party on why Trump won, but the academic research indicates that racist attitudes among large proportions of the electorate in key districts played a big role.

Racist or "racist"?  I hate Mexicans and will vote for their oppressor is racist.  Large-scale, unskilled immigration is putting downward pressure on wages is "racist."  Complicating matters is the fact that some who say the former merely lack the vocabulary and political insight to say the latter.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Diogenes on April 09, 2020, 08:00:21 AM
Quote from: writingprof on April 08, 2020, 01:49:41 PM
Quote from: RatGuy on April 08, 2020, 10:50:35 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 08, 2020, 10:07:01 AM
Sanders has suspended his campaign.

My facebook feed is lighting up with Sanders supporters singing the praises of Trump. It's actually getting pretty nasty.

Well, of course. Sanders supporters want to burn it all down. If they can't burn it all down with Sanders, they'll burn it all down with Trump. Meanwhile, reasonable conservatives have no political representatives, and the representative of reasonable progressives, Joe Biden, is the crypt-keeper.

I can't speak for all Sanders supporters, but you definitely don't speak for me. FWIW, I was very much for Warren then went to Sanders. Wanting the basic things that most industrialized countries have (like universal health care) is not trying "to burn it all down." Stereotyping all Sanders supporters as the vocal online Bernie Bros is an insincere and bad faith argument.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on April 09, 2020, 08:10:05 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 08, 2020, 02:24:04 PM
Blaming the Russkies has been a convenient way of avoiding thought. Interest in understanding why Trump won has been zero, in both parties, I might add.

You sound like you might agree with me: one reason Trump won was people on the left who wrote off the entire republican party as racist, starting a war of words and accusations. Mitt Romney was on the receiving end of this brand of 'analysis' so the dynamics were in place before Trump's ascension. I know people at work, left-leaning, who still haven't grasped this. So it can happen again. There is no progress until this obnoxious habit of calling people racist anytime the whim strikes is outed and stopped.
If an entire party thinks you're a racist because you tend to vote 'R' then when your choice is between a President who's somewhat racist (although his weird behavior is easily explained by narcissistic personality disorder rather than any fervent anti-social agenda) and the representative of the people who hate you, you choose Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on April 09, 2020, 08:19:26 AM
Quote from: spork on April 08, 2020, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 08, 2020, 02:24:04 PM
Blaming the Russkies has been a convenient way of avoiding thought. Interest in understanding why Trump won has been zero, in both parties, I might add.

The word "populism" may be useful now, perhaps to describe those for whom the American Dream came up short.  There are some left populists, some Sanders folk, and there are the not-so-left populists, the Trump folk. It is only natural that the more left populists join the not-so-left populists now that their standard bearer has withdrawn, for they have in common that they have been short changed.

Interim bottom line: Sanders' loss is Trump's gain.

I don't have any knowledge of what research has been done by either party on why Trump won, but the academic research indicates that racist attitudes among large proportions of the electorate in key districts played a big role.

Also a pull between "closed" protectionists (Sanders, Trump who both in the early days were all about trade protections and immigration limits) and "open" globalists (Clinton, who supported the WTO, EU, etc).

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on May 18, 2020, 04:25:16 PM
People might be amused to find out Valerie Plame is running for Congress https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCFFgVs_zs

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on May 19, 2020, 06:45:26 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on May 18, 2020, 04:25:16 PM
People might be amused to find out Valerie Plame is running for Congress https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCFFgVs_zs

More government experience than the current leader of the free world.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on May 19, 2020, 10:18:19 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on May 19, 2020, 06:45:26 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on May 18, 2020, 04:25:16 PM
People might be amused to find out Valerie Plame is running for Congress https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCFFgVs_zs

More government experience than the current leader of the free world.

But much less relevant government expertise than literally everyone else running in that particular race as a Democrat.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on May 25, 2020, 12:38:56 PM
Anyone else still have upcoming state primaries and annoyed upon realizing only the local elections will even bother to count the ballot cast?

It's not just one or two states left per https://www.270towin.com/2020-election-calendar/
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on May 26, 2020, 07:28:04 AM
Since our Mayor recently died in office, people around here are mainly paying attention to the upcoming special mayoral election.  There are no fewer than five hats in the ring!  For one very small town.  I personally hope that our quite capable interim Mayor wins.  We'll see.  Of course I'll have to establish a good working relationship with whoever wins.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on May 27, 2020, 04:53:13 AM
Quote from: apl68 on May 26, 2020, 07:28:04 AM
Since our Mayor recently died in office, people around here are mainly paying attention to the upcoming special mayoral election.  There are no fewer than five hats in the ring!  For one very small town.  I personally hope that our quite capable interim Mayor wins.  We'll see.  Of course I'll have to establish a good working relationship with whoever wins.

Recent small town election in my county:  Fewer than 200 votes.  Tied.  Drew lots for winner.  And that town is under a boil water advisory.  Hmmm.....
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on May 29, 2020, 06:56:10 PM
Lately, press & Pres. have locked horns on primary absentee ballot
trustiness issues. The Presidnt holds that there will be a lot of cheating and irregularities while his opponents say he can't prove it.
Both are opinions! Actually, there has never been a circumstance where, potentially, there would be such a huge number of such ballots cast. So, probably, it cannot be determined as to whatever.
I lean toward there being a good possibility of irregularities.

What I think is that there is a great polarization at the national level which will minimize any absentee ballot manipulations. However, at the local and state levels is where the dirty deeds will be done. And, those will be done by PROS!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on May 30, 2020, 05:27:32 PM
I fear the current riots [not the protests] will benefit Trump this coming November. In '68 Tricky Dick also ran on Law and Order.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on May 30, 2020, 07:49:38 PM
Quote from: dismalist on May 30, 2020, 05:27:32 PM
I fear the current riots [not the protests] will benefit Trump this coming November. In '68 Tricky Dick also ran on Law and Order.
If he does, point out that George Wallace was the ultimate law and order candidate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on May 31, 2020, 02:37:34 AM
Several U.S. Senate races looking increasingly bad for Republicans:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/28/polls-show-senate-control-slipping-away-from-republicans/#42330b5d3db6 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/28/polls-show-senate-control-slipping-away-from-republicans/#42330b5d3db6).

What's not mentioned in this story is that Susan Collins has surprisingly high unfavorability ratings in a recent poll that puts her behind Gideon by 9 points.

But, as Killer Mike said in Atlanta, changing the system means voting in local elections.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on May 31, 2020, 06:33:55 AM
Quote from: spork on May 31, 2020, 02:37:34 AM
Several U.S. Senate races looking increasingly bad for Republicans:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/28/polls-show-senate-control-slipping-away-from-republicans/#42330b5d3db6 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/28/polls-show-senate-control-slipping-away-from-republicans/#42330b5d3db6).

What's not mentioned in this story is that Susan Collins has surprisingly high unfavorability ratings in a recent poll that puts her behind Gideon by 9 points.

But, as Killer Mike said in Atlanta, changing the system means voting in local elections.

I hope so, but I'd be skeptical about SC and KS.
On the other hand, Gardner is definitely toast (as a former Coloradan, anyone who thinks otherwise has not caught up with how quickly the state has changed since he narrowly won in the 2014 R wave election), and given that McSally lost the last senate race in AZ and doesn't seem to have gotten more popular in her appointed seat (and given who she's running against) I'm willing to buy those poll numbers too.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on May 31, 2020, 12:55:24 PM
I figure before this is all over, Trump will have resurrected the Two Minute Hate from Orwell's 1984.

Before everything closed down, he had a rally using one of our campus buildings.  I spent 20 minutes walking among those waiting in line to get in.  One of the more popular tee shirts on offer among the vendors was "Trump 2020  Fvck your feelings."

The only problem he'll have getting them all fired up in a Two Minute Hate will be stopping them after 2 minutes.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on June 01, 2020, 05:10:49 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on May 31, 2020, 12:55:24 PM
I figure before this is all over, Trump will have resurrected the Two Minute Hate from Orwell's 1984.

Before everything closed down, he had a rally using one of our campus buildings.  I spent 20 minutes walking among those waiting in line to get in.  One of the more popular tee shirts on offer among the vendors was "Trump 2020  Fvck your feelings."

The only problem he'll have getting them all fired up in a Two Minute Hate will be stopping them after 2 minutes.

I fear that you are correct.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on June 01, 2020, 07:54:05 AM
Any hope for the Lincoln project?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: sprout on June 01, 2020, 10:09:46 AM
Anyone else starting to wonder what will happen if Trump loses in November and refuses to step down or acknowledge the legitimacy of the election?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on June 01, 2020, 10:13:35 AM
Quote from: sprout on June 01, 2020, 10:09:46 AM
Anyone else starting to wonder what will happen if Trump loses in November and refuses to step down or acknowledge the legitimacy of the election?

I'm more interested in his lame-duck period.  Those of us who like controversial pardons should be in for a good time. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 01, 2020, 10:19:48 AM
Quote from: sprout on June 01, 2020, 10:09:46 AM
Anyone else starting to wonder what will happen if Trump loses in November and refuses to step down or acknowledge the legitimacy of the election?

Civil War? More chaos than we currently have?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 01, 2020, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 01, 2020, 10:19:48 AM
Quote from: sprout on June 01, 2020, 10:09:46 AM
Anyone else starting to wonder what will happen if Trump loses in November and refuses to step down or acknowledge the legitimacy of the election?

Civil War? More chaos than we currently have?

Yes. It's likely.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on June 01, 2020, 06:39:32 PM
A legitimate question from the other thread:

Where is Joe-I-got-arrested-trying-to-visit-Nelson-Mandela Biden?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on June 01, 2020, 06:43:58 PM
Quote from: sprout on June 01, 2020, 10:09:46 AM
Anyone else starting to wonder what will happen if Trump loses in November and refuses to step down or acknowledge the legitimacy of the election?

I asked that question last fall.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: quasihumanist on June 08, 2020, 02:01:42 AM
What if Trump goes on TV and says "All good Americans should make sure these protests end immediately by any means necessary"?

Am I being paranoid, or should I really make sure I have a full tank of gas and various essentials in my car so that I can get out of my red state on a moment's notice?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Larimar on June 08, 2020, 04:42:26 AM
Quote from: mamselle on June 01, 2020, 06:43:58 PM
Quote from: sprout on June 01, 2020, 10:09:46 AM
Anyone else starting to wonder what will happen if Trump loses in November and refuses to step down or acknowledge the legitimacy of the election?

I asked that question last fall.

M.

Yep, I'm wondering.


Quote from: quasihumanist on June 08, 2020, 02:01:42 AM
What if Trump goes on TV and says "All good Americans should make sure these protests end immediately by any means necessary"?

Am I being paranoid, or should I really make sure I have a full tank of gas and various essentials in my car so that I can get out of my red state on a moment's notice?


I really hope he doesn't say anything like that.


Larimar
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on June 08, 2020, 07:26:49 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on June 08, 2020, 02:01:42 AM
What if Trump goes on TV and says "All good Americans should make sure these protests end immediately by any means necessary"?

Am I being paranoid, or should I really make sure I have a full tank of gas and various essentials in my car so that I can get out of my red state on a moment's notice?

Yes, that's what you need to do.  The Republican National Committee, with funding from the Koch Foundation, has been secretly organizing militia forces all over the nation's red states with instructions to begin targeting all people of color, immigrants, college professors, etc. as soon as the word is given.  You've only got a few days left to flee before the balloon goes up.


I'm not sure I see what the difference is between this sort of paranoia and the notorious social media posts going the rounds claiming that George Soros or whoever is funding mobs of Antifa anarchists to loot and burn.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on June 13, 2020, 02:33:54 PM
Here's a fucked up congressional race: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/denver-riggleman-gay-wedding-314746 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/denver-riggleman-gay-wedding-314746).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on June 14, 2020, 05:13:18 AM
Quote from: spork on June 13, 2020, 02:33:54 PM
Here's a fucked up congressional race: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/denver-riggleman-gay-wedding-314746 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/denver-riggleman-gay-wedding-314746).

Ah yes.....drive through in a church parking lot. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on June 14, 2020, 05:48:04 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 14, 2020, 05:13:18 AM
Quote from: spork on June 13, 2020, 02:33:54 PM
Here's a fucked up congressional race: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/denver-riggleman-gay-wedding-314746 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/denver-riggleman-gay-wedding-314746).

Ah yes.....drive through in a church parking lot.

Riggleman's out.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on June 15, 2020, 03:20:07 AM
Quote from: spork on June 14, 2020, 05:48:04 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 14, 2020, 05:13:18 AM
Quote from: spork on June 13, 2020, 02:33:54 PM
Here's a fucked up congressional race: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/denver-riggleman-gay-wedding-314746 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/denver-riggleman-gay-wedding-314746).

Ah yes.....drive through in a church parking lot.

Riggleman's out.

And Goode is awful.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Treehugger on June 15, 2020, 04:06:09 AM
Quote from: sprout on June 01, 2020, 10:09:46 AM
Anyone else starting to wonder what will happen if Trump loses in November and refuses to step down or acknowledge the legitimacy of the election?

I was worried about that too, but apparently Trump  has said that if he loses the election, he will leave the WH peacefully.  (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/trump-says-will-leave-office-peacefully-if-he-loses-315736) Of course, there might be some "controversy" over what "lose the election" means, but the truth is that Trump realizes he doesn't have the military on his side (a big first step in any coup attempt) and the optics of having him physically escorted out of the WH would look pret-ty bad .... and Trump really cares about optics.

Frankly, I am more worried about the coronavirus at this point.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on June 16, 2020, 09:30:23 AM
My peer group is sharply divided between those that don't really know what the hell is going on and those who don't give a rat's ass. Once again, I find myself in a middle ground position,?, of being afraid to say diddlysquat to anybody.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on June 16, 2020, 09:38:47 AM
Quote from: Economizer on June 16, 2020, 09:30:23 AM
My peer group is sharply divided between those that don't really know what the hell is going on and those who don't give a rat's ass. Once again, I find myself in a middle ground position,?, of being afraid to say diddlysquat to anybody.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on June 18, 2020, 12:10:04 AM
Quote from: mamselle on June 01, 2020, 06:43:58 PM
Quote from: sprout on June 01, 2020, 10:09:46 AM
Anyone else starting to wonder what will happen if Trump loses in November and refuses to step down or acknowledge the legitimacy of the election?

I asked that question last fall.

M.

This article discusses the same issue:

   https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/when-does-trump-leave-white-house/613060/

Just since we're wondering....

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on June 18, 2020, 04:21:11 AM
NYT reporting that he seems to be self sabotaging his re-election because he doesn't really like the job....just the trappings, which we all knew from the get go.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 18, 2020, 05:38:34 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 18, 2020, 04:21:11 AM
NYT reporting that he seems to be self sabotaging his re-election because he doesn't really like the job....just the trappings, which we all knew from the get go.

...who thought Hillary was going to win.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on June 19, 2020, 05:17:57 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 18, 2020, 05:38:34 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 18, 2020, 04:21:11 AM
NYT reporting that he seems to be self sabotaging his re-election because he doesn't really like the job....just the trappings, which we all knew from the get go.

...who thought Hillary was going to win.

Most everyone thought Hilary would win. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 05:28:02 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 19, 2020, 05:17:57 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 18, 2020, 05:38:34 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 18, 2020, 04:21:11 AM
NYT reporting that he seems to be self sabotaging his re-election because he doesn't really like the job....just the trappings, which we all knew from the get go.

...who thought Hillary was going to win.

Most everyone thought Hilary would win.

I would hope that would make polling firms, news organizations, etc. a little less cocky this time, but I doubt it will.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 19, 2020, 05:48:29 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 05:28:02 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 19, 2020, 05:17:57 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 18, 2020, 05:38:34 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 18, 2020, 04:21:11 AM
NYT reporting that he seems to be self sabotaging his re-election because he doesn't really like the job....just the trappings, which we all knew from the get go.

...who thought Hillary was going to win.

Most everyone thought Hilary would win.

I would hope that would make polling firms, news organizations, etc. a little less cocky this time, but I doubt it will.

Most of the predictions you can read are meant to influence voting.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 06:16:52 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 19, 2020, 05:48:29 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 05:28:02 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 19, 2020, 05:17:57 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 18, 2020, 05:38:34 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 18, 2020, 04:21:11 AM
NYT reporting that he seems to be self sabotaging his re-election because he doesn't really like the job....just the trappings, which we all knew from the get go.

...who thought Hillary was going to win.

Most everyone thought Hilary would win.

I would hope that would make polling firms, news organizations, etc. a little less cocky this time, but I doubt it will.

Most of the predictions you can read are meant to influence voting.

Yeah, but I'm nostalgic for the time when journalists thought their job was to try and report objectively, rather than to tell people what they were supposed to do. (I know, I'm old....)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 19, 2020, 06:19:28 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 06:16:52 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 19, 2020, 05:48:29 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 05:28:02 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 19, 2020, 05:17:57 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on June 18, 2020, 05:38:34 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 18, 2020, 04:21:11 AM
NYT reporting that he seems to be self sabotaging his re-election because he doesn't really like the job....just the trappings, which we all knew from the get go.

...who thought Hillary was going to win.

Most everyone thought Hilary would win.

I would hope that would make polling firms, news organizations, etc. a little less cocky this time, but I doubt it will.

Most of the predictions you can read are meant to influence voting.

Yeah, but I'm nostalgic for the time when journalists thought their job was to try and report objectively, rather than to tell people what they were supposed to do. (I know, I'm old....)

So here's what I wonder: do these people at the NYT believe Trump is going to lose, are do they have some thought process that allows that they are just cheerleading for their team? Groupthink is powerful stuff.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on June 19, 2020, 08:35:27 AM
Now that the Democrats have, in a statuatory sense, lost the south, they are, via spite, trying to convince the public that the current leading opponent won't be in the race. Smooth move. Who is their strategist?

And:

1. What might the mood of the America  public be now if we had not had a great economy going into the Coved 19 tragedy?

2. Biden campaign is looking for charm in selection of a running mate, or so it seems to me, for 2020. What is his 2024 campaign going to look like?

3. President Trump has a good and dependable VP on the job and familiar with subject matters ongoing. How about that?

Scam a day political tactics in a time of multiple national crisies, in my opinion, just ain't gentlemanly!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 09:41:19 AM
Quote from: mamselle on June 18, 2020, 12:10:04 AM
Quote from: mamselle on June 01, 2020, 06:43:58 PM
Quote from: sprout on June 01, 2020, 10:09:46 AM
Anyone else starting to wonder what will happen if Trump loses in November and refuses to step down or acknowledge the legitimacy of the election?

I asked that question last fall.

M.

This article discusses the same issue:

   https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/when-does-trump-leave-white-house/613060/

Just since we're wondering....

M.

That's only part 1 of the problem.  If Orange Julius loses, do you honestly think 30 million well armed MAGA hats are going to give up that easily? 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 09:41:19 AM
Quote from: mamselle on June 18, 2020, 12:10:04 AM
Quote from: mamselle on June 01, 2020, 06:43:58 PM
Quote from: sprout on June 01, 2020, 10:09:46 AM
Anyone else starting to wonder what will happen if Trump loses in November and refuses to step down or acknowledge the legitimacy of the election?

I asked that question last fall.

M.

This article discusses the same issue:

   https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/when-does-trump-leave-white-house/613060/

Just since we're wondering....

M.

That's only part 1 of the problem.  If Orange Julius loses, do you honestly think 30 million well armed MAGA hats are going to give up that easily?

Are you expecting something like the recent rioting and looting?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: quasihumanist on June 19, 2020, 11:19:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 09:41:19 AM

That's only part 1 of the problem.  If Orange Julius loses, do you honestly think 30 million well armed MAGA hats are going to give up that easily?

Are you expecting something like the recent rioting and looting?

If Trump loses badly enough for the Republican Party to abandon Trumpism, I'm expecting widespread domestic terrorism.  Repeats of the DC sniper attacks paralyzing every major city for months, plus some more dramatic and deadly incidents.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Thursday's_Child on June 19, 2020, 11:42:41 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on June 19, 2020, 11:19:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 09:41:19 AM

That's only part 1 of the problem.  If Orange Julius loses, do you honestly think 30 million well armed MAGA hats are going to give up that easily?

Are you expecting something like the recent rioting and looting?

If Trump loses badly enough for the Republican Party to abandon Trumpism, I'm expecting widespread domestic terrorism.  Repeats of the DC sniper attacks paralyzing every major city for months, plus some more dramatic and deadly incidents.

I hope you're wrong.  Most of these same folks expected widespread attacks once Obama took office and many of them certainly added to their armory and/or got concealed carry permits, etc., in anticipation.  However, they (mostly) didn't initiate any violence - although an awful lot of hate groups formed or grew in size.  Since Biden is an old white male and most consider themselves law-abiding patriots, we'll just have to hope they can remain reasonably calm again, even if Dump tries to twitter-lash them into insurrection.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Descartes on June 19, 2020, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: quasihumanist on June 19, 2020, 11:19:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 09:41:19 AM

That's only part 1 of the problem.  If Orange Julius loses, do you honestly think 30 million well armed MAGA hats are going to give up that easily?

Are you expecting something like the recent rioting and looting?

If Trump loses badly enough for the Republican Party to abandon Trumpism, I'm expecting widespread domestic terrorism.  Repeats of the DC sniper attacks paralyzing every major city for months, plus some more dramatic and deadly incidents.

And if they do that, we musn't judge them; we must simply recognize that it is their frustration that drove them to that point and that perhaps, all of us are complicit in that frustration.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 12:36:01 PM
Quote from: Thursday's_Child on June 19, 2020, 11:42:41 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on June 19, 2020, 11:19:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 09:41:19 AM

That's only part 1 of the problem.  If Orange Julius loses, do you honestly think 30 million well armed MAGA hats are going to give up that easily?

Are you expecting something like the recent rioting and looting?

If Trump loses badly enough for the Republican Party to abandon Trumpism, I'm expecting widespread domestic terrorism.  Repeats of the DC sniper attacks paralyzing every major city for months, plus some more dramatic and deadly incidents.

I hope you're wrong.  Most of these same folks expected widespread attacks once Obama took office and many of them certainly added to their armory and/or got concealed carry permits, etc., in anticipation.  However, they (mostly) didn't initiate any violence - although an awful lot of hate groups formed or grew in size.  Since Biden is an old white male and most consider themselves law-abiding patriots, we'll just have to hope they can remain reasonably calm again, even if Dump tries to twitter-lash them into insurrection.

All I know is that every organization I am involved with is busy writing up anti-racism statements while the MAGA hats are more likely to be out there buying bigger guns and more bullets.  The pen may be mightier than the sword in the long run, but in the short run, paper is not bullet proof.

Some of this all make me reflect on Germany and Germans.  Much of the Western Canon, our music, our philosophy, our art - indeed our civilization - can be traced back to Germany.  There is much to suggest they are an intelligent, creative, orderly and cultured society.  Yet one single lunatic was able to drive these largely admirable people into committing the biggest genocide in human history. 

America has the single lunatic, he has spent nearly 4 years whipping up lizard brain level emotion, and the loss of faith in American society and institutions is palpable.  There is much in American society that is admirable, but I don't know if orderly and philosophical is writ large in the American DNA.  The match is lit.  I'm just not sure whether or not the kindling is flammable.

Best case scenario I can think of for a peaceful 2021 is that Trump wins re-election but that the Democrats keep the house and take the senate.  Trump's just King Lear.  Turtle faced Mitch is the far more dangerous Iago. (Yeah, I know, I've mixed my Shakespearean metaphors)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on June 19, 2020, 12:42:01 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 12:36:01 PM
Quote from: Thursday's_Child on June 19, 2020, 11:42:41 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on June 19, 2020, 11:19:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 09:41:19 AM

That's only part 1 of the problem.  If Orange Julius loses, do you honestly think 30 million well armed MAGA hats are going to give up that easily?

Are you expecting something like the recent rioting and looting?

If Trump loses badly enough for the Republican Party to abandon Trumpism, I'm expecting widespread domestic terrorism.  Repeats of the DC sniper attacks paralyzing every major city for months, plus some more dramatic and deadly incidents.

I hope you're wrong.  Most of these same folks expected widespread attacks once Obama took office and many of them certainly added to their armory and/or got concealed carry permits, etc., in anticipation.  However, they (mostly) didn't initiate any violence - although an awful lot of hate groups formed or grew in size.  Since Biden is an old white male and most consider themselves law-abiding patriots, we'll just have to hope they can remain reasonably calm again, even if Dump tries to twitter-lash them into insurrection.

All I know is that every organization I am involved with is busy writing up anti-racism statements while the MAGA hats are more likely to be out there buying bigger guns and more bullets.  The pen may be mightier than the sword in the long run, but in the short run, paper is not bullet proof.

Some of this all make me reflect on Germany and Germans.  Much of the Western Canon, our music, our philosophy, our art - indeed our civilization - can be traced back to Germany.  There is much to suggest they are an intelligent, creative, orderly and cultured society.  Yet one single lunatic was able to drive these largely admirable people into committing the biggest genocide in human history. 

America has the single lunatic, he has spent nearly 4 years whipping up lizard brain level emotion, and the loss of faith in American society and institutions is palpable.  There is much in American society that is admirable, but I don't know if orderly and philosophical is writ large in the American DNA.  The match is lit.  I'm just not sure whether or not the kindling is flammable.

Best case scenario I can think of for a peaceful 2021 is that Trump wins re-election but that the Democrats keep the house and take the senate.  Trump's just King Lear.  Turtle faced Mitch is the far more dangerous Iago. (Yeah, I know, I've mixed my Shakespearean metaphors)

"Give them what they want and then maybe they won't shoot us and be nice to us."

SMDH.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 12:48:26 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 12:36:01 PM
Quote from: Thursday's_Child on June 19, 2020, 11:42:41 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on June 19, 2020, 11:19:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 09:41:19 AM

That's only part 1 of the problem.  If Orange Julius loses, do you honestly think 30 million well armed MAGA hats are going to give up that easily?

Are you expecting something like the recent rioting and looting?

If Trump loses badly enough for the Republican Party to abandon Trumpism, I'm expecting widespread domestic terrorism.  Repeats of the DC sniper attacks paralyzing every major city for months, plus some more dramatic and deadly incidents.

I hope you're wrong.  Most of these same folks expected widespread attacks once Obama took office and many of them certainly added to their armory and/or got concealed carry permits, etc., in anticipation.  However, they (mostly) didn't initiate any violence - although an awful lot of hate groups formed or grew in size.  Since Biden is an old white male and most consider themselves law-abiding patriots, we'll just have to hope they can remain reasonably calm again, even if Dump tries to twitter-lash them into insurrection.

All I know is that every organization I am involved with is busy writing up anti-racism statements while the MAGA hats are more likely to be out there buying bigger guns and more bullets.  The pen may be mightier than the sword in the long run, but in the short run, paper is not bullet proof.

Some of this all make me reflect on Germany and Germans.  Much of the Western Canon, our music, our philosophy, our art - indeed our civilization - can be traced back to Germany.  There is much to suggest they are an intelligent, creative, orderly and cultured society.  Yet one single lunatic was able to drive these largely admirable people into committing the biggest genocide in human history. 

America has the single lunatic, he has spent nearly 4 years whipping up lizard brain level emotion, and the loss of faith in American society and institutions is palpable.  There is much in American society that is admirable, but I don't know if orderly and philosophical is writ large in the American DNA.  The match is lit.  I'm just not sure whether or not the kindling is flammable.


This could just as easily describe the recent riots. People at both ends of the political spectrum have flamethrowers (forget matches) and unless there is a concerted push for listening and finding common ground so that the moderate voices predominate, it doesn't really matter which "side" wins.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on June 19, 2020, 01:02:21 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 12:36:01 PM
Yet one single lunatic was able to drive these largely admirable people into committing the biggest genocide in human history. 

This is not actually true, and falsely absolves the German people of a long and deep history of antisemitism. Much has been written about this.  Whether you find that comforting or alarming in the current US context depends on what you think of American culture. Certainly, we also have a long and deep history of racism. Certainly Trump has done much harm, but let's not pretend that everything was great before. There are no "good old days" for American minorities.

Personally, I think both that our democracy is strong enough to prevent a civil war or coup, but also that there is clearly a strata of our culture (capitalized on and exacerbated by, but not created by, Trump) that may well respond with violence. Right wing domestic terrorism has happened before here (anyone remember Oklahoma City?) and will happen again.  I do not think hoping Trump wins is at all the appropriate response to that.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on June 19, 2020, 01:22:18 PM
Quote from: Puget on June 19, 2020, 01:02:21 PM

Personally, I think both that our democracy is strong enough to prevent a civil war or coup, but also that there is clearly a strata of our culture (capitalized on and exacerbated by, but not created by, Trump) that may well respond with violence. Right wing domestic terrorism has happened before here (anyone remember Oklahoma City?) and will happen again. 

Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 12:48:26 PM
People at both ends of the political spectrum have flamethrowers (forget matches) and unless there is a concerted push for listening and finding common ground so that the moderate voices predominate, it doesn't really matter which "side" wins.


Functioning democracy needs common ground. The two sides in present day America, and elsewhere, are different enough that there are no or few moderates. Hence, any decision made by a majority will be loathed by an almost majority. The implications we are living with and none are nice.

How things got this way in the electorate is what matters and that's where a fix will be found.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 02:07:05 PM
Quote from: dismalist on June 19, 2020, 01:22:18 PM
Quote from: Puget on June 19, 2020, 01:02:21 PM

Personally, I think both that our democracy is strong enough to prevent a civil war or coup, but also that there is clearly a strata of our culture (capitalized on and exacerbated by, but not created by, Trump) that may well respond with violence. Right wing domestic terrorism has happened before here (anyone remember Oklahoma City?) and will happen again. 

Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 12:48:26 PM
People at both ends of the political spectrum have flamethrowers (forget matches) and unless there is a concerted push for listening and finding common ground so that the moderate voices predominate, it doesn't really matter which "side" wins.


Functioning democracy needs common ground. The two sides in present day America, and elsewhere, are different enough that there are no or few moderates. Hence, any decision made by a majority will be loathed by an almost majority. The implications we are living with and none are nice.

How things got this way in the electorate is what matters and that's where a fix will be found.

Yes, because it's that ~10% of voters who may vote either way that decide each election. The zealots on both ends who only ever vote one way are just the background.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on June 19, 2020, 02:16:34 PM
A clarification, Marsh: The zealots at either end run the show. They are the foreground,  for there are too few votes in the middle to matter to either side.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on June 19, 2020, 02:45:59 PM
Hmm..an intense power struggle between those at each end of the electorate that have gone off the deep end!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on June 19, 2020, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: Economizer on June 19, 2020, 02:45:59 PM
Hmm..an intense power struggle between those at each end of the electorate that have gone off the deep end!

Neither side is necessarily off any deep end, Econo, or both may be. It's just that they disagree strongly.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: dismalist on June 19, 2020, 02:16:34 PM
A clarification, Marsh: The zealots at either end run the show. They are the foreground,  for there are too few votes in the middle to matter to either side.

It's not that there are too few votes in the middle; it's that the extremes double down in their own echo chambers rather than moving to the centre where they can actually potentially sway some votes.

That is the reason Clinton's loss took so many people by surprise; the people on the left only thought about the extremely conservative "base", without realizing that to people in the middle who are not ideologically driven, there are many *issues to consider that are not the main talking points of the noisy people on either end of the spectrum.


*The economy is almost always an important concern for non-ideologues.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on June 19, 2020, 03:54:06 PM
Good points, Marsh.

The [few] votes in the middle are uncertain to either side. Why do the parties double down in their own echo chambers, instead of going for the middle, no matter how small?

I think because in the US of A hardly anybody votes. Thus, the candidates are trying to mobilize non-voters.

Otherwise, I can't figure out why Biden will choose a female African-American running mate. Female might help, on account Hilary did not garner a majority of white female votes. But African American? They will vote for Biden anyway [on account if they don't they're not black :-(]. But only if they vote!

Anyway, here we are.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on June 22, 2020, 09:15:20 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on June 19, 2020, 11:19:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 09:41:19 AM

That's only part 1 of the problem.  If Orange Julius loses, do you honestly think 30 million well armed MAGA hats are going to give up that easily?

Are you expecting something like the recent rioting and looting?

If Trump loses badly enough for the Republican Party to abandon Trumpism, I'm expecting widespread domestic terrorism.  Repeats of the DC sniper attacks paralyzing every major city for months, plus some more dramatic and deadly incidents.

Actually I'm more inclined to fear such a result if Trump wins another hair's-breadth electoral college victory, thereby prompting some of his more extreme and passionate detractors to give up on democratic methods.  Once again, I would point out that it has not been MAGA sloganeers who have recently burned down whole city blocks in rioting.  Another Trump victory could seriously damage reformers' efforts to defuse the grievances that led to that rioting.  Plus any number of other dangerous grievances out there.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: waterboy on June 22, 2020, 09:59:20 AM
I might just have to get on Tik Tok. Way to go young'uns!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on June 22, 2020, 10:42:14 AM
Quote from: apl68 on June 22, 2020, 09:15:20 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on June 19, 2020, 11:19:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2020, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on June 19, 2020, 09:41:19 AM

That's only part 1 of the problem.  If Orange Julius loses, do you honestly think 30 million well armed MAGA hats are going to give up that easily?

Are you expecting something like the recent rioting and looting?

If Trump loses badly enough for the Republican Party to abandon Trumpism, I'm expecting widespread domestic terrorism.  Repeats of the DC sniper attacks paralyzing every major city for months, plus some more dramatic and deadly incidents.

Actually I'm more inclined to fear such a result if Trump wins another hair's-breadth electoral college victory, thereby prompting some of his more extreme and passionate detractors to give up on democratic methods.  Once again, I would point out that it has not been MAGA sloganeers who have recently burned down whole city blocks in rioting.  Another Trump victory could seriously damage reformers' efforts to defuse the grievances that led to that rioting.  Plus any number of other dangerous grievances out there.

It wasn't a black person who burned the Atlanta Wendy's.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Descartes on June 23, 2020, 01:30:07 PM
No, it was the decedent's alleged girlfriend (He had a wife too.  She didn't burn anything.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on June 24, 2020, 04:31:38 AM
Quote from: Descartes on June 23, 2020, 01:30:07 PM
No, it was the decedent's alleged girlfriend (He had a wife too.  She didn't burn anything.)

Do you have a source?  I've been looking....  Not doubting you.  I just like original source material.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Hegemony on June 24, 2020, 04:49:57 AM
Maybe Biden would pick an African-American running mate (if he does) because he think African-American voices have been disempowered, and this is an important chance to bring one close to the center of American power for only the second time in the long history of the country. I mean, sure, be as cynical as you want, but the reason that many people want a woman or an African-American or both for vice president is not as a cynical strategy to win over a certain demographic, but because they think that people from those categories have lacked a place at the table for too long. And, you know, they're right.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on June 24, 2020, 05:30:27 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on June 24, 2020, 04:49:57 AM
Maybe Biden would pick an African-American running mate (if he does) because he think African-American voices have been disempowered, and this is an important chance to bring one close to the center of American power for only the second time in the long history of the country. I mean, sure, be as cynical as you want, but the reason that many people want a woman or an African-American or both for vice president is not as a cynical strategy to win over a certain demographic, but because they think that people from those categories have lacked a place at the table for too long. And, you know, they're right.

Or because, you know, if you don't vote for Biden, "You ain't black".
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on June 24, 2020, 07:38:32 AM
QuoteNo, it was the decedent's alleged girlfriend (He had a wife too.  She didn't burn anything.)

Do you have a source?  I've been looking....  Not doubting you.  I just like original source material.

On the recording of his arrest, he said that his girlfriend lived only a block away and gave her name.  The network news (either ABC or NBC) showed that part of his arrest when the woman was named and her picture shown. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on June 25, 2020, 06:43:08 AM
Quote from: clean on June 24, 2020, 07:38:32 AM
QuoteNo, it was the decedent's alleged girlfriend (He had a wife too.  She didn't burn anything.)

Do you have a source?  I've been looking....  Not doubting you.  I just like original source material.

On the recording of his arrest, he said that his girlfriend lived only a block away and gave her name.  The network news (either ABC or NBC) showed that part of his arrest when the woman was named and her picture shown.

Hmmmmmm....Thanks.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 26, 2020, 04:23:26 AM
How the democrats might end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8451541/PIERS-MORGAN-Liberals-fighting-Trump-elected-rioting-letting-fireworks.html?fbclid=IwAR1SChS1so5k_lcTRD29gRHbAYE2Gnc7tUYRO6jY1pDY522n1fd5zhkPyE0
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on June 28, 2020, 08:28:48 AM
I have read reports of a young man that spearheaded the placing thousands of false reservations for attendees to a recent Trump rally in the miidwest. If the action caused unnecessary expense to Mr. Trump's re-election organization, might there be grounds for recompense?

Would such an action be agreeable to our entire body politic?  I do believe that the name of the organizer was given out in press reports.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on June 28, 2020, 09:34:41 AM
QuoteI have read reports of a young man that spearheaded the placing thousands of false reservations for attendees to a recent Trump rally in the miidwest. If the action caused unnecessary expense to Mr. Trump's re-election organization, might there be grounds for recompense?

Would such an action be agreeable to our entire body politic?  I do believe that the name of the organizer was given out in press reports.

I think that there was a symbiotic relationship here.  The 'young man' benefited by being an ass and 'sticking it to Trump'.  The campaign benefited by 'distributing' a shit-ton (a metric unit I believe) of tickets.  The campaign had a plan to have a second/overflow area IF there had been sufficient folks visiting.  Did people not attend because there were no tickets? I did not hear any news of that!
I heard that people were afraid because of CV19 or civil unrest, but not because they could not secure a ticket.

The Campaign had the ability to stop this!  All that it would have taken was charge a $1 donation for a ticket!  Die hard supporters would have gladly paid a $1 and protesters would NOT have paid even $1 in donations to the campaign (and certainly would not have ordered thousands of tickets if there was even a nominal cost!)

So they both got something from this!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on June 28, 2020, 05:27:11 PM
What with voter registration still being an issue, I was struck by this item that appeared in my YouTube feed this afternoon:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRe648clNjg

Forty-eight years and we still haven't solved it yet...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on July 05, 2020, 12:10:03 PM
My seeing, on various prominent media, quite a bit of malicious comments or remarks, my thought is that if gutter snipees succeed in deterrmining an election's winner, then, our Higher Education systems have failed. Y'all can quote me on that, if it has not been already said.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on July 05, 2020, 07:40:42 PM
Quote from: Economizer on July 05, 2020, 12:10:03 PM
My seeing, on various prominent media, quite a bit of malicious comments or remarks, my thought is that if gutter snipees succeed in deterrmining an election's winner, then, our Higher Education systems have failed. Y'all can quote me on that, if it has not been already said.

Well, where to start? The Donald makes fat jokes about Stacey Abrams, not only fat jokes, but the kind of fat jokes that your sixth grade kid thinks of.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on July 06, 2020, 09:21:14 AM
Is anyone on board with Kanye West?  I am amazed that we have not seen other highly publicized independent campaigns for the presidency at this time in the game. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on July 06, 2020, 09:26:38 AM
I don't think even Kanye West is on board with Kanye West.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on July 06, 2020, 11:13:51 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 06, 2020, 09:26:38 AM
I don't think even Kanye West is on board with Kanye West.

Yeezus lives on a different plane of existence.  Somewhere in the 23rd dimension, he makes sense.  Just not to us plebs.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: downer on July 06, 2020, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 06, 2020, 09:26:38 AM
I don't think even Kanye West is on board with Kanye West.

That's what we said about DT back in 2016.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on July 06, 2020, 11:59:50 AM
I thought I read he hadn't yet registered as a candidate.

In the wider interests of things we don't need a spoiler at this point, is my basic feeling.

Anything that fragments the vote could let Trump in.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on July 06, 2020, 04:41:31 PM
Sorry for the double, but this deserves mention.

A friend has just emailed a bunch of us to say she's signed up for a nearby Trump rally coming later in the summer--with no intention of going.

As she put it, "Can't let the K-Pop Tik-Tok kids have all the fun!"

Crafty.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on July 07, 2020, 09:38:11 AM
I think Susan Collins is toast:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/us/politics/susan-collins-maine-sara-gideon.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/us/politics/susan-collins-maine-sara-gideon.html).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on July 07, 2020, 10:01:53 AM
I thought a couple years ago that she was teetering on the edge of going Democrat, or at least a more left-, or center- leaning Republican.

But she flinched a few times too often when her vote could have mattered.

So it goes.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on July 11, 2020, 08:06:44 PM
Well, sorry for the double, but good news won't be kept [/sacracsm]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/07/11/politics/trump-roger-stone-sentence-commutation-democrats-romney/index.html

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on July 11, 2020, 09:34:43 PM
Quote from: mamselle on July 11, 2020, 08:06:44 PM
Well, sorry for the double, but good news won't be kept [/sacracsm]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/07/11/politics/trump-roger-stone-sentence-commutation-democrats-romney/index.html

M.

Yep.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on July 11, 2020, 09:56:31 PM
Obviously this Stone character is a first-order scumbag, and a thug-- hard time in a Turkish prison is too good for him.   And just as obviously Romney, Pelosi, etc., are right to condemn this gross conflict of interest corrupt abuse of the pardon/ commutation power.  That said, it is a constitutional power and her proposed legislative solution is unconstitutional.  The constitution would have to be amended.  It probably should be, but given the 'incarceration nation' nature of our country, we probably, once Trump is gone, be encouraging presidents to go back to much more active use of this power, as used to be normative, as a check on unjust sentences, overzealous prosecutions, etc.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on July 22, 2020, 04:01:10 PM
A new Rasmussen poll of likely voters has Biden up only 47-45 and Trump's approval at 49%--right where Obama's was at this time in 2012. 

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_jul22

If Trump would just crack of a few more skulls in Portland, he'd pull ahead. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on July 22, 2020, 04:26:23 PM
That's exactly right, writingprof.

Specifically, how will voters in the swing states respond to gratuitous violence? Does a black person in Philadelphia or Detroit want more police protection  or less police protection?

The really bad Coronovirus stuff is all along the northern tier of  I-95. Voters there hated Trump before the outbreak. No change in the swing.

I think the Democratic party is committing electoral suicide. [Each element is rational for it's own particular  interests, but not for the interests of, say, the potential middle Democratic voter.]
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on July 22, 2020, 05:17:47 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 22, 2020, 04:26:23 PM
That's exactly right, writingprof.

Specifically, how will voters in the swing states respond to gratuitous violence? Does a black person in Philadelphia or Detroit want more police protection  or less police protection?

The really bad Coronovirus stuff is all along the northern tier of  I-95. Voters there hated Trump before the outbreak. No change in the swing.

I think the Democratic party is committing electoral suicide. [Each element is rational for it's own particular  interests, but not for the interests of, say, the potential middle Democratic voter.]

Northern tier of I-95? Not anymore. Have you looked at FL, AZ, TX, GA, AL and SC today?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on July 22, 2020, 05:27:13 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on July 22, 2020, 05:17:47 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 22, 2020, 04:26:23 PM
That's exactly right, writingprof.

Specifically, how will voters in the swing states respond to gratuitous violence? Does a black person in Philadelphia or Detroit want more police protection  or less police protection?

The really bad Coronovirus stuff is all along the northern tier of  I-95. Voters there hated Trump before the outbreak. No change in the swing.

I think the Democratic party is committing electoral suicide. [Each element is rational for it's own particular  interests, but not for the interests of, say, the potential middle Democratic voter.]

Northern tier of I-95? Not anymore. Have you looked at FL, AZ, TX, GA, AL and SC today?

I watch every day. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Cases are a magic number, deaths likely not. The link above arranges or can be arranged by a click to order states in deaths per million. Given when the noise started, deaths should have occurred by now. It's I-95 north of the Mason-Dixon Line [plus MD]. Then it gets smaller.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on July 22, 2020, 05:46:11 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 22, 2020, 05:27:13 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on July 22, 2020, 05:17:47 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 22, 2020, 04:26:23 PM
That's exactly right, writingprof.

Specifically, how will voters in the swing states respond to gratuitous violence? Does a black person in Philadelphia or Detroit want more police protection  or less police protection?

The really bad Coronovirus stuff is all along the northern tier of  I-95. Voters there hated Trump before the outbreak. No change in the swing.

I think the Democratic party is committing electoral suicide. [Each element is rational for it's own particular  interests, but not for the interests of, say, the potential middle Democratic voter.]

Northern tier of I-95? Not anymore. Have you looked at FL, AZ, TX, GA, AL and SC today?

I watch every day. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Cases are a magic number, deaths likely not. The link above arranges or can be arranged by a click to order states in deaths per million. Given when the noise started, deaths should have occurred by now. It's I-95 north of the Mason-Dixon Line [plus MD]. Then it gets smaller.

I do too. FTR, I seldom look at cases repoRted; too much depends on how may perfoRmed and on whom. I was actually referring to deaths the last week. Deaths per million is a great figure, but is biased towards the past in this case.

Thing shave been changing pretty rapidly, and not in favor of the states I listed. As an example, I'm in Indiana. Deaths per million are right around the national average, and have been for a long time. AZ is an example of a state that was way lower than IN, but not now.

As to the poll, Rasmussen is generally one that skews more towards R's in sampling. But, that matters little depending on who shows up to vote, and on what issues. Generally, the last several elections (where President. Obama did not run) have been decided by 4-5 swing states. What matters IMHO, are whether African-Americans turn out in Detroit,  Milwaukee, and Philadelphia, how much suburban women are really unhappy, and whether Trump pisses off enough old people re COVID. If the D's were smart (IF) they'd focus on statements like he made today which essentially said deaths occur mostly among old people (that it is true doesn't matter), and people with co-morbidities (true) who are often minorities.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on July 22, 2020, 06:05:58 PM
Yeah, so
Quote
If Trump would just crack of a few more skulls in Portland, he'd pull ahead. 

Coronovirus is the last hope of the Democratic Party. :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on July 22, 2020, 06:13:59 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 22, 2020, 06:05:58 PM
Yeah, so
Quote
If Trump would just crack of a few more skulls in Portland, he'd pull ahead. 

Coronovirus is the last hope of the Democratic Party. :-)

Heh. it is certainly a good issue for them.

I think the African-American vote would actually grow if more heads are cracked, and suburban women will be MORE unhappy with Trump.  Given my record of serving on administrative search committees, however, I would put little stock in what I think :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on July 22, 2020, 06:18:13 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on July 22, 2020, 06:13:59 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 22, 2020, 06:05:58 PM
Yeah, so
Quote
If Trump would just crack of a few more skulls in Portland, he'd pull ahead. 

Coronovirus is the last hope of the Democratic Party. :-)

Heh. it is certainly a good issue for them.

I think the African-American vote would actually grow if more heads are cracked, and suburban women will be MORE unhappy with Trump.  Given my record of serving on administrative search committees, however, I would put little stock in what I think :-)

I believe the opposite. Black Americans need protection more than the others, as do women. Now, that's Identity Politics!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on July 22, 2020, 08:39:01 PM
Quote from: writingprof on July 22, 2020, 04:01:10 PM
A new Rasmussen poll of likely voters has Biden up only 47-45 and Trump's approval at 49%--right where Obama's was at this time in 2012. 

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_jul22

If Trump would just crack of a few more skulls in Portland, he'd pull ahead.

I wouldn't put too much stock in one poll, especially this one.  Look at a poll of polls (e.g. 538).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on July 23, 2020, 03:15:10 PM
Trump just cancelled the RNC in Jacksonville. I wonder who finally convinced him?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on July 23, 2020, 09:01:32 PM
Open rebellion in the ranks?   Fear that he would look stupid giving an online virtual acceptance speech to a 3/4 empty hall?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on July 24, 2020, 01:18:04 PM
K16, I actually think the mobs in Portland had a significant effect. The Jacksonville sheriff came out earlier this week and ripped the GOP for having no security plan. I think we may all wnat to thank the Wall of Moms and the Leaf Blower Dads for demonstrating what it might look like outside the RNC.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on July 25, 2020, 04:40:43 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on July 24, 2020, 01:18:04 PM
K16, I actually think the mobs in Portland had a significant effect. The Jacksonville sheriff came out earlier this week and ripped the GOP for having no security plan. I think we may all wnat to thank the Wall of Moms and the Leaf Blower Dads for demonstrating what it might look like outside the RNC.

Interesting point.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: downer on July 26, 2020, 07:31:16 AM
I am thinking of putting a lawn sign up this election season, to support the Democrat in the local congressional race. I'm so sick of the Republican incumbent parroting whatever they are told by the GOP press machine. It would be a first for me.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on July 31, 2020, 11:02:55 AM
I'm getting annoyed at reading over and over that there is an "enthusiasm gap" because more Biden supporters say they are primarily voting against Trump rather than for him and vice versa for Trump supporters. That could be a fine question to ask, but you need to ask it as two separate questions (How enthusiastic are you to vote FOR candidate X? How enthusiastic are you to vote AGAINST candidate Y?), not as a forced choice the way pollsters all seem to be doing.

Think about it this way-- suppose that eating ice cream was the only way to stop an astroid from destroying the earth, and you asked me if I was eating ice cream primarily because I like it or because I want to stop the astroid. I'm obviously going to say the latter, even if I really, really like ice cream.

Maybe there is a real enthusiasm gap, and maybe there isn't-- we'll never know because they aren't asking in a way that can tell us. Plus since when is avoiding a negative consequence less of a motivator than achieving a positive one? Actually, data indicate the opposite tends to be true.

Could these pollsters please hire at least one person with some background in psychology and rudiments of valid survey design???
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on July 31, 2020, 12:12:17 PM
You would think more people would be aware of prospect theory/loss aversion, but no. And I rarely see work by journalists who actually understand what they're writing about.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on July 31, 2020, 12:44:41 PM

With politicians and others backing the BLACK LIVES MATTER demonstrations, while ignoring the negative factors of which accompany the demonstrations, do you think that the elections will be affected by the actions which challenge our law enforcement personnel, and the businesses, the local governments, and citizens suffering during the periods of demonstrations.?Will the large gatherings in some areas affect the Coved 19 statistics? And, will the state and national legislatures allow the roughness in the demonstrations affect the amount of unemployment and other emergency assistance
measures being sent to the general public and those hampered in their ability to "make Money? Also, will the expenditures to control demonstrations limit funding of other ongoing and proposed government expenditures, Federal, State, and Local?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on July 31, 2020, 12:51:14 PM
No.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on July 31, 2020, 02:47:13 PM
Quote from: Economizer on July 31, 2020, 12:44:41 PM

With politicians and others backing the BLACK LIVES MATTER demonstrations, while ignoring the negative factors of which accompany the demonstrations, do you think that the elections will be affected by the actions which challenge our law enforcement personnel, and the businesses, the local governments, and citizens suffering during the periods of demonstrations.?Will the large gatherings in some areas affect the Coved 19 statistics? And, will the state and national legislatures allow the roughness in the demonstrations affect the amount of unemployment and other emergency assistance
measures being sent to the general public and those hampered in their ability to "make Money? Also, will the expenditures to control demonstrations limit funding of other ongoing and proposed government expenditures, Federal, State, and Local?

You're asking about a lot of things here that each require their own separate discussion, but I think the main question is: How will BLM protests affect the election?

My opinion is that they won't have much of an effect. Trump is trying to convince people that Biden is a crazy radical who will defund the police and usher in chaos. This may work to amp up his base, but probably not going to help him with independents or suburban voters for a few reasons. First, BLM polls well and Trump handling of anything related to race polls badly. Second, Biden is hard to paint as a radical. Third, it will be hard for Trump to convince anyone that he is the candidate to bring law and order to the streets, when the chaos he's campaigning against is happening while he's in office.

Additionally, by November protests will probably be old news anyway and the more salient crises to voters will probably covid and the economy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 02:59:34 PM
Quote from: Economizer on July 31, 2020, 12:44:41 PM

With politicians and others backing the BLACK LIVES MATTER demonstrations, while ignoring the negative factors of which accompany the demonstrations, do you think that the elections will be affected by the actions which challenge our law enforcement personnel, and the businesses, the local governments, and citizens suffering during the periods of demonstrations.?Will the large gatherings in some areas affect the Coved 19 statistics? And, will the state and national legislatures allow the roughness in the demonstrations affect the amount of unemployment and other emergency assistance
measures being sent to the general public and those hampered in their ability to "make Money? Also, will the expenditures to control demonstrations limit funding of other ongoing and proposed government expenditures, Federal, State, and Local?

Instinct says while these things might affect how I vote, most of the people in my blue state who are firmly in the Biden camp see the demonstrations and the risk entailed as signs of courage and character. And they see the pandemic as Trump's fault anyway. So nothing can happen that weakens Biden's hand. On the other side, they already were in the Trump camp so the demonstrations will only consolidate that. I never thought I could vote for Trump, but the 'anti-racism' movement has me wondering if I can trust these characters on the left. It's striking how few people are on the fence this time around. Or maybe those who are just keep quiet. I wouldn't blame them, if so.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on July 31, 2020, 03:36:25 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 02:59:34 PM
It's striking how few people are on the fence this time around. Or maybe those who are just keep quiet. I wouldn't blame them, if so.

This.  There are perhaps twenty actual racists in the country.  There are a million "anti-racists."  The other 328,999,980 of us are pretending to support BLM to keep our jobs.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on July 31, 2020, 05:43:07 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 02:59:34 PM
It's striking how few people are on the fence this time around. Or maybe those who are just keep quiet. I wouldn't blame them, if so.

According to polls, people who dislike both candidates are overwhelmingly breaking towards Biden this time (at least so far). In contrast to 2016, when those who disliked both candidates broke towards Trump.

Quote from: writingprof on July 31, 2020, 03:36:25 PM

This.  There are perhaps twenty actual racists in the country.  There are a million "anti-racists."  The other 328,999,980 of us are pretending to support BLM to keep our jobs.

Most people are not comfortable with racism, and if you look at polling BLM has increased in popularity a lot.  Unfortunately there are still many many racists in this country, including one in the White House.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 06:39:11 PM
I notice also  that rioting has been getting popular. What's popular isn't necessarily what I like.

I don't know what poll you're looking at. This one says 70% of Americans believe BLM has not improved race relations.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/poll-70-percent-of-americans-think-black-lives-matter-has-not-improved-race-relations/
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on July 31, 2020, 07:03:07 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 06:39:11 PM
I notice also  that rioting has been getting popular. What's popular isn't necessarily what I like.

I don't know what poll you're looking at. This one says 70% of Americans believe BLM has not improved race relations.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/poll-70-percent-of-americans-think-black-lives-matter-has-not-improved-race-relations/

Rioting is getting popular? I'd love to know which poll you are referring to there.

Here's are several articles, each reporting on a different poll showing that Americans generally support BLM:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-lives-matter-police-reform-opinion-poll-28-06-2020/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/protests-polling-support-movement-policies-kaiser-quinnipiac/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/10/upshot/black-lives-matter-attitudes.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/07/21/americans-support-blmbut-slight-majority-opposes-police-defunding-and-removing-confederate-statues-poll-finds/#4c1de31d46a9
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 07:25:42 PM
How many of those polled are either

1. Police who were injured trying to control crowds
2. People whose residence is where the rioting is going on
3. People whose place of  business has been vandalized or looted

It may turn out that time is not your friend with campaigns like this one. Maybe at some point people say 'all right you've made your point. We get it. Now go home and get a life already.'

Time will tell. It's fun to speculate.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: permanent imposter on July 31, 2020, 08:15:42 PM
Quote from: writingprof on July 31, 2020, 03:36:25 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 02:59:34 PM
It's striking how few people are on the fence this time around. Or maybe those who are just keep quiet. I wouldn't blame them, if so.

There are perhaps twenty actual racists in the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html) -- more than twenty I'd reckon.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 08:41:36 PM
If I have a beer with my neighbor and it turns out we both dislike the same third neighbor, are we a hate group?

Offhand, I'd say we hate each other at record levels this year.

(Confession: did not read the article. I am not a subscriber.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on July 31, 2020, 09:53:25 PM
"vaiid survey design", "prospect theory/ loss aversion"-- where are such concepts usually taught, and how does one with no background in these things evaluate polls, etc, which may or may not be taking such concepts into account, and how, further, can one learn these things, without, ahem, enrolling in a college course where they might be taught?  Truth be told, i have never heard of 'prospect theory', and probably could only guess as to what it means, or why/ how its inclusion into a poll might help said poll's accuracy, but I am more than willing to be corrected, esp since I do know that polls can be and often are deliberately skewed in order to produce results desired by the pollsters and/ or their funders (anyone recall the wonderful scene in 'Yes, Prime Minister', where Sir Humphrey explains to Bernard how this can be done?)?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on August 01, 2020, 07:01:05 AM
Prospect theory is basically the foundation of behavioral economics.

Susan Collins' re-election campaign screws up again:

https://www.salon.com/2020/08/01/susan-collins-ads-seem-to-feature-ordinary-people--but-dont-reveal-their-ties-to-maine-gop/ (https://www.salon.com/2020/08/01/susan-collins-ads-seem-to-feature-ordinary-people--but-dont-reveal-their-ties-to-maine-gop/).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on August 01, 2020, 07:10:40 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 31, 2020, 09:53:25 PM
"vaiid survey design", "prospect theory/ loss aversion"-- where are such concepts usually taught, and how does one with no background in these things evaluate polls, etc, which may or may not be taking such concepts into account, and how, further, can one learn these things, without, ahem, enrolling in a college course where they might be taught?  Truth be told, i have never heard of 'prospect theory', and probably could only guess as to what it means, or why/ how its inclusion into a poll might help said poll's accuracy, but I am more than willing to be corrected, esp since I do know that polls can be and often are deliberately skewed in order to produce results desired by the pollsters and/ or their funders (anyone recall the wonderful scene in 'Yes, Prime Minister', where Sir Humphrey explains to Bernard how this can be done?)?

If you want a general popular science introduction to concepts from behavioral economics (psychologists get a bit miffed by this term because it's really just cognitive psychology with some economics language), I'd suggest the book Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler or Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (psychologist who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his pioneering behavioral economics work, including loss aversion).

If you want smart modeling and data journalism about politics, you can't do better than FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com). They also have a weekly politics podcast with a recurring "good use of polling/bad use of polling" feature that is quite educational.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on August 01, 2020, 07:51:19 AM
Quote from: Puget on August 01, 2020, 07:10:40 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on July 31, 2020, 09:53:25 PM
"vaiid survey design", "prospect theory/ loss aversion"-- where are such concepts usually taught, and how does one with no background in these things evaluate polls, etc, which may or may not be taking such concepts into account, and how, further, can one learn these things, without, ahem, enrolling in a college course where they might be taught?  Truth be told, i have never heard of 'prospect theory', and probably could only guess as to what it means, or why/ how its inclusion into a poll might help said poll's accuracy, but I am more than willing to be corrected, esp since I do know that polls can be and often are deliberately skewed in order to produce results desired by the pollsters and/ or their funders (anyone recall the wonderful scene in 'Yes, Prime Minister', where Sir Humphrey explains to Bernard how this can be done?)?

If you want a general popular science introduction to concepts from behavioral economics (psychologists get a bit miffed by this term because it's really just cognitive psychology with some economics language), I'd suggest the book Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler or Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (psychologist who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his pioneering behavioral economics work, including loss aversion).

If you want smart modeling and data journalism about politics, you can't do better than FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com). They also have a weekly politics podcast with a recurring "good use of polling/bad use of polling" feature that is quite educational.

In addition to the books above, I can recommend Thaler's Misbehaving (part autobiography, part history of the field) and Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational.

When it comes to survey design, questions can be constructed to deliberately play upon respondents' cognitive biases and thereby skew the results. E.g., "When polled, nine out of ten people say they believe there is evidence that Hillary Clinton is running a child sex trafficking ring from a pizza parlor in Washington, DC. Would you vote for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton?"

Related: for the election in 2016, surveys were indicating that Hillary Clinton had something like an 80% chance of winning (I can't remember what the exact figure was, using 80% as an example). Unfamiliarity with probability led many to conclude "Clinton will win by a ratio of 4:1" not "if this election was repeated many times under the same conditions, Trump would win on average 1 out of every 5 times."

I am still predicting that Collins will lose in Maine. I think it's in the loss column for the Republicans in the U.S. Senate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on August 01, 2020, 08:00:19 AM
Quote from: permanent imposter on July 31, 2020, 08:15:42 PM
Quote from: writingprof on July 31, 2020, 03:36:25 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 02:59:34 PM
It's striking how few people are on the fence this time around. Or maybe those who are just keep quiet. I wouldn't blame them, if so.

There are perhaps twenty actual racists in the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html) -- more than twenty I'd reckon.

Are you seriously citing the Southern Poverty Law Center as a legitimate source?  Even the Left acknowledges that the SPLC are ridiculous frauds.  Here's a fine take-down in Current Affairs.  Feel free to skip to the section entitled "Focusing on the Wrong Thing."

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-liberalism
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on August 01, 2020, 09:00:08 AM
This is a great course from the University of Washington. I just investigated the links in the syllabus. https://www.callingbullshit.org/syllabus.html
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: permanent imposter on August 07, 2020, 03:56:22 PM
Quote from: writingprof on August 01, 2020, 08:00:19 AM
Quote from: permanent imposter on July 31, 2020, 08:15:42 PM
Quote from: writingprof on July 31, 2020, 03:36:25 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 02:59:34 PM
It's striking how few people are on the fence this time around. Or maybe those who are just keep quiet. I wouldn't blame them, if so.

There are perhaps twenty actual racists in the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html) -- more than twenty I'd reckon.

Are you seriously citing the Southern Poverty Law Center as a legitimate source?  Even the Left acknowledges that the SPLC are ridiculous frauds.  Here's a fine take-down in Current Affairs.  Feel free to skip to the section entitled "Focusing on the Wrong Thing."

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-liberalism

This was educational, thank you. Though broadly I still trust NYT, so I trusted them in this case to do their due diligence.

However, I still think you are grossly underestimating the amount of hatred and racism that still exist in this country (and elsewhere). Just spend any amount of time on the internet.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on August 26, 2020, 05:51:51 AM
New Mexico currently has a 'fun' race in the second congressional district, which includes NMSU for those following that discussion, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-mexico/articles/2020-08-26/us-house-hopefuls-in-new-mexico-race-unload-dueling-gun-ads

This is the Democrat ad: https://youtu.be/tC0NOl9k5yE
This is the Republican ad: https://youtu.be/Y9GxAboRua0

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on August 26, 2020, 06:14:02 AM
Quote from: permanent imposter on August 07, 2020, 03:56:22 PM
Quote from: writingprof on August 01, 2020, 08:00:19 AM
Quote from: permanent imposter on July 31, 2020, 08:15:42 PM
Quote from: writingprof on July 31, 2020, 03:36:25 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 02:59:34 PM
It's striking how few people are on the fence this time around. Or maybe those who are just keep quiet. I wouldn't blame them, if so.

There are perhaps twenty actual racists in the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html) -- more than twenty I'd reckon.

Are you seriously citing the Southern Poverty Law Center as a legitimate source?  Even the Left acknowledges that the SPLC are ridiculous frauds.  Here's a fine take-down in Current Affairs.  Feel free to skip to the section entitled "Focusing on the Wrong Thing."

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-liberalism

This was educational, thank you. Though broadly I still trust NYT, so I trusted them in this case to do their due diligence.

However, I still think you are grossly underestimating the amount of hatred and racism that still exist in this country (and elsewhere). Just spend any amount of time on the internet.

YES!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 26, 2020, 06:48:23 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on August 26, 2020, 06:14:02 AM
Quote from: permanent imposter on August 07, 2020, 03:56:22 PM

This was educational, thank you. Though broadly I still trust NYT, so I trusted them in this case to do their due diligence.

However, I still think you are grossly underestimating the amount of hatred and racism that still exist in this country (and elsewhere). Just spend any amount of time on the internet.

YES!

This is a bit misleading. It's well-documented that electronic communication, especially with some level of anonymity, makes people express themselves much more aggressively than they would in person.  As an example, it's amazing how much attention the media give to Twitter, which is far from representative of what the majority of people think.

It's almost like evaluating people by their actions in a bar; their actions under the influence of alcohol are not a good proxy for how they will act under normal circumstances.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Descartes on August 26, 2020, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: permanent imposter on August 07, 2020, 03:56:22 PM
Quote from: writingprof on August 01, 2020, 08:00:19 AM
Quote from: permanent imposter on July 31, 2020, 08:15:42 PM
Quote from: writingprof on July 31, 2020, 03:36:25 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 31, 2020, 02:59:34 PM
It's striking how few people are on the fence this time around. Or maybe those who are just keep quiet. I wouldn't blame them, if so.

There are perhaps twenty actual racists in the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html) -- more than twenty I'd reckon.

Are you seriously citing the Southern Poverty Law Center as a legitimate source?  Even the Left acknowledges that the SPLC are ridiculous frauds.  Here's a fine take-down in Current Affairs.  Feel free to skip to the section entitled "Focusing on the Wrong Thing."

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-liberalism

This was educational, thank you. Though broadly I still trust NYT, so I trusted them in this case to do their due diligence.

However, I still think you are grossly underestimating the amount of hatred and racism that still exist in this country (and elsewhere). Just spend any amount of time on the internet.

Actual racism or "racism?"
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 01:20:30 PM
A distinction without much difference, I think.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 26, 2020, 01:41:36 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 01:20:30 PM
A distinction without much difference, I think.

Would you include the Smithsonian infographic  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/african-american-museum-site-removes-whiteness-chart-after-criticism-from-trump-jr-and-conservative-media/2020/07/17/4ef6e6f2-c831-11ea-8ffe-372be8d82298_story.html) which considered hard work, self-reliance, respect of authority and the nuclear family  as attributes of white culture?

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on August 26, 2020, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 01:20:30 PM
A distinction without much difference, I think.

That depends.  I care nothing about BLM or defunding the police because those aren't the pressing issues in our area.  However, flatly saying in public that those issues are so far down the list that they're irrelevant isn't going to go well and will lead to accusations of 'racism'.

Even pointing out that All Lives Matter is a much better rallying cry where we are because we have the reservations, a majority Hispanic population, and a big first-generation immigrant population that is light on Europeans is going to be met with accusations of 'racism' because Black Lives Matter more, even while being only 1% or less of the population here.

Much frustration exists here because diversity only means African American and gender while ignoring 80% of our population.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 05:33:25 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 26, 2020, 01:41:36 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 01:20:30 PM
A distinction without much difference, I think.

Would you include the Smithsonian infographic  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/african-american-museum-site-removes-whiteness-chart-after-criticism-from-trump-jr-and-conservative-media/2020/07/17/4ef6e6f2-c831-11ea-8ffe-372be8d82298_story.html) which considered hard work, self-reliance, respect of authority and the nuclear family  as attributes of white culture?

I don't understand the question, or its relation to my remark. Would I include that in what?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on August 26, 2020, 05:37:16 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 26, 2020, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 01:20:30 PM
A distinction without much difference, I think.

That depends.  I care nothing about BLM or defunding the police because those aren't the pressing issues in our area.  However, flatly saying in public that those issues are so far down the list that they're irrelevant isn't going to go well and will lead to accusations of 'racism'.

Even pointing out that All Lives Matter is a much better rallying cry where we are because we have the reservations, a majority Hispanic population, and a big first-generation immigrant population that is light on Europeans is going to be met with accusations of 'racism' because Black Lives Matter more, even while being only 1% or less of the population here.

Much frustration exists here because diversity only means African American and gender while ignoring 80% of our population.

Well, 51% of the US population is female, so there's gender diversity right there.

And, of the 49% males, 24% of them are non-White-alone, so that makes another 12%.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US,CA/PST045219

Of the remaining white males, 49% * 76 % * 10% are probably gay, so add 4%.

That means 51% + 12% + 4% = 63% of the population is immediately affected by the key diversity issues. And we haven't brought up intersectionality, religion, disability, and others.

Still, I think that is a healthy % of the population that should be concerned about diversity issues, don't you?

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on August 26, 2020, 06:22:22 PM
My friend who registers for Trump events so she can NOT attend, and thus bring the headcount down, just got notification of a change of venue.

So now she can NOT go there, instead...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on August 26, 2020, 08:44:13 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on August 26, 2020, 05:37:16 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 26, 2020, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 01:20:30 PM
A distinction without much difference, I think.

That depends.  I care nothing about BLM or defunding the police because those aren't the pressing issues in our area.  However, flatly saying in public that those issues are so far down the list that they're irrelevant isn't going to go well and will lead to accusations of 'racism'.

Even pointing out that All Lives Matter is a much better rallying cry where we are because we have the reservations, a majority Hispanic population, and a big first-generation immigrant population that is light on Europeans is going to be met with accusations of 'racism' because Black Lives Matter more, even while being only 1% or less of the population here.

Much frustration exists here because diversity only means African American and gender while ignoring 80% of our population.

Well, 51% of the US population is female, so there's gender diversity right there.

And, of the 49% males, 24% of them are non-White-alone, so that makes another 12%.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US,CA/PST045219

Of the remaining white males, 49% * 76 % * 10% are probably gay, so add 4%.

That means 51% + 12% + 4% = 63% of the population is immediately affected by the key diversity issues. And we haven't brought up intersectionality, religion, disability, and others.

Still, I think that is a healthy % of the population that should be concerned about diversity issues, don't you?

You've misunderstood.  Where I am, having the focus be on diversity strictly in terms of Black or trans, the main national discussions that show up in the mass media, leaves out basically everyone here.  The US composite numbers are completely irrelevant to our regional communities. Even the woman numbers don't work because the largest employer is so heavy on engineers.

The feminist white woman college graduate concerns really don't matter when the underlying problems are lack of running water in houses and being so far from good schools that 'no one' goes to college.  And that happens in the same county where most of the adults with good jobs came from elsewhere with graduate degrees.

Counting noses by genitals and/or skin tone completely ignores the actions that have to be taken to help improve opportunities in the region.

Add the true problems of rural poverty in a place that doesn't do agriculture because we are also short on water and diversity concerns as city folks who focus on Black lives is just another slap in the face by the out-of-touch liberal elites.

If we're really talking diversity as though it matters, then BLM is so beside the point here.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 10:25:52 PM
I think that if issues like civil rights or racism are genuinely not a problem where you are (as in: you're not wrong in thinking that they're not, or that they're legitimately low on the priority list), then they're not a problem where you are. But if the fact that they're not a problem where you are impedes the ability of people where you are to recognize that they're a problem elsewhere or more generally, and to understand why, then it turns out, actually, that they really are a problem where you are.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 27, 2020, 05:17:28 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 05:33:25 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 26, 2020, 01:41:36 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 01:20:30 PM
A distinction without much difference, I think.

Would you include the Smithsonian infographic  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/african-american-museum-site-removes-whiteness-chart-after-criticism-from-trump-jr-and-conservative-media/2020/07/17/4ef6e6f2-c831-11ea-8ffe-372be8d82298_story.html) which considered hard work, self-reliance, respect of authority and the nuclear family  as attributes of white culture?

I don't understand the question, or its relation to my remark. Would I include that in what?

I assumed you meant that "racism" (i.e., everything that is labelled racism by all kinds of activists) and racism (i.e. people who actually treat people differently based on the colour of their skin) are the same thing. In that case, I was wondering if you agreed that all of those things the Smithsonian listed as parts of "white" culture are indeed are really not parts of toher cultures as well.

To be blunt, was the infographic "racist", racist, or none of the above?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: little bongo on August 27, 2020, 09:56:54 AM
Why is the answer important? If we prove (or re-prove) that, in the words of the song from the show "Avenue Q," "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist," that doesn't discount the (often uncomfortable) personal and social work that we all need to do.

I've been to a couple of BLM protests in my community. We chanted for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, "I can't breathe." We sang, "We Shall Overcome." And I saw a community who, at least for a while, believed it--believed we could overcome. And the really neat thing that's happening? Campuses are including discussions. Energized students are trying to shake things up. And if we actually figure out how to follow and put into practice the tenets of BLM, guess what? We ALL win. How about them apples?

Are there bullies, rudesbies, and rioters that are tagging along? Yeah. Bad on them. That's, unfortunately, what bullies, rudesbies, and rioters do. The ideals are always going to be better than the people who try to enact them. But I think trying is better than not trying.
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 27, 2020, 05:17:28 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 05:33:25 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 26, 2020, 01:41:36 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 26, 2020, 01:20:30 PM
A distinction without much difference, I think.

Would you include the Smithsonian infographic  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/african-american-museum-site-removes-whiteness-chart-after-criticism-from-trump-jr-and-conservative-media/2020/07/17/4ef6e6f2-c831-11ea-8ffe-372be8d82298_story.html) which considered hard work, self-reliance, respect of authority and the nuclear family  as attributes of white culture?

I don't understand the question, or its relation to my remark. Would I include that in what?

I assumed you meant that "racism" (i.e., everything that is labelled racism by all kinds of activists) and racism (i.e. people who actually treat people differently based on the colour of their skin) are the same thing. In that case, I was wondering if you agreed that all of those things the Smithsonian listed as parts of "white" culture are indeed are really not parts of toher cultures as well.

To be blunt, was the infographic "racist", racist, or none of the above?

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 27, 2020, 11:11:59 AM
Quote from: little bongo on August 27, 2020, 09:56:54 AM
Why is the answer important? If we prove (or re-prove) that, in the words of the song from the show "Avenue Q," "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist," that doesn't discount the (often uncomfortable) personal and social work that we all need to do.

I've been to a couple of BLM protests in my community. We chanted for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, "I can't breathe." We sang, "We Shall Overcome." And I saw a community who, at least for a while, believed it--believed we could overcome. And the really neat thing that's happening? Campuses are including discussions. Energized students are trying to shake things up. And if we actually figure out how to follow and put into practice the tenets of BLM, guess what? We ALL win. How about them apples?


The important question is how much chanting and singing actually translates into real community service at homeless shelters, in after school programs, etc. to actually make communities better. My gut feeling is that you won't get nearly the number of people doing those things, even for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, as you get standing in a crowd saying "Look what a good person I am!"




Quote

Are there bullies, rudesbies, and rioters that are tagging along? Yeah. Bad on them. That's, unfortunately, what bullies, rudesbies, and rioters do. The ideals are always going to be better than the people who try to enact them. But I think trying is better than not trying.

The sad truth is the cities that are having the ongoing problems with rioters are the ones where the leadership is most sympathetic to BLM, because they refuse to draw a sharp line between peaceful protest and violence.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on August 28, 2020, 08:54:23 PM
https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ for those who just don't know.  The red/blue map at the county level is amazing.

The question for many is why we would care about what's happening a thousand miles away as a series of one offs when we have US citizens within a hour's drive who:

* don't have electricity
* don't have running water
* don't have medical facilities
* don't have grocery stories within fifty miles

There are almost six hundred sovereign entities in the US (AKA Indian tribes) that serve as examples of serious systemic racism.

But sure, all us rural people should focus on the national issues instead of the local ones that we can actually modify and help our neighbors.  We have more people of each of several tribes here than we have African Americans.

If we just classify local people as poor/not poor, then we have a huge poverty rate that has zero African Americans, but many tribal folks, Latinos, and Caucasians of various national origins including outside Europe.  Addressing our inequities means knowing much more than what the national media shows.

It's almost as though only urban lives matter during the national discussion, especially when coupled with the information that the tribes had to sue the federal government to get the COVID money they were allocated.

Mark Charles is running for president (https://www.markcharles2020.com/about), but you'd never know it from the mass media.

In fact, the US currently has 4 main party candidates per Ballotpedia and that doesn't count Charles or the Articles of Unity folks who are still working on a candidate (https://profiles.articlesofunity.org/)'
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: wuggish on August 29, 2020, 10:16:09 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 28, 2020, 08:54:23 PM
There are almost six hundred sovereign entities in the US (AKA Indian tribes) that serve as examples of serious systemic racism.

But sure, all us rural people should focus on the national issues instead of the local ones that we can actually modify and help our neighbors.  We have more people of each of several tribes here than we have African Americans.

If we just classify local people as poor/not poor, then we have a huge poverty rate that has zero African Americans, but many tribal folks, Latinos, and Caucasians of various national origins including outside Europe.  Addressing our inequities means knowing much more than what the national media shows.

It's almost as though only urban lives matter during the national discussion, especially when coupled with the information that the tribes had to sue the federal government to get the COVID money they were allocated.

The concerns and interests of other marginalized American populations (rural, poor, Indigenous, non-Black POC) should absolutely be discussed more at a national level. You are raising very important points that I do not intend to dismiss.

But to conclude that the current conversation does not or should not apply to your community because there are few Black people is illogical. The lack of Black people in the rural Midwest, the fact that "Black lives" and "urban lives" are used synonymously, is itself due to settlement patterns that are a result of serious systemic racism.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on August 29, 2020, 10:31:32 AM
Quote from: wuggish on August 29, 2020, 10:16:09 AM

The concerns and interests of other marginalized American populations (rural, poor, Indigenous, non-Black POC) should absolutely be discussed more at a national level. You are raising very important points that I do not intend to dismiss.

But to conclude that the current conversation does not or should not apply to your community because there are few Black people is illogical. The lack of Black people in the rural Midwest, the fact that "Black lives" and "urban lives" are used synonymously, is itself due to settlement patterns that are a result of serious systemic racism.

The concern for other peoples--which is perfectly legitimate, and often entirely necessary--also has more force as a critique of other protest movements when the people leveling that critique are involved in advocating for those other people. Too often, it smacks more of a way to excuse one's lack of participation in any such movements. If one isn't actually interested in advocating for anyone, then one (another?) wonders why one bothers to be so critical of people who are simply advocating for their rights. It's something that actually matters, so it doesn't really seem like an appropriate target for intellectual sparring for its own sake.

(To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone here of doing that. It's just a pattern I worry about with respect to the role these kinds of points play in discourse about protest movements. And, as an aside, I think there's a strong case to be made here, in Canada, that recent BLM-solidarity action has unjustifiably eclipsed advocacy for Indigenous issues, including police violence against Indigenous peoples, which is much more pronounced [although police violence against Black Canadians is also a real and pronounced problem]. But solidarity isn't and shouldn't be zero-sum.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on August 30, 2020, 06:04:45 AM
Anybody else thinking that Trump might win this thing?  The numbers seem to be tightening up, and I'm more convinced than ever that "shy Tories" are a growing constituency.  (Who would dare tell a pollster that one's Trump support is due to disgust at all the rioting?--and yet, I reckon there is disgust.)  The fact that Biden is coming out of his cave suggests that he has his own worries.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: RatGuy on August 30, 2020, 08:22:50 AM
Quote from: writingprof on August 30, 2020, 06:04:45 AM
Anybody else thinking that Trump might win this thing? 

I do, but I live in an area in which many people -- and I say this without exaggeration -- think he's the Second Coming. That perhaps skews my view of the universe.

I will say that friends who work in politics are all saying things like "I can admit that I was arrogant and wrong in my thinking that Trump would lose last time, but all signs point to a Biden win this time around. There's a push by the AARP to show Trump as someone who will gut Medicare, and there's been lots of noise about the Lincoln Project. Maybe they see the big picture where I don't.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: downer on August 30, 2020, 08:38:21 AM
After Brexit and the last Trump win, my readiness to believe any pundits or opinion polls is extremely low. If people were too embarrassed to admit to pollsters that they were voting for Trump in 2016, imagine how embarrassing it would be this year.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on August 30, 2020, 08:38:52 AM
I think he was very likely to win it against Biden before COVID. Now, I think it's up in the air, but I also think his chances are not as bad as they're sometimes made to sound. In particular, COVID has made vote suppression a lot easier, a lot more likely, and a lot more natural. And since Biden isn't a great motivator, that doesn't sound great to my ears.

I hope I'm wrong, though.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 09:13:39 AM
Quote from: writingprof on August 30, 2020, 06:04:45 AM
Anybody else thinking that Trump might win this thing?  The numbers seem to be tightening up, and I'm more convinced than ever that "shy Tories" are a growing constituency.  (Who would dare tell a pollster that one's Trump support is due to disgust at all the rioting?--and yet, I reckon there is disgust.)  The fact that Biden is coming out of his cave suggests that he has his own worries.

Are the numbers are really tightening up?  Look at the incredible consistency of Biden and (to a lesser extent) Trump's polls: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

I think the media wants this to be a horse race and I think Democrats are nervous about riots, but there is really no evidence that things are getting close or that Trump is suddenly in a good position.

My opinion is, as it has been, that Trump may win, but the probability of a Trump win is pretty low at this point, and that polling consistency that I mentioned suggests that Trump will not be gaining the kind of ground he needs in the next couple of months to make this thing close.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on August 30, 2020, 10:22:26 AM
Well, we still have the October surprises around the corner to make current polls moot.

I can't see how young people can get excited about Biden in the same way that they had enthusiasm for Bill Clinton, Obama or JFK.    They likely made a mistake by giving AOC only one minute at the convention, an insult to their progressive wing.

I did hear one interesting election prediction method from a pundit.  If the S&P 500 is higher on election day than 90 days previously then the incumbent party wins the presidency.  I am not sure if anyone has fact checked that one.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 10:29:34 AM
Quote from: Anselm on August 30, 2020, 10:22:26 AM
Well, we still have the October surprises around the corner to make current polls moot.

I can't see how young people can get excited about Biden in the same way that they had enthusiasm for Bill Clinton, Obama or JFK.    They likely made a mistake by giving AOC only one minute at the convention, an insult to their progressive wing.

I did hear one interesting election prediction method from a pundit.  If the S&P 500 is higher on election day than 90 days previously then the incumbent party wins the presidency.  I am not sure if anyone has fact checked that one.

The enthusiasm gap is real, but it is offset by enthusiasm to oust Trump.

As for your point about October surprises: There could be something, e.g. a vaccine, but for the October surprise to make polling moot people have to have malleable attitudes, and the consistency of polling suggests that people have made up their minds about these candidates.  That said, we should have a healthy skepticism of polling (and certainly of predictions based on the S&P, for example) but we also shouldn't write off the data we have in favor of speculation based on tv pundits or a mood we feel when scrolling through facebook. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on August 30, 2020, 11:03:21 AM
Trump CAN win (again). 

The virus shutdown is growing old. Biden's talk to shut down again (under certain conditions) may be the right thing to do, but not a good vote getting thing to do.

Trump has done some terrible things as president and I have every reason to vote AGAINST him, but Im not sure that I have many reasons to vote FOR Biden. 

The rabid Trump supporters are not silent or hidden. But there are plenty of closet supporters that are just not happy with the way that Trump is attacked in the media.

Maybe I simply grow to detest Chuck Todd, but the more that they attack Trump, the more others will find that a vote for Trump is a response to the ever more extreme press.

(Not to deviate too much, but Chuck Todd mentioned the teen shooter in IL in this weeks Meet the Press. He notes that "he crossed state lines".  Which is true, but the fact is he lived 15 miles away (though there is a state border between home and site)!  I drive farther than that to work!  Yes, he crossed an invisible border, but the press makes it sound like he drove for hours!!   Similarly, through Trump makes it EASY! they further escalate his nuttyness so that people dont believe that anyone can be THAT nutty!) 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 30, 2020, 12:05:09 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 10:29:34 AM
Quote from: Anselm on August 30, 2020, 10:22:26 AM
Well, we still have the October surprises around the corner to make current polls moot.

I can't see how young people can get excited about Biden in the same way that they had enthusiasm for Bill Clinton, Obama or JFK.    They likely made a mistake by giving AOC only one minute at the convention, an insult to their progressive wing.

I did hear one interesting election prediction method from a pundit.  If the S&P 500 is higher on election day than 90 days previously then the incumbent party wins the presidency.  I am not sure if anyone has fact checked that one.

The enthusiasm gap is real, but it is offset by enthusiasm to oust Trump.

As for your point about October surprises: There could be something, e.g. a vaccine, but for the October surprise to make polling moot people have to have malleable attitudes, and the consistency of polling suggests that people have made up their minds about these candidates. 

If the riots keep going, they could swing things for Trump. The longer the "leadership" in those cities avoid dealing with the situation, the greater risk there is of Trump getting re-elected.

Quote

That said, we should have a healthy skepticism of polling (and certainly of predictions based on the S&P, for example) but we also shouldn't write off the data we have in favor of speculation based on tv pundits or a mood we feel when scrolling through facebook.

Any polling organizations and/or pundits who made incorrect predictions in 2016 and who get it wrong in 2020 should be fired and/or never called on for any sort of prediction in the future.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 12:34:21 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 30, 2020, 12:05:09 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 10:29:34 AM
Quote from: Anselm on August 30, 2020, 10:22:26 AM
Well, we still have the October surprises around the corner to make current polls moot.

I can't see how young people can get excited about Biden in the same way that they had enthusiasm for Bill Clinton, Obama or JFK.    They likely made a mistake by giving AOC only one minute at the convention, an insult to their progressive wing.

I did hear one interesting election prediction method from a pundit.  If the S&P 500 is higher on election day than 90 days previously then the incumbent party wins the presidency.  I am not sure if anyone has fact checked that one.

The enthusiasm gap is real, but it is offset by enthusiasm to oust Trump.

As for your point about October surprises: There could be something, e.g. a vaccine, but for the October surprise to make polling moot people have to have malleable attitudes, and the consistency of polling suggests that people have made up their minds about these candidates. 

If the riots keep going, they could swing things for Trump. The longer the "leadership" in those cities avoid dealing with the situation, the greater risk there is of Trump getting re-elected.

Quote

That said, we should have a healthy skepticism of polling (and certainly of predictions based on the S&P, for example) but we also shouldn't write off the data we have in favor of speculation based on tv pundits or a mood we feel when scrolling through facebook.

Any polling organizations and/or pundits who made incorrect predictions in 2016 and who get it wrong in 2020 should be fired and/or never called on for any sort of prediction in the future.

The riots could help trump, but there is as good a chance that they could hurt him, both because he is the incumbent and because Trump's approval tends to dip when he wades into racial issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nMm2ByO7w8

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on August 30, 2020, 01:20:51 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 12:34:21 PM
The riots could help trump, but there is as good a chance that they could hurt him, both because he is the incumbent and because Trump's approval tends to dip when he wades into racial issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nMm2ByO7w8

Since most of the rioters are spoiled, bored white people, it's not clear how denouncing them is "racial".
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Chris J on August 30, 2020, 01:44:22 PM
You say "most of the rioters are spoiled, bored white people." Clearly, you must be referring to the white supremacists and QAnon types, rioting in support of cryypto-fascist Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 02:00:49 PM
Quote from: writingprof on August 30, 2020, 01:20:51 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 12:34:21 PM
The riots could help trump, but there is as good a chance that they could hurt him, both because he is the incumbent and because Trump's approval tends to dip when he wades into racial issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nMm2ByO7w8

Since most of the rioters are spoiled, bored white people, it's not clear how denouncing them is "racial".

That may or may not be true of the rioters (please feel free to offer some data to support your assertion), but the riots are rooted in excessive force by police against black people, which makes them intertwined with racial issues.

If Trump simply denounced rioting he would perhaps become more popular, but his rhetoric instead tends to come off as insensitive, racist, and unhelpful. This has, in the past, hurt him in the polls.   

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 02:30:40 PM
As for the effect of riots on the election outcome, it seems that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :-)

I have no new polling data, nor secret knowledge, but there is an analogy: the 1968 election. There had been lots of rioting and the Law & Order guy, Tricky Dick, won, even though he lost the South to the segregationist Wallace. Moreover, there was a war to get out of, just like now, except that we have several to get out of.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 02:35:31 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 02:30:40 PM
As for the effect of riots on the election outcome, it seems that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :-)

I have no new polling data, nor secret knowledge, but there is an analogy: the 1968 election. There had been lots of rioting and the Law & Order guy, Tricky Dick, won, even though he lost the South to the segregationist Wallace. Moreover, there was a war to get out of, just like now, except that we have several to get out of.

Sure, but Nixon was not the incumbent, which made it easier for him to blame the sitting government.  Not to mention, the US is very different in 2020 than it was in 1968.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 02:41:43 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 02:35:31 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 02:30:40 PM
As for the effect of riots on the election outcome, it seems that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :-)

I have no new polling data, nor secret knowledge, but there is an analogy: the 1968 election. There had been lots of rioting and the Law & Order guy, Tricky Dick, won, even though he lost the South to the segregationist Wallace. Moreover, there was a war to get out of, just like now, except that we have several to get out of.

Sure, but Nixon was not the incumbent, which made it easier for him to blame the sitting government.  Not to mention, the US is very different in 2020 than it was in 1968.

No analogy can be a perfect representation. Yes, the US is different now. Is it more institutionally racist or less institutionally racist than in 1968? The actual direction of change will help which candidate?

Beauty, eye! :-)

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 04:07:43 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 02:41:43 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 02:35:31 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 02:30:40 PM
As for the effect of riots on the election outcome, it seems that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :-)

I have no new polling data, nor secret knowledge, but there is an analogy: the 1968 election. There had been lots of rioting and the Law & Order guy, Tricky Dick, won, even though he lost the South to the segregationist Wallace. Moreover, there was a war to get out of, just like now, except that we have several to get out of.

Sure, but Nixon was not the incumbent, which made it easier for him to blame the sitting government.  Not to mention, the US is very different in 2020 than it was in 1968.

No analogy can be a perfect representation. Yes, the US is different now. Is it more institutionally racist or less institutionally racist than in 1968? The actual direction of change will help which candidate?

Beauty, eye! :-)

Your analogy is not particularly convincing to me, for the reasons noted above (not just that the time is different, but Trump is the incumbent). 

Anyway, we'll see what happens.  As I said above, this could help Trump, but there is no evidence that I'm aware of to show that it has helped him so far and there is some reason to think it will hurt him (as his reaction to the George Floyd protests did).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on August 30, 2020, 05:12:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 02:30:40 PM
Moreover, there was a war to get out of, just like now, except that we have several to get out of.

Will a single American, excepting those whose family members are currently deployed, cast his vote on the basis of the "wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq?  (Are we still in Iraq?  One forgets.)  Never mind that this is clearly not a foreign-policy election.  I suspect that most Americans don't know whether we still have troops deployed.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 05:55:51 PM
Quote from: writingprof on August 30, 2020, 05:12:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 02:30:40 PM
Moreover, there was a war to get out of, just like now, except that we have several to get out of.

Will a single American, excepting those whose family members are currently deployed, cast his vote on the basis of the "wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq?  (Are we still in Iraq?  One forgets.)  Never mind that this is clearly not a foreign-policy election.  I suspect that most Americans don't know whether we still have troops deployed.

Elections, like everything else, are decided at the margin! :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 30, 2020, 06:13:03 PM
Sure he can. Here's why. There isn't much sign that democrats understand that many, many whites will vote for Trump as long as they believe people are requiring them to do something about racism and xenophobia that are alleged to lurk somewhere in their psyche, their language, or something about how they go about their lives. If you don't need these voters, then fine, but this I believe is the single most off putting thing about the democratic party and by association, any candidate they run, regardless of how much he is or isn't into those kinds of questions. So many of them didn't get it in 2016 and don't now. Think of Carter's 'Malaise' speech. Even his supporters were scratching their heads going 'what the...is he thinking?'  You don't win people over by telling them what's wrong with them.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 06:37:52 PM
While discussion above is interesting, it cannot of course, be conclusive.

My current surprise is the role of Ms. Harris. I understand how she was supposed to clinch the election [though I disagree with the analysis]. What is she up to now? Am I missing anything?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on August 31, 2020, 05:03:46 AM
Quote from: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 06:37:52 PM
My current surprise is the role of Ms. Harris. I understand how she was supposed to clinch the election [though I disagree with the analysis]. What is she up to now? Am I missing anything?

Perhaps she's confused and is spending her time unearthing more examples of 1970s-grade Joe Biden "racism." 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on August 31, 2020, 05:45:11 AM
Quote from: writingprof on August 31, 2020, 05:03:46 AM
Quote from: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 06:37:52 PM
My current surprise is the role of Ms. Harris. I understand how she was supposed to clinch the election [though I disagree with the analysis]. What is she up to now? Am I missing anything?

Perhaps she's confused and is spending her time unearthing more examples of 1970s-grade Joe Biden "racism."

Another insightful analysis from writingprof.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 06:23:50 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on August 31, 2020, 05:45:11 AM
Quote from: writingprof on August 31, 2020, 05:03:46 AM
Quote from: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 06:37:52 PM
My current surprise is the role of Ms. Harris. I understand how she was supposed to clinch the election [though I disagree with the analysis]. What is she up to now? Am I missing anything?

Perhaps she's confused and is spending her time unearthing more examples of 1970s-grade Joe Biden "racism."

Another insightful analysis from writingprof.

I think the valid point alluded to by writingprof, as has been made by many commentators, is the fact that all of the accusations made during the campaign have oddly vanished which means they were either overblown at the time, or are being swept under the rug now. Which do you prefer?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 31, 2020, 06:34:40 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 06:23:50 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on August 31, 2020, 05:45:11 AM
Quote from: writingprof on August 31, 2020, 05:03:46 AM
Quote from: dismalist on August 30, 2020, 06:37:52 PM
My current surprise is the role of Ms. Harris. I understand how she was supposed to clinch the election [though I disagree with the analysis]. What is she up to now? Am I missing anything?

Perhaps she's confused and is spending her time unearthing more examples of 1970s-grade Joe Biden "racism."

Another insightful analysis from writingprof.

I think the valid point alluded to by writingprof, as has been made by many commentators, is the fact that all of the accusations made during the campaign have oddly vanished which means they were either overblown at the time, or are being swept under the rug now. Which do you prefer?

Well. point taken, but what about all the republicans who trashed  DJT in his early days in politics and are now taking orders from him and kissing his a$$? Lindsey Graham, et al. And Mitt Romney, before the impeachment hearing, was ready to work  in his cabinet had it been offered. So they all thought, the man is totally implausible as a presidential candidate, not statesmanlike, shoots from the hip, etc. until they realized he's a winner, he knows how to campaign and get votes, so we need him. Bottom line, anything to stop the democrats.
So now it's a similar thing. In the primary campaign, you play to win, and the debates are televised, which means you play to an audience that's already made up their mind who you like and you're just fishing for soundbites and applause. You could argue that the crappy system works as it does because of the participants, but then that would include us. (Not you if you live in Canada.)
There are some who thought Harris would be seen as unsuited to push for justice for blacks after her record as a hard-ass prosecutor. Everyone's got a spot you can whack away at for votes, but once they're the choice, you know, people have to get on board or lump it.
Writingprof's point is good if it is that whatever is considered shockingly racist now was normal at some recent point in our lives.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 06:36:37 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 30, 2020, 12:05:09 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2020, 10:29:34 AM
Quote from: Anselm on August 30, 2020, 10:22:26 AM
Well, we still have the October surprises around the corner to make current polls moot.

I can't see how young people can get excited about Biden in the same way that they had enthusiasm for Bill Clinton, Obama or JFK.    They likely made a mistake by giving AOC only one minute at the convention, an insult to their progressive wing.

I did hear one interesting election prediction method from a pundit.  If the S&P 500 is higher on election day than 90 days previously then the incumbent party wins the presidency.  I am not sure if anyone has fact checked that one.

The enthusiasm gap is real, but it is offset by enthusiasm to oust Trump.

As for your point about October surprises: There could be something, e.g. a vaccine, but for the October surprise to make polling moot people have to have malleable attitudes, and the consistency of polling suggests that people have made up their minds about these candidates. 

If the riots keep going, they could swing things for Trump. The longer the "leadership" in those cities avoid dealing with the situation, the greater risk there is of Trump getting re-elected.

Quote

That said, we should have a healthy skepticism of polling (and certainly of predictions based on the S&P, for example) but we also shouldn't write off the data we have in favor of speculation based on tv pundits or a mood we feel when scrolling through facebook.

Any polling organizations and/or pundits who made incorrect predictions in 2016 and who get it wrong in 2020 should be fired and/or never called on for any sort of prediction in the future.

I'm sorry, but the statement directly above is in the running for the dumbest statement ever made on this site.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: little bongo on August 31, 2020, 07:40:42 AM
Yes, Trump has a chance--if he can sell the scenario that the current chaos, danger, and confusion are the result of "Biden's America" rather than things that happened on his own (that is, Trump's) watch and that for which he is largely responsible. As he's already proven, he can fool some of the people all of the time, and it could be enough.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 08:29:29 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 31, 2020, 06:34:40 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 06:23:50 AM
I think the valid point alluded to by writingprof, as has been made by many commentators, is the fact that all of the accusations made during the campaign have oddly vanished which means they were either overblown at the time, or are being swept under the rug now. Which do you prefer?

Well. point taken, but what about all the republicans who trashed  DJT in his early days in politics and are now taking orders from him and kissing his a$$?


Of course it's a common practice on both sides. No question there.

Quote
You could argue that the crappy system works as it does because of the participants, but then that would include us. (Not you if you live in Canada.)

I don't think any democracy is immune, unfortunately.

Quote
Writingprof's point is good if it is that whatever is considered shockingly racist now was normal at some recent point in our lives.

This is the point to note. (And again, it's done by all parties, etc.) Ideological gaslighting by saying "Look what s/he said twenty years ago!!!!!" when what that person said was essentially mainstream at the time.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 06:36:37 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 30, 2020, 12:05:09 PM

Any polling organizations and/or pundits who made incorrect predictions in 2016 and who get it wrong in 2020 should be fired and/or never called on for any sort of prediction in the future.

I'm sorry, but the statement directly above is in the running for the dumbest statement ever made on this site.

People who make predictions have one job; to be accurate. So if someone predicted Trump would lose in 2016, it doesn't matter if they thought he was evil incarnate or the savior of the universe; if they predicted wrong, they failed at their job. If they haven't figured out why in the intervening 4 years, and get it wrong again, (once more, it doesn't matter whether they're in favour of the outcome or not), then they have no credibility for making predictions.

Quote from: little bongo on August 31, 2020, 07:40:42 AM
Yes, Trump has a chance--if he can sell the scenario that the current chaos, danger, and confusion are the result of "Biden's America" rather than things that happened on his own (that is, Trump's) watch and that for which he is largely responsible. As he's already proven, he can fool some of the people all of the time, and it could be enough.

Has policing changed dramatically during the last 4 years? Would the George Floyd situation not have happened under Obama? Any arguments I've heard claim that it's a long-standing problem. If that's the case, then the chaos; i.e. the riots, aren't attributable to him, in the same way that the covid response is. However, if the length and severity of the riots is greatest in cities run by Democrats, then that does not work in Biden's favour. (Recent polls indicated 80% of black people do not want to defund the police.)

I don't like Trump, wouldn't have voted for him in 2016 and wouldn't now if I were an American, but the unwillingness of anti-Trump people to admit that there are some legitimate concerns voters have which may make them vote for him is frustrating. Fearing your home or business could be torched or vandalized is a legitimate concern for people living in those areas, and doing nothing in order to appear "woke" is not leadership.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 08:51:09 AM
marshwiggle: it is clear that you either know nothing about statistical prediction(or just want to incite). Prediction is inherently inaccurate.

Nate Silver had Trump at a 27% chance in 2016. If true again, there is nearly a 20% chance of being wrong with the prediction in consecutive elections picking against Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on August 31, 2020, 09:00:25 AM
QuoteNate Silver had Trump at a 27% chance in 2016.

As predictions are often with probabilities, it is the news networks that then misapply the results.  A 73% chance of hillary winning became a certainty (mostly because that was the result that it seems that the major news networks wanted to hear perhaps?).

I dont know how to spell it, but there are issues that testing itself changes the results (When you check your oil level, and wipe off the oil from the stick, there is technically less oil in the system!).  When there is a note that one candidate WILL win, then some of that person's supporters may decide not to vote and it may motivate the other side to try even harder, thus changing the outcome. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 31, 2020, 09:35:08 AM
You can't by cigarettes without reading a stark warning about the danger of smoking. It would be interesting if every prediction had to include a sentence or two about the track record of the polling organization. Assuming you could argue that being mislead by pollsters does damage. I suppose it does.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Ruralguy on August 31, 2020, 09:44:34 AM
To Clean's report, I even recall Silver on NPR several days before the 2016 election stating these predictions and saying something like " of course some battlegrounds are close enough that a late break could lead to Trump win."  For some weird reason, he still apologized for "getting it wrong." I don't think he did. Long shots win. He even said what the conditions were for such a long shot win happening.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: little bongo on August 31, 2020, 09:45:05 AM
I don't like Trump, wouldn't have voted for him in 2016 and wouldn't now if I were an American, but the unwillingness of anti-Trump people to admit that there are some legitimate concerns voters have which may make them vote for him is frustrating. Fearing your home or business could be torched or vandalized is a legitimate concern for people living in those areas, and doing nothing in order to appear "woke" is not leadership.
[/quote]

As I said--he can fool some of the people all of the time. All. Of. The. Time.

It has nothing to do with being "woke." It has nothing to do with being "unwilling" to recognize legitimate concerns. It has everything to do with the campaign message of "Look! Left-wing chaos, in which Biden is a mere puppet! I'm the one who can solve this!" This leads to three critical questions:
1) Who's the freaking president?
2) Who's supposed to be solving this right now?
3) Who's absolutely not doing any solving right now?

You want to talk about being frustrated?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on August 31, 2020, 10:17:29 AM
Trump galvanized the far right who were otherwise unenthusiastic about the traditional Republican platform (fiscal conservatives like Rubio and truly religious candidates like Cruz were trounced by Trump in the 2016 Republican primaries). As a reward, he brought the far right from the fringes into the mainstream, and for this their support for him is unabated. This was a voting block whose needs were not overtly acknowledged or met, even though all it took was a validation of their racist beliefs. Not even old-school Republicans wanted to go there, at least overtly (Don't get me wrong--the racist vote has always been courted, just not in a direct way). The far-right voting block only wants one thing and that's the representation and validation of who they are, and Trump gave it to them when no other modern politician wanted to. His rhetoric is part of their representation and reward. This ability to galvanize is what Biden is lacking and what Democrats lost when they abandoned Bernie, etc. in their strategy to once again fight for the votes in the middle.

So let's talk about that middle--the middle whose votes are still available to be won and have not completely made up their mind yet. The middle is the high-school educated white male in the rust belt who also has influence over their family members. This is the guy who didn't simply lose his livelihood to outsourcing and automation. He also lost his dignity. These were the votes that flipped for Trump in 2016 in states like WI and PA. These were guys who were left behind in the global tech economy and have no hope for ever catching up (too old/too far behind in education levels) to the more educated so-called "elites" who they have come to resent. Democrats have done nothing to win their vote back. Trump doesn't do anything concrete for them either, but at least he tells them it's not their fault--it's China's fault. (Hillary offered up the old strengthening of re-education programs--HEWM want good jobs and not re-education) And, Trump offers them a version of dignity, a white identity that is automatically conferred with dignity as long as the suppression of everyone else is perpetuated, and all they have to do is join him in that cause. The HEWM don't have to be Klan members. They just have to be against looting, against kneeling for the anthem, be against "socialism," and fly/wear/bear symbols that have been appropriated by the right like the flag. Easy peasy. Dignity through identity. Function is no longer important. People will give up their health care, social safety net programs, and real economic opportunity if they can live and die in dignity. The "good middle class job" is now secondary to them. That's how bad it has gotten for them, because they have given up on any politician who empathizes with their plight. The HEWM will take Trump's option. Yeah, Republicans do not do jack squat for the HEWM either, but at least Trump offers dignity. Democrats offer the HEWM re-education at best (which the HEWM does not want--they want their 1950s style job back even though they know it's not possible), and at worst Democrats make them feel like crap about themselves, just for being white. It's no wonder they flipped.

The fight is in the rust belt. Biden has got to say something--anything, that makes the HEWM feel some sense of dignity, promising an economy that brings back those old-fashioned jobs without making them feel like they are biting from the pie of "socialism."

It seems the Democrats are going for the educated professional voter who lives in the 'burbs. That may be enough to win the popular vote, but it won't be enough to win the electoral college vote.

If I sound like Michael Moore, well, he predicted the Trump victory in 2016 when every other Democrat was predicting a Clinton win.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 10:17:29 AM

So let's talk about that middle--the middle whose votes are still available to be won and have not completely made up their mind yet. The middle is the high-school educated white male in the rust belt who also has influence over their family members. This is the guy who didn't simply lose his livelihood to outsourcing and automation. He also lost his dignity. These were the votes that flipped for Trump in 2016 in states like WI and PA. These were guys who were left behind in the global tech economy and have no hope for ever catching up (too old/too far behind in education levels) to the more educated so-called "elites" who they have come to resent. Democrats have done nothing to win their vote back. Trump doesn't do anything concrete for them either, but at least he tells them it's not their fault--it's China's fault. (Hillary offered up the old strengthening of re-education programs--HEWM want good jobs and not re-education)

Good analysis.

Quote

And, Trump offers them a version of dignity, a white identity that is automatically conferred with dignity as long as the suppression of everyone else is perpetuated, and all they have to do is join him in that cause. The HEWM don't have to be Klan members. They just have to be against looting, against kneeling for the anthem, be against "socialism," and fly/wear/bear symbols that have been appropriated by the right like the flag.

I'm not sure why the tone here is that being against looting somehow represents some sort of white supremacy. Honestly, is a "good Democrat" in favour of looting???

Quote
People will give up their health care, social safety net programs, and real economic opportunity if they can live and die in dignity. The "good middle class job" is now secondary to them. That's how bad it has gotten for them, because they have given up on any politician who empathizes with their plight. The HEWM will take Trump's option. Yeah, Republicans do not do jack squat for the HEWM either, but at least Trump offers dignity. Democrats offer the HEWM re-education at best (which the HEWM does not want--they want their 1950s style job back even though they know it's not possible), and at worst Democrats make them feel like crap about themselves, just for being white. It's no wonder they flipped.

More good analysis.

Quote
The fight is in the rust belt. Biden has got to say something--anything, that makes the HEWM feel some sense of dignity, promising an economy that brings back those old-fashioned jobs without making them feel like they are biting from the pie of "socialism."

It seems the Democrats are going for the educated professional voter who lives in the 'burbs.

Who are mostly going to vote for them anyway.

Quote
That may be enough to win the popular vote, but it won't be enough to win the electoral college vote.

If I sound like Michael Moore, well, he predicted the Trump victory in 2016 when every other Democrat was predicting a Clinton win.

This is the message that needs to be heard.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 08:51:09 AM
marshwiggle: it is clear that you either know nothing about statistical prediction(or just want to incite). Prediction is inherently inaccurate.

Nate Silver had Trump at a 27% chance in 2016. If true again, there is nearly a 20% chance of being wrong with the prediction in consecutive elections picking against Trump.

Usually, results are given witha 95% confidence interval. Which means, 19 times out of 20, they should work out. Which, given that elections are every 4 years, a wrong prediction should be followed by correct ones for about 80 years. Two wrong in a row indicates seriously flawed methodology, or ridiculously wide confidence intervals which means data samples were outrageously small.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 31, 2020, 11:07:33 AM
QuoteAnd, Trump offers them a version of dignity, a white identity that is automatically conferred with dignity as long as the suppression of everyone else is perpetuated, and all they have to do is join him in that cause. The HEWM don't have to be Klan members. They just have to be against looting, against kneeling for the anthem, be against "socialism," and fly/wear/bear symbols that have been appropriated by the right like the flag.


Presumably the suppressed would include people who chose to live here by leaving their home country.

I'm not flying or wearing symbols of any kind. And I generally only vote negatively, that is, for the candidate I distrust the least. But I could conceivably vote for Trump if things get stupid enough on the left. For example if someone like Ibram X. Kendi (who has a National Book Award) gets the ear of the new Biden cabinet and gets a federal anti-racism department. I'm looking for just one democrat who has the sense and guts to say 'no Antiracism Department. Just...get outta here. Write your books if you must, but leave us alone. Your'e a fringe character.'
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 11:41:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 10:17:29 AM



This is the message that needs to be heard.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 08:51:09 AM
marshwiggle: it is clear that you either know nothing about statistical prediction(or just want to incite). Prediction is inherently inaccurate.

Nate Silver had Trump at a 27% chance in 2016. If true again, there is nearly a 20% chance of being wrong with the prediction in consecutive elections picking against Trump.

Usually, results are given witha 95% confidence interval. Which means, 19 times out of 20, they should work out. Which, given that elections are every 4 years, a wrong prediction should be followed by correct ones for about 80 years. Two wrong in a row indicates seriously flawed methodology, or ridiculously wide confidence intervals which means data samples were outrageously small.


Wrong, and wrong. Every statistician just died a little bit. You do NOT know what a CI means. Seriously.

And no, I will not explain it to you. Look it up.

AFTR, using italics doesn't make you correct. It just makes you incorrect with italics.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 12:04:29 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 11:41:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 10:33:30 AM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 08:51:09 AM
marshwiggle: it is clear that you either know nothing about statistical prediction(or just want to incite). Prediction is inherently inaccurate.

Nate Silver had Trump at a 27% chance in 2016. If true again, there is nearly a 20% chance of being wrong with the prediction in consecutive elections picking against Trump.

Usually, results are given witha 95% confidence interval. Which means, 19 times out of 20, they should work out. Which, given that elections are every 4 years, a wrong prediction should be followed by correct ones for about 80 years. Two wrong in a row indicates seriously flawed methodology, or ridiculously wide confidence intervals which means data samples were outrageously small.


Wrong, and wrong. Every statistician just died a little bit. You do NOT know what a CI means. Seriously.

And no, I will not explain it to you. Look it up.

AFTR, using italics doesn't make you correct. It just makes you incorrect with italics.

OK, so let's revisit this to make a correction.

Quote
Nate Silver had Trump at a 27% chance in 2016. If true again, there is nearly a 20% chance of being wrong with the prediction in consecutive elections picking against Trump.

If in 2016, there was a 27% chance of Trump winning, and there's a similar 27% chance in 2020, and he wins both times, the odds of that happening by chance alone is 27%*27% which equals about 7%. So it's vastly more likely that the statistics were wrong than that being wrong both times was just random.

(So indeed, they weren't 90% confidence intervals, but the odds were high enough in one direction that there should have been far more questions as to how they got it wrong. Especially since there were multiple polls.)


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Descartes on August 31, 2020, 12:15:37 PM
I mean, I'm a white male in my late 30's who lives in a rustbelt/Midwest/bellweather state who has always voted Democrat from age 19 + but who voted for Trump in 2016 and is going to do so again.

In Reddit parlance, "AMA." 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 12:54:41 PM
My apologies for the thumbfingeredness. Sincerely. Yes, ,27*.27 is about .07. I have proven again (that when I go fast) I make arithmetic errors.

On the other hand, look at it this way: ,73*.73 is about .44. As a pollster you would pick the .73 every time, but you'd be wrong at least once 56% of the time. So I see pollsters being wrong a lot as a given. You and I have different expectations of them.

I'm more depressed by the follow up statement to my original reaction.

A CI is not a probability; it's is a statement of confidence in the accuracy of the estimate. The 80 years comment also resonated badly with me as it is true it is 80 years but comprised of 20 trials. Your statement that if they are wrong once they'd have to be correct the next 20 times (I edited) is just not what a CI "guarantees", if indeed CI's guarantee anything.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 12:54:41 PM
My apologies for the thumbfingeredness. Sincerely. Yes, ,27*.27 is about .07. I have proven again (that when I go fast) I make arithmetic errors.

On the other hand, look at it this way: ,73*.73 is about .44. As a pollster you would pick the .73 every time, but you'd be wrong at least once 56% of the time. So I see pollsters being wrong a lot as a given. You and I have different expectations of them.


That's why getting one election wrong, even with those odds, may be excused. But to get two wrong in a row is highly unlikely unless you're doing something wrong. For an election, 73% is pretty darn high. Most are probably in the 50's or occasionally 60's. It was kind of morbidly entertaining watching the election night coverage and seeing reporters increasingly focusing on polls not yet in as the night went on waiting for the results to change to how they were "supposed" to be.

Quote
I'm more depressed by the follow up statement to my original reaction.

A CI is not a probability; it's is a statement of confidence in the accuracy of the estimate. The 80 years comment also resonated badly with me as it is true it is 80 years but comprised of 20 trials. Your statement that if they are wrong once they'd have to be correct the next 20 times (I edited) is just not what a CI "guarantees", if indeed CI's guarantee anything.

I agree that it doesn't guarantee the outcome of even the next one, but as above, it makes it highly suspect if a similar "mistake" occurs soon. It's far more probable that the poll is somehow invalid than that it was just a random sampling error.

Relating to 2016, one theory was that people didn't answer the polls truthfully. If that was indeed the case, then it means the methodology is seriously flawed if voters don't feel comfortable giving their true preferences to a poll. For instance, if it's a phone poll, and the people asking the questions somehow make people uncomfortable stating their actual preferences, then their training has been woefully inadequate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 01:21:16 PM
Nate Silver isn't really a pollster. He is more accurately described as a meta-pollster. He averages results of many polls to create his estimate.

You are correct about the pollsters' methods likely not being accurate for the last election. That is why I said originally if the estimate was correct (but still multiplied with a thumb fingered decimal wrong).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on August 31, 2020, 01:37:21 PM
Trump will likely lose the popular vote. I'll even go out and say he will likely lose the popular vote by more than he did last time. But even with that I think he has a very good shot of winning re-election.
   It doesn't matter if Dems get out the vote by whatever % in places like California, New York, or Massachusetts. It does matter in Florida, Wisconsin, and maybe even Arizona. What happened that Ohio is no longer the darling of the swing states?

This is why the polling doesn't really matter. It's as much about where you vote as who you vote for.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2020, 01:21:16 PM
Nate Silver isn't really a pollster. He is more accurately described as a meta-pollster. He averages results of many polls to create his estimate.

You are correct about the pollsters' methods likely not being accurate for the last election. That is why I said originally if the estimate was correct (but still multiplied with a thumb fingered decimal wrong).

This is why it's so important to address; without strong evidence to the contrary, it suggests that the method of polling employed can no longer be relied upon, even if it worked in the past. It would be extremely foolish to view that specific election as a complete one-off; it's more likely there have been cultural shifts which affect the data gathering process. (This is probably an ongoing reality, but which was highlighted by the 2016 results. For instance, if it had been expected to be a closer race, the outcome being different than the prediction wouldn't have been such a shock. It might take 3 or 4 close races in a row with "wrong" outcomes to make it apparent that there's a problem.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on August 31, 2020, 02:43:57 PM
A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kindergartener who breaks the toy when it becomes some other child's turn to play with it -- the "if I can't have what I believe I deserve, regardless of whatever terrible personal choices I've made, then burn down the whole system" mentality. They blame people who are similarly poor and structurally disadvantaged but non-white for their own circumstances and are happy to destroy the very institutions they themselves are dependent on. It's one version of crabs in a bucket syndrome: preference for blowing up the whole bucket with themselves in it to letting a few crabs escape. Trump, being a sociopath, has an inherent understanding of how to use this to his advantage.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on August 31, 2020, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: Descartes on August 31, 2020, 12:15:37 PM
I mean, I'm a white male in my late 30's who lives in a rustbelt/Midwest/bellweather state who has always voted Democrat from age 19 + but who voted for Trump in 2016 and is going to do so again.

In Reddit parlance, "AMA."

Do your colleagues know?  How, specifically, would they have you fired if they did?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on August 31, 2020, 03:14:04 PM
Quote from: spork on August 31, 2020, 02:43:57 PM
A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kindergartener who breaks the toy when it becomes some other child's turn to play with it -- the "if I can't have what I believe I deserve, regardless of whatever terrible personal choices I've made, then burn down the whole system" mentality. They blame people who are similarly poor and structurally disadvantaged but non-white for their own circumstances and are happy to destroy the very institutions they themselves are dependent on. It's one version of crabs in a bucket syndrome: preference for blowing up the whole bucket with themselves in it to letting a few crabs escape. Trump, being a sociopath, has an inherent understanding of how to use this to his advantage.

I have my own version of this, but yours is rated G. Mine would get an R rating if it were a college coming of age movie.

A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kids who didn't get invited to the big party. So these kids get high/drunk and crash the party wearing wearing t-shirts that say "Eat Me" or other non-conformist garb that projects their non-conformism/rebellion and outward rejection of the norms that left them out of the party, and they go through the party trying to be cleverly obnoxious or at the very least yelling "Hail Satan." Their night ends by defecating in the pool, before getting kicked out.

They really do see themselves as the down-trodden caddies in Caddyshack or the members of Delta House in Animal House. Like in those two movies, a heroic deed is to ruin the party when they are not invited. Today, the big party is the global technologically connected diverse world where some people are simply not capable of thriving, and they were not invited to the party. All they can do is defecate in the pool and ruin the parade, so at least the party isn't as fun and the un-invited feel a sense of empowerment in ruining the party where they were not invited, giving them a temporary sense of equality. Many of us are Dean Wormer, and Trump supporters think they are Delta House.



Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on August 31, 2020, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 03:14:04 PM
Quote from: spork on August 31, 2020, 02:43:57 PM
A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kindergartener who breaks the toy when it becomes some other child's turn to play with it -- the "if I can't have what I believe I deserve, regardless of whatever terrible personal choices I've made, then burn down the whole system" mentality. They blame people who are similarly poor and structurally disadvantaged but non-white for their own circumstances and are happy to destroy the very institutions they themselves are dependent on. It's one version of crabs in a bucket syndrome: preference for blowing up the whole bucket with themselves in it to letting a few crabs escape. Trump, being a sociopath, has an inherent understanding of how to use this to his advantage.

I have my own version of this, but yours is rated G. Mine would get an R rating if it were a college coming of age movie.

A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kids who didn't get invited to the big party. So these kids get high/drunk and crash the party wearing wearing t-shirts that say "Eat Me" or other non-conformist garb that projects their non-conformism/rebellion and outward rejection of the norms that left them out of the party, and they go through the party trying to be cleverly obnoxious or at the very least yelling "Hail Satan." Their night ends by defecating in the pool, before getting kicked out.

They really do see themselves as the down-trodden caddies in Caddyshack or the members of Delta House in Animal House. Like in those two movies, a heroic deed is to ruin the party when they are not invited. Today, the big party is the global technologically connected diverse world where some people are simply not capable of thriving, and they were not invited to the party. All they can do is defecate in the pool and ruin the parade, so at least the party isn't as fun and the un-invited feel a sense of empowerment in ruining the party where they were not invited, giving them a temporary sense of equality. Many of us are Dean Wormer, and Trump supporters think they are Delta House.

Does anyone with beliefs like that think a presidential election can be won?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 03:41:19 PM
Quote from: spork on August 31, 2020, 02:43:57 PM
A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kindergartener who breaks the toy when it becomes some other child's turn to play with it -- the "if I can't have what I believe I deserve, regardless of whatever terrible personal choices I've made, then burn down the whole system" mentality. They blame people who are similarly poor and structurally disadvantaged but non-white for their own circumstances and are happy to destroy the very institutions they themselves are dependent on.

Coudln't this almost equally be said of the BLM "ally" rioters?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: quasihumanist on August 31, 2020, 03:54:40 PM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 03:14:04 PM
Quote from: spork on August 31, 2020, 02:43:57 PM
A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kindergartener who breaks the toy when it becomes some other child's turn to play with it -- the "if I can't have what I believe I deserve, regardless of whatever terrible personal choices I've made, then burn down the whole system" mentality. They blame people who are similarly poor and structurally disadvantaged but non-white for their own circumstances and are happy to destroy the very institutions they themselves are dependent on. It's one version of crabs in a bucket syndrome: preference for blowing up the whole bucket with themselves in it to letting a few crabs escape. Trump, being a sociopath, has an inherent understanding of how to use this to his advantage.

I have my own version of this, but yours is rated G. Mine would get an R rating if it were a college coming of age movie.

A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kids who didn't get invited to the big party. So these kids get high/drunk and crash the party wearing wearing t-shirts that say "Eat Me" or other non-conformist garb that projects their non-conformism/rebellion and outward rejection of the norms that left them out of the party, and they go through the party trying to be cleverly obnoxious or at the very least yelling "Hail Satan." Their night ends by defecating in the pool, before getting kicked out.

They really do see themselves as the down-trodden caddies in Caddyshack or the members of Delta House in Animal House. Like in those two movies, a heroic deed is to ruin the party when they are not invited. Today, the big party is the global technologically connected diverse world where some people are simply not capable of thriving, and they were not invited to the party. All they can do is defecate in the pool and ruin the parade, so at least the party isn't as fun and the un-invited feel a sense of empowerment in ruining the party where they were not invited, giving them a temporary sense of equality. Many of us are Dean Wormer, and Trump supporters think they are Delta House.

If we can't figure out a way of including the disabled in our society, we deserve what we get.

We should have nuclear war, because God deserves a fresh start.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on August 31, 2020, 04:14:26 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 31, 2020, 03:41:19 PM
Quote from: spork on August 31, 2020, 02:43:57 PM
A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kindergartener who breaks the toy when it becomes some other child's turn to play with it -- the "if I can't have what I believe I deserve, regardless of whatever terrible personal choices I've made, then burn down the whole system" mentality. They blame people who are similarly poor and structurally disadvantaged but non-white for their own circumstances and are happy to destroy the very institutions they themselves are dependent on.

Coudln't this almost equally be said of the BLM "ally" rioters?

In the sense that destructive actions assuage their egos, yes, but 1) they are far less numerous than media outlets like to portray and orders of magnitude fewer than Trump supporters, and 2) many of them are opportunistic vandals who simply enjoy starting a riot and use "fighting the system" as cover, a mirror image of the eyeglass-wearing, AR-15-toting young males who find it exciting to "patrol" in the midst of demonstrations and shoot people.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 31, 2020, 05:00:54 PM
So if someone of Trump's ilk were the democrat, I suppose he'd be 'dog whistling' to the looters something to the effect of 'yeah man. You and me. Peas in a pod.' Is that the idea? Would/will Biden kick them out of the tent? I am asking because I am wondering.
Someone should, theoretically, be courting the looter vote. If they haven't lost their right to vote, they count.
Biden says 'rioting is not demonstrating.' But say this often enough, and some kind of fault line in the coalition will appear. Even as tepid as it is.
Of course there are already some who are supporting them, e.g. 'it's legitimate. It's reparations. The stores have insurance.' [victimless crime]. They're out of the closet.
Whereas, who says 'sure...white supremacist here. Present.'
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on August 31, 2020, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 31, 2020, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 03:14:04 PM
Quote from: spork on August 31, 2020, 02:43:57 PM
A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kindergartener who breaks the toy when it becomes some other child's turn to play with it -- the "if I can't have what I believe I deserve, regardless of whatever terrible personal choices I've made, then burn down the whole system" mentality. They blame people who are similarly poor and structurally disadvantaged but non-white for their own circumstances and are happy to destroy the very institutions they themselves are dependent on. It's one version of crabs in a bucket syndrome: preference for blowing up the whole bucket with themselves in it to letting a few crabs escape. Trump, being a sociopath, has an inherent understanding of how to use this to his advantage.

I have my own version of this, but yours is rated G. Mine would get an R rating if it were a college coming of age movie.

A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kids who didn't get invited to the big party. So these kids get high/drunk and crash the party wearing wearing t-shirts that say "Eat Me" or other non-conformist garb that projects their non-conformism/rebellion and outward rejection of the norms that left them out of the party, and they go through the party trying to be cleverly obnoxious or at the very least yelling "Hail Satan." Their night ends by defecating in the pool, before getting kicked out.

They really do see themselves as the down-trodden caddies in Caddyshack or the members of Delta House in Animal House. Like in those two movies, a heroic deed is to ruin the party when they are not invited. Today, the big party is the global technologically connected diverse world where some people are simply not capable of thriving, and they were not invited to the party. All they can do is defecate in the pool and ruin the parade, so at least the party isn't as fun and the un-invited feel a sense of empowerment in ruining the party where they were not invited, giving them a temporary sense of equality. Many of us are Dean Wormer, and Trump supporters think they are Delta House.

Does anyone with beliefs like that think a presidential election can be won?

Oh definitely. But Dems have to stop being so pre-occoupied with substance and instead focus on winning.

Those rust belt voters who flipped in 2016 can be brought back. Paint the companies that automated and outsourced their jobs away (and their dignity) as the enemy (not China--that's the Xenophobe's scapegoat, so it can't be the Dems boogeyman). Make those companies PAY for outsourcing and automating their jobs away through a mandatory economic re-development. But you can't call it something that sounds like socialism or re-distribution of wealth or U.B.I., even though it is a tax (because then it sounds like a handout, and is then not music to the ears of the HEWM who stakes his dignity in being the self-sufficient provider). The mechanism has to sound punitive & corrective to the companies that wronged the HEWM and their rust-belt towns, in the ears of the HEWM. I don't think this is too far-fetched. If a corporation wants to outsource/automate, let them, but it has to come at a cost to their parade. Paint the taxing mechanism as the Baby Ruth that gets thrown into the swimming pool. Think of it as a domestic tariff that gets skimmed off the extra profits from outsourcing/automation as the laid off HEWM's "Eat Me" shirt, before the remaining profits head to the stockholders. Now, this is an overly simplistic solution, but for purposes of winning an election, this is what the HEWM wants to hear. Trump listens to the HEWM. The Dems do not. If the Dems truly listened to the rust belt, they would know that it would not take much to also offer a cultural identity (one that is not racist), a mechanism to stick it to da man when the boogeyman takes away their livelihood, and most importantly dignity. Heck, the Dems can't even call out Trump for claiming bogus job creation in traditional manufacturing, when most of those jobs were not taken by the HEWM--those were high-tech jobs that Trump is counting as manufacturing.

My first job on the TT was in a dying rust belt town. I've seen and heard the HEWM pain first-hand. Hillary offered them a vitamin. Trump offered them a pain pill. When you are in pain, you will reach for the pain pill, even if there are known side-effects. I'm despondent because Dems are still offering vitamins . . . .
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on August 31, 2020, 06:23:48 PM
Neither party is offering substance. I just wonder, truly wonder, whether the Democratic Party -- not you or me -- has any clue why it lost the last election. I don't see it having drawn any conclusions. Russia and Race [R & R :-)] will be sufficient? Good luck with that.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: quasihumanist on August 31, 2020, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 31, 2020, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 03:14:04 PM
Quote from: spork on August 31, 2020, 02:43:57 PM
A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kindergartener who breaks the toy when it becomes some other child's turn to play with it -- the "if I can't have what I believe I deserve, regardless of whatever terrible personal choices I've made, then burn down the whole system" mentality. They blame people who are similarly poor and structurally disadvantaged but non-white for their own circumstances and are happy to destroy the very institutions they themselves are dependent on. It's one version of crabs in a bucket syndrome: preference for blowing up the whole bucket with themselves in it to letting a few crabs escape. Trump, being a sociopath, has an inherent understanding of how to use this to his advantage.

I have my own version of this, but yours is rated G. Mine would get an R rating if it were a college coming of age movie.

A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kids who didn't get invited to the big party. So these kids get high/drunk and crash the party wearing wearing t-shirts that say "Eat Me" or other non-conformist garb that projects their non-conformism/rebellion and outward rejection of the norms that left them out of the party, and they go through the party trying to be cleverly obnoxious or at the very least yelling "Hail Satan." Their night ends by defecating in the pool, before getting kicked out.

They really do see themselves as the down-trodden caddies in Caddyshack or the members of Delta House in Animal House. Like in those two movies, a heroic deed is to ruin the party when they are not invited. Today, the big party is the global technologically connected diverse world where some people are simply not capable of thriving, and they were not invited to the party. All they can do is defecate in the pool and ruin the parade, so at least the party isn't as fun and the un-invited feel a sense of empowerment in ruining the party where they were not invited, giving them a temporary sense of equality. Many of us are Dean Wormer, and Trump supporters think they are Delta House.

Does anyone with beliefs like that think a presidential election can be won?

Oh definitely. But Dems have to stop being so pre-occoupied with substance and instead focus on winning.

Those rust belt voters who flipped in 2016 can be brought back. Paint the companies that automated and outsourced their jobs away (and their dignity) as the enemy (not China--that's the Xenophobe's scapegoat, so it can't be the Dems boogeyman). Make those companies PAY for outsourcing and automating their jobs away through a mandatory economic re-development. But you can't call it something that sounds like socialism or re-distribution of wealth or U.B.I., even though it is a tax (because then it sounds like a handout, and is then not music to the ears of the HEWM who stakes his dignity in being the self-sufficient provider). The mechanism has to sound punitive & corrective to the companies that wronged the HEWM and their rust-belt towns, in the ears of the HEWM. I don't think this is too far-fetched. If a corporation wants to outsource/automate, let them, but it has to come at a cost to their parade. Paint the taxing mechanism as the Baby Ruth that gets thrown into the swimming pool. Think of it as a domestic tariff that gets skimmed off the extra profits from outsourcing/automation as the laid off HEWM's "Eat Me" shirt, before the remaining profits head to the stockholders. Now, this is an overly simplistic solution, but for purposes of winning an election, this is what the HEWM wants to hear. Trump listens to the HEWM. The Dems do not. If the Dems truly listened to the rust belt, they would know that it would not take much to also offer a cultural identity (one that is not racist), a mechanism to stick it to da man when the boogeyman takes away their livelihood, and most importantly dignity. Heck, the Dems can't even call out Trump for claiming bogus job creation in traditional manufacturing, when most of those jobs were not taken by the HEWM--those were high-tech jobs that Trump is counting as manufacturing.

My first job on the TT was in a dying rust belt town. I've seen and heard the HEWM pain first-hand. Hillary offered them a vitamin. Trump offered them a pain pill. When you are in pain, you will reach for the pain pill, even if there are known side-effects. I'm despondent because Dems are still offering vitamins . . . .

There are no solutions to the automation problem.  Taxing it just means some other conglomeration of wealthy powerful people do it in some other country and take over the world, killing all of us.  That's why we're going to get nuclear war whether I'm for it or not.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on August 31, 2020, 07:09:19 PM
What's a HEWM?   'WM' = 'white male', presumably, but what is HE?

BTW, for those of you who are voting for Trump, or considering doing so, or even those like me, who would sooner vote for a potted plant than him, BUT also recognize why he is so appealing to the Rust Belt white working class, etc., how would you advise the Dems to act, to better their chances of getting their votes?   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on August 31, 2020, 07:13:35 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on August 31, 2020, 07:09:19 PM
What's a HEWM?   'WM' = 'white male', presumably, but what is HE?

BTW, for those of you who are voting for Trump, or considering doing so, or even those like me, who would sooner vote for a potted plant than him, BUT also recognize why he is so appealing to the Rust Belt white working class, etc., how would you advise the Dems to act, to better their chances of getting their votes?

I would sooner vote for a potted plant than for Mr. Trump, too, but there are no potted plants running for office!

I could advise the Democratic Party on what policies to propose and pursue, but there is no reason they would listen. :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on August 31, 2020, 07:27:36 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on August 31, 2020, 07:09:19 PM
What's a HEWM?   'WM' = 'white male', presumably, but what is HE?

BTW, for those of you who are voting for Trump, or considering doing so, or even those like me, who would sooner vote for a potted plant than him, BUT also recognize why he is so appealing to the Rust Belt white working class, etc., how would you advise the Dems to act, to better their chances of getting their votes?

I don't know if old Joe can do it. He's a smooth easy talker, but a little bit scattered in his message giving. He needs to be steady and relentless and keep it simple.
Show the TV audience how offensive a person DJT is, not just with arguments, but with gut reactions, facial expressions, body language, real theatre. When Ronald Reagan talked about Jimmy Carter, it was clear that he had so little respect for him he thought he had to restrain himself in speech. Like, he just couldn't fathom a person so foolish. It was almost cruel, but masterful. He made the audience feel what he was feeling.
And Joe needs to sound reassuring. Like a leader who wants to lead you in spirit. Not just someone who wants the job. Hammer away at how Trump contrasts to our ideal of a president.
Nancy Pelosi has an interesting tactic. She says 'he knows he shouldn't be president.' Gas lighting. I don't know if she'd be a good president but I think she could neutralize him in a one-on-one contest.
I don't think you were asking me, but I had a reaction.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on August 31, 2020, 08:18:51 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on August 31, 2020, 07:09:19 PM
What's a HEWM?   'WM' = 'white male', presumably, but what is HE?

BTW, for those of you who are voting for Trump, or considering doing so, or even those like me, who would sooner vote for a potted plant than him, BUT also recognize why he is so appealing to the Rust Belt white working class, etc., how would you advise the Dems to act, to better their chances of getting their votes?

HEWM = High-school educated white male. I know it's not the best acronym. It was used back in the 1990s when describing the Democratic strategy of winning the votes in the middle, especially the votes of the HEWM. Back then, the HEWM saw no reason to vote for the Republican party who didn't seem to give a s**t about them because they were still considered to be the rich people who were nothing like the HEWM. Enter Bill Clinton with his southern drawl and, although insincere at its core, he seemed to listen and seemed to care. Hell, all he had to say was "I feel your pain" and he won some of their votes.

The answer to your second question is in my post. But here's another illustration:

Biden needs to visit WI, PA, IN (Ok, not, IN-they are a lost cause), MI, and OH and tell them "If I'm elected president, any company that takes away your job through automation, outsourcing, or union busting, will have to PAY YOU dearly, to do it."

No, don't get specific. No, don't offer up the how. No, don't offer any details. No, don't answer questions about possible ramifications. Do you think Trump needed to offer the specifics, the details, and the hows of how Mexico was going to pay for The Wall? Of course not.

Invite them to rallies where they burn pink slips, layoff notices, bankruptcy notices, medical bill invoices, etc and take turns taking a sledge hammer to a robot. Make them feel empowered in aligning themselves with the Dems. Galvanize them through their frustration. Scapegoat the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, Wall Street, the efficiency experts who recommend layoffs. Tell the HEWM that nothing is their fault. Never mind the prosperity that ensued as a result of globalization and everyone's complicity, including the HEWM who got to shop for items that became very inexpensive as a result of global supply chains, automation, and telecommunication. Make it clear to the HEWM that Trump and the Republicans gave big tax breaks to the people who laid them off. None of what I said is entirely true and has many half-baked half-truths (euphemism for lie). But, again, who cares. Truth does not get anyone elected. Furthermore, truth now needs power to be considered truth. Get the power first. So truth has a chance.  Don't offer real solutions when trying to get elected. Offer the HEWM dignity from making a simple choice between candidates. This can be done without alienating the ones that have already decided to vote straight democratic. Does this sound like the 2016 Republican election playbook? It worked for them, didn't it?

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 01, 2020, 04:56:21 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on August 31, 2020, 06:50:31 PM
There are no solutions to the automation problem.  Taxing it just means some other conglomeration of wealthy powerful people do it in some other country and take over the world, killing all of us.  That's why we're going to get nuclear war whether I'm for it or not.

Addressing the Automation Problem In Three Easy Steps

1) nuclear war
2) ?
3) profit!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Treehugger on September 01, 2020, 05:11:33 AM
Quote
Quote from: quasihumanist on August 31, 2020, 03:54:40 PM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 03:14:04 PM
[quote auhor=spork link=topic=203.msg42636#msg42636 date=1598910237]
A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kindergartener who breaks the toy when it becomes some other child's turn to play with it -- the "if I can't have what I believe I deserve, regardless of whatever terrible personal choices I've made, then burn down the whole system" mentality. They blame people who are similarly poor and structurally disadvantaged but non-white for their own circumstances and are happy to destroy the very institutions they themselves are dependent on. It's one version of crabs in a bucket syndrome: preference for blowing up the whole bucket with themselves in it to letting a few crabs escape. Trump, being a sociopath, has an inherent understanding of how to use this to his advantage.

I have my own version of this, but yours is rated G. Mine would get an R rating if it were a college coming of age movie.

A large chunk of Trump supporters are people who are the equivalent of the kids who didn't get invited to the big party. So these kids get high/drunk and crash the party wearing wearing t-shirts that say "Eat Me" or other non-conformist garb that projects their non-conformism/rebellion and outward rejection of the norms that left them out of the party, and they go through the party trying to be cleverly obnoxious or at the very least yelling "Hail Satan." Their night ends by defecating in the pool, before getting kicked out.

They really do see themselves as the down-trodden caddies in Caddyshack or the members of Delta House in Animal House. Like in those two movies, a heroic deed is to ruin the party when they are not invited. Today, the big party is the global technologically connected diverse world where some people are simply not capable of thriving, and they were not invited to the party. All they can do is defecate in the pool and ruin the parade, so at least the party isn't as fun and the un-invited feel a sense of empowerment in ruining the party where they were not invited, giving them a temporary sense of equality. Many of us are Dean Wormer, and Trump supporters think they are Delta House.

If we can't figure out a way of including the disabled in our society, we deserve what we get.

We should have nuclear war, because God deserves a fresh start.


I should post this on "What You Think is Funny (but know you shouldn't)" thread. That said, ha ha ha.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 01, 2020, 06:19:26 AM
Wow, lightning's method for how Joe could win is quite cynical. Instead of giving up on telling people the truth that would cost you votes, how about telling people the truth that could win you votes? Instead of intentionally promising something to HEWM's that is unrealistic, why not desist from promising something to another group (blacks) that is a fairy tale, and people should be able to see it.
As it is, Trump will be getting the votes of the HEWM's who feel like crap about themselves anytime race is mentioned, as you accurately note, by doing absolutely nothing. Those votes should be available to anyone with common sense enough to say 'just because you are white is no reason for you to be assessed with the job of changing yourself in order to bring minorities more success. It wouldn't work anyway. So, yes, of course, black lives matter greatly, but that doesn't mean someone is doing one race an injustice to another by not being a member of that race. that would be more divisiveness; bringing each other down. What we need to stop. But the current racial tension is absolutely being exacerbated by the presence of DJT. It hurts all of us. He is a hothead, a name caller, a juvenile. He is not a uniting influence. He must go.'
By saying this he risks alienating the white academics who are reading Robin D'Angelo and Ibram Kendi and the mobs of demonstrators in Portland OR. Good. You're never competing for votes at the center of the political spectrum when you're worried about them.
Also I would advise him if I could, no matter what you're asked in a debate, do not repeat the words 'systemic racism' or 'white superiority.' Joe Biden isn't going to try to do something about these newspeak bludgeon-term issues and everyone knows it. Repeating them gives them life. Let them die a natural slow death. Let the real Joe Biden stand up, Focus on peace, prosperity, stable, brotherly love, non-corrupt government.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 01, 2020, 08:28:26 AM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 08:18:51 PM

Invite them to rallies where they burn pink slips, layoff notices, bankruptcy notices, medical bill invoices, etc and take turns taking a sledge hammer to a robot. Make them feel empowered in aligning themselves with the Dems. Galvanize them through their frustration. Scapegoat the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, Wall Street, the efficiency experts who recommend layoffs. Tell the HEWM that nothing is their fault. Never mind the prosperity that ensued as a result of globalization and everyone's complicity, including the HEWM who got to shop for items that became very inexpensive as a result of global supply chains, automation, and telecommunication. Make it clear to the HEWM that Trump and the Republicans gave big tax breaks to the people who laid them off. None of what I said is entirely true and has many half-baked half-truths (euphemism for lie). But, again, who cares. Truth does not get anyone elected. Furthermore, truth now needs power to be considered truth. Get the power first. So truth has a chance.  Don't offer real solutions when trying to get elected. Offer the HEWM dignity from making a simple choice between candidates. This can be done without alienating the ones that have already decided to vote straight democratic. Does this sound like the 2016 Republican election playbook? It worked for them, didn't it?

How is this any different than the situation for the HEBMs in Flint Michigan or anywhere else? Are the Democrats going to radically improve their lives?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on September 01, 2020, 10:06:52 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 01, 2020, 08:28:26 AM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 08:18:51 PM

Invite them to rallies where they burn pink slips, layoff notices, bankruptcy notices, medical bill invoices, etc and take turns taking a sledge hammer to a robot. Make them feel empowered in aligning themselves with the Dems. Galvanize them through their frustration. Scapegoat the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, Wall Street, the efficiency experts who recommend layoffs. Tell the HEWM that nothing is their fault. Never mind the prosperity that ensued as a result of globalization and everyone's complicity, including the HEWM who got to shop for items that became very inexpensive as a result of global supply chains, automation, and telecommunication. Make it clear to the HEWM that Trump and the Republicans gave big tax breaks to the people who laid them off. None of what I said is entirely true and has many half-baked half-truths (euphemism for lie). But, again, who cares. Truth does not get anyone elected. Furthermore, truth now needs power to be considered truth. Get the power first. So truth has a chance.  Don't offer real solutions when trying to get elected. Offer the HEWM dignity from making a simple choice between candidates. This can be done without alienating the ones that have already decided to vote straight democratic. Does this sound like the 2016 Republican election playbook? It worked for them, didn't it?

How is this any different than the situation for the HEBMs in Flint Michigan or anywhere else? Are the Democrats going to radically improve their lives?

If the concern is about winning the election, then the focus has to be on getting the votes of the displaced white male with only a high school education. I'm pretty sure the Democrats can count on the votes from minority populations, whose votes don't need to be flipped.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 01, 2020, 10:09:25 AM
Quote from: lightning on September 01, 2020, 10:06:52 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 01, 2020, 08:28:26 AM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 08:18:51 PM

Invite them to rallies where they burn pink slips, layoff notices, bankruptcy notices, medical bill invoices, etc and take turns taking a sledge hammer to a robot. Make them feel empowered in aligning themselves with the Dems. Galvanize them through their frustration. Scapegoat the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, Wall Street, the efficiency experts who recommend layoffs. Tell the HEWM that nothing is their fault. Never mind the prosperity that ensued as a result of globalization and everyone's complicity, including the HEWM who got to shop for items that became very inexpensive as a result of global supply chains, automation, and telecommunication. Make it clear to the HEWM that Trump and the Republicans gave big tax breaks to the people who laid them off. None of what I said is entirely true and has many half-baked half-truths (euphemism for lie). But, again, who cares. Truth does not get anyone elected. Furthermore, truth now needs power to be considered truth. Get the power first. So truth has a chance.  Don't offer real solutions when trying to get elected. Offer the HEWM dignity from making a simple choice between candidates. This can be done without alienating the ones that have already decided to vote straight democratic. Does this sound like the 2016 Republican election playbook? It worked for them, didn't it?

How is this any different than the situation for the HEBMs in Flint Michigan or anywhere else? Are the Democrats going to radically improve their lives?

If the concern is about winning the election, then the focus has to be on getting the votes of the displaced white male with only a high school education. I'm pretty sure the Democrats can count on the votes from minority populations, whose votes don't need to be flipped.

Oh right. If you don't vote for Biden, "You ain't black". Because minority populations are monolithic.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 01, 2020, 10:42:11 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 01, 2020, 10:09:25 AM
Quote from: lightning on September 01, 2020, 10:06:52 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 01, 2020, 08:28:26 AM
Quote from: lightning on August 31, 2020, 08:18:51 PM

Invite them to rallies where they burn pink slips, layoff notices, bankruptcy notices, medical bill invoices, etc and take turns taking a sledge hammer to a robot. Make them feel empowered in aligning themselves with the Dems. Galvanize them through their frustration. Scapegoat the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, Wall Street, the efficiency experts who recommend layoffs. Tell the HEWM that nothing is their fault. Never mind the prosperity that ensued as a result of globalization and everyone's complicity, including the HEWM who got to shop for items that became very inexpensive as a result of global supply chains, automation, and telecommunication. Make it clear to the HEWM that Trump and the Republicans gave big tax breaks to the people who laid them off. None of what I said is entirely true and has many half-baked half-truths (euphemism for lie). But, again, who cares. Truth does not get anyone elected. Furthermore, truth now needs power to be considered truth. Get the power first. So truth has a chance.  Don't offer real solutions when trying to get elected. Offer the HEWM dignity from making a simple choice between candidates. This can be done without alienating the ones that have already decided to vote straight democratic. Does this sound like the 2016 Republican election playbook? It worked for them, didn't it?

How is this any different than the situation for the HEBMs in Flint Michigan or anywhere else? Are the Democrats going to radically improve their lives?

If the concern is about winning the election, then the focus has to be on getting the votes of the displaced white male with only a high school education. I'm pretty sure the Democrats can count on the votes from minority populations, whose votes don't need to be flipped.

Oh right. If you don't vote for Biden, "You ain't black". Because minority populations are monolithic.

I wonder how often Biden uses the word 'ain't.'
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 01, 2020, 03:07:17 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 01, 2020, 10:42:11 AM
I wonder how often Biden uses the word 'ain't.'

Oh, "middle-class Joe" is folksy as f---.  "You ain't black."  "He's wants to put y'all back in chains."  I feel like I'm watching Song of the South

Never mind, that's cancelled.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 05:46:12 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 01, 2020, 03:07:17 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 01, 2020, 10:42:11 AM
I wonder how often Biden uses the word 'ain't.'

Oh, "middle-class Joe" is folksy as f---.  "You ain't black."  "He's wants to put y'all back in chains."  I feel like I'm watching Song of the South

Never mind, that's cancelled.

Yet I do not hear black people say 'ain't' very often. Not these days. Not the ones I know. Perhaps he is showing his age.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on September 02, 2020, 06:28:18 AM
I live in HEWM country;  rural, poor, and maybe 3% people of color. My county will vote for Biden when hell freezes over, cuz all those colored people and gay people and men in dresses and jesus haters are comin' for their jobs.   There's simply no way to put a shiny academic gloss on the way many of my kinfolk view the world:  out to get them and their white, Christian way of life.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 07:28:55 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 02, 2020, 06:28:18 AM
I live in HEWM country;  rural, poor, and maybe 3% people of color. My county will vote for Biden when hell freezes over, cuz all those colored people and gay people and men in dresses and jesus haters are comin' for their jobs.   There's simply no way to put a shiny academic gloss on the way many of my kinfolk view the world:  out to get them and their white, Christian way of life.

Most people vote from a point of view of self-interest. Do they actually speak of 'colored people?' I haven't heard that one much since the sixties. Just curious.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 02, 2020, 08:23:54 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 07:28:55 AM

Most people vote from a point of view of self-interest. Do they actually speak of 'colored people?' I haven't heard that one much since the sixties. Just curious.

No, they don't. The usual convention now is people-first language--so, 'people of colour'. But I think beo113 had their tongue firmly in their cheek as they adoped the voice of people in their county.

I dunno if most people vote out of self-interest. It's plausible, but so are the hypotheses that most people vote by convention (because that's how their parents voted, or people around them vote, etc.), by sense of group-identity, or any number of other criteria. If they do vote out of self-interest, then it's clear that they're widely mistaken about their own interests.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: RatGuy on September 02, 2020, 08:44:15 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 02, 2020, 08:23:54 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 07:28:55 AM

Most people vote from a point of view of self-interest. Do they actually speak of 'colored people?' I haven't heard that one much since the sixties. Just curious.

No, they don't. The usual convention now is people-first language--so, 'people of colour'. But I think beo113 had their tongue firmly in their cheek as they adoped the voice of people in their county.

I dunno if most people vote out of self-interest. It's plausible, but so are the hypotheses that most people vote by convention (because that's how their parents voted, or people around them vote, etc.), by sense of group-identity, or any number of other criteria. If they do vote out of self-interest, then it's clear that they're widely mistaken about their own interests.

Someone recently observed that some people "vote for Trump because of what he does to others, rather than what he does for them."  I don't know if that's considered self-interest. But I'm reminded of an Atlantic piece about the Tea Party back in like '08, where Tupelo residents rejected Thad Cochran's plan for federal funding for an updated sewer and water system because "for every dollar spent on us, someone else gets a dollar." The Tea Party candidate pushed the narrative that politics help undeserving people, so it's best that no one gets any help.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 02, 2020, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 02, 2020, 06:28:18 AM
I live in HEWM country;  rural, poor, and maybe 3% people of color. My county will vote for Biden when hell freezes over, cuz all those colored people and gay people and men in dresses and jesus haters are comin' for their jobs.   There's simply no way to put a shiny academic gloss on the way many of my kinfolk view the world:  out to get them and their white, Christian way of life.

I don't know about "coming for their jobs," but the rest is a pretty accurate summary of the stakes of American elections these days.  But, by all means, mock their fears in the months before you do the very things they're afraid of. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Stockmann on September 02, 2020, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 07:28:55 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 02, 2020, 06:28:18 AM
I live in HEWM country;  rural, poor, and maybe 3% people of color. My county will vote for Biden when hell freezes over, cuz all those colored people and gay people and men in dresses and jesus haters are comin' for their jobs.   There's simply no way to put a shiny academic gloss on the way many of my kinfolk view the world:  out to get them and their white, Christian way of life.

Most people vote from a point of view of self-interest.

Nah. There are plenty of examples of turkeys voting for Christmas. I'm reminded of a conversation I had about American politics, in which I said that Americans voting for any kind of radicalism was like pushing your Ferrari off a cliff because it's got a flat tire. Not that I'm not saying flats don't require immediate action or that it's not a real problem. My friend answered that clearly a lot of Americans don't think they have a Ferrari, and I said that objetively they do - I noted that American wages are very high by global standards, unemployment is very low by developed world standards (this was pre-pandemic), etc. In a somewhat related conversation with the same friend, I noted how foolish it seemed to me so many people vote as if they had nothing to lose - in the developed world, essentially everyone has a lot to lose, and a large majority in middle income countries has a lot to lose. Maybe in Yemen, simultaneously facing war, famine and a pandemic, a majority has nothing to lose.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 11:46:15 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on September 02, 2020, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 07:28:55 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 02, 2020, 06:28:18 AM
I live in HEWM country;  rural, poor, and maybe 3% people of color. My county will vote for Biden when hell freezes over, cuz all those colored people and gay people and men in dresses and jesus haters are comin' for their jobs.   There's simply no way to put a shiny academic gloss on the way many of my kinfolk view the world:  out to get them and their white, Christian way of life.

Most people vote from a point of view of self-interest.

Nah. There are plenty of examples of turkeys voting for Christmas. I'm reminded of a conversation I had about American politics, in which I said that Americans voting for any kind of radicalism was like pushing your Ferrari off a cliff because it's got a flat tire. Not that I'm not saying flats don't require immediate action or that it's not a real problem. My friend answered that clearly a lot of Americans don't think they have a Ferrari, and I said that objetively they do - I noted that American wages are very high by global standards, unemployment is very low by developed world standards (this was pre-pandemic), etc. In a somewhat related conversation with the same friend, I noted how foolish it seemed to me so many people vote as if they had nothing to lose - in the developed world, essentially everyone has a lot to lose, and a large majority in middle income countries has a lot to lose. Maybe in Yemen, simultaneously facing war, famine and a pandemic, a majority has nothing to lose.

Not sure I get your point exactly. Well, maybe people vote in self interest that's miscalculated. But they should be within their right to try to vote in self interest. I don't think Ibram Xendi's going to get a federal Antiracism Department under President Biden, but it's just a guess. And I think he would have under a president Elizabeth Warren. So if you're paying someone a salary to tell you and your countrymen that you're an oppressor, you might be a fool.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on September 02, 2020, 11:59:43 AM
I would bet my entire current bank balance, squared, that those HEWMS do not use the phrase 'people of color'.   It is much more likely that some of them still do call AA people 'colored people'.   We have to face the facts wrt people like this voting against their interests that, despite Trump's propagandizing, his surrogates doing the same, and such things that make it more likely that they will not know what the truths of the matter be, and the fact that their lack of education does make it less likely that they will be able to properly analyze facts, despite all this, nonetheless it is also true that the overt condescension and contempt often either shown to people like this by people like us, OR their perception that we act this way, greatly harms our attempts to get them to see facts more clearly (including the fact that voting for Biden would be in their interests), and also motivates them to say, again, 'f*ck you, libtards', on their way to a Trump rally.   This should be obvious, and it should also be obvious that the solution to this must be a Sister Souljah moment or two for Uncle Joe, and overt attempts to reign in the nuts on the left, in the specific interest of refuting the nuts on the right.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Stockmann on September 02, 2020, 12:51:58 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 11:46:15 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on September 02, 2020, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 07:28:55 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 02, 2020, 06:28:18 AM
I live in HEWM country;  rural, poor, and maybe 3% people of color. My county will vote for Biden when hell freezes over, cuz all those colored people and gay people and men in dresses and jesus haters are comin' for their jobs.   There's simply no way to put a shiny academic gloss on the way many of my kinfolk view the world:  out to get them and their white, Christian way of life.

Most people vote from a point of view of self-interest.

Nah. There are plenty of examples of turkeys voting for Christmas. I'm reminded of a conversation I had about American politics, in which I said that Americans voting for any kind of radicalism was like pushing your Ferrari off a cliff because it's got a flat tire. Not that I'm not saying flats don't require immediate action or that it's not a real problem. My friend answered that clearly a lot of Americans don't think they have a Ferrari, and I said that objetively they do - I noted that American wages are very high by global standards, unemployment is very low by developed world standards (this was pre-pandemic), etc. In a somewhat related conversation with the same friend, I noted how foolish it seemed to me so many people vote as if they had nothing to lose - in the developed world, essentially everyone has a lot to lose, and a large majority in middle income countries has a lot to lose. Maybe in Yemen, simultaneously facing war, famine and a pandemic, a majority has nothing to lose.

Not sure I get your point exactly. Well, maybe people vote in self interest that's miscalculated...

I think both happen - sometimes people vote in a way that is plainly, blatantly contrary to their interests (the Welsh voting for Brexit), and sometimes, as you write, people try to vote for their interests but grossly miscalculate. Anybody in a developed country who is disadvantaged and votes for radicalism probably belongs in the latter category - it's like solving a Ferrari's flat tire by pushing it off the cliff. Something that seems closely related to the latter category is people who seem to believe they have nothing to lose - smashing the system would be a rational response to such a situation, but in practice essentially nobody is in such a situation in the developed world.
Probably a lot of Venezuelans who voted for Chavez thought they had nothing to lose - and now what was once Latin America's richest country lies essentially in ruins, on the brink of famine, devastated by scarcity and hyperinflation, and facing extremely high crime rates even by Latin American standards.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 02, 2020, 01:05:26 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 02, 2020, 11:59:43 AM
I would bet my entire current bank balance, squared, that those HEWMS do not use the phrase 'people of color'.

Oh, I see. I misread: I thought you were asking what the accepted usage was, rather than about what the HEWMS said.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 01:26:26 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 02, 2020, 01:05:26 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 02, 2020, 11:59:43 AM
I would bet my entire current bank balance, squared, that those HEWMS do not use the phrase 'people of color'.

Oh, I see. I misread: I thought you were asking what the accepted usage was, rather than about what the HEWMS said.

Every ten years or so you become wrong for what you've been saying for those ten years. It ought to be an incredible journey in personal growth. Well, I'll say whatever people require with a smile, but I reserve the right to have my own view of the history of it. It might be story of how people of color see themselves differently over time, or it might be a story of the evolution of white guilt and all the wonderful illumination it's given us.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 02, 2020, 01:28:10 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on September 02, 2020, 12:51:58 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 11:46:15 AM
Not sure I get your point exactly. Well, maybe people vote in self interest that's miscalculated...

I think both happen - sometimes people vote in a way that is plainly, blatantly contrary to their interests (the Welsh voting for Brexit), and sometimes, as you write, people try to vote for their interests but grossly miscalculate.

Even this assumes that a voter's "interest" is essentially unidimensional. That's rarely the case in politics. For instance, if one party plans to run a deficit to fund more social programs, and the other plans to cut social programs but balance the budget, each one offers something in the voter's interest and something contrary to the voter's interest.

(And, in most of these discussions, "interest" is usually seen as primarily financial. If one party is going to shut down a factory to protect the environment, and the other is going to keep it going, then for someone working in the factory, or living in a town where the factory is the primary industry, the person's health and income may be competing interests.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on September 02, 2020, 02:30:48 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 02, 2020, 01:28:10 PM
Quote from: Stockmann on September 02, 2020, 12:51:58 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 11:46:15 AM
Not sure I get your point exactly. Well, maybe people vote in self interest that's miscalculated...

I think both happen - sometimes people vote in a way that is plainly, blatantly contrary to their interests (the Welsh voting for Brexit), and sometimes, as you write, people try to vote for their interests but grossly miscalculate.

Even this assumes that a voter's "interest" is essentially unidimensional. That's rarely the case in politics. For instance, if one party plans to run a deficit to fund more social programs, and the other plans to cut social programs but balance the budget, each one offers something in the voter's interest and something contrary to the voter's interest.

(And, in most of these discussions, "interest" is usually seen as primarily financial. If one party is going to shut down a factory to protect the environment, and the other is going to keep it going, then for someone working in the factory, or living in a town where the factory is the primary industry, the person's health and income may be competing interests.)

And a rational voter has absolutely no incentive to become informed [who knows the intricacies of the US tax code?] because there is zero probability of him or her determining the outcome of an election. Hence, there's plenty of room for emotive stuff [A "We're all in this together" kind of lie.]

Especially given this, it is dysfunctional to make potential voters for one's own party feel bad for being primitive, simplistic, stupid, and so on. The deplorables opinion is still rampant.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 02:54:17 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 02, 2020, 11:59:43 AM
I would bet my entire current bank balance, squared, that those HEWMS do not use the phrase 'people of color'.   It is much more likely that some of them still do call AA people 'colored people'.   We have to face the facts wrt people like this voting against their interests that, despite Trump's propagandizing, his surrogates doing the same, and such things that make it more likely that they will not know what the truths of the matter be, and the fact that their lack of education does make it less likely that they will be able to properly analyze facts, despite all this, nonetheless it is also true that the overt condescension and contempt often either shown to people like this by people like us, OR their perception that we act this way, greatly harms our attempts to get them to see facts more clearly (including the fact that voting for Biden would be in their interests), and also motivates them to say, again, 'f*ck you, libtards', on their way to a Trump rally.   This should be obvious, and it should also be obvious that the solution to this must be a Sister Souljah moment or two for Uncle Joe, and overt attempts to reign in the nuts on the left, in the specific interest of refuting the nuts on the right.

Here is where I will take full advantage of being adjunct, and I suggest you do to. The blame for academia being a polarizing force in society does not go to us.  We are less liberal that the tenure track, perhaps not by a big margin, but in any case, with few exceptions, we are severely hampered in our ability to affect trends in higher education, and  the obvious part, we have to be good acquiescent followers in order to keep getting hired. Expect more consciousness-raising videos ridiculing white culture and values, inserting racism into every topic, etc. as part of our diversity and anti-racism work.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on September 02, 2020, 06:19:01 PM
You're right, adjuncts do not have much clout, much ability to influence bad trends in academia, trends which work against liberals' electoral fortunes, because there are a whole lot more HEWMs than us.  I am not sure what we can do about this, but I will not be silent with respect to trying to convince educated liberals not to act like this, in order that we all might better convince the HEWMs to vote more intelligently.  In my own church, this is very hard, because most of these people, though I guess/ think most of them respect my education and have enjoyed some of my historical teaching I have had limited ability to do over the years (though this has likely waned), but most of them will simply not pay any attention to my political and economic views, because, well... abortion.... socialism....whatever.   I do not know how to confront or deal with this.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 03, 2020, 04:34:46 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 02, 2020, 06:19:01 PM
You're right, adjuncts do not have much clout, much ability to influence bad trends in academia, trends which work against liberals' electoral fortunes, because there are a whole lot more HEWMs than us.  I am not sure what we can do about this, but I will not be silent with respect to trying to convince educated liberals not to act like this, in order that we all might better convince the HEWMs to vote more intelligently.  In my own church, this is very hard, because most of these people, though I guess/ think most of them respect my education and have enjoyed some of my historical teaching I have had limited ability to do over the years (though this has likely waned), but most of them will simply not pay any attention to my political and economic views, because, well... abortion.... socialism....whatever.   I do not know how to confront or deal with this.

I would show them the video of Reza Aslan discussing white evangelical support for Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7pnPlQLcY) and asking them what they think of it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on September 03, 2020, 05:21:56 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 02, 2020, 07:28:55 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 02, 2020, 06:28:18 AM
I live in HEWM country;  rural, poor, and maybe 3% people of color. My county will vote for Biden when hell freezes over, cuz all those colored people and gay people and men in dresses and jesus haters are comin' for their jobs.   There's simply no way to put a shiny academic gloss on the way many of my kinfolk view the world:  out to get them and their white, Christian way of life.

Most people vote from a point of view of self-interest. Do they actually speak of 'colored people?' I haven't heard that one much since the sixties. Just curious.

Much more subtle....like taking out the black pres when he was pres.....Oh yeah....confederate flags in houses and nig......
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on September 03, 2020, 05:26:43 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 02, 2020, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 02, 2020, 06:28:18 AM
I live in HEWM country;  rural, poor, and maybe 3% people of color. My county will vote for Biden when hell freezes over, cuz all those colored people and gay people and men in dresses and jesus haters are comin' for their jobs.   There's simply no way to put a shiny academic gloss on the way many of my kinfolk view the world:  out to get them and their white, Christian way of life.

I don't know about "coming for their jobs," but the rest is a pretty accurate summary of the stakes of American elections these days.  But, by all means, mock their fears in the months before you do the very things they're afraid of.

OK MODS:   I realize I'm going to cross a line here, so I accept any punishment you deem fit.  Writingprof....you are simply full of shit and don't deserve a reasoned response, since you are incapable of rational thought.  That is all.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on September 03, 2020, 05:39:18 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 02, 2020, 06:19:01 PM
You're right, adjuncts do not have much clout, much ability to influence bad trends in academia, trends which work against liberals' electoral fortunes, because there are a whole lot more HEWMs than us.  I am not sure what we can do about this, but I will not be silent with respect to trying to convince educated liberals not to act like this, in order that we all might better convince the HEWMs to vote more intelligently. In my own church, this is very hard, because most of these people, though I guess/ think most of them respect my education and have enjoyed some of my historical teaching I have had limited ability to do over the years (though this has likely waned), but most of them will simply not pay any attention to my political and economic views, because, well... abortion.... socialism....whatever.   I do not know how to confront or deal with this.

My conservative, Christian, confederate flag waving cousins know this about me.  One even called me that Obama woman...and they still love me (some of them).  I think it is because, oddly enough, i respect them and don't belittle or argue with them.  We let sleeping dogs lie.  However,  they will continue to vote for Trump, until pink lipsticked pigs fly.  They will continue to vote for county council members who continue to lead the county toward financial ruin.  They will continue to vote for school board members who decided in an emergency meeting 3 days before school was to open, to go totally online....without complete lack of preparation.  There is  a sense of helplessness here;  a sense that it's been this way for so long, that it won't/can't change.  As in many mid western communities where agriculture has been the economic lifeblood, we've been a one industry county for 80 years.....until we weren't.  It's sad and depressing.....and covid continues to divide us.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 03, 2020, 06:33:48 AM
Quote from: spork on September 03, 2020, 04:34:46 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 02, 2020, 06:19:01 PM
You're right, adjuncts do not have much clout, much ability to influence bad trends in academia, trends which work against liberals' electoral fortunes, because there are a whole lot more HEWMs than us.  I am not sure what we can do about this, but I will not be silent with respect to trying to convince educated liberals not to act like this, in order that we all might better convince the HEWMs to vote more intelligently.  In my own church, this is very hard, because most of these people, though I guess/ think most of them respect my education and have enjoyed some of my historical teaching I have had limited ability to do over the years (though this has likely waned), but most of them will simply not pay any attention to my political and economic views, because, well... abortion.... socialism....whatever.   I do not know how to confront or deal with this.

I would show them the video of Reza Aslan discussing white evangelical support for Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7pnPlQLcY) and asking them what they think of it.

I would show them that and then this also. Then they wouldn't feel like they're being pressured.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyufeHJlodE

I'm pretty sure when Rezan says evangelicals have admitted they no longer care about the morality of the candidate, the red state church attending HEWM's would answer, the left, having no belief in absolute morality (that that comes directly from God) are in no position to challenge them on that. But rather than articulate it that way, they'd just say 'and who do think is better than Trump? Hillary, who uses her joke of a marriage to make herself look respectable?'
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on September 03, 2020, 08:52:33 AM
I always get a kick out of those voters who aver that their vote is determined by a candidate's or party's policies. 

I had a Kenyan friend in grad school who told me that in Kenya, Luo voters vote for Luo candidates, Kikuyu voters vote for Kikuyu candidates and so on down the ballot.

Thanks to Facebook and other social media, Americans have been able to create tribes where none previously existed.

So, assuming we ever did vote for policy, we now vote for the leader of our political tribe, regardless of what they actually stand for.  It's a lousy way to run a country, but it's sure easier than thinking.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 03, 2020, 09:11:50 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on September 03, 2020, 08:52:33 AM
I always get a kick out of those voters who aver that their vote is determined by a candidate's or party's policies. 

I had a Kenyan friend in grad school who told me that in Kenya, Luo voters vote for Luo candidates, Kikuyu voters vote for Kikuyu candidates and so on down the ballot.

Thanks to Facebook and other social media, Americans have been able to create tribes where none previously existed.

So, assuming we ever did vote for policy, we now vote for the leader of our political tribe, regardless of what they actually stand for.  It's a lousy way to run a country, but it's sure easier than thinking.

Political parties, party membership, and partisan voting have been around for centuries. The percentage of voters who aren't automatically going to vote for a specific party has probably been relatively small for most of that time.

How many people here planning to vote Democrat this time have voted Republican any time in the last 20 (or more) years?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on September 03, 2020, 09:15:28 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 03, 2020, 06:33:48 AM
Quote from: spork on September 03, 2020, 04:34:46 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 02, 2020, 06:19:01 PM
You're right, adjuncts do not have much clout, much ability to influence bad trends in academia, trends which work against liberals' electoral fortunes, because there are a whole lot more HEWMs than us.  I am not sure what we can do about this, but I will not be silent with respect to trying to convince educated liberals not to act like this, in order that we all might better convince the HEWMs to vote more intelligently.  In my own church, this is very hard, because most of these people, though I guess/ think most of them respect my education and have enjoyed some of my historical teaching I have had limited ability to do over the years (though this has likely waned), but most of them will simply not pay any attention to my political and economic views, because, well... abortion.... socialism....whatever.   I do not know how to confront or deal with this.

I would show them the video of Reza Aslan discussing white evangelical support for Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7pnPlQLcY) and asking them what they think of it.

I would show them that and then this also. Then they wouldn't feel like they're being pressured.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyufeHJlodE

I'm pretty sure when Rezan says evangelicals have admitted they no longer care about the morality of the candidate, the red state church attending HEWM's would answer, the left, having no belief in absolute morality (that that comes directly from God) are in no position to challenge them on that. But rather than articulate it that way, they'd just say 'and who do think is better than Trump? Hillary, who uses her joke of a marriage to make herself look respectable?'

That's the thing that saddens and worries me so much about the support for Trump among so many church members.  They are so frightened and so convinced that they are in need of a political "protector" that they are prepared to support absolutely anybody who offers to fill that role.  They're seeking protection from a Godless man instead of relying on God.  It's a very bad sign for their spiritual condition.  They--and all of their fellow church members who haven't fallen for the delusion--are going to pay a high price for that false god of theirs.

It's enough to make me suspect that Trump is the Devil's trial run prototype for the Antichrist.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on September 03, 2020, 09:19:12 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 03, 2020, 09:11:50 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on September 03, 2020, 08:52:33 AM
I always get a kick out of those voters who aver that their vote is determined by a candidate's or party's policies. 

I had a Kenyan friend in grad school who told me that in Kenya, Luo voters vote for Luo candidates, Kikuyu voters vote for Kikuyu candidates and so on down the ballot.

Thanks to Facebook and other social media, Americans have been able to create tribes where none previously existed.

So, assuming we ever did vote for policy, we now vote for the leader of our political tribe, regardless of what they actually stand for.  It's a lousy way to run a country, but it's sure easier than thinking.

Political parties, party membership, and partisan voting have been around for centuries. The percentage of voters who aren't automatically going to vote for a specific party has probably been relatively small for most of that time.

How many people here planning to vote Democrat this time have voted Republican any time in the last 20 (or more) years?

Well, you're right that there's nothing truly unprecdented about this sort of thing, but artem's got a point about how social media has aggravated existing political divides.  It's turned old-fashioned partisan divides into atavistic tribal allegiances.  It's one of several ways in which our level of civilization seems to be running backwards now.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on September 03, 2020, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 03, 2020, 09:19:12 AM

Well, you're right that there's nothing truly unprecdented about this sort of thing, but artem's got a point about how social media has aggravated existing political divides.  It's turned old-fashioned partisan divides into atavistic tribal allegiances.  It's one of several ways in which our level of civilization seems to be running backwards now.

Agreed.

WaPo had a really elegant suggestion - require all political posts to be seen by everyone, not just a targeted audience. That way, if something were ridiculous or partisan, everyone would see it. Not just the true believers whose ideas would be reinforced.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: onehappyunicorn on September 03, 2020, 10:29:56 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 03, 2020, 09:11:50 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on September 03, 2020, 08:52:33 AM
I always get a kick out of those voters who aver that their vote is determined by a candidate's or party's policies. 

I had a Kenyan friend in grad school who told me that in Kenya, Luo voters vote for Luo candidates, Kikuyu voters vote for Kikuyu candidates and so on down the ballot.

Thanks to Facebook and other social media, Americans have been able to create tribes where none previously existed.

So, assuming we ever did vote for policy, we now vote for the leader of our political tribe, regardless of what they actually stand for.  It's a lousy way to run a country, but it's sure easier than thinking.

Political parties, party membership, and partisan voting have been around for centuries. The percentage of voters who aren't automatically going to vote for a specific party has probably been relatively small for most of that time.

How many people here planning to vote Democrat this time have voted Republican any time in the last 20 (or more) years?

I have in local and state elections when I have known some of the candidates fairly well and when I agreed with at least a majority of their policies. I don't much care what a candidate's stand is on certain issues is if they have no power to affect change in said issue, unless of course their stand is horribly vitriolic. I freely admit that once the Tea Party folks started getting power I have progressively voted more and more straight party line D. I sincerely wish it was different and that we had more than two parties in this country.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on September 03, 2020, 10:45:32 AM
Quote from: onehappyunicorn on September 03, 2020, 10:29:56 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 03, 2020, 09:11:50 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on September 03, 2020, 08:52:33 AM
I always get a kick out of those voters who aver that their vote is determined by a candidate's or party's policies. 

I had a Kenyan friend in grad school who told me that in Kenya, Luo voters vote for Luo candidates, Kikuyu voters vote for Kikuyu candidates and so on down the ballot.

Thanks to Facebook and other social media, Americans have been able to create tribes where none previously existed.

So, assuming we ever did vote for policy, we now vote for the leader of our political tribe, regardless of what they actually stand for.  It's a lousy way to run a country, but it's sure easier than thinking.

Political parties, party membership, and partisan voting have been around for centuries. The percentage of voters who aren't automatically going to vote for a specific party has probably been relatively small for most of that time.

How many people here planning to vote Democrat this time have voted Republican any time in the last 20 (or more) years?

I have in local and state elections when I have known some of the candidates fairly well and when I agreed with at least a majority of their policies. I don't much care what a candidate's stand is on certain issues is if they have no power to affect change in said issue, unless of course their stand is horribly vitriolic. I freely admit that once the Tea Party folks started getting power I have progressively voted more and more straight party line D. I sincerely wish it was different and that we had more than two parties in this country.

I wish we had two parties that could be truer to the best in their own respective heritages.  They each have an honorable past.  Their presents are another thing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 03, 2020, 11:07:42 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 03, 2020, 10:45:32 AM
I wish we had two parties that could be truer to the best in their own respective heritages.  They each have an honorable past.  Their presents are another thing.

It seems to me that much of the Democratic party's honorable past consists of racist populism.  Heck, so might their future: Political coalitions evolve.  The important thing is that a nation with an education gulf as wide as ours will always produce populist political movements, and nations with multiple races will always struggle with the politics of racism. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Descartes on September 03, 2020, 12:36:05 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 02, 2020, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 02, 2020, 06:28:18 AM
I live in HEWM country;  rural, poor, and maybe 3% people of color. My county will vote for Biden when hell freezes over, cuz all those colored people and gay people and men in dresses and jesus haters are comin' for their jobs.   There's simply no way to put a shiny academic gloss on the way many of my kinfolk view the world:  out to get them and their white, Christian way of life.

I don't know about "coming for their jobs," but the rest is a pretty accurate summary of the stakes of American elections these days.  But, by all means, mock their fears in the months before you do the very things they're afraid of.

Yep. 

Men in dresses, athiests, and blacks don't bother me or alarm me.  Socialists and the challenging of our way of life do. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on September 03, 2020, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: Descartes on September 03, 2020, 12:36:05 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 02, 2020, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 02, 2020, 06:28:18 AM
I live in HEWM country;  rural, poor, and maybe 3% people of color. My county will vote for Biden when hell freezes over, cuz all those colored people and gay people and men in dresses and jesus haters are comin' for their jobs.   There's simply no way to put a shiny academic gloss on the way many of my kinfolk view the world:  out to get them and their white, Christian way of life.

I don't know about "coming for their jobs," but the rest is a pretty accurate summary of the stakes of American elections these days.  But, by all means, mock their fears in the months before you do the very things they're afraid of.

Yep. 

Men in dresses, athiests, and blacks don't bother me or alarm me.  Socialists and the challenging of our way of life do.

Because.... a for-profit health care system that leaves people bankrupt or dead; rampant gun ownership; homelessness and poverty really should not be challenged.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 03, 2020, 03:32:34 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 03, 2020, 02:31:34 PM
Because.... a for-profit health care system that leaves people bankrupt or dead; rampant gun ownership; homelessness and poverty really should not be challenged.

I just did a quick study, and it turns out that every kind of healthcare system leaves people dead.  As for guns, I wonder if you would take them from "B"lack people, too.  That sounds kind of racist.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on September 03, 2020, 03:52:00 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 03, 2020, 03:32:34 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 03, 2020, 02:31:34 PM
Because.... a for-profit health care system that leaves people bankrupt or dead; rampant gun ownership; homelessness and poverty really should not be challenged.

I just did a quick study, and it turns out that every kind of healthcare system leaves people dead.  As for guns, I wonder if you would take them from "B"lack people, too.  That sounds kind of racist.

That is in fact why California passed gun laws in the late 60's and early 70's. Blacks Panthers were openly carrying, as protection.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on September 03, 2020, 03:59:25 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 03, 2020, 03:52:00 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 03, 2020, 03:32:34 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 03, 2020, 02:31:34 PM
Because.... a for-profit health care system that leaves people bankrupt or dead; rampant gun ownership; homelessness and poverty really should not be challenged.

I just did a quick study, and it turns out that every kind of healthcare system leaves people dead.  As for guns, I wonder if you would take them from "B"lack people, too.  That sounds kind of racist.

And they also carried into the state capitol. Sound familiar?

https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-gun-laws-policy-explained/

That is in fact why California passed gun laws in the late 60's and early 70's. Blacks Panthers were openly carrying, as protection.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 03, 2020, 04:16:46 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 03, 2020, 03:32:34 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 03, 2020, 02:31:34 PM
Because.... a for-profit health care system that leaves people bankrupt or dead; rampant gun ownership; homelessness and poverty really should not be challenged.

I just did a quick study, and it turns out that every kind of healthcare system leaves people dead.


Some leave more dead and bankrupt than others.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on September 03, 2020, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 03, 2020, 04:16:46 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 03, 2020, 03:32:34 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 03, 2020, 02:31:34 PM
Because.... a for-profit health care system that leaves people bankrupt or dead; rampant gun ownership; homelessness and poverty really should not be challenged.

I just did a quick study, and it turns out that every kind of healthcare system leaves people dead.


Some leave more dead and bankrupt than others.

Look, comparing health systems takes lots of work, and requires understanding of more than one discipline. Buzz words will not do.

An imperfect catch-all result, from the Wikipedia entry for Race and Health in the US:

QuoteThe vast majority of studies focus on the black-white contrast, but a rapidly growing literature describes variations in health status among America's increasingly diverse racial populations. Today, Asian Americans live the longest (86.3 years), followed by Latinos (81.9 years), whites (78.6 years), Native Americans (77.4 years), and African Americans (75.0 years).

Looks like those rich Asian Americans and rich Latino's discriminate against poor Whites and other poor minorities! :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on September 03, 2020, 08:45:28 PM
Random observations:

1) I used to be a Republican, did not change registration till 2010, voted for Republican candidates consistently through 2004.   When asked why I changed, I usually say something like 'I got bitten in the ass by reality'-- as Keynes said, 'when the facts change I change my mind-- what do you do, sir?'

2)  apl is right to note that Trump is and continues to do enormous damage to the evangelical church.   Many  Millennials and Gen Zers, even those raised in evangelical homes, are running away from the church in disgust, and many will not be back.   Given the manifest sins and malfeasance of Americans, I generally refer to Trump as God's judgment against America.

3) I will look  at those suggested videos soon, but the question more properly would be, not whether I should give such videos, assorted literature, etc., to my church friends to watch/ read, but how might I get them to do that?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: little bongo on September 03, 2020, 09:37:39 PM
I found you can possibly accomplish, and definitely learn, a great deal just by talking and listening to the people who do a lot of work in your area--my area is mostly red, although I am seeing more Democratic signs than I did four years back. One example--the roto-rooter guy was busy in my basement, and we were getting into some deep discussions about my basement toilet, something of a fixture in this part of the state. He went on to explain that I should hold on to this toilet as long as I could, with its appropriately powerful flush, as opposed to water-saving toilets that flush less. Pipes were built a certain way to accommodate a certain amount of flush, roughly speaking.

Now this was not long after President Trump was getting mocked for going on about flushing and re-flushing toilets. And I, too, thought he was just spewing the vomit from his mind as is his wont. And at that moment with the roto-rooter guy, I realized--the President was talking about a real thing. And there were probably a lot of people listening who recognized what he was saying as a real thing. I'm not going to say, "a lot of people don't realize this about toilets"--I may be the only one on this forum who didn't know that before. But just chatting and listening, you can connect with mutual respect.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 04, 2020, 05:09:14 AM
All true, but I don't hire a President to fix my toilets.

Anyway, the outcomes of local and state races have a greater effect on people's day-to-day lives. How many people know the name of their town council or state assembly representative? I grew up in a town run by a board of selectmen -- three people. And the town clerk. So four. There was a K-12 school district of five adjoining towns with a school board and a superintendent. That was basically it. Everyone knew who they were because they were neighbors. Woe to the nearest selectman or school board member if the street didn't get plowed after a snowstorm or the school bus didn't run on time.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 04, 2020, 05:15:15 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 03, 2020, 08:45:28 PM
2)  apl is right to note that Trump is and continues to do enormous damage to the evangelical church.   Many  Millennials and Gen Zers, even those raised in evangelical homes, are running away from the church in disgust, and many will not be back.   Given the manifest sins and malfeasance of Americans, I generally refer to Trump as God's judgment against America.

I don't disagree, but it's worth noting that Trump does best among "evangelicals" who never go to church.  Non-Christians, in other words.  In my own conservative denomination, the Bible is preached, the pews are full, and dislike of Trump is pretty universal.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Descartes on September 04, 2020, 12:05:48 PM
As though young people weren't already leaving in huge numbers BEFORE Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on September 04, 2020, 09:27:31 PM
Not like this, no.   Trump and evangelical obsequious obeisance and power-seeking towards him are vastly increasing the revulsion and disgust younger people, including those raised in evangelical homes, towards not only Trump, but also the evangelical church that supports him.  Writingprof is absolutely correct to note that most of Trump's hard-core 'evangelical' supporters are largely notional ones, nominal, etc., not regular churchgoers, full of, ahem, well you get the idea, but many much more serious evangelical believers have also caught the Trump virus, such as the people in my church.  Try as I might, I cannot convince them even to consider arguments against him.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 05, 2020, 09:21:11 AM
I had little patience with Christians (or "Christians") who voted for Trump in '16.  I feel differently now and will almost certainly vote for him myself.  How else can one register one's disgust with the riots, BLM, Antifa, et cetera?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dr_codex on September 05, 2020, 09:45:26 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 05, 2020, 09:21:11 AM
I had little patience with Christians (or "Christians") who voted for Trump in '16.  I feel differently now and will almost certainly vote for him myself. How else can one register one's disgust with the riots, BLM, Antifa, et cetera?

How, indeed.

https://tenor.com/OHV6.gif[url]] (http://[/url)https://tenor.com/OHV6.gif//

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on September 05, 2020, 09:46:32 AM
One might say that the Democrats are not responsible for those riots, which have always been consistently condemned by Biden, etc., but that Trump actually shares a good part of the blame, for fostering the atmosphere of racism, etc., that leads white cops to think they can shoot black guys in the back, etc., and for his incompetence in dealing with covid, which has greatly increased tensions nationwide.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on September 05, 2020, 10:01:14 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 05, 2020, 09:21:11 AM
I had little patience with Christians (or "Christians") who voted for Trump in '16.  I feel differently now and will almost certainly vote for him myself.  How else can one register one's disgust with the riots, BLM, Antifa, et cetera?

If I felt as you I would simply not vote in this election. I have made that choice (rarely) in state elections, but would not be uncomfortable opting to in a Presidential race. I'd be depressed, yes I would. But I'd do it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 05, 2020, 07:46:47 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 05, 2020, 09:46:32 AM
One might say that the Democrats are not responsible for those riots . . .

The people who are rioting are themselves Democrats.

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 05, 2020, 09:46:32 AM
. . . which have always been consistently condemned by Biden, etc. . .

Biden has not condemned Antifa by name, nor has he acknowledged that many of BLM's leaders are insane Marxist terrorists.

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 05, 2020, 09:46:32 AM
. . . but that Trump actually shares a good part of the blame, for fostering the atmosphere of racism, etc., that leads white cops to think they can shoot black guys in the back, etc . . .

This is just silly.  No cop is doing political analysis in the heat of the moment.  And if any are, the analysis is running in the other direction: "If I shoot this guy, I'll be despised by everyone for the rest of my life."

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 05, 2020, 09:46:32 AM
. . . and for his incompetence in dealing with covid, which has greatly increased tensions nationwide.

It's not at all clear to me that he has been incompetent.  Do you simultaneously believe that Andrew Cuomo is a COVID hero?  If so, bless your heart.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 05, 2020, 07:50:02 PM
...and Obama still refuses to say 'radical Islamic terrorism', mirite?


[/sarcasm, in case it wasn't clear]
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 05, 2020, 10:08:11 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 05, 2020, 09:21:11 AM
I had little patience with Christians (or "Christians") who voted for Trump in '16.  I feel differently now and will almost certainly vote for him myself.  How else can one register one's disgust with the riots, BLM, Antifa, et cetera?

This is the problem. With so much insanity around it is getting more costly to vote for someone who's the lesser of two evils.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on September 06, 2020, 06:46:34 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 05, 2020, 09:21:11 AM
I had little patience with Christians (or "Christians") who voted for Trump in '16.  I feel differently now and will almost certainly vote for him myself.  How else can one register one's disgust with the riots, BLM, Antifa, et cetera?

By the same token, I'm voting, at the very least, to register my disgust with organized militias showing up to mano-a-mano fights with visible semi-automatic weapons, with every intention to intimidate & taunt visibly unarmed protesters into an excuse to shoot in self-defense.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on September 06, 2020, 09:01:51 AM
Quote from: little bongo on September 03, 2020, 09:37:39 PM
I found you can possibly accomplish, and definitely learn, a great deal just by talking and listening to the people who do a lot of work in your area--my area is mostly red, although I am seeing more Democratic signs than I did four years back. One example--the roto-rooter guy was busy in my basement, and we were getting into some deep discussions about my basement toilet, something of a fixture in this part of the state. He went on to explain that I should hold on to this toilet as long as I could, with its appropriately powerful flush, as opposed to water-saving toilets that flush less. Pipes were built a certain way to accommodate a certain amount of flush, roughly speaking.

Now this was not long after President Trump was getting mocked for going on about flushing and re-flushing toilets. And I, too, thought he was just spewing the vomit from his mind as is his wont. And at that moment with the roto-rooter guy, I realized--the President was talking about a real thing. And there were probably a lot of people listening who recognized what he was saying as a real thing. I'm not going to say, "a lot of people don't realize this about toilets"--I may be the only one on this forum who didn't know that before. But just chatting and listening, you can connect with mutual respect.

I will be vague on details but there is a famous story about some east coast politician who tried to bond with blue collar guys in a tavern and ended up ordering fine cognac.   This would have been in the late 60's or early 70's.   Can someone here maybe flesh this out for me?   

I just don't trust politicians who have never worked outside of a law office.  I want more farmer statesmen like Cato.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 06, 2020, 09:45:41 AM
Quote from: Anselm on September 06, 2020, 09:01:51 AM
I want more farmer statesmen like Cato.

So, basically, rule by slave owners?  Sounds good to me, but will the protesters go for it?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 09, 2020, 05:42:33 AM
Long but good analysis of Susan Collins' fall from grace among Maine voters:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/maine-turned-on-susan-collins.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/maine-turned-on-susan-collins.html).

Summary: Trump destroys everything he comes into contact with.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 09, 2020, 04:45:04 PM
Can someone please explain to me why the Washington Post is reporting that Biden's people photoshopped the Washington Redskins' logo out of a forty-plus-year-old picture of Biden and his son?  It's a sweet picture.  In the 1980s, the Washington Redskins existed.  Children wore their merchandise, sometimes without racist intent.  It's stupid and unnecessary to photoshop the image out.  But.  Seriously.  Why is this news?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2020, 05:05:54 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 09, 2020, 04:45:04 PM
Can someone please explain to me why the Washington Post is reporting that Biden's people photoshopped the Washington Redskins' logo out of a forty-plus-year-old picture of Biden and his son?  It's a sweet picture.  In the 1980s, the Washington Redskins existed.  Children wore their merchandise, sometimes without racist intent.  It's stupid and unnecessary to photoshop the image out.  But.  Seriously.  Why is this news?

I think it has something to do with Biden and his campaign being built more on show than substance. I genuinely think he and the people around him don't actually understand the moment we're in. As in: they know there's a moment, they know people have concerns, but they don't think they need to do anything particularly substantive to address them (perhaps they don't even really know what to do to address them). As far as they're concerned, it all boils down to appearances. Kind of like the spokesperson for the Conservative Party here, who recently told a journalist on CBC that the Tories were going to be appealing to millennials by posting things on Instagram. Not with any policies, just social media crap. We're 23-38, FFS!

It's pretty rare that we agree, but this time, I agree: removing the logo from the photo was a mistake. Not because of questions of intent pertaining to his son and the hat or whatever--the logo was straight-up offensive, as was the team's name--but because the photo is a historical document, and people understand that. We're not stupid. Plus, if you're worried about the logo in the photo, then don't use the photo as a public document.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: quasihumanist on September 09, 2020, 05:34:15 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2020, 05:05:54 PM(perhaps they don't even really know what to do to address them).

No one does.  The US is ungovernable.

BLM: Police should stop shooting Black people.
Most people: Yeah police should stop shooting Black people.
Police: We took this job only because we got to shoot people, you know...
Politicians quietly ask around: Anyone willing and capable of taking up some of the police job without shooting people?
People: <crickets>
Most people: I guess it's better for the police to shoot Black people than shoot us.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 10, 2020, 04:48:44 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2020, 05:05:54 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 09, 2020, 04:45:04 PM
Can someone please explain to me why the Washington Post is reporting that Biden's people photoshopped the Washington Redskins' logo out of a forty-plus-year-old picture of Biden and his son?  It's a sweet picture.  In the 1980s, the Washington Redskins existed.  Children wore their merchandise, sometimes without racist intent.  It's stupid and unnecessary to photoshop the image out.  But.  Seriously.  Why is this news?

I think it has something to do with Biden and his campaign being built more on show than substance. I genuinely think he and the people around him don't actually understand the moment we're in. As in: they know there's a moment, they know people have concerns, but they don't think they need to do anything particularly substantive to address them (perhaps they don't even really know what to do to address them). As far as they're concerned, it all boils down to appearances. Kind of like the spokesperson for the Conservative Party here, who recently told a journalist on CBC that the Tories were going to be appealing to millennials by posting things on Instagram. Not with any policies, just social media crap. We're 23-38, FFS!

It's pretty rare that we agree, but this time, I agree: removing the logo from the photo was a mistake. Not because of questions of intent pertaining to his son and the hat or whatever--the logo was straight-up offensive, as was the team's name--but because the photo is a historical document, and people understand that. We're not stupid. Plus, if you're worried about the logo in the photo, then don't use the photo as a public document.

Yes, well said.

Quote from: quasihumanist on September 09, 2020, 05:34:15 PM
BLM: Police should stop shooting Black people.
Most people: Yeah police should stop shooting Black people.
Police: We took this job only because we got to shoot people, you know...
Politicians quietly ask around: Anyone willing and capable of taking up some of the police job without shooting people?
People: <crickets>
Most people: I guess it's better for the police to shoot Black people than shoot us.

Wow.  If you have a recording of this conversation, you should definitely release it.  It might make some waves here.

But, seriously, your last line ought to be "I guess it's better for the police to shoot criminals than for criminals to shoot us."  That actually is what most people believe.  Indeed, the next woman whom Jacob Blake would have raped is delighted that he's now unlikely to do so."
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on September 10, 2020, 06:13:10 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 10, 2020, 04:48:44 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2020, 05:05:54 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 09, 2020, 04:45:04 PM
Can someone please explain to me why the Washington Post is reporting that Biden's people photoshopped the Washington Redskins' logo out of a forty-plus-year-old picture of Biden and his son?  It's a sweet picture.  In the 1980s, the Washington Redskins existed.  Children wore their merchandise, sometimes without racist intent.  It's stupid and unnecessary to photoshop the image out.  But.  Seriously.  Why is this news?

I think it has something to do with Biden and his campaign being built more on show than substance. I genuinely think he and the people around him don't actually understand the moment we're in. As in: they know there's a moment, they know people have concerns, but they don't think they need to do anything particularly substantive to address them (perhaps they don't even really know what to do to address them). As far as they're concerned, it all boils down to appearances. Kind of like the spokesperson for the Conservative Party here, who recently told a journalist on CBC that the Tories were going to be appealing to millennials by posting things on Instagram. Not with any policies, just social media crap. We're 23-38, FFS!

It's pretty rare that we agree, but this time, I agree: removing the logo from the photo was a mistake. Not because of questions of intent pertaining to his son and the hat or whatever--the logo was straight-up offensive, as was the team's name--but because the photo is a historical document, and people understand that. We're not stupid. Plus, if you're worried about the logo in the photo, then don't use the photo as a public document.

Yes, well said.

Quote from: quasihumanist on September 09, 2020, 05:34:15 PM
BLM: Police should stop shooting Black people.
Most people: Yeah police should stop shooting Black people.
Police: We took this job only because we got to shoot people, you know...
Politicians quietly ask around: Anyone willing and capable of taking up some of the police job without shooting people?
People: <crickets>
Most people: I guess it's better for the police to shoot Black people than shoot us.

Wow.  If you have a recording of this conversation, you should definitely release it.  It might make some waves here.

But, seriously, your last line ought to be "I guess it's better for the police to shoot criminals than for criminals to shoot us."  That actually is what most people believe.  Indeed, the next woman whom Jacob Blake would have raped is delighted that he's now unlikely to do so."

Blake faced charges of having sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has three children in common....NOT RAPE.  I don't condone his actions but at least get your facts straight.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 10, 2020, 06:50:00 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 10, 2020, 06:13:10 AM
Blake faced charges of having sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has three children in common....NOT RAPE.  I don't condone his actions but at least get your facts straight.

Thank you.  We now know what it takes to get the Left to minimize sexual violence: blackness.  Sounds like privilege to me.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 07:44:13 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 10, 2020, 06:13:10 AM
Blake faced charges of having sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has three children in common....NOT RAPE.  I don't condone his actions but at least get your facts straight.

I'm honestly curious here about what definitions you're applying to each of these. As far as I know, "sexual assault" has essentially just replaced "rape" as the term for the same thing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on September 10, 2020, 08:21:26 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on September 10, 2020, 06:13:10 AM
Blake faced charges of having sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has three children in common....NOT RAPE.  I don't condone his actions but at least get your facts straight.

Sexual assault is a broader term. It can mean rape, typically defined as phallic penetration, but can also include a number of non-consensual activities.

Still, whatever he was accused of, does not condone shooting him.

In the back.

7 times.

While he was of no immediate physical threat to anyone.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on September 10, 2020, 08:32:21 AM
Of course, what kind of defense is this?  "He did some very bad things, so therefore police are justified in using excessive force in an unrelated instance"

More generally, people have really absorbed the "law and order" propaganda by elevating the protests and riots (most of the protests are peaceful, of course) to the top of their concerns this election.  And I don't use the word propaganda loosely, as the whistle blower report in the news today accuses the administration of downplaying the risks of white nationalism and upplaying the threat of antifa and other leftwing groups.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 09:00:48 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 10, 2020, 08:32:21 AM
Of course, what kind of defense is this?  "He did some very bad things, so therefore police are justified in using excessive force in an unrelated instance"

More generally, people have really absorbed the "law and order" propaganda by elevating the protests and riots (most of the protests are peaceful, of course) to the top of their concerns this election.  And I don't use the word propaganda loosely, as the whistle blower report in the news today accuses the administration of downplaying the risks of white nationalism and upplaying the threat of antifa and other leftwing groups.

Which is exactly the opposite of what the mainstream media does.

If doing something bad in another instance doesn't justify bad actions on the part of police, how does the fact that "most of the protests are peaceful" justify mostly ignoring the rioting that isn't?

Consistency in reporting is what is in very short supply all around.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on September 10, 2020, 09:53:27 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 09:00:48 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 10, 2020, 08:32:21 AM
Of course, what kind of defense is this?  "He did some very bad things, so therefore police are justified in using excessive force in an unrelated instance"

More generally, people have really absorbed the "law and order" propaganda by elevating the protests and riots (most of the protests are peaceful, of course) to the top of their concerns this election.  And I don't use the word propaganda loosely, as the whistle blower report in the news today accuses the administration of downplaying the risks of white nationalism and upplaying the threat of antifa and other leftwing groups.

Which is exactly the opposite of what the mainstream media does.

If doing something bad in another instance doesn't justify bad actions on the part of police, how does the fact that "most of the protests are peaceful" justify mostly ignoring the rioting that isn't?

Consistency in reporting is what is in very short supply all around.

I'm not justifying the rioting, just saying that it has been artificially elevated as a political issue. 

I'm also not defending the media, although certainly reporting from the NYTimes, Washington Post, and other major newspapers is mostly reliable and incredibly valuable in terms of holding leadership accountable (perhaps why the current leader of the US brands the free media an "enemy of the people").  Additionally, poor reporting from media is a world apart from purposeful misinformation by taxpayer funded government agencies (DHS in this case). 

Also, I must have missed the part where the media ignored the little bit of rioting that did happen.  They cover it constantly, to the point that one would think all of America's major cities are burning down (which they are not, of course). 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 10:06:50 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 10, 2020, 09:53:27 AM

I must have missed the part where the media ignored the little bit of rioting that did happen. 

"did" happen (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=261171)????

Quote
September 06, 2020 11:50

  There were 59 people arrested during the riot that took place Saturday night and Sunday morning. Forty-three were processed by the Portland Police Bureau.

Unless it's all stopped in the last couple of days, it's still going on.

Quote

They cover it constantly, to the point that one would think all of America's major cities are burning down (which they are not, of course).

From what I've seen, it's mostly cities with Democrat leadership that have ongoing riots.

Quote
I'm not justifying the rioting, just saying that it has been artificially elevated as a political issue. 

I'm also not defending the media, although certainly reporting from the NYTimes, Washington Post, and other major newspapers is mostly reliable and incredibly valuable in terms of holding leadership accountable

So why aren't the leaders of the cities with ongoing rioting being held accountable by those venerable institutions?

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on September 10, 2020, 10:36:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 10:06:50 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 10, 2020, 09:53:27 AM

I must have missed the part where the media ignored the little bit of rioting that did happen. 

"did" happen (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=261171)????

Quote
September 06, 2020 11:50

  There were 59 people arrested during the riot that took place Saturday night and Sunday morning. Forty-three were processed by the Portland Police Bureau.

Unless it's all stopped in the last couple of days, it's still going on.

Quote

They cover it constantly, to the point that one would think all of America's major cities are burning down (which they are not, of course).

From what I've seen, it's mostly cities with Democrat leadership that have ongoing riots.

Quote
I'm not justifying the rioting, just saying that it has been artificially elevated as a political issue. 

I'm also not defending the media, although certainly reporting from the NYTimes, Washington Post, and other major newspapers is mostly reliable and incredibly valuable in terms of holding leadership accountable

So why aren't the leaders of the cities with ongoing rioting being held accountable by those venerable institutions?

Very selective responses to my post, excluding the main point about disinformation and propaganda being used (quite effectively) to make people panic about "law and order," but here are few points:

(1) A small amount of rioting happened (your article is from Sept. 6), and a very small amount continues to happen in a few blocks of dt portland.  It is nevertheless a small and isolated issue and hardly the most pressing one in America, a country that is rapidly closing in on 200,000 COVID deaths and suffering through a major recession.

(2) You say "mostly cities with democratic leadership have rioting," which must be a response to me pointing out that rioting is very limited.  The way you are phrasing this conveniently diverts from my actual point: The vast majority of cities with Democratic leadership don't have rioting.  I would also note that the President is a Republican, and his followers are engaged in much of the civil unrest, so I assume you must be similarly upset about that? 

(3) The media is not perfect, and I never said it was.  However, media is holding leadership across the board accountable: Protests have been widely covered by the media (I would say excessively so) and it has been widely reported that Portland, for example, has Democratic leadership.  It has also been widely reported that Trump is amping up the tensions in an effort to change the subject away from COVID.  So the people are getting information from media that they can use to decide whether to reelect their leadership, at the local, state, and federal levels.  This is exactly the mechanism by which media can hold leaders accountable in a democracy. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 11:12:41 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 10, 2020, 10:36:13 AM

(1) A small amount of rioting happened (your article is from Sept. 6), and a very small amount continues to happen in a few blocks of dt portland.  It is nevertheless a small and isolated issue and hardly the most pressing one in America, a country that is rapidly closing in on 200,000 COVID deaths and suffering through a major recession.


The public attention span is very short. The situations that get the public attention closest to election day are what matters. A couple of months ago, Biden was up by 10-15 points on Trump; Trump's awful handling of covid was a big factor. However, the polls have gotten a lot closer. If the rioting was gone completely, it wouldn't be useable.

Quote
(2) You say "mostly cities with democratic leadership have rioting," which must be a response to me pointing out that rioting is very limited.  The way you are phrasing this conveniently diverts from my actual point: The vast majority of cities with Democratic leadership don't have rioting.  I would also note that the President is a Republican, and his followers are engaged in much of the civil unrest, so I assume you must be similarly upset about that? 

What matters is who voters think is responsible.

Quote
(3) The media is not perfect, and I never said it was.  However, media is holding leadership across the board accountable: Protests have been widely covered by the media (I would say excessively so) and it has been widely reported that Portland, for example, has Democratic leadership.  It has also been widely reported that Trump is amping up the tensions in an effort to change the subject away from COVID.  So the people are getting information from media that they can use to decide whether to reelect their leadership, at the local, state, and federal levels.  This is exactly the mechanism by which media can hold leaders accountable in a democracy.

For the record, I don't like Trump. If I were an American, I wouldn't have voted for him in 2016, and wouldn't in 2020. But it's kind of like watching a train wreck to see how oblivious most Democrats and Democrat supporters seem to be about what matters to the middle-of-the-road voters who could go either way. As long as they keep claiming anyone who votes for Trump must be a racist (or whatver other type of bigot you prefer), then they just alienate those people, who may indeed vote for Trump out of spite.

Where the riots occur, all the rioters have to do is shout "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" or wear BLM shirts and officials will be loathe to arrest them for fear of not appearing sufficiently "anti-racist". Most ordinary voters (including most ordinary *black people) can see through that scam and will avoid voting for politicians who are either too clueless to see it or too spineless to deal with it.

(About 80% of black people are NOT in favour of defunding the police.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 10, 2020, 11:35:45 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 11:12:41 AM

how oblivious most Democrats and Democrat supporters seem to be about what matters to the middle-of-the-road voters who could go either way.

I don't think there are as many of those as you seem to think there are. In fact, I rather doubt there are more of them than there are very left- or even right-leaning potential Democratic voters. Catering largely or exclusively to the interests of this tiny slice of the electoral pie at the expense of those other constituencies, which the Democrats take for granted--which seems like the strategy, just like it was in 2016--looks to me like cutting your nose off to spite your face. As someone whose nose was actually cut off (yes, literally), I know a thing or two about that scenario.

Quote
Where the riots occur, all the rioters have to do is shout "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" or wear BLM shirts and officials will be loathe to arrest them for fear of not appearing sufficiently "anti-racist".

Where have you been the last several months? Protestors have been assaulted and arrested en masse. In New York state, a judge recently ruled they could be held without charge indefinitely (rather than for 24 hours), because there were "too many to process and charge". Shouting "BLM" is a surefire way to have the police gas you, beat you down, drive their vehicles into you, club you in the pregnant belly, etc.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 11:44:10 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 10, 2020, 11:35:45 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 11:12:41 AM

how oblivious most Democrats and Democrat supporters seem to be about what matters to the middle-of-the-road voters who could go either way.

I don't think there are as many of those as you seem to think there are. In fact, I rather doubt there are more of them than there are very left- or even right-leaning potential Democratic voters. Catering largely or exclusively to the interests of this tiny slice of the electoral pie at the expense of those other constituencies, which the Democrats take for granted--which seems like the strategy, just like it was in 2016--looks to me like cutting your nose off to spite your face. As someone whose nose was actually cut off (yes, literally), I know a thing or two about that scenario.

So what happened to all of the people who voted for Obama (twice!)? I doubt there were a lot of far-right white supremacists among them. Did vast numbers of them get "supressed" for Trump to win? Or were there any significant number who switched? If so, those are the ones to investigate.


Quote


Quote
Where the riots occur, all the rioters have to do is shout "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" or wear BLM shirts and officials will be loathe to arrest them for fear of not appearing sufficiently "anti-racist".

Where have you been the last several months? Protestors have been assaulted and arrested en masse. In New York state, a judge recently ruled they could be held without charge indefinitely (rather than for 24 hours), because there were "too many to process and charge". Shouting "BLM" is a surefire way to have the police gas you, beat you down, drive their vehicles into you, club you in the pregnant belly, etc.

That illustrates my point; anyone saying "BLM" is clearly oppressed and mistreated. By definition.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 10, 2020, 12:06:59 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 11:44:10 AM

So what happened to all of the people who voted for Obama (twice!)? I doubt there were a lot of far-right white supremacists among them. Did vast numbers of them get "supressed" for Trump to win? Or were there any significant number who switched? If so, those are the ones to investigate.

My understanding is that ~9% of Obama voters voted Trump, 7% didn't vote, and 3% voted third party.

Of the 9% that switched to Trump, I'm not convinced that they're accurately described as 'moderates' who can be appealed to with straight-down-the-centre policies. Between Comey's ratfucking and Clinton's image problem, I rather suspect you snag a significant chunk of them.

Crucially, if you campaign and govern for that 9%, or give the impression that's only, or primarily, what you care about, you're excluding everyone else who votes for you. Or, rather, taking their support for granted. And that can easily backfire.


Quote

That illustrates my point; anyone saying "BLM" is clearly oppressed and mistreated. By definition.

Uh. By action, not definition. Their speech is being met with state-sanctioned violence. If you want to show how unoppressed they are, don't gas them or beat them down or arrest them. Or, you know: kill them for no good reason.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 02:39:47 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 10, 2020, 12:06:59 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 11:44:10 AM

So what happened to all of the people who voted for Obama (twice!)? I doubt there were a lot of far-right white supremacists among them. Did vast numbers of them get "supressed" for Trump to win? Or were there any significant number who switched? If so, those are the ones to investigate.

My understanding is that ~9% of Obama voters voted Trump, 7% didn't vote, and 3% voted third party.

Of the 9% that switched to Trump, I'm not convinced that they're accurately described as 'moderates' who can be appealed to with straight-down-the-centre policies. Between Comey's ratfucking and Clinton's image problem, I rather suspect you snag a significant chunk of them.

Crucially, if you campaign and govern for that 9%, or give the impression that's only, or primarily, what you care about, you're excluding everyone else who votes for you.


Of course you can't "only", or even "primarily" campaign for them; but you can avoid policies so focused on one end of the political spectrum that they feel excluded. Since when did "moderate" become an epithet?


Quote
Or, rather, taking their support for granted. And that can easily backfire.


Quote

That illustrates my point; anyone saying "BLM" is clearly oppressed and mistreated. By definition.

Uh. By action, not definition. Their speech is being met with state-sanctioned violence. If you want to show how unoppressed they are, don't gas them or beat them down or arrest them. Or, you know: kill them for no good reason.

On the right, there are lots of people (including Trump) who will claim to be Christians because it will score points with that audience. Similarly, on the left there are lots of people who will claim to be feminists, anti-racists, or whatever buzzphrase of the day will score points with that audience.

There was an editorial cartoon in the paper in 1991. It showed a big white guy with a TV on his shoulder, in front of the broken window of an electronics store. He's shouting "JUSTICE FOR RODNEY KING!" It was a priceless cartoon, because it illustrated the point. When there is some sort of popular movement, people can pretend to claim it as justification for all kinds of stupid things, whether it makes any sense or not. In Seattle in the CHOP (or CHAZ, or whatever), a couple of months ago, there were two black teenagers shot by the "security forces" (who I think were white). One of them died. How did that exhibit the degree to which "Black lives matter"??????

As I indicated, anyone rioting or looting will say "BLM" because it will make all kinds of politicians afraid to confront them, whether they give a toss for any black people or not.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: quasihumanist on September 10, 2020, 02:41:37 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 10, 2020, 04:48:44 AM
But, seriously, your last line ought to be "I guess it's better for the police to shoot criminals than for criminals to shoot us."  That actually is what most people believe.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

That's valuing their own life at 50 times that of the person who has a 2% chance of being a criminal.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

That's valuing the life of the criminal less than a TV set.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on September 10, 2020, 02:43:10 PM
Quote from: quasihumanist on September 10, 2020, 02:41:37 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 10, 2020, 04:48:44 AM
But, seriously, your last line ought to be "I guess it's better for the police to shoot criminals than for criminals to shoot us."  That actually is what most people believe.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

That's valuing their own life at 50 times that of the person who has a 2% chance of being a criminal.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

That's valuing the life of the criminal less than a TV set.

Deterrence, man, deterrence! :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on September 10, 2020, 03:07:42 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 11:12:41 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 10, 2020, 10:36:13 AM

(1) A small amount of rioting happened (your article is from Sept. 6), and a very small amount continues to happen in a few blocks of dt portland.  It is nevertheless a small and isolated issue and hardly the most pressing one in America, a country that is rapidly closing in on 200,000 COVID deaths and suffering through a major recession.


The public attention span is very short. The situations that get the public attention closest to election day are what matters. A couple of months ago, Biden was up by 10-15 points on Trump; Trump's awful handling of covid was a big factor. However, the polls have gotten a lot closer. If the rioting was gone completely, it wouldn't be useable.

Quote
(2) You say "mostly cities with democratic leadership have rioting," which must be a response to me pointing out that rioting is very limited.  The way you are phrasing this conveniently diverts from my actual point: The vast majority of cities with Democratic leadership don't have rioting.  I would also note that the President is a Republican, and his followers are engaged in much of the civil unrest, so I assume you must be similarly upset about that? 

What matters is who voters think is responsible.

Quote
(3) The media is not perfect, and I never said it was.  However, media is holding leadership across the board accountable: Protests have been widely covered by the media (I would say excessively so) and it has been widely reported that Portland, for example, has Democratic leadership.  It has also been widely reported that Trump is amping up the tensions in an effort to change the subject away from COVID.  So the people are getting information from media that they can use to decide whether to reelect their leadership, at the local, state, and federal levels.  This is exactly the mechanism by which media can hold leaders accountable in a democracy.

For the record, I don't like Trump. If I were an American, I wouldn't have voted for him in 2016, and wouldn't in 2020. But it's kind of like watching a train wreck to see how oblivious most Democrats and Democrat supporters seem to be about what matters to the middle-of-the-road voters who could go either way. As long as they keep claiming anyone who votes for Trump must be a racist (or whatver other type of bigot you prefer), then they just alienate those people, who may indeed vote for Trump out of spite.

Where the riots occur, all the rioters have to do is shout "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" or wear BLM shirts and officials will be loathe to arrest them for fear of not appearing sufficiently "anti-racist". Most ordinary voters (including most ordinary *black people) can see through that scam and will avoid voting for politicians who are either too clueless to see it or too spineless to deal with it.

(About 80% of black people are NOT in favour of defunding the police.)

(1) I agree that what matters is how voters feel, so to speak.  And if you look at my initial post you will see that my whole point is that voters are buying the myth that rioting is the most serious issue in the US.  So I guess we agree.

(2) You just showed me an article a few posts ago saying that ~50 people were arrested the other day in Portland, so obviously yelling BLM isn't preventing arrests.  In fact, the police (over)reaction to BLM protests is arguably what spurred sustained protests/rioting.

(3) Polls have not actually gotten a lot closer.  Look at 538 average and you'll see that Biden's standing in the polls has been remarkably steady.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 10, 2020, 03:24:29 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 02:39:47 PM

Since when did "moderate" become an epithet?

As soon as it became synonymous with 'everything is fine, we don't need to change anything'. For me, that was in the early aughts, in the face of repeated shrugging of shoulders about climate change. The exact timing may have been different for others. For others, (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html) maybe it was the realization that 'moderates' enable authoritarianism, and aren't actually very tolerant at all.


Quote

There was an editorial cartoon in the paper in 1991. It showed a big white guy with a TV on his shoulder, in front of the broken window of an electronics store. He's shouting "JUSTICE FOR RODNEY KING!" It was a priceless cartoon, because it illustrated the point. When there is some sort of popular movement, people can pretend to claim it as justification for all kinds of stupid things, whether it makes any sense or not.

These editorial cartoons were common throughout the civil rights era. There's a famous one of MLK telling an official he's planning another peaceful protest tomorrow while in the background, there's some property damage. Those cartoons are part of an old propaganda effort to deny people rights because their expressions of outrage don't conform to your desires. There is no form of protest that's acceptable to these people. They're all roundly condemned on one pretext or another.

More generally, imagine you applied this principle to other things. For instance, democracies would be undesirable and evil and bad because the US has used its democracy to cage children and overthrow legitimate governments. It's a stupid principle. The generalization is a bad one. And it's bad precisely because it ignores salient features of the case.

Quote
In Seattle in the CHOP (or CHAZ, or whatever), a couple of months ago, there were two black teenagers shot by the "security forces" (who I think were white). One of them died. How did that exhibit the degree to which "Black lives matter"??????

It indicated that Black lives do not, in fact, matter much. It indicated that any number of inanimate objects or white feelings matter more. And that's wrong.

Quote
As I indicated, anyone rioting or looting will say "BLM" because it will make all kinds of politicians afraid to confront them, whether they give a toss for any black people or not.

And yet they keep being gassed, assaulted, wrongly imprisoned, killed, etc. by arms of the state. That's pretty clear evidence that the state is not afraid to confront them. Time and time again, weapons > speech.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 10, 2020, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: quasihumanist on September 10, 2020, 02:41:37 PM
Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

Are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police are criminals?  Or are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police would have otherwise gone on to murder someone?  The former is obviously false.  The latter is unknowable.

Quote from: quasihumanist on September 10, 2020, 02:41:37 PM
Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

I can't speak for others here, but my own belief is that the very best thing is for me to shoot the criminal who's taking my TV.  I see no reason to involve the police, unless it's so they can pin a medal on me after we fill out the justifiable-homicide paperwork.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2020, 06:42:03 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 10, 2020, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: quasihumanist on September 10, 2020, 02:41:37 PM
Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

Are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police are criminals?  Or are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police would have otherwise gone on to murder someone?  The former is obviously false.  The latter is unknowable.

Quote from: quasihumanist on September 10, 2020, 02:41:37 PM
Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

I can't speak for others here, but my own belief is that the very best thing is for me to shoot the criminal who's taking my TV.  I see no reason to involve the police, unless it's so they can pin a medal on me after we fill out the justifiable-homicide paperwork.

First, I don't think there is a state in this nation in which stealing a TV is justifiable homicide.

Second, I'm not sure I believe you even own a gun.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 10, 2020, 06:59:22 PM
Third, what quasihumanist said was that the 2% chance is that (1) the person is a criminal AND (2) is likely to shoot the cop. Not that 2% of people actually shot by police are criminals, or would have killed someone.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on September 11, 2020, 05:33:24 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2020, 06:42:03 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 10, 2020, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: quasihumanist on September 10, 2020, 02:41:37 PM
Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

Are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police are criminals?  Or are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police would have otherwise gone on to murder someone?  The former is obviously false.  The latter is unknowable.

Quote from: quasihumanist on September 10, 2020, 02:41:37 PM
Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

I can't speak for others here, but my own belief is that the very best thing is for me to shoot the criminal who's taking my TV.  I see no reason to involve the police, unless it's so they can pin a medal on me after we fill out the justifiable-homicide paperwork.

First, I don't think there is a state in this nation in which stealing a TV is justifiable homicide.

But if he or she does own a gun, I foresee harm to his or her own body parts, rather than the TV or the thief.  Unless there's a barn door nearby.....
Second, I'm not sure I believe you even own a gun.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on September 11, 2020, 05:41:34 AM
Quote from: quasihumanist on September 10, 2020, 02:41:37 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 10, 2020, 04:48:44 AM
But, seriously, your last line ought to be "I guess it's better for the police to shoot criminals than for criminals to shoot us."  That actually is what most people believe.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

That's valuing their own life at 50 times that of the person who has a 2% chance of being a criminal.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

That's valuing the life of the criminal less than a TV set.

There is a lot of ridiculous misuse of statistics here.

1) Even if 2% of the population are criminals, NO-ONE advocates police randomly shooting 2% of the population. Even if people think it's OK for the police to shoot in certain circumstances, those will involve the person having done something concerning. For instance, when police use sirens and lights to signal motorists to pull over, the vast majority will do so immediately. A few (perhaps through cluelessness) will delay, and a VERY few will accelerate and try to evade the police. The latter situation is the one which suggests the person may be a criminal, and so the most people will think the police are justified in being suspicious.

2) If someone is stealing a TV, and the police call for them to stop, if the person stealing the TV refuses to stop, then that person is valuing his own life less than  the TV.

Also, something like 75% of police have never fired their weapon. I would also imagine most people have never been in an interaction with a police officer with a drawn weapon. It is a tiny fraction who have been in an interaction with a police officer with a drawn weapon, and the vast majority of those are likely in situations in which the person is actively engaged in (not merely suspected of) criminal activity.

The 2% "chance the person is a criminal" is totally meaningless in any practical sense and completely misleading.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 11, 2020, 05:44:39 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2020, 06:42:03 PM
First, I don't think there is a state in this nation in which stealing a TV is justifiable homicide.

Friend, I don't keep my TV in the yard.  If someone breaks into my house to steal it, I have both a moral and a legal right to kill him.  (Or her!) 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on September 11, 2020, 07:49:48 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 11, 2020, 05:44:39 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2020, 06:42:03 PM
First, I don't think there is a state in this nation in which stealing a TV is justifiable homicide.

Friend, I don't keep my TV in the yard.  If someone breaks into my house to steal it, I have both a moral and a legal right to kill him.  (Or her!)

Don't know where you live. But as an example, not in Washington State (just the first item in the list fRom the search).

https://kimatv.com/news/local/pulling-the-trigger-when-is-use-of-deadly-force-legal-part-one
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 11, 2020, 09:19:36 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 11, 2020, 07:49:48 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 11, 2020, 05:44:39 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2020, 06:42:03 PM
First, I don't think there is a state in this nation in which stealing a TV is justifiable homicide.

Friend, I don't keep my TV in the yard.  If someone breaks into my house to steal it, I have both a moral and a legal right to kill him.  (Or her!)

Don't know where you live. But as an example, not in Washington State (just the first item in the list fRom the search).

https://kimatv.com/news/local/pulling-the-trigger-when-is-use-of-deadly-force-legal-part-one

Ah, yes.  I live in the benighted Trump-supporting part of the country, where all fetuses are cherished and all "B"lack people are shot by the police on sight.  We may have removed the Confederate flag from our public spaces, but it still flies in our hearts.

But, seriously, I appreciate the Washington State article.  It mentions TV-theft as a specifically insufficient reason to shoot a home-invader, but it also concedes the crucial points:

Quote
Washington state is a . . . state involving no duty to retreat, meaning that when you're in your home you can protect yourself and others and can in fact use deadly force to do so if you believe that you or someone with you is in imminent danger of bodily harm

Quote
The reality that we look at it is whether we can disprove self-defense.

Since the other party is dead, good luck disproving my claims about my state of mind.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on September 11, 2020, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 11, 2020, 09:19:36 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 11, 2020, 07:49:48 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 11, 2020, 05:44:39 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2020, 06:42:03 PM
First, I don't think there is a state in this nation in which stealing a TV is justifiable homicide.

Friend, I don't keep my TV in the yard.  If someone breaks into my house to steal it, I have both a moral and a legal right to kill him.  (Or her!)

Don't know where you live. But as an example, not in Washington State (just the first item in the list fRom the search).

https://kimatv.com/news/local/pulling-the-trigger-when-is-use-of-deadly-force-legal-part-one

Ah, yes.  I live in the benighted Trump-supporting part of the country, where all fetuses are cherished and all "B"lack people are shot by the police on sight.  We may have removed the Confederate flag from our public spaces, but it still flies in our hearts.

But, seriously, I appreciate the Washington State article.  It mentions TV-theft as a specifically insufficient reason to shoot a home-invader, but it also concedes the crucial points:

Quote
Washington state is a . . . state involving no duty to retreat, meaning that when you're in your home you can protect yourself and others and can in fact use deadly force to do so if you believe that you or someone with you is in imminent danger of bodily harm

Quote
The reality that we look at it is whether we can disprove self-defense.

Since the other party is dead, good luck disproving my claims about my state of mind.

Yep. That's why we have courts. Whether you are charged will be decided by the police and prosecutors. If tried, your guilt (or lack of proof of it) will be determined by a jury of your peers.

I just wanted to make it clear as to what the underlying principle is. Not the TV, but rather your fear.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: quasihumanist on September 11, 2020, 11:03:09 AM
I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak about legal rights, but I don't think you have a moral right to shoot someone who is stealing your TV, even if they are in your home.
A TV can't possibly worth anything close to anyone's life.

Personally, I think the law should be changed so that you can only claim self-defense based on facts, not on your state of mind.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 11, 2020, 05:18:53 PM
Quote from: quasihumanist on September 11, 2020, 11:03:09 AM
I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak about legal rights, but I don't think you have a moral right to shoot someone who is stealing your TV, even if they are in your home.
A TV can't possibly worth anything close to anyone's life.

Personally, I think the law should be changed so that you can only claim self-defense based on facts, not on your state of mind.

I wonder if you've thought this out.  A person who has broken into your house doesn't announce his intentions.  ("I'm just here for the TV!")  If he does, his words are not necessarily trustworthy.

I think I would probably brandish my gun if I came home to find a robber stealing my TV.  In most cases, that should scare him off.  However, if someone breaks in in the middle of the night, they're dying, irrespective of their intentions. 

With respect to my Fora opponents, I suggest that any other policy is a victory of ideology over reality. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 11, 2020, 05:22:09 PM
Quote from: writingprof on September 11, 2020, 05:18:53 PM
Quote from: quasihumanist on September 11, 2020, 11:03:09 AM
I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak about legal rights, but I don't think you have a moral right to shoot someone who is stealing your TV, even if they are in your home.
A TV can't possibly worth anything close to anyone's life.

Personally, I think the law should be changed so that you can only claim self-defense based on facts, not on your state of mind.

I wonder if you've thought this out.  A person who has broken into your house doesn't announce his intentions.  ("I'm just here for the TV!")  If he does, his words are not necessarily trustworthy.

I think I would probably brandish my gun if I came home to find a robber stealing my TV.  In most cases, that should scare him off.  However, if someone breaks in in the middle of the night, they're dying, irrespective of their intentions. 

With respect to my Fora opponents, I suggest that any other policy is a victory of ideology over reality.

I am not strong willed enough to plan what do do in that instance. I guess I am one of those 'the meek shall inherit the earth' cases.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Descartes on September 11, 2020, 05:31:08 PM
Quote from: quasihumanist on September 11, 2020, 11:03:09 AM
I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak about legal rights, but I don't think you have a moral right to shoot someone who is stealing your TV, even if they are in your home.
A TV can't possibly worth anything close to anyone's life.

Personally, I think the law should be changed so that you can only claim self-defense based on facts, not on your state of mind.

A radical proposal: Don't break into houses (or punch cops whilst taunting "You're too big of a pussy to shoot me," ala Mike Brown) or do any of the other felonious things people get shot doing.

Then you don't have to worry about getting shot.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Hegemony on September 11, 2020, 05:34:49 PM
Also, if you're black, don't sleep in your house. Then you don't have to worry about being shot, like Breonna Taylor. In fact, just don't be black in the first place.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on September 11, 2020, 06:03:56 PM
To be fair to writingprof he is in his house.

I'd also like to have been fair for Eric Garner, and I'd really like it to have been fair for Ahmaud Arbery and Tayvon Martin. I'm really tired of black men being jumped, and then killed when the people who jump them suddenly become afraid.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on September 11, 2020, 06:53:50 PM
Let us put aside our differences and unite behind Kanye West.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on September 12, 2020, 06:04:28 AM
Quote from: Anselm on September 11, 2020, 06:53:50 PM
Let us put aside our differences and unite behind Kanye West.

Writingprof would want us to know that Kanye is the B in the race.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 12, 2020, 06:36:57 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 11, 2020, 05:22:09 PM
I am not strong willed enough to plan what to do in that instance. I guess I am one of those 'the meek shall inherit the earth' cases.

As long as we're throwing Bible verses around, here's another.

"But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Descartes on September 12, 2020, 11:35:19 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on September 11, 2020, 05:34:49 PM
Also, if you're black, don't sleep in your house. Then you don't have to worry about being shot, like Breonna Taylor. In fact, just don't be black in the first place.

Should I give you a list of white people who have been killed sleeping in their houses by the cops? 

Funny thing, that story isn't done and it has been reported that there's more working it's way public - like that her boyfriend/significant other was in fact a drug dealer, she knew it, and was involved with laundering some of the money.  Or something like that.  I really didn't follow it that closely, but after all the other incidents (like where "hands up don't shoot" turned out to be a lie) I'm absolutely not judging until all the evidence is out in the open and public.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on September 13, 2020, 06:17:34 AM
Quote from: Descartes on September 12, 2020, 11:35:19 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on September 11, 2020, 05:34:49 PM
Also, if you're black, don't sleep in your house. Then you don't have to worry about being shot, like Breonna Taylor. In fact, just don't be black in the first place.

Should I give you a list of white people who have been killed sleeping in their houses by the cops? 

Apparently, the boyfriend was a registered gun owner.  Let's see:  black male drug dealer who legally owns a gun?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Hegemony on September 13, 2020, 06:31:55 AM
Quote from: Descartes on September 12, 2020, 11:35:19 AM
Funny thing, that story isn't done and it has been reported that there's more working it's way public - like that her boyfriend/significant other was in fact a drug dealer, she knew it, and was involved with laundering some of the money.  Or something like that.  I really didn't follow it that closely, but after all the other incidents (like where "hands up don't shoot" turned out to be a lie) I'm absolutely not judging until all the evidence is out in the open and public.

Last I heard, there was a thing called "rule of law" that meant that people suspected of crimes should be tried before a jury, rather than summarily executed in their beds. Even drug dealers and money launderers, hard as it is to believe — even they were supposed to get a fair trial. I have to laugh ruefully at the idea that you'll wait to see if it was fair to kill her in her bed until you can see whether her boyfriend was a drug dealer. It sure would make law enforcement easier if we just gunned down all the people we think are criminals, in the streets if need be, but if they're asleep and can't run away, even better, right?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on September 13, 2020, 07:10:51 PM
As wearing masks and social distancing are important, our politicians positions seem to be inane compared to what could be done. So, WORK ON ALL THE PEOPLE AND ALL THE PLACES. A famous military success was the victory over epidemic in Cuba by the leadership of General Lenoard Wood. He had the whole of the island and it's people scrubbed. Here, as far as I know, spreading general physical and personal cleanliness has received little attention. Fashion here allows people aspirations to appear as dirty ragamuffin, rock star addicts, and other unkempt and unclean unchallenged. Places are covered with litter, trash, garbage, refuse, and waste with thousands of humans available to clean them. IF IT OR PEOPLE ARE DIRTY, DISCEASE FLOURISHES. AMERICA NEEDS REAL LEADERSHIP IN ADDRESSING PRACTICAL MATTERS AT EACH AND ANY LEVEL OF ENDEAVOR, NOW!!!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on September 13, 2020, 07:52:16 PM
My TV stations are based in a metro area that crosses two states. Neither are swing states, but both have other contentious races. The only time I see Biden or Trump is in ads attacking a candidate for being too much like them. What I don't understand are when I see the same ad--not an ad for the same candidate, but the exact same ad--during every commercial break. Surely they have more useful things to say than to just run the same thing over and over again.

I wonder how the presidential election will affect these other races. Some are for Senate or the House of Representatives, but others are for state-level offices. As I said, we're not swing states, so the presidential piece is a foregone conclusion (almost). But the rest of the ballot? Who knows.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on September 20, 2020, 12:59:52 PM
What happens if we don't have the electoral college results by noon, 20 January 2021?  It's really an interesting situation per https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/512540-presidential-succession-act-can-congress-manage-chaos
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on September 20, 2020, 02:50:00 PM
Quoteif we don't have the electoral college results by noon, 20 January 2021

I dont see any reason not to know the ultimate outcome.
IF the electoral college is unable to come to a result, then I believe that it goes to the house, but with each state getting one vote (not each representative getting a vote).
So some decision would be know by the end of December, Im sure.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on September 20, 2020, 06:59:18 PM
The question that they are worried about concerns one or more states whose vote totals are contested, leading to perhaps competing slates of electors being submitted to congress, a la 1876.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 21, 2020, 09:10:05 AM
Stock market is falling again on coronavirus expectations. The S and P 500 is still up by 40% since Trump's inauguration, but I wonder if Wall Street money will increasingly go to Biden.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on September 29, 2020, 07:53:50 PM
I'm concerned that the next debate may not be as polite as this one was.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 29, 2020, 09:14:02 PM
These things are never any good, but that one was especially not good.

Trump is much better at it than he was 4 years ago, though. I was unpleasantly surprised. Biden started weak and rallied somewhat by the time COVID came around.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 30, 2020, 05:24:01 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 29, 2020, 07:53:50 PM
I'm concerned that the next debate may not be as polite as this one was.

What next debate?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 30, 2020, 05:49:45 AM
Oct. 15, in Miami. IIRC, it's a town hall.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 30, 2020, 07:05:06 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 30, 2020, 05:24:01 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 29, 2020, 07:53:50 PM
I'm concerned that the next debate may not be as polite as this one was.

What next debate?

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 30, 2020, 05:49:45 AM
Oct. 15, in Miami. IIRC, it's a town hall.

Right.  However, I wasn't asking for that literal information.  Rather, I was trying (unsuccessfully) to imply that Biden will now--and probably should--decline to participate in more debates. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: waterboy on September 30, 2020, 07:07:06 AM
Biden can't decline as Trump would then call him scared. The Debate Commission should refuse to run any more debates until the moderator gets the power to shut off microphones.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Ruralguy on September 30, 2020, 07:22:32 AM
That thing went full  Space Shuttle.....
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Ruralguy on September 30, 2020, 07:28:27 AM
Cleveland did not have a good night last night.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on September 30, 2020, 07:59:57 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 30, 2020, 07:05:06 AM

Right.  However, I wasn't asking for that literal information.  Rather, I was trying (unsuccessfully) to imply that Biden will now--and probably should--decline to participate in more debates.

Why? They benefit Biden by making Trump look completely insane and call out the Proud Boys to create riots.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on September 30, 2020, 08:15:14 AM
They both looked terrible last night. Biden seems old and fragile, while Trump just looks like a raving lunatic. The latter's conduct was (as expected) inappropriate, embarrassing, and disturbing. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Ruralguy on September 30, 2020, 08:27:27 AM
As time went on, I think maybe Biden looked a bit better, but it was only after everything went into crazy town.

Part of me thinks Biden should just take on a debate "rope a dope" strategy and just let Trump talk  crazier and crazier (because that is clearly inevitable) . The problem with that is it takes too long, and lets him (Biden) look even more exposed and weak.

Next time, Biden should definitely stick with some of the talking direct to the American people stuff, maybe drop most of the "shut up" and "clown" stuff.  A bit more positive energy, though it would be difficult, would help. There's probably no way to "win" these things these days, but you can lose by letting it get the better of you.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on September 30, 2020, 08:31:06 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on September 30, 2020, 08:27:27 AM
As time went on, I think maybe Biden looked a bit better, but it was only after everything went into crazy town.

Part of me thinks Biden should just take on a debate "rope a dope" strategy and just let Trump talk  crazier and crazier (because that is clearly inevitable) . The problem with that is it takes too long, and lets him (Biden) look even more exposed and weak.

Next time, Biden should definitely stick with some of the talking direct to the American people stuff, maybe drop most of the "shut up" and "clown" stuff.  A bit more positive energy, though it would be difficult, would help. There's probably no way to "win" these things these days, but you can lose by letting it get the better of you.

I agree with all of this.  I think Biden came out on top, but mostly Trump lost as opposed to Biden winning. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 30, 2020, 09:10:54 AM
The notion of 'winning' one of these things make no sense at all, IMO. But I have to say, I think Trump came off better than Biden.

Partly, that's because he was energetic, confident, unruffled, and mostly coherent, while Biden started out very poorly (although he rallied when he got back to the COVID talking points!), and sounded... old. But mostly, it's because Trump pretty much achieved all of his goals: he obfuscated his record, he shouted out to his constituencies, he stoked up fear and hatred, plausibly painted Biden as totally out to lunch (which, to be clear, he wasn't), threw in a few (real, but...) healthcare goodies, and ended with "300+ judges".

Biden didn't collapse, but he also didn't manage to articulate any kind of vision to galvanize his support, which is what he desperately needs to do, especially in the face of naked fascism. He's polling ahead, but struggling to get any enthusiasm or momentum, and that's how you counteract the dampening effect of the scary shit the other side's stoking up.

I really, really don't like this strategy of sitting back and letting Trump show his colours. Those colours are horrific and scary, to be sure, but also, the fact is that it leaves Trump in control of the message. And that allows him to dangle just enough in front of non-fascist Republicans and "independents" for them to excuse themselves for voting for him. Biden is not in control of this election, and it seems to me he hasn't really tried to take control of it at all. He's sitting behind his fortifications and letting the enemy throw itself upon them--which makes sense when you're the one holding on to the objective and you just have to beat back the attackers, but Biden is not currently in possession of the presidency, so...
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 30, 2020, 09:30:27 AM
How do those of you on the left interpret the Green New Deal confusion?  "I don't support the Green New Deal" and "The Green New Deal will pay for itself."  I read this as Biden misspeaking, having meant to say, "My plan, which is distinct from the Green New Deal, will pay for itself." 

Is that what others understood?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on September 30, 2020, 10:08:03 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 30, 2020, 09:30:27 AM
How do those of you on the left interpret the Green New Deal confusion?  "I don't support the Green New Deal" and "The Green New Deal will pay for itself."  I read this as Biden misspeaking, having meant to say, "My plan, which is distinct from the Green New Deal, will pay for itself." 

Is that what others understood?

I think it's pretty much something along those lines. There's a contradiction at work, because it's true that Biden doesn't support the GND, as he's made abundantly clear a number of times (plus, see his campaign talk in coal country); but he knows it's an important and galvanizing issue, and his website says the GND is "a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face". It's a tough needle to thread, and he's never been the nimblest needle-threader around.

So yeah, I think he's just equivocating on "GND", sometimes referring to it as the thing promoted by AOC and the "kids" for whom he has "no empathy", and sometimes referring to it as the thing they made him put up on his website and incorporate into his platform.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on September 30, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
I eschewed the debates and participated in my usual Tuesday night folk dance.

I suspect a well-structured folk dance is more likely to impart order to the cosmos.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Cheerful on September 30, 2020, 10:53:41 AM
Quote from: mamselle on September 30, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
I eschewed the debates and participated in my usual Tuesday night folk dance.
I suspect a well-structured folk dance is more likely to impart order to the cosmos.
M.

Smart.  The entire country could use a Tuesday night folk dance.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on September 30, 2020, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 30, 2020, 10:08:03 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 30, 2020, 09:30:27 AM
How do those of you on the left interpret the Green New Deal confusion?  "I don't support the Green New Deal" and "The Green New Deal will pay for itself."  I read this as Biden misspeaking, having meant to say, "My plan, which is distinct from the Green New Deal, will pay for itself." 

Is that what others understood?

I think it's pretty much something along those lines. There's a contradiction at work, because it's true that Biden doesn't support the GND, as he's made abundantly clear a number of times (plus, see his campaign talk in coal country); but he knows it's an important and galvanizing issue, and his website says the GND is "a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face". It's a tough needle to thread, and he's never been the nimblest needle-threader around.

So yeah, I think he's just equivocating on "GND", sometimes referring to it as the thing promoted by AOC and the "kids" for whom he has "no empathy", and sometimes referring to it as the thing they made him put up on his website and incorporate into his platform.

May I just say--and this applies to both parties--that I could do without ever hearing again the promise that Initiative X will "pay for itself"?  No, it won't.  Stop it.  That any voter still falls for that foolishness is an indictment of our education system.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on September 30, 2020, 12:31:59 PM
Quality polls show the debate going to Biden: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/30/reliable-polls-show-that-biden-won-debate-so-those-arent-what-trumps-allies-are-highlighting/
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 30, 2020, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on September 30, 2020, 10:53:41 AM
Quote from: mamselle on September 30, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
I eschewed the debates and participated in my usual Tuesday night folk dance.
I suspect a well-structured folk dance is more likely to impart order to the cosmos.
M.

Smart.  The entire country could use a Tuesday night folk dance.

I didn't watch any of it either. Three old white guys on TV shouting at each other? Simultaneously boring and embarrassing. I wish my ancestry would qualify me for citizenship within the EU, but alas. And unfortunately my wife doesn't qualify either.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on September 30, 2020, 12:45:21 PM
I did not watch the debate, but I would not be surprised if Trump's behavior was specifically designed to create disgust with the entire political process.  His followers would happily floss their tooth with barbed wire if they could vote for him, any amount of disgust notwithstanding.  Those a bit lukewarm on Sleepy Joe, on the other hand, may be more likely to say to hell with the whole process and just stay home.  It's just another version of voter suppression.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: fourhats on September 30, 2020, 12:56:39 PM
QuoteI wish my ancestry would qualify me for citizenship within the EU, but alas.

Would you go? There was an Op-Ed this morning in the NYT about how people are looking into EU and Canadian moves. I do have an EU passport, but worry about Covid there as well.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on September 30, 2020, 02:25:47 PM
Quote from: fourhats on September 30, 2020, 12:56:39 PM
QuoteI wish my ancestry would qualify me for citizenship within the EU, but alas.

Would you go? There was an Op-Ed this morning in the NYT about how people are looking into EU and Canadian moves. I do have an EU passport, but worry about Covid there as well.

Absolutely, I would go live in the EU. But I would have to go as an undocumented something or another since I'm not allowed to even visit the EU, right now. I suppose I could take a small boat to a Greek island.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 30, 2020, 02:35:13 PM
Quote from: fourhats on September 30, 2020, 12:56:39 PM
QuoteI wish my ancestry would qualify me for citizenship within the EU, but alas.

Would you go? There was an Op-Ed this morning in the NYT about how people are looking into EU and Canadian moves. I do have an EU passport, but worry about Covid there as well.

Yes. Better health outcomes, food, and overall quality of life, far less gun violence, stronger communities. Less willful ignorance. My wife is technically a dual-national; her homeland is a repressive dictatorship. We have no urge to migrate there. But the USA is looking more Third World by the day. Canada would be nice.

As for Covid-19, according to the data collected by Johns Hopkins, the USA's deaths/100K ratio is just slightly behind that of the UK, and higher than that of Italy, Sweden, France, Netherlands, etc. And this pandemic will eventually burn itself out; the most vulnerable will have died off in the initial wave of infection and vaccines will be available.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on September 30, 2020, 02:38:07 PM
QuoteBut the USA is looking more Third World by the day.

It can be empirically demonstrated that the US of A is in fact the most advanced Third World country! :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on September 30, 2020, 02:41:18 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 30, 2020, 02:38:07 PM
QuoteBut the USA is looking more Third World by the day.

It can be empirically demonstrated that the US of A is in fact the most advanced Third World country! :-)

I know. I'm teaching a course on the subject this semester.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: downer on September 30, 2020, 03:46:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 30, 2020, 02:38:07 PM
QuoteBut the USA is looking more Third World by the day.

It can be empirically demonstrated that the US of A is in fact the most advanced Third World country! :-)

Do we still use the phrase "Third World"? I'd be interested in the definitions.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on September 30, 2020, 03:55:01 PM
Quote from: downer on September 30, 2020, 03:46:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 30, 2020, 02:38:07 PM
QuoteBut the USA is looking more Third World by the day.

It can be empirically demonstrated that the US of A is in fact the most advanced Third World country! :-)

Do we still use the phrase "Third World"? I'd be interested in the definitions.

Third World was a political term, the unaligned. Was once contiguous with Developing Countries, Less Developed Countries, Underdeveloped Countries, poor countries. Many such countries have become much richer per capita since WW II, so on economic grounds they are not nearly as homogeneous as they once were.

I can rephrase: The US of A is the world's most advanced Underdeveloped Country.

So, no, the term is not used much anymore. But no worries, it's just a woid! :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: fourhats on September 30, 2020, 04:10:37 PM
QuoteYes. Better health outcomes, food, and overall quality of life, far less gun violence, stronger communities. Less willful ignorance. My wife is technically a dual-national; her homeland is a repressive dictatorship. We have no urge to migrate there. But the USA is looking more Third World by the day. Canada would be nice.

As for Covid-19, according to the data collected by Johns Hopkins, the USA's deaths/100K ratio is just slightly behind that of the UK, and higher than that of Italy, Sweden, France, Netherlands, etc. And this pandemic will eventually burn itself out; the most vulnerable will have died off in the initial wave of infection and vaccines will be available.

True. I'm working hard at the language, since my SO already speaks it and we've spent time in one of those countries, and I'd like to convince them to go.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: downer on September 30, 2020, 04:44:01 PM
Quote from: spork on September 30, 2020, 02:35:13 PM

Yes. Better health outcomes, food, and overall quality of life, far less gun violence, stronger communities. Less willful ignorance. My wife is technically a dual-national; her homeland is a repressive dictatorship. We have no urge to migrate there. But the USA is looking more Third World by the day. Canada would be nice.

As for Covid-19, according to the data collected by Johns Hopkins, the USA's deaths/100K ratio is just slightly behind that of the UK, and higher than that of Italy, Sweden, France, Netherlands, etc. And this pandemic will eventually burn itself out; the most vulnerable will have died off in the initial wave of infection and vaccines will be available.

Regarding health outcomes: How much of that is due to income differentials and racism in the US compared to the EU? The US is still largely a segregated country.
How does quality of life compare for for college professors between USA and EU?

I will immediately concede that cheese and bread selection is far better in the EU. But at least if you have access to a big city or wealthy suburbs, I'm not so sure about other food differences.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Cheerful on September 30, 2020, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: spork on September 30, 2020, 02:35:13 PM
And this pandemic will eventually burn itself out; the most vulnerable will have died off in the initial wave of infection and vaccines will be available.

I needed to hear that today, thanks.  Pandemic fatigue.  Very sad about the losses but your post gives me hope.  Also hoping for rapid-acting, excellent therapeutics to defeat the virus at onset of known infection.

Political leaders from both parties are doing poorly (horribly) with virus messaging.  I listen mostly to Dr. Fauci, whenever he speaks.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on September 30, 2020, 09:56:42 PM
QuoteThe US is still largely a segregated country.

Try France; try a ban-lieu. Please tell how it goes.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on October 01, 2020, 03:53:12 AM
Quote from: downer on September 30, 2020, 04:44:01 PM
Quote from: spork on September 30, 2020, 02:35:13 PM

Yes. Better health outcomes, food, and overall quality of life, far less gun violence, stronger communities. Less willful ignorance. My wife is technically a dual-national; her homeland is a repressive dictatorship. We have no urge to migrate there. But the USA is looking more Third World by the day. Canada would be nice.

As for Covid-19, according to the data collected by Johns Hopkins, the USA's deaths/100K ratio is just slightly behind that of the UK, and higher than that of Italy, Sweden, France, Netherlands, etc. And this pandemic will eventually burn itself out; the most vulnerable will have died off in the initial wave of infection and vaccines will be available.

Regarding health outcomes: How much of that is due to income differentials and racism in the US compared to the EU? The US is still largely a segregated country.


Per the health economists, there is the usual Pareto distribution: 80 percent of health status is driven by factors other than medical care; i.e., housing, income, diet. But countries like Sri Lanka, China, and Vietnam have higher childhood immunization rates than the USA, while several EU countries immunize children at the same rate as the USA but have higher per capita GDP and life expectancy, suggesting that people in those places are both wealthier and healthier. They also get shot to death far less frequently.

Quote
How does quality of life compare for for college professors between USA and EU?

That I do not know. But I would happily take some other job.

Quote
I will immediately concede that cheese and bread selection is far better in the EU. But at least if you have access to a big city or wealthy suburbs, I'm not so sure about other food differences.

In the USA, I can buy tasteless apples shipped from New Zealand or South Africa at any supermarket. Same for gallon jugs of colored sugar water. I'm willing to forego that convenience.

Quote from: downer on September 30, 2020, 03:46:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 30, 2020, 02:38:07 PM
QuoteBut the USA is looking more Third World by the day.

It can be empirically demonstrated that the US of A is in fact the most advanced Third World country! :-)

Do we still use the phrase "Third World"? I'd be interested in the definitions.

I do. I make sure to define it to students so that they can at least come across as semi-educated imperialists rather than totally ignorant ones. When my wife and I talk with each other, which sometimes happens in front of students, we don't bother. We stick with "You people . . ." generalizations because it's quicker and makes the point more effectively, as in "You people were living caves when my people had an empire." Just so I'm clear, my people are the ones who lived in caves.

Edited to add: and right now she is yelling at me in a language I don't fully understand, using characteristic Third World hand gestures.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on October 01, 2020, 09:08:49 AM
The definition of the "worlds" that I learned in high school as related by Oxfam International in the early 1990s.
First world has ample resources and the mechanisms to allow for a relatively free distribution of those resources to the populace.
Second world may have resources, but the political structure is such that distribution is limited because of the power structure (think the USSR).
Third world lacks the infrastructure to either harvest the resources available and/or distribute them to the people.

It stuck with me. Based on these definitions, I feel the US is moving solidly into second world, or we are already there.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on October 01, 2020, 07:24:59 PM
DC has put its official ballot drop off boxes. Saw one today!
Maryland is next up here in the capitol region:
https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/10/ballot-drop-off-boxes-start-arriving-in-maryland-how-safe-is-your-vote/ (https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/10/ballot-drop-off-boxes-start-arriving-in-maryland-how-safe-is-your-vote/)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: aside on October 01, 2020, 07:30:19 PM
I am going to vote in person despite the health risk so that my vote has the best chance of being counted.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on October 01, 2020, 07:38:50 PM
QuoteFirst world has ample resources and the mechanisms to allow for a relatively free distribution of those resources to the populace.

This must be a joke.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on October 01, 2020, 08:23:15 PM
Free as in open and possible. Free flow. Not monetarily.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on October 01, 2020, 08:33:41 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on October 01, 2020, 08:23:15 PM
Free as in open and possible. Free flow. Not monetarily.

What else in god's name is hindering people getting stuff, except they have no cash?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on October 01, 2020, 08:39:32 PM
QuotePosted by: mythbuster
« on: Today at 09:08:49 AM »Insert Quote
The definition of the "worlds" that I learned in high school as related by Oxfam International in the early 1990s.
First world has ample resources and the mechanisms to allow for a relatively free distribution of those resources to the populace.
Second world may have resources, but the political structure is such that distribution is limited because of the power structure (think the USSR).
Third world lacks the infrastructure to either harvest the resources available and/or distribute them to the people.

It stuck with me. Based on these definitions, I feel the US is moving solidly into second world, or we are already there.

New York has solidly settled into the third world as anyone riding the subway or even walking down a street can attest.
Now we have the absentee ballot fiasco, where the ballot you received had your name and address on the envelop, but another voter's information on the return envelop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/nyregion/brooklyn-absentee-ballot.html
According to the local news voters in other boroughs have received faulty ballots as well.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on October 01, 2020, 08:40:55 PM
Quote from: pgher on September 13, 2020, 07:52:16 PM
My TV stations are based in a metro area that crosses two states. Neither are swing states, but both have other contentious races. The only time I see Biden or Trump is in ads attacking a candidate for being too much like them. What I don't understand are when I see the same ad--not an ad for the same candidate, but the exact same ad--during every commercial break. Surely they have more useful things to say than to just run the same thing over and over again.

I wonder how the presidential election will affect these other races. Some are for Senate or the House of Representatives, but others are for state-level offices. As I said, we're not swing states, so the presidential piece is a foregone conclusion (almost). But the rest of the ballot? Who knows.

(Assuming it's OK to quote myself here.) Interestingly, this week I've seen a number of ads. Mostly Trump, a few Biden. I wonder if one or both of them think that one of the two states is now in play, or if it's just a GOTV play.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on October 02, 2020, 08:30:39 AM
Dismalist,
   Let me give you an example that may help illustrate. People need to buy bread.
In a first world country, please can do this by purchasing the bread at the bakery. The bakery has a steady supply of flour to make the bread, so as long as you have the cash, you can buy bread.
In a second world country, even if you have the money, there may be no bread to buy. The shelves at the bakery may be empty even though you live in a country that farms wheat for flour. The government has requisitioned the four for whatever purpose. The people who get the bread are well connected politically, not necessarily the ones who need the bread or have the money.
In a thirds worlds country there is very little flour available and you are lacking in wheat farming and/or infrastructure to get the flour to the bakery. So only the super rich and politically connected can get access to the really expensive bread that is imported.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on October 02, 2020, 08:59:14 AM
The term third world has been largely supplanted by "The Global South" for those working in the health & development field.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 02, 2020, 10:09:26 AM
Texas Gov. Abbott's decision to limit each county to one drop box for absentee votes seems pretty obvious as to his intent.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 02, 2020, 10:15:20 AM
I saw that.

Friends live in Houston.

I could only send the article link and a

"WHHAAATTTTT?"

in response.

Dunno...
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on October 02, 2020, 10:16:18 AM
QuoteTexas Gov. Abbott's decision to limit each county to one drop box for absentee votes seems pretty obvious as to his intent.

Giving The Proud Boys a place to Stand By?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 02, 2020, 10:51:11 AM
Quote from: clean on October 02, 2020, 10:16:18 AM
QuoteTexas Gov. Abbott's decision to limit each county to one drop box for absentee votes seems pretty obvious as to his intent.

Giving The Proud Boys a place to Stand By?

That would make it easier for them in Harris County (Houston) which currently has 11.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 02, 2020, 12:34:41 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 02, 2020, 10:09:26 AM
Texas Gov. Abbott's decision to limit each county to one drop box for absentee votes seems pretty obvious as to his intent.

This pissed me off. Not sure if it was a deliberate move to suppress voting access, but.... if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... it's probably not a turkey.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on October 02, 2020, 12:38:46 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on October 02, 2020, 08:30:39 AM
Dismalist,
   Let me give you an example that may help illustrate. People need to buy bread.
In a first world country, please can do this by purchasing the bread at the bakery. The bakery has a steady supply of flour to make the bread, so as long as you have the cash, you can buy bread.
In a second world country, even if you have the money, there may be no bread to buy. The shelves at the bakery may be empty even though you live in a country that farms wheat for flour. The government has requisitioned the four for whatever purpose. The people who get the bread are well connected politically, not necessarily the ones who need the bread or have the money.
In a thirds worlds country there is very little flour available and you are lacking in wheat farming and/or infrastructure to get the flour to the bakery. So only the super rich and politically connected can get access to the really expensive bread that is imported.

This is a description of a non-free-market economy, and corrupt. It is not a description of most non-rich countries countries today.

Anyway, this is off topic.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 02, 2020, 02:17:40 PM
QuoteAnyway, this is off topic.

Well, we could always talk about circuses....

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on October 05, 2020, 03:09:01 PM
Mark Kelly has an 8 point lead over Martha McSally in the Arizona race for Senate, according to the latest Times-Siena poll (https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/AZ0920-Crosstabs.pdf). He's got a huge lead among women respondents and those under 45 years old. McSally's support is from older white voters without a bachelor's degree -- Trumpsters.

I'll predict that Kelly wins in Arizona and Gideon wins in Maine.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 07, 2020, 04:05:21 PM
It appears the New England Journal of Medicine Editorial Board fears President Trump more than the specter of socialized medicine: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/07/health/nejm-editorial-political-leadership-bn/index.html
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on October 07, 2020, 06:15:27 PM
I made it through almost ten minutes of the VP debate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Treehugger on October 07, 2020, 06:25:25 PM
Oh my. Kamala is so nervous, oh no ....

Ok, sounding stronger and more natural now ...
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on October 07, 2020, 06:34:58 PM
QuoteOh my. Kamala is so nervous, oh no .

Doesnt look that way to me.


VP seems to want to interrupt and go over time. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on October 07, 2020, 06:36:25 PM
Ithink that they need to cut the mikes at the time limit. and keep them from interrupting.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Treehugger on October 07, 2020, 06:41:31 PM
Quote from: clean on October 07, 2020, 06:36:25 PM
Ithink that they need to cut the mikes at the time limit. and keep them from interrupting.

Pence is definitely the worst offender here. Fault moderator ...

Also, the avalanche of lies. Trump has a great record on the environment. Riiiiiggght.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on October 07, 2020, 06:48:58 PM
ok, Im tapping out.
Im tired of the yackity "Thank you mr VP" yackity "Thank you Mr. Vp" yackity ............

his 15 second reply went 2 minutes!  (at least it seems that long!)

NOW we are back to "Before I speak to that I want to go back to ...."

IM OUT! 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 07, 2020, 08:17:54 PM
Quote from: clean on October 07, 2020, 06:48:58 PM
ok, Im tapping out.
Im tired of the yackity "Thank you mr VP" yackity "Thank you Mr. Vp" yackity ............

his 15 second reply went 2 minutes!  (at least it seems that long!)

NOW we are back to "Before I speak to that I want to go back to ...."

IM OUT!


Did you miss the fly, then? Highlight of the campaign.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on October 07, 2020, 08:21:57 PM
It looks like I recorded it. I havent deleted it yet.  IF there is a highlight, tell me about when in the 'event' it was and Ill fast forward before I get rid of it!

On the other hand, IF ANYTHING of note happened, it will be ALL that is reported.  Otherwise the 'fake news' /fourth estate will have to make do with whatever they can find
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on October 07, 2020, 08:32:49 PM
All moderators should be equipped with an air horn. You go over, one warning, and then let it loose.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on October 07, 2020, 08:39:34 PM
Jimmy Kimmel covered the fly. 

See, I told you, IF anything interesting happens, it will be PRIME news!!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 07, 2020, 09:02:46 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on October 07, 2020, 08:32:49 PM
All moderators should be equipped with an air horn. You go over, one warning, and then let it loose.

I like this idea.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: AmLitHist on October 08, 2020, 06:03:49 AM
Looks like the Biden "Truth over Flies" swatters sold out immediately.

I hope I can get one of the "I'm speaking" shirts to teach in, should we ever go back into the classroom.

Even a lowly fly gets his 15 minutes of fame.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on October 08, 2020, 10:00:14 AM
I predict we're going to see more attempted acts of terrorism by neo-Nazi groups before the election. I hope none of them succeed. I'm glad Governor Whitmer was not harmed.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on October 08, 2020, 10:09:36 AM
Quote from: clean on October 07, 2020, 08:39:34 PM
Jimmy Kimmel covered the fly. 

See, I told you, IF anything interesting happens, it will be PRIME news!!

Horsewhip, perhaps?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on October 08, 2020, 10:10:58 AM
The above was a reply to Mythbuster. I'm still grappling with the quote function.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: secundem_artem on October 08, 2020, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: spork on October 08, 2020, 10:00:14 AM
I predict we're going to see more attempted acts of terrorism by neo-Nazi groups before the election. I hope none of them succeed. I'm glad Governor Whitmer was not harmed.

And probably after the election as well.  If Trump does lose, I cannot imagine 30 million MAGA hats, armed with the latest near military-grade weaponry, is going to go quietly.  I don't think the likelihood is all that high, but I do believe there is a non-zero risk of a 2nd civil war.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on October 08, 2020, 06:26:31 PM
Got my absentee ballot in the mail from my county Elections Board today.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 09, 2020, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on October 08, 2020, 06:26:31 PM
Got my absentee ballot in the mail from my county Elections Board today.

Same here, from the town (we don't have a county anymore).

I think there's a drop-off box at the end of my street so I'll go there Sunday.

Good to get it done and in.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on October 09, 2020, 06:57:05 PM
I have two absentee ballots, both in my name, with directions to "destroy" and not "use the ballot envelope previously sent". I'll take mine to the polling site.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Treehugger on October 10, 2020, 11:34:14 AM
I find myself worrying quite a bit about Trump (& followers) attempting to somehow not having absentee ballots count. Apparently only 16 states (most not battleground states) allow election officials to get a head start counting mail-in ballots. In all the other states (including most battleground states) mail-in ballots cannot be counted until Election Day, usually after the polls close. So, they will be counted after the in-person ballots.

I know there has already been a blue wave of absentee ballots and have heard that a lot of Trump supporters are holding off until Election Day. So, it looks pretty clear that their votes will be counted first before the blue wave of absentee ballots.

I am worried that Trump (& supporters) will declare victory before all the absentee ballots have been counted and then try to either:

1) stop the absentee ballots from being counted at all

or, if they are counted,

2) use every trick in the book to insist that they are all fraudulent and shouldn't be included in the finally tally.

At this point, I am a lot more worried about these kind of shenanigans than I am about Biden actually losing.

How worried are you about this issue?

Or, better yet, can someone set my mind at ease about this?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on October 10, 2020, 12:07:27 PM
Quote from: Treehugger on October 10, 2020, 11:34:14 AM
I find myself worrying quite a bit about Trump (& followers) attempting to somehow not having absentee ballots count. Apparently only 16 states (most not battleground states) allow election officials to get a head start counting mail-in ballots. In all the other states (including most battleground states) mail-in ballots cannot be counted until Election Day, usually after the polls close. So, they will be counted after the in-person ballots.

I know there has already been a blue wave of absentee ballots and have heard that a lot of Trump supporters are holding off until Election Day. So, it looks pretty clear that their votes will be counted first before the blue wave of absentee ballots.

I am worried that Trump (& supporters) will declare victory before all the absentee ballots have been counted and then try to either:

1) stop the absentee ballots from being counted at all

or, if they are counted,

2) use every trick in the book to insist that they are all fraudulent and shouldn't be included in the finally tally.

At this point, I am a lot more worried about these kind of shenanigans than I am about Biden actually losing.

How worried are you about this issue?

Or, better yet, can someone set my mind at ease about this?

I am concerned. The most help will be:

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 15, 2020, 01:37:21 PM
In Debate-land, (or No-debate-land), NBC intends to persevere despite strong resistance by its own employee/actor/moderator/anchorfolk:

   https://deadline.com/2020/10/donald-trump-town-hall-actors-showrunners-ask-nbc-move-slot-opposite-abc-joe-biden-mariska-hargitay-j-j-abrams-ryan-murphy-greg-berlanti-ava-duvernay-seth-macfarlane-damon-lindelof-kenya-1234597879/

M. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 16, 2020, 11:48:22 AM
Biden and Trump both outperformed my expecatations in the town halls yesterday. Biden, especially: I think that was his best live performance to date.

Still wish he was a better candidate, and better on the issues, though.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 18, 2020, 08:34:18 AM
Thoughts about Pence-Harris for your perusal...https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/the-racial-politics-of-kamala-harriss-performance-style

I predict and also hope that we'll see a day where the obvious is finally recognized, that being that when a male candidate interrupts a female candidate during one of these televised 'debates' it's not because he's mansplaining or she has inferior status by being female, but because that's how these unregulated events get conducted because nobody prevents it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on October 21, 2020, 10:54:58 PM
Found this on another board some weeks ago:

Trump wins. California joins Mexico. New England separates and puts up walls to keep people from escaping to lower-tax areas. Canada blocks them from going North. Illinois goes bankrupt and Chicago becomes Mogadishu. Washington and Oregon go to war with each other. The rest of the country grows and prospers.

:-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 07:44:57 PM
Biden started out very strong, lost steam somewhere towards the end, but on the whole did a very good job. I'd say Trump also outperformed expectations, but he started rambling much earlier, and then resorted to the interruption tactic towards the end (which doubtless is part of what threw Biden off a bit). On the whole, a pretty decent illustration of the stark difference between the two.

(But Biden's climate change talk still drives me nuts. It's wholly inadequate wishful thinking. Also: the right to affordable healthcare? Give me a fucking break.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on October 22, 2020, 08:28:51 PM
As to a right to affordable health care, more and more Americans are coming over to that view, a view which is more or less normative in most all other advanced westernized countries.   Those rejecting this notion need to ask themselves what services Americans do have a right to receive publicly, and on what basis?   Is education a right?   Police and fire protection?   Publicly-funded roads?   You get where I am going-- just because for most of our history affordable health care was not considered a right by most Americans (and during the bulk of those years significant modern medicine had not yet developed), does not mean that he cannot be considered that now, or should not be.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 22, 2020, 08:28:51 PM
As to a right to affordable health care, more and more Americans are coming over to that view, a view which is more or less normative in most all other advanced westernized countries.   Those rejecting this notion need to ask themselves what services Americans do have a right to receive publicly, and on what basis?   Is education a right?   Police and fire protection?   Publicly-funded roads?   You get where I am going-- just because for most of our history affordable health care was not considered a right by most Americans (and during the bulk of those years significant modern medicine had not yet developed), does not mean that he cannot be considered that now, or should not be.

You misunderstand me. I think the right is to healthcare, period. Healthcare is a human right. A right to "affordable" healthcare is just another way of saying that some people won't be covered. Saying Americans have a right to "affordable health care" is a cop out to the health insurance industry, and a bad one at that.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on October 23, 2020, 07:13:43 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 22, 2020, 08:28:51 PM
As to a right to affordable health care, more and more Americans are coming over to that view, a view which is more or less normative in most all other advanced westernized countries.   Those rejecting this notion need to ask themselves what services Americans do have a right to receive publicly, and on what basis?   Is education a right?   Police and fire protection?   Publicly-funded roads?   You get where I am going-- just because for most of our history affordable health care was not considered a right by most Americans (and during the bulk of those years significant modern medicine had not yet developed), does not mean that he cannot be considered that now, or should not be.

You misunderstand me. I think the right is to healthcare, period. Healthcare is a human right. A right to "affordable" healthcare is just another way of saying that some people won't be covered. Saying Americans have a right to "affordable health care" is a cop out to the health insurance industry, and a bad one at that.

Declaring something a human right does not summon more of it into existence.  See food, housing, and education for other examples of this phenomenon.  We have a certain amount of healthcare to allot.  Either some will have much, most will have some, and few will have none or all will have less than they want.  "Right to healthcare" thinking leads to rationing, forever and ever, world without end.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on October 23, 2020, 07:53:32 AM
Biden's job was to do no harm, and in that way he succeeded. 

Trump's job was to dramatically change how the public sees him, and in that way it would appear that he failed.  This was his last chance to change the narrative and he didn't do it, strongly suggesting that he will go into the election with a very low probability of victory. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on October 23, 2020, 08:01:56 AM
Quote from: writingprof on October 23, 2020, 07:13:43 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 22, 2020, 08:28:51 PM
As to a right to affordable health care, more and more Americans are coming over to that view, a view which is more or less normative in most all other advanced westernized countries.   Those rejecting this notion need to ask themselves what services Americans do have a right to receive publicly, and on what basis?   Is education a right?   Police and fire protection?   Publicly-funded roads?   You get where I am going-- just because for most of our history affordable health care was not considered a right by most Americans (and during the bulk of those years significant modern medicine had not yet developed), does not mean that he cannot be considered that now, or should not be.

You misunderstand me. I think the right is to healthcare, period. Healthcare is a human right. A right to "affordable" healthcare is just another way of saying that some people won't be covered. Saying Americans have a right to "affordable health care" is a cop out to the health insurance industry, and a bad one at that.

Declaring something a human right does not summon more of it into existence.  See food, housing, and education for other examples of this phenomenon.  We have a certain amount of healthcare to allot.  Either some will have much, most will have some, and few will have none or all will have less than they want.  "Right to healthcare" thinking leads to rationing, forever and ever, world without end.

The idea of universal healthcare does require choices about what services will be covered. However, it guarantees certain services to everyone, which is the point. There will always be very expensive procedures, sometimes experimental and for rare conditions, which could not  be provided to everyone who might benefit. However, the wealthy will always be able to get access to those using their own resources.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 23, 2020, 08:41:28 AM
Quote from: writingprof on October 23, 2020, 07:13:43 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 22, 2020, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 22, 2020, 08:28:51 PM
As to a right to affordable health care, more and more Americans are coming over to that view, a view which is more or less normative in most all other advanced westernized countries.   Those rejecting this notion need to ask themselves what services Americans do have a right to receive publicly, and on what basis?   Is education a right?   Police and fire protection?   Publicly-funded roads?   You get where I am going-- just because for most of our history affordable health care was not considered a right by most Americans (and during the bulk of those years significant modern medicine had not yet developed), does not mean that he cannot be considered that now, or should not be.

You misunderstand me. I think the right is to healthcare, period. Healthcare is a human right. A right to "affordable" healthcare is just another way of saying that some people won't be covered. Saying Americans have a right to "affordable health care" is a cop out to the health insurance industry, and a bad one at that.

Declaring something a human right does not summon more of it into existence.  See food, housing, and education for other examples of this phenomenon.  We have a certain amount of healthcare to allot.  Either some will have much, most will have some, and few will have none or all will have less than they want.  "Right to healthcare" thinking leads to rationing, forever and ever, world without end.

Your current system already rations care. Poorly and unjustly.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on October 23, 2020, 12:55:05 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 23, 2020, 08:01:56 AM
There will always be very expensive procedures, sometimes experimental and for rare conditions, which could not be provided to everyone who might benefit. However, the wealthy will always be able to get access to those using their own resources.

Isn't supplemental private insurance illegal in parts of Canada? 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on October 23, 2020, 01:12:56 PM
Quote from: writingprof on October 23, 2020, 12:55:05 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 23, 2020, 08:01:56 AM
There will always be very expensive procedures, sometimes experimental and for rare conditions, which could not be provided to everyone who might benefit. However, the wealthy will always be able to get access to those using their own resources.

Isn't supplemental private insurance illegal in parts of Canada?

Private insurance is typically for things that aren't covered under public health care. (Different provinces vary somewhat in what is covered. For instance, in Ontario dental care is covered until age 25, after that it would be covered by private insurance.)

There are ongoing debates about what should be covered publicly, but the value is that what is covered publicly is covered for everyone, regardless of employment, age, pre-existing health conditions, etc. And there are no restrictions on where a person has to go for treatment, or which doctors may provide it, etc. No "deductibles", or "co-pays", no bill in the mail, etc.

Wealthy people anywhere go to other countries for treatments unavailable at home for one reason or another. That's always an option.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 06:25:18 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 23, 2020, 07:53:32 AM
Biden's job was to do no harm, and in that way he succeeded. 

Trump's job was to dramatically change how the public sees him, and in that way it would appear that he failed.  This was his last chance to change the narrative and he didn't do it, strongly suggesting that he will go into the election with a very low probability of victory.

I don't think Trump doesn't know people think he's rude. But when he speaks softly and sticks to the arguments, he makes ground. He may have changed how people view Biden. The career politician who goes along to get along is how he brands Biden. It's good tactics.
If I were Biden I would have found a way to mention that Trump was the last one off the bogus 'birther' bandwagon or Trump's Central Park Five blunder. Did he?
Another good idea for democrats: keep Michelle Obama and her deck full of race cards away from the poker table. Every time she opens her mouth a swing voter switches to Trump.
Recent polling shows Biden noticeably behind Hillary 2016 with black voters.
The 'cages' were built sometime around 2014, and the 90's crime bill was not defended. Trump hammered away at how a mistake went uncorrected for eight years under Obama.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on October 24, 2020, 08:32:56 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 06:25:18 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 23, 2020, 07:53:32 AM
Biden's job was to do no harm, and in that way he succeeded. 

Trump's job was to dramatically change how the public sees him, and in that way it would appear that he failed.  This was his last chance to change the narrative and he didn't do it, strongly suggesting that he will go into the election with a very low probability of victory.

I don't think Trump doesn't know people think he's rude. But when he speaks softly and sticks to the arguments, he makes ground. He may have changed how people view Biden. The career politician who goes along to get along is how he brands Biden. It's good tactics.
If I were Biden I would have found a way to mention that Trump was the last one off the bogus 'birther' bandwagon or Trump's Central Park Five blunder. Did he?
Another good idea for democrats: keep Michelle Obama and her deck full of race cards away from the poker table. Every time she opens her mouth a swing voter switches to Trump.
Recent polling shows Biden noticeably behind Hillary 2016 with black voters.
The 'cages' were built sometime around 2014, and the 90's crime bill was not defended. Trump hammered away at how a mistake went uncorrected for eight years under Obama.

Biden is not a great debater and I too wish he was more effective, but he doesn't have to be great when he's up by 8 or 9 points nationally, he just has to avoid blunders, and he did.  Trump was, by all accounts, better this time than last time, but polls after the debate suggest that he lost in the eyes of most viewers and that he didn't move perceptions about himself or Biden (e.g. here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-final-debate-poll/).

If you'd like to provide some evidence that independent voters are turned off by Michelle Obama I'd be glad to hear it, but my understanding is that she's one of the most popular figures in America.  Right wingers hate her (I guess because she wanted kids to eat more vegetables) but they're already going to vote for Trump.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 09:48:00 AM
For the record, Biden did mention the Central Park Five in the last debate (though not by name).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 01:34:34 PM
QuoteIf you'd like to provide some evidence that independent voters are turned off by Michelle Obama I'd be glad to hear it, but my understanding is that she's one of the most popular figures in America.  Right wingers hate her (I guess because she wanted kids to eat more vegetables) but they're already going to vote for Trump.

It's true don't have data about how the voting will go. Most admired people according to polling includes Obama. Also Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump who have been most admired but also most intensely disliked.
While Michelle and her new sidekick LeBron James are making the news trying to get the vote out, I don't think anybody believes that urban Black Americans are more afraid of  police than they are of street criminals. It's a rallying cry, but it will turn more people off the longer it is said because...it's not true.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 24, 2020, 01:51:26 PM
re Michelle Obama appRoval among registered voters: https://www.newsweek.com/michelle-obamas-favorability-rating-nearly-20-points-higher-trump-biden-pences-poll-1525850

Pretty sure she couldn't hit this mark if I's disliked her intensely.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 24, 2020, 01:53:24 PM
re fear of police: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/15/black-americans-police
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 04:44:38 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 24, 2020, 01:53:24 PM
re fear of police: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/15/black-americans-police

OMG, how could I have been so incorrect in my statement? Wait a minute, the leading causes of premature death among young black men are homicide and, distantly second place, sucide (though it's a very sad thing to ponder). Someone has been encouraging people to think non-critically --- LeBron and Michelle, perhaps?
data:  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0021934719895999
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on October 24, 2020, 05:36:01 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 04:44:38 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 24, 2020, 01:53:24 PM
re fear of police: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/15/black-americans-police

OMG, how could I have been so incorrect in my statement? Wait a minute, the leading causes of premature death among young black men are homicide and, distantly second place, sucide (though it's a very sad thing to ponder). Someone has been encouraging people to think non-critically --- LeBron and Michelle, perhaps?
data:  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0021934719895999

I guess you don't think that black Americans can simultaneously be concerned about street violence and about excessive force by police?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 05:47:46 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 24, 2020, 05:36:01 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 04:44:38 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 24, 2020, 01:53:24 PM
re fear of police: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/15/black-americans-police

OMG, how could I have been so incorrect in my statement? Wait a minute, the leading causes of premature death among young black men are homicide and, distantly second place, sucide (though it's a very sad thing to ponder). Someone has been encouraging people to think non-critically --- LeBron and Michelle, perhaps?
data:  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0021934719895999

I guess you don't think that black Americans can simultaneously be concerned about street violence and about excessive force by police?

Re appropriate, sane concern:  Larry Elder, to name one black American, has an idea: when the police address you, be cooperative, and your odds of experiencing a violent, needlessly escalated or unpleasant encounter are greatly reduced. And I expect millions of people know this through common sense, though a noisy minority is stirring hysteria.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 05:59:57 PM
The cops are big boys. They ought to be able to handle someone mouthing off or being uncooperative without killing them.

Parents do this several times every day.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on October 24, 2020, 06:06:14 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 05:59:57 PM
The cops are big boys. They ought to be able to handle someone mouthing off or being uncooperative without killing them.


Because it's so easy to tell if the irate person yelling at them has a weapon in their pocket, glove compartment, etc.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 05:59:57 PM
The cops are big boys. They ought to be able to handle someone mouthing off or being uncooperative without killing them.

Parents do this several times every day.

This conversation reminds me a little of something I read by the psychiatrist Dr. Aaron Beck in his bestseller Feeling Good. He talks about how difficult it must be for a surgeon or an oncologist dealing with life-death situations. But at least, he explains, the patient and the doctor want the same thing, a cured patient. Whereas it often seems to the psychotherapist that he and the patient are at cross purposes. He's trying to make them better but they are seemingly intentionally on a crash course toward depression, anxiety, suicide.
Do we have the right to act in ways that intentionally test the patience of the police, and then complain when they fail to meet a perfect standard? Or are we working together. Don't we have a duty?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 06:44:37 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 05:59:57 PM
The cops are big boys. They ought to be able to handle someone mouthing off or being uncooperative without killing them.

Parents do this several times every day.

This conversation reminds me a little of something I read by the psychiatrist Dr. Aaron Beck in his bestseller Feeling Good. He talks about how difficult it must be for a surgeon or an oncologist dealing with life-death situations. But at least, he explains, the patient and the doctor want the same thing, a cured patient. Whereas it often seems to the psychotherapist that he and the patient are at cross purposes. He's trying to make them better but they are seemingly intentionally on a crash course toward depression, anxiety, suicide.
Do we have the right to act in ways that intentionally test the patience of the police, and then complain when they fail to meet a perfect standard? Or are we working together. Don't we have a duty?

I would accept a less-than-perfect standard. I do not accept that it's OK to cause physical harm--or death--to someone for mouthing off or being uncooperative.

The people with the duty here are the public servants--the police. They are paid (well!) to carry out that duty. But they have to actually carry it out, not abrogate it entirely.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on October 24, 2020, 06:47:06 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 05:47:46 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 24, 2020, 05:36:01 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 04:44:38 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 24, 2020, 01:53:24 PM
re fear of police: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/15/black-americans-police

OMG, how could I have been so incorrect in my statement? Wait a minute, the leading causes of premature death among young black men are homicide and, distantly second place, sucide (though it's a very sad thing to ponder). Someone has been encouraging people to think non-critically --- LeBron and Michelle, perhaps?
data:  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0021934719895999

I guess you don't think that black Americans can simultaneously be concerned about street violence and about excessive force by police?

Re appropriate, sane concern:  Larry Elder, to name one black American, has an idea: when the police address you, be cooperative, and your odds of experiencing a violent, needlessly escalated or unpleasant encounter are greatly reduced. And I expect millions of people know this through common sense, though a noisy minority is stirring hysteria.

I have no interest in this kind of victim blaming. Excessive force aimed at black and brown people has been a problem for the entirety of American history, and minorities have every right to be upset about it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 06:49:36 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 06:44:37 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 05:59:57 PM
The cops are big boys. They ought to be able to handle someone mouthing off or being uncooperative without killing them.

Parents do this several times every day.

This conversation reminds me a little of something I read by the psychiatrist Dr. Aaron Beck in his bestseller Feeling Good. He talks about how difficult it must be for a surgeon or an oncologist dealing with life-death situations. But at least, he explains, the patient and the doctor want the same thing, a cured patient. Whereas it often seems to the psychotherapist that he and the patient are at cross purposes. He's trying to make them better but they are seemingly intentionally on a crash course toward depression, anxiety, suicide.
Do we have the right to act in ways that intentionally test the patience of the police, and then complain when they fail to meet a perfect standard? Or are we working together. Don't we have a duty?

I would accept a less-than-perfect standard. I do not accept that it's OK to cause physical harm--or death--to someone for mouthing off or being uncooperative.


Agreed.
and that's why Derek Chauvin is fired and in big trouble. But the hysteria is why he is overcharged, and may be acquitted.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 07:57:20 PM
The police routinely overcharge the people they arrest. It's part of the strategy for coercing people into accepting plea bargains. Goose, gander.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: aside on October 24, 2020, 08:12:26 PM
In this country, police arrest people, DAs charge them for anything above traffic tickets and other misdemeanors.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on October 24, 2020, 08:47:55 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 24, 2020, 06:06:14 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 05:59:57 PM
The cops are big boys. They ought to be able to handle someone mouthing off or being uncooperative without killing them.


Because it's so easy to tell if the irate person yelling at them has a weapon in their pocket, glove compartment, etc.

The death rate while in police custody in the US is way higher than other countries.  Pretty clear to me that US cops use excessive force and do not respond with appropriate force. I guess you could argue that the chances of people being armed in the US is higher, so cops need to be more aggressive, but that just makes the whole setup that much more sad.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 24, 2020, 08:47:55 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 24, 2020, 06:06:14 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 05:59:57 PM
The cops are big boys. They ought to be able to handle someone mouthing off or being uncooperative without killing them.


Because it's so easy to tell if the irate person yelling at them has a weapon in their pocket, glove compartment, etc.

The death rate while in police custody in the US is way higher than other countries.  Pretty clear to me that US cops use excessive force and do not respond with appropriate force. I guess you could argue that the chances of people being armed in the US is higher, so cops need to be more aggressive, but that just makes the whole setup that much more sad.


Wow, look at this. An observation about police behavior that doesn't pit the races against each other. I'm open to more of those.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on October 25, 2020, 03:46:20 AM
Fivethirtyeight.com is reporting that Theresa Greenfield has a slight edge over Jodi Ernst in the Iowa race for Senate. I think Ernst's numbers will decrease as coronavirus cases in Iowa increase .
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on October 25, 2020, 05:59:44 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 24, 2020, 08:47:55 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 24, 2020, 06:06:14 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 05:59:57 PM
The cops are big boys. They ought to be able to handle someone mouthing off or being uncooperative without killing them.


Because it's so easy to tell if the irate person yelling at them has a weapon in their pocket, glove compartment, etc.

The death rate while in police custody in the US is way higher than other countries.  Pretty clear to me that US cops use excessive force and do not respond with appropriate force. I guess you could argue that the chances of people being armed in the US is higher, so cops need to be more aggressive, but that just makes the whole setup that much more sad.

I would never in a million years take a job that put my life at risk where a split-second hesitation could get me killed, OR if I don't hesitate, I could be facing murder charges.

It's a no-win situation for cops.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 06:41:33 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 04:44:38 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 24, 2020, 01:53:24 PM
re fear of police: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/15/black-americans-police

OMG, how could I have been so incorrect in my statement? Wait a minute, the leading causes of premature death among young black men are homicide and, distantly second place, sucide (though it's a very sad thing to ponder). Someone has been encouraging people to think non-critically --- LeBron and Michelle, perhaps?
data:  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0021934719895999

I presented information suggesting your assertion was incorrect. That is all. Your response was to mock black Americans fears, and attack Michelle Obama and LeBron James. You must have some serious issues.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 25, 2020, 07:32:49 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 06:41:33 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 04:44:38 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 24, 2020, 01:53:24 PM
re fear of police: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/15/black-americans-police

OMG, how could I have been so incorrect in my statement? Wait a minute, the leading causes of premature death among young black men are homicide and, distantly second place, sucide (though it's a very sad thing to ponder). Someone has been encouraging people to think non-critically --- LeBron and Michelle, perhaps?
data:  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0021934719895999


I presented information suggesting your assertion was incorrect. That is all. Your response was to mock black Americans fears, and attack Michelle Obama and LeBron James. You must have some serious issues.

As for mocking Obama and James, they are voluntarily in the public arena, influential, and their ideas are open to scrutiny and reaction. The rest of what you posted is incorrect. I didn't mock anyone's fears. I am at a loss to understand why someone would be more afraid of police than they are of other things that are statistically much bigger threats. One possible explanation is mass hysteria. And two people you could look to who might be complicit are those two. Any ideas? I'll read.
Of course you have to be a little afraid of police. They have guns. You can be friendly to them, but it might be preferable if they don't really know who you are. When they know who you are, it's often for a reason you don't want. They're not your neighborhood grocer. It's the only way to run things. It may have unpleasant features but it's not like living under Vlad the Impaler. another reason to be afraid of police is you're doing things you shouldn't do. Applies to all of us.
i might have issues with liberal academics, academics who self identify as feminist, et al. We might butt heads a little.

QuoteI have no interest in this kind of victim blaming. Excessive force aimed at black and brown people has been a problem for the entirety of American history, and minorities have every right to be upset about it.

I'll remember this. Don't blame victims.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 07:48:04 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 25, 2020, 07:32:49 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 06:41:33 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 24, 2020, 04:44:38 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 24, 2020, 01:53:24 PM
re fear of police: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/15/black-americans-police

OMG, how could I have been so incorrect in my statement? Wait a minute, the leading causes of premature death among young black men are homicide and, distantly second place, sucide (though it's a very sad thing to ponder). Someone has been encouraging people to think non-critically --- LeBron and Michelle, perhaps?
data:  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0021934719895999


I presented information suggesting your assertion was incorrect. That is all. Your response was to mock black Americans fears, and attack Michelle Obama and LeBron James. You must have some serious issues.

As for mocking Obama and James, they are voluntarily in the public arena, influential, and their ideas are open to scrutiny and reaction. The rest of what you posted is incorrect. I didn't mock anyone's fears. I am at a loss to understand why someone would be more afraid of police than they are of other things that are statistically much bigger threats. One possible explanation is mass hysteria. And two people you could look to who might be complicit are those two. Any ideas? I'll read.
Of course you have to be a little afraid of police. They have guns. You can be friendly to them, but it might be preferable if they don't really know who you are. When they know who you are, it's often for a reason you don't want. They're not your neighborhood grocer. It's the only way to run things. It may have unpleasant features but it's not like living under Vlad the Impaler. another reason to be afraid of police is you're doing things you shouldn't do. Applies to all of us. But it doesn't explain the level of fear currently.
i might have issues with liberal academics, academics who self identify as feminist, et al. We might butt heads a little.

QuoteI have no interest in this kind of victim blaming. Excessive force aimed at black and brown people has been a problem for the entirety of American history, and minorities have every right to be upset about it.

I'll remember this. Don't blame victims.

Fair enough. For the record, the second quote was not mine. Let me approach it this way. I should be afraid of street criminals.  (Warning: run on sentence to follow.) I shouldn't have to be afraid that police will treat me as a suspicious person and injure or kill me on the basis of anything other than me resisting when they have probable cause to question or arrest me. I know the job is dangerous. To not acknowledge that as a country we've gone off the rails with policing is something I simply don't understand.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 25, 2020, 08:22:34 AM
If we're off the rails with police violence, we've been off the rails for quite a few years already...https://killedbypolice.net
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on October 25, 2020, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 25, 2020, 05:59:44 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 24, 2020, 08:47:55 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 24, 2020, 06:06:14 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 05:59:57 PM
The cops are big boys. They ought to be able to handle someone mouthing off or being uncooperative without killing them.


Because it's so easy to tell if the irate person yelling at them has a weapon in their pocket, glove compartment, etc.

The death rate while in police custody in the US is way higher than other countries.  Pretty clear to me that US cops use excessive force and do not respond with appropriate force. I guess you could argue that the chances of people being armed in the US is higher, so cops need to be more aggressive, but that just makes the whole setup that much more sad.

I would never in a million years take a job that put my life at risk where a split-second hesitation could get me killed, OR if I don't hesitate, I could be facing murder charges.

It's a no-win situation for cops.

Then it's good you didn't become a cop.  For those who choose to become a cop they  are fully aware that they could be put in dangerous situations and chose to be there.  They should also realize that it is their job to protect the public and only use appropriate levels of force.  Again, other countries have much lower death rates in police custody, so something seems to be rotten in the police force.  I suspect it is the training and general mentality.  I also wonder if the line of work attracts some of the wrong people....

This is the same as joining the military.  You could be in dangerous situations, but if you were to shoot unarmed civilians because you were spooked there are consequences.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 09:29:14 AM
On a lighter election note, the SNL "debate" was hilarious. Highlight for me was when Maya Rudolph said " As promised I've left 60 seconds for climate change", and Jim Carrey said " Oil no, wind yes and fracking depends what state I'm in". I also liked that Alec Baldwin couldn't show any of his perfect, beautiful plans because they were all under audit with his taxes.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 25, 2020, 10:19:18 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 25, 2020, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 25, 2020, 05:59:44 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 24, 2020, 08:47:55 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 24, 2020, 06:06:14 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 24, 2020, 05:59:57 PM
The cops are big boys. They ought to be able to handle someone mouthing off or being uncooperative without killing them.


Because it's so easy to tell if the irate person yelling at them has a weapon in their pocket, glove compartment, etc.

The death rate while in police custody in the US is way higher than other countries.  Pretty clear to me that US cops use excessive force and do not respond with appropriate force. I guess you could argue that the chances of people being armed in the US is higher, so cops need to be more aggressive, but that just makes the whole setup that much more sad.

I would never in a million years take a job that put my life at risk where a split-second hesitation could get me killed, OR if I don't hesitate, I could be facing murder charges.

It's a no-win situation for cops.

Then it's good you didn't become a cop.  For those who choose to become a cop they  are fully aware that they could be put in dangerous situations and chose to be there.  They should also realize that it is their job to protect the public and only use appropriate levels of force.  Again, other countries have much lower death rates in police custody, so something seems to be rotten in the police force.  I suspect it is the training and general mentality.  I also wonder if the line of work attracts some of the wrong people....

This is the same as joining the military.  You could be in dangerous situations, but if you were to shoot unarmed civilians because you were spooked there are consequences.

If i understand Marshwiggle's thought process, we take the type of people who want to be policemen as they are to some degree. To use the vernacular, it takes a big set of balls. We have no reason to expect they can all fit a certain personality type that we might prefer. There are a lot of them!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on October 25, 2020, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 25, 2020, 10:19:18 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 25, 2020, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 25, 2020, 05:59:44 AM

I would never in a million years take a job that put my life at risk where a split-second hesitation could get me killed, OR if I don't hesitate, I could be facing murder charges.

It's a no-win situation for cops.

Then it's good you didn't become a cop.  For those who choose to become a cop they  are fully aware that they could be put in dangerous situations and chose to be there.  They should also realize that it is their job to protect the public and only use appropriate levels of force.  Again, other countries have much lower death rates in police custody, so something seems to be rotten in the police force.  I suspect it is the training and general mentality.  I also wonder if the line of work attracts some of the wrong people....

This is the same as joining the military.  You could be in dangerous situations, but if you were to shoot unarmed civilians because you were spooked there are consequences.

If i understand Marshwiggle's thought process, we take the type of people who want to be policemen as they are to some degree. To use the vernacular, it takes a big set of balls. We have no reason to expect they can all fit a certain personality type that we might prefer. There are a lot of them!

That's exactly right. In fact, anyone who would be remotely interested in being a cop would have to be more comfortable with confrontations, including physical ones, than most of us are. The same goes for the military.  We expect them to be that way when we need them.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 12:36:30 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 25, 2020, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 25, 2020, 10:19:18 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 25, 2020, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 25, 2020, 05:59:44 AM

I would never in a million years take a job that put my life at risk where a split-second hesitation could get me killed, OR if I don't hesitate, I could be facing murder charges.

It's a no-win situation for cops.

Then it's good you didn't become a cop.  For those who choose to become a cop they  are fully aware that they could be put in dangerous situations and chose to be there.  They should also realize that it is their job to protect the public and only use appropriate levels of force.  Again, other countries have much lower death rates in police custody, so something seems to be rotten in the police force.  I suspect it is the training and general mentality.  I also wonder if the line of work attracts some of the wrong people....

This is the same as joining the military.  You could be in dangerous situations, but if you were to shoot unarmed civilians because you were spooked there are consequences.

If i understand Marshwiggle's thought process, we take the type of people who want to be policemen as they are to some degree. To use the vernacular, it takes a big set of balls. We have no reason to expect they can all fit a certain personality type that we might prefer. There are a lot of them!

That's exactly right. In fact, anyone who would be remotely interested in being a cop would have to be more comfortable with confrontations, including physical ones, than most of us are. The same goes for the military.  We expect them to be that way when we need them.

I don't disagree. I think my issues are mostly related to Kron3007's last sentence. I think the military does a much fairer and better job in the situations described than we do with police departments, PARTICULARLY when it comes to non-white citizens. And, that is why I think black Americans fear the police.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on October 25, 2020, 02:26:41 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 12:36:30 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 25, 2020, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 25, 2020, 10:19:18 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 25, 2020, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 25, 2020, 05:59:44 AM

I would never in a million years take a job that put my life at risk where a split-second hesitation could get me killed, OR if I don't hesitate, I could be facing murder charges.

It's a no-win situation for cops.

Then it's good you didn't become a cop.  For those who choose to become a cop they  are fully aware that they could be put in dangerous situations and chose to be there.  They should also realize that it is their job to protect the public and only use appropriate levels of force.  Again, other countries have much lower death rates in police custody, so something seems to be rotten in the police force.  I suspect it is the training and general mentality.  I also wonder if the line of work attracts some of the wrong people....

This is the same as joining the military.  You could be in dangerous situations, but if you were to shoot unarmed civilians because you were spooked there are consequences.

If i understand Marshwiggle's thought process, we take the type of people who want to be policemen as they are to some degree. To use the vernacular, it takes a big set of balls. We have no reason to expect they can all fit a certain personality type that we might prefer. There are a lot of them!

That's exactly right. In fact, anyone who would be remotely interested in being a cop would have to be more comfortable with confrontations, including physical ones, than most of us are. The same goes for the military.  We expect them to be that way when we need them.

I don't disagree. I think my issues are mostly related to Kron3007's last sentence. I think the military does a much fairer and better job in the situations described than we do with police departments, PARTICULARLY when it comes to non-white citizens. And, that is why I think black Americans fear the police.

Those two situations (police and military) are totally different, with different priorities, rules of engagement, etc. They can't meaningfully be compared in this way.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on October 25, 2020, 03:04:22 PM
Well, they are different but in both cases there are rules and expectations that need to be followed.  In both cases, you should not kill innocent people.  In both cases, they should be held to account if the kill the wrong person.

If it is the case that people who become cops have a certain mindset that makes them prone to this type of thing, that is all the more reason to ensure they receive adequate training in deescalation etc.

Again, the death rate in police captivity in the US is higher than many other countries.  In all cases, they would be attracting the same type of people, they all experience belligerent citizens, and they all do the same job.  So, there is obviously something that the US is or isn't doing that leads to this.  It is crazy to just accept that this happens...
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 03:35:44 PM
Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on October 25, 2020, 07:58:07 PM
I have thought for years that one of the main problems with American policing is the militaristic, nigh-onto Marine-style training given most of them, and the corresponding 'sir, yes sir'- style discipline and institutional organization most PDs use.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on October 26, 2020, 06:17:09 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 03:35:44 PM
Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.

There are so, so many possible factors unknown in that scenario that make it absolutely meaningless.

Just a few:

(And none of these include scenarios where someone may dispose of a gun before investigators arrive, so there is no proof that the person had a gun.)

I haven't even scratched the surface.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on October 26, 2020, 06:36:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2020, 06:17:09 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 03:35:44 PM
Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.

There are so, so many possible factors unknown in that scenario that make it absolutely meaningless.

Just a few:

  • A person with a hand in a pocket may be holding a gun aimed at the officer, or may be just keeping warm. (Hear the news about the 3 year old in Texas shot when a relative's gun FELL OUT OF HIS POCKET at the 3 year old's birthday party?)
  • Sometimes people will use fake guns while committing crimes so they can't get charged with using a weapon. A non-psychic cop won't be able to tell that.
  • If an unarmed person accompanies an armed person in the commission of a crime, there is a high probability that the fact one is "unarmed" will not be obvious.

(And none of these include scenarios where someone may dispose of a gun before investigators arrive, so there is no proof that the person had a gun.)

I haven't even scratched the surface.

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that there are some challenging situations that could lead to these events where the police were acting within reason, which is why they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  The problem is that many police shootings do not seem to be investigated very well

However, there are plenty of examples where police are shooting people in the back as they run, often many times.  There are also a lot of examples where people are killed while in custody, after the heated event is over. 

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 26, 2020, 06:50:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2020, 06:17:09 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 03:35:44 PM
Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.

There are so, so many possible factors unknown in that scenario that make it absolutely meaningless.

Just a few:

  • A person with a hand in a pocket may be holding a gun aimed at the officer, or may be just keeping warm. (Hear the news about the 3 year old in Texas shot when a relative's gun FELL OUT OF HIS POCKET at the 3 year old's birthday party?)
  • Sometimes people will use fake guns while committing crimes so they can't get charged with using a weapon. A non-psychic cop won't be able to tell that.
  • If an unarmed person accompanies an armed person in the commission of a crime, there is a high probability that the fact one is "unarmed" will not be obvious.

(And none of these include scenarios where someone may dispose of a gun before investigators arrive, so there is no proof that the person had a gun.)

I haven't even scratched the surface.

Sure to your 2nd and 3rd. As to the first, I think some form of discipline, firing or even prosecution is warranted. I'm sorry, but a hand in a pocket is no reason to be shot.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on October 26, 2020, 07:33:08 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 26, 2020, 06:36:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2020, 06:17:09 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 03:35:44 PM
Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.

There are so, so many possible factors unknown in that scenario that make it absolutely meaningless.

Just a few:

  • A person with a hand in a pocket may be holding a gun aimed at the officer, or may be just keeping warm. (Hear the news about the 3 year old in Texas shot when a relative's gun FELL OUT OF HIS POCKET at the 3 year old's birthday party?)
  • Sometimes people will use fake guns while committing crimes so they can't get charged with using a weapon. A non-psychic cop won't be able to tell that.
  • If an unarmed person accompanies an armed person in the commission of a crime, there is a high probability that the fact one is "unarmed" will not be obvious.

(And none of these include scenarios where someone may dispose of a gun before investigators arrive, so there is no proof that the person had a gun.)

I haven't even scratched the surface.

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that there are some challenging situations that could lead to these events where the police were acting within reason, which is why they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  The problem is that many police shootings do not seem to be investigated very well

But they're not evaluated on a case by case basis in the media. Cops are guilty until proven innocent, and if the cop is white and the shooting victim is black, then there's no "until provent innocent"; it's just GUILTY. And it must be racially motivated as well. No facts about the case need to be known, and in a jury acquits the cop in a trial, it's just evidence of an unjust system. End of story.

Quote
However, there are plenty of examples where police are shooting people in the back as they run, often many times. 

If someone grabbed a Taser from the police and was running away with it, if he was running toward one of my grandchildren with the Taser I'd hope the police would use whatever means necessary to stop him. (If he just didn't want police to use the Taser on him, he could have simply thrown it as far as he could. Hanging on to it suggests he might use it on someone other than the police, since he's running from them.)

Quote
There are also a lot of examples where people are killed while in custody, after the heated event is over.

There are even a lot of situations "in custody" where crazy things can happen.

There is no situation where it's possible to make a call based on just a one sentence description. And amping up the public to a pitch of moral outrage is irresponsible and dangerous.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 26, 2020, 07:45:06 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2020, 07:33:08 AM

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that there are some challenging situations that could lead to these events where the police were acting within reason, which is why they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  The problem is that many police shootings do not seem to be investigated very well

But they're not evaluated on a case by case basis in the media. Cops are guilty until proven innocent, and if the cop is white and the shooting victim is black, then there's no "until provent innocent"; it's just GUILTY. And it must be racially motivated as well. No facts about the case need to be known, and in a jury acquits the cop in a trial, it's just evidence of an unjust system. End of story.

[/quote]

They can even be evaluated on a case by case basis in the media but one-sidedly. If you posit that Breonna Taylor's premature death was not the result of racist cops, what will people say about you?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 26, 2020, 07:56:02 AM
Biden on funding for science research: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/10/26/biden-would-increase-science-funding
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on October 26, 2020, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2020, 07:33:08 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on October 26, 2020, 06:36:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2020, 06:17:09 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2020, 03:35:44 PM
Dang marshwiggle. I don't think it's too much to expect that when a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen there should be consequences.

There are so, so many possible factors unknown in that scenario that make it absolutely meaningless.

Just a few:

  • A person with a hand in a pocket may be holding a gun aimed at the officer, or may be just keeping warm. (Hear the news about the 3 year old in Texas shot when a relative's gun FELL OUT OF HIS POCKET at the 3 year old's birthday party?)
  • Sometimes people will use fake guns while committing crimes so they can't get charged with using a weapon. A non-psychic cop won't be able to tell that.
  • If an unarmed person accompanies an armed person in the commission of a crime, there is a high probability that the fact one is "unarmed" will not be obvious.

(And none of these include scenarios where someone may dispose of a gun before investigators arrive, so there is no proof that the person had a gun.)

I haven't even scratched the surface.

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that there are some challenging situations that could lead to these events where the police were acting within reason, which is why they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  The problem is that many police shootings do not seem to be investigated very well

But they're not evaluated on a case by case basis in the media. Cops are guilty until proven innocent, and if the cop is white and the shooting victim is black, then there's no "until provent innocent"; it's just GUILTY. And it must be racially motivated as well. No facts about the case need to be known, and in a jury acquits the cop in a trial, it's just evidence of an unjust system. End of story.

Quote
However, there are plenty of examples where police are shooting people in the back as they run, often many times. 

If someone grabbed a Taser from the police and was running away with it, if he was running toward one of my grandchildren with the Taser I'd hope the police would use whatever means necessary to stop him. (If he just didn't want police to use the Taser on him, he could have simply thrown it as far as he could. Hanging on to it suggests he might use it on someone other than the police, since he's running from them.)

Quote
There are also a lot of examples where people are killed while in custody, after the heated event is over.

There are even a lot of situations "in custody" where crazy things can happen.

There is no situation where it's possible to make a call based on just a one sentence description. And amping up the public to a pitch of moral outrage is irresponsible and dangerous.

I dont think this is the case at all.  There are many police shootings (most I would think) where there is no major outrage or further investigation so I dont think the media finds police guilty until proven innocent.  The judgement and outrage really only started since there is camera footage almost everywhere and many of these incidents are quite obviously not in line with what police should be doing, validating what many people in some communities have been saying for many years.  It is not just the footage of police shootings either.  There are plenty of videos showing the general approach American police take, which is often excessively aggressive and confrontational.     

Personally, I dont think someone running away from you with a taser is enough reason to shoot at them in the back.  In fact, the risk of shooting toward them is probably greater than letting them escape anyway.  The only time shooting someone should be acceptable is if the cops life, or someone else's, is in immediate danger. 

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 29, 2020, 09:53:27 AM
QuoteI dont think this is the case at all.  There are many police shootings (most I would think) where there is no major outrage or further investigation so I dont think the media finds police guilty until proven innocent. 


This depends a lot on the race of the suspect. Stories about white people getting shot by police are not going to get Al Sharpton on the evening news. You can cover it without editorializing.

QuotePersonally, I dont think someone running away from you with a taser is enough reason to shoot at them in the back.  In fact, the risk of shooting toward them is probably greater than letting them escape anyway.  The only time shooting someone should be acceptable is if the cops life, or someone else's, is in immediate danger. 

Agree with this.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on October 30, 2020, 05:04:49 AM
Another variation of 'You Ain't Black.' The theory is Trump's toxic masculinity attracts certain black men. What ever happened to the theory that we don't vote for the candidate we love 100%; we vote for the one who's more acceptable than the alternative? And why is this not a right?
https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-trump-mans-man-why-100009749.html

Whereas, the thought process of voting for Trump in spite of his flaws is easily explained, so Jack Nicklaus says: https://twitter.com/jacknicklaus/status/1321631802004541440
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on October 30, 2020, 05:57:54 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 30, 2020, 05:04:49 AM
Another variation of 'You Ain't Black.' The theory is Trump's toxic masculinity attracts certain black men. What ever happened to the theory that we don't vote for the candidate we love 100%; we vote for the one who's more acceptable than the alternative? And why is this not a right?
https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-trump-mans-man-why-100009749.html


I'm guessing it's an issue of confirmation bias. If you and I both like something about candidate A more than candidate B, but dislike something about candidate A more than candidate B, then whether we vote the same way or not depends on the relative weights we attach to the two different factors. So, if you vote the "other" way than me, it calls into question my weighting of the two factors. That's much harder to face than telling myself you voted for the other one for some nefarious reason.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 30, 2020, 08:01:56 AM
On another note, I swear we must have received over 100 individual pieces of mail advertising for a political candidate in the past two weeks. I stopped counting around 65.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on October 30, 2020, 08:14:47 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 26, 2020, 07:56:02 AM
Biden on funding for science research: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/10/26/biden-would-increase-science-funding

On a semi-related note, I would like at least one President and Congress in my lifetime to initiate a project that reduces travel time via rail between Boston and Washington, DC, from 8-10 hours to 4 hours. And 90 minutes between Boston and New York City. But I'll probably die before this country gets a First World passenger rail system.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 30, 2020, 08:21:53 AM
Quote from: spork on October 30, 2020, 08:14:47 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 26, 2020, 07:56:02 AM
Biden on funding for science research: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/10/26/biden-would-increase-science-funding

On a semi-related note, I would like at least one President and Congress in my lifetime to initiate a project that reduces travel time via rail between Boston and Washington, DC, from 8-10 hours to 4 hours. And 90 minutes between Boston and New York City. But I'll probably die before this country gets a First World passenger rail system.

Unfortunately, we haven't had many leaders or politicians who prioritize Science. I highly doubt we will get anything like the TGV in France or the other high speed trains any time soon. It's a shame. So many of our politicians sold out and we've been stuck in a rut for years.

Back to the political ads- I counted them. 109.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 30, 2020, 08:35:08 AM
You might get it if a Green New Deal gets ever gets off the ground, with its proposed massive investments in public transportation. But to do that, you'd have to vote in more ordinary people, and fewer corporate hackjob morons who think politics is a skills contest their failson/daughter CV will win for them
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 30, 2020, 09:50:44 AM
At least Acela is a start...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on October 30, 2020, 09:55:16 AM
Really, Biden should be the go to man for anything train related. I would LOVE to see real high speed trains across the country.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 30, 2020, 09:57:47 AM
Yes, cross-country TGV would indeed be amazing.

I'd take them all the time (once Covid is not an issue).

I live on the trains when in Europe and England. One meets so many cool people and sees so much more.

I mean, clouds and all are pretty and fine and all that, but I've indeed looked at clouds from both sides, now....etc.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 30, 2020, 10:01:12 AM
Quote from: mamselle on October 30, 2020, 09:57:47 AM
Yes, cross-country TGV would indeed be amazing.

I'd take them all the time (once Covid is not an issue).

I live on the trains when in Europe and England. One meets so many cool people and sees so much more.

I mean, clouds and all are pretty and fine and all that, but I've indeed looked at clouds from both sides, now....etc.

M.

Nice song reference.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: sprout on October 30, 2020, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on October 30, 2020, 10:01:12 AM
Quote from: mamselle on October 30, 2020, 09:57:47 AM
Yes, cross-country TGV would indeed be amazing.

I'd take them all the time (once Covid is not an issue).

I live on the trains when in Europe and England. One meets so many cool people and sees so much more.

I mean, clouds and all are pretty and fine and all that, but I've indeed looked at clouds from both sides, now....etc.

M.

Nice song reference.
Aaaand...there's my earworm of the day!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: AmLitHist on October 31, 2020, 01:28:36 PM
Stores in St. Louis and the county have been boarding up since mid-week, hoping to avoid more damage and destruction as they've seen too often over the past five years of racial unrest. One of the board-up companies was said to have orders for 4000 sheets of plywood to get up by Monday night.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 31, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
A friend from Texas just reported armed men in trucks trying to run Biden's bus off the road.

Does anyone have anything further on this?

Were they, by chance, possibly, I hope, arrested?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on October 31, 2020, 03:05:03 PM
Quote from: mamselle on October 31, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
A friend from Texas just reported armed men in trucks trying to run Biden's bus off the road.

Does anyone have anything further on this?

Were they, by chance, possibly, I hope, arrested?

M.

Isn't Biden in Michigan?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on October 31, 2020, 03:09:06 PM
Might be now, but this was a couple days ago, I think.

Might also be that my friend is confused.

I'll ask.

M.

Just looked it up, it happened earlier:

   https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/democrats-cancel-central-texas-events-after-trump-supporters-surround-follow-biden-bus-on-i-35/
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on October 31, 2020, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AmLitHist on October 31, 2020, 01:28:36 PM
Stores in St. Louis and the county have been boarding up since mid-week, hoping to avoid more damage and destruction as they've seen too often over the past five years of racial unrest. One of the board-up companies was said to have orders for 4000 sheets of plywood to get up by Monday night.

Stores in NYC have also boarded up. Macy's had the boards in place yesterday, as did several other stores, especially the ones that suffered damages during the past several months.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on October 31, 2020, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: mamselle on October 31, 2020, 03:09:06 PM
Might be now, but this was a couple days ago, I think.

Might also be that my friend is confused.

I'll ask.

M.

Just looked it up, it happened earlier:

   https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/democrats-cancel-central-texas-events-after-trump-supporters-surround-follow-biden-bus-on-i-35/

It was yesterday when Harris was in Texas.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 04, 2020, 05:01:48 AM
I am afraid this will be a rough week or much longer. Trump has already got the ball rolling with his feverish 2 a.m. speech.

Just reading about the odyssey of Jeff Sessions. Wow. The vindictiveness. Hell has no fury like Donald Trump not supported 100%. Not that my heart bleeds much for old Jeff.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 04, 2020, 05:59:50 AM
Looks like we're parked at 238-213 for the duration...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on November 04, 2020, 06:43:37 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 04, 2020, 05:59:50 AM
Looks like we're parked at 238-213 for the duration...

M.

Those numbers don't match what just appeared on my television screen. 

I continue to wonder why anyone thought this election wouldn't be a repeat of 2000 with essentially a tie.  The polls for months have been essentially a tie for those who understand margin of error and that national popular vote is irrelevant.

Even if Biden wins eventually, he won't have a huge mandate.  He will have squeaked a win and then have large numbers of people who are angry about many things that aren't within the purview of the president to solve.  Even the folks who wanted Biden will likely not be happy as reality hits about problems that the president can't solve and will therefore continue to be problems.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 04, 2020, 06:50:27 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on November 04, 2020, 06:43:37 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 04, 2020, 05:59:50 AM
Looks like we're parked at 238-213 for the duration...

M.

Those numbers don't match what just appeared on my television screen. 

I continue to wonder why anyone thought this election wouldn't be a repeat of 2000 with essentially a tie.  The polls for months have been essentially a tie for those who understand margin of error and that national popular vote is irrelevant.

Even if Biden wins eventually, he won't have a huge mandate.  He will have squeaked a win and then have large numbers of people who are angry about many things that aren't within the purview of the president to solve.  Even the folks who wanted Biden will likely not be happy as reality hits about problems that the president can't solve and will therefore continue to be problems.

I'm following the AP calls, which are slower-moving, I see a couple of others differ, yes.

I don't expect immediate solutions to everything from Biden, or anyone else.

I do expect the return of a measure of decency and right conduct, without which I am concerned we can't move forward.

I might have preferred one of several other candidates, but I recognize that none are Superwoman/Superman-type action heroes who will put everything right in a trice.

Not even Elastigirl can do that....

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on November 04, 2020, 07:08:10 AM
The problem isn't timing on solutions; the problem is many of the biggest problems cannot be solved by the president or even by legislation.

That's not a Libertarian "the government shouldn't do X", but more of a realistic "you can't change other people".  If inaugurated, Biden may manage to get more funding and resources for certain areas.  He cannot stop people from thinking and acting on certain thoughts.  He cannot unilaterally change certain societal trends or any physical realities.  About half the country who voted, voted Trump any way one wants to slice it.  That's not a small fringe group who had non-mainstream wishes and managed a miracle in 2016; that's a mainstream contingent who will continue to have their own interests and desires.

Related to physical realities, the claims in some quarters are that Biden is a bigger believer in science than Trump.  From where I sit and the information I have, that's like being a 2 on the scale of 1 to 10 instead of being a 1 when what we need is a strong 8 who can be informed up to at least a 9.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 04, 2020, 07:18:38 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on November 04, 2020, 07:08:10 AM
The problem isn't timing on solutions; the problem is many of the biggest problems cannot be solved by the president or even by legislation.

That's not a Libertarian "the government shouldn't do X", but more of a realistic "you can't change other people".  If inaugurated, Biden may manage to get more funding and resources for certain areas.  He cannot stop people from thinking and acting on certain thoughts.  He cannot unilaterally change certain societal trends or any physical realities.  About half the country who voted, voted Trump any way one wants to slice it.  That's not a small fringe group who had non-mainstream wishes and managed a miracle in 2016; that's a mainstream contingent who will continue to have their own interests and desires.

Related to physical realities, the claims in some quarters are that Biden is a bigger believer in science than Trump.  From where I sit and the information I have, that's like being a 2 on the scale of 1 to 10 instead of being a 1 when what we need is a strong 8 who can be informed up to at least a 9.

That seems about right on a lot of things. I especially agree with the idea that what any government can actually do is within fairly narrow limits, despite what any political party or person running for office says.

Speaking as a Canadian, my main hope if Biden wins is for a little less chaotic relationship with the US. It's tiring feeling like any policy was thought up 5 minutes ago and may be changed tomorrow. Even a government which adopted more protectionist policies would be easier to take if the actions were more consistent and predictable.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 04, 2020, 08:57:00 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on November 04, 2020, 07:08:10 AM
The problem isn't timing on solutions; the problem is many of the biggest problems cannot be solved by the president or even by legislation.

That's not a Libertarian "the government shouldn't do X", but more of a realistic "you can't change other people".  If inaugurated, Biden may manage to get more funding and resources for certain areas.  He cannot stop people from thinking and acting on certain thoughts.  He cannot unilaterally change certain societal trends or any physical realities.  About half the country who voted, voted Trump any way one wants to slice it.  That's not a small fringe group who had non-mainstream wishes and managed a miracle in 2016; that's a mainstream contingent who will continue to have their own interests and desires.

Related to physical realities, the claims in some quarters are that Biden is a bigger believer in science than Trump.  From where I sit and the information I have, that's like being a 2 on the scale of 1 to 10 instead of being a 1 when what we need is a strong 8 who can be informed up to at least a 9.

I dont think anyone is expecting Biden to roll in and fix all the nation's problems, but they do expect that he would not attack the other side and hope that it could help bring people together.  Whether you agree with Trump's policies or not, it is hard to deny that his rhetoric further inflames the polarization in the USA.  I think one of the big fears is if the US can withstand another 4 years of such "leadership". 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 04, 2020, 09:05:41 AM
I mean, Biden does have to get the ball rolling on some of the nation's problems. They can't all wait. Starting to get serious about climate change, in particular, can't really wait two years for another run at the senate, let alone four or more for another administration.

Whether he has the stomach for it remains to be seen. Frankly, I'm not optimistic, especially given that it's not a blowout result. I'm pretty worried he'll tack right and give up the game before negotiations even begin.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 04, 2020, 09:11:37 AM
As George McGovern said, don't pay attention to what the candidate says he'll do that he can't do, and don't pay attention to what he says he won't do that he can't do. That said, not all people don't take that advice. Otherwise, the candidates wouldn't spend so much time selling magical thinking. You're still free to vote for Biden because you think he has a magic wand to stop the virus, Or for Trump because you think he's got a solution to urban crime that can be implemented without pain and discord.

Quote from: Kron3007 on November 04, 2020, 08:57:00 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on November 04, 2020, 07:08:10 AM
The problem isn't timing on solutions; the problem is many of the biggest problems cannot be solved by the president or even by legislation.

That's not a Libertarian "the government shouldn't do X", but more of a realistic "you can't change other people".  If inaugurated, Biden may manage to get more funding and resources for certain areas.  He cannot stop people from thinking and acting on certain thoughts.  He cannot unilaterally change certain societal trends or any physical realities.  About half the country who voted, voted Trump any way one wants to slice it.  That's not a small fringe group who had non-mainstream wishes and managed a miracle in 2016; that's a mainstream contingent who will continue to have their own interests and desires.

Related to physical realities, the claims in some quarters are that Biden is a bigger believer in science than Trump.  From where I sit and the information I have, that's like being a 2 on the scale of 1 to 10 instead of being a 1 when what we need is a strong 8 who can be informed up to at least a 9.

I dont think anyone is expecting Biden to roll in and fix all the nation's problems, but they do expect that he would not attack the other side and hope that it could help bring people together.  Whether you agree with Trump's policies or not, it is hard to deny that his rhetoric further inflames the polarization in the USA.  I think one of the big fears is if the US can withstand another 4 years of such "leadership". 

Agree with this but add the nation will be divided under Biden (perhaps less so) anyway since a noisy subset of his supporters have declared that the USA is now populated by only two groups: 'antiracists' and 'racists.' And they refuse to understand they are playing with fire. They will only gain momentum with him as president.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on November 04, 2020, 09:54:45 AM
Last week I read the NY Times article on people who don't vote. What I learned form it is that non-voters (likely many voters too) have very poor understanding of how government works. Many complained about issues that the Federal government has no influence on. They were issues that the city council, school board, or county commissioners deal with. But of course these races never get any press, so people don't think they are important. In reality, these races are likely to have more direct impact on most people's lives than most things at the Federal level. I'm not sure how we fix that, but it really does need to be rectified.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Anselm on November 04, 2020, 10:17:19 AM
Is an electoral mandate even a real thing?  Do elected officials get more things done because of a large majority giving them some sort of mandate?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on November 04, 2020, 11:12:32 AM
Quote from: spork on October 05, 2020, 03:09:01 PM
Mark Kelly has an 8 point lead over Martha McSally in the Arizona race for Senate, according to the latest Times-Siena poll (https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/AZ0920-Crosstabs.pdf). He's got a huge lead among women respondents and those under 45 years old. McSally's support is from older white voters without a bachelor's degree -- Trumpsters.

I'll predict that Kelly wins in Arizona and Gideon wins in Maine.

I was 50% correct.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on November 04, 2020, 11:20:16 AM
In other ballot news California again rejected racism in college admissions via prop 16 by a wide margin. The fact that this is happening in the most liberal state in the country should show the left how toxic an issue the identity politics movement is. Refraining from announcing the race and gender of future court picks/running mates beforehand might be a good idea if the left doesn't want to lose even more of the middle to this proven loser of an issue.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 04, 2020, 11:41:36 AM
Umm...your antecedent precedes an impossible consequent?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 04, 2020, 11:49:25 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 04, 2020, 09:05:41 AM
Starting to get serious about climate change, in particular, can't really wait two years for another run at the senate, let alone four or more for another administration.

Too bad, as it's going to have to.  Indeed, I predict it will be twenty years, or two hundred!, before we "get serious" about climate change, the chief function of which is to provide Democrats with an evergreen political issue.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on November 04, 2020, 02:33:47 PM
Markets are already reacting to climate change even if politicians aren't (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/climate/home-sales-florida.html). Eventually politicians will be forced to follow the markets, regardless of party affiliation.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 04, 2020, 02:49:17 PM
Climate has always been changing. There are winners and there are losers, and there is uncertainty about costs and benefits. [The benefits are usually ignored.] Whatever, there is no catastrophe in the offing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: downer on November 04, 2020, 02:56:46 PM
Quote from: spork on November 04, 2020, 02:33:47 PM
Markets are already reacting to climate change even if politicians aren't (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/climate/home-sales-florida.html). Eventually politicians will be forced to follow the markets, regardless of party affiliation.

That's nice, but as far as I know it is too late to avoid major effects of climate change and their socio-political consequences. Though the partial collapse of the airline industry should help out.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 04, 2020, 03:01:21 PM
Quote from: spork on November 04, 2020, 02:33:47 PM
Markets are already reacting to climate change even if politicians aren't (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/climate/home-sales-florida.html). Eventually politicians will be forced to follow the markets, regardless of party affiliation.

We've known about anthropogenic climate change since at least the 1970s. In the late '90s, an overwhelming majority of Americans believed it was real and a serious problem (that situation was almost entirely reversed by the Bush years). Markets have had a long time to course-correct, and they have not done a good job of it. I think you're right that they'll eventually get there (although: not on their lonesome). But "eventually we'll get there" is not good enough when we have a pressing problem that requires serious action in the next ten years.

Frankly, the action that was required of us back in 1990-2005 to avoid the impending catastrofuck was pretty minimal. It's because we didn't do anything then, and because the phenomenon is so resilient, so seriously backloaded, and its problems are substantially deferred, that such dramatic action is necessary now. Incrementalism could have worked, if we'd started incrementing early enough. But we didn't. Market responses offer too little too late. (Seriously: the "market response" in that article = the bandaid solution of encouraging buyers not to buy homes on low-lying land, rather than the kind of serious structural change that would be necessary to get at the root cause of the problem. It's a classic short-term solution to a long-term problem.)

Quote from: dismalist on November 04, 2020, 02:49:17 PM
Climate has always been changing. There are winners and there are losers, and there is uncertainty about costs and benefits. [The benefits are usually ignored.] Whatever, there is no catastrophe in the offing.

There is, though. And it's already pretty catastrophic, we've just learned to accept such catastrophes as a matter of course.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 04, 2020, 03:07:43 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 04, 2020, 03:01:21 PM

Quote from: dismalist on November 04, 2020, 02:49:17 PM
Climate has always been changing. There are winners and there are losers, and there is uncertainty about costs and benefits. [The benefits are usually ignored.] Whatever, there is no catastrophe in the offing.

There is, though. And it's already pretty catastrophic, we've just learned to accept such catastrophes as a matter of course.

Maybe there is more than one reality! :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: polly_mer on November 05, 2020, 07:13:20 AM
https://theweek.com/articles/947824/left-just-got-crushed for those who are still insisting that somehow a tie within rounding is a real win that will matter.

A mandate from a big win for a given platform means passing legislation or rejiggering appropriations is easier because most of the newly/re-elected are on the same page about what needs to be done to satisfy the electoreate. 

Being essentially tied means equal numbers of people want very different things with the result that an idea of serving everyone equally doesn't really work when nearly half the people will be angry at any action.  Abandoning the idea of serving everyone in favor of pushing through dramatic change is not going to fly at all.

I am also always amused when the climate science is trotted out with the discussion by members of the public focusing at about the 3-5 level on the technology effects.  The changes that would have to be made to move the needle with our current level of technology are pretty unpalatable to the people who will need make the daily changes.  The people who get the immediate negative consequences are not those who get the medium-term benefits.

Even the temporary behavioral changes necessary for COVID when the technologies are on the horizon with better therapeutics and vaccines are a hard sell in most of the country.  It's pretty common to hear something like: You can't expect people to basically stay home for two years!

But we can expect people with very comfortable lives due to the modern conveniences that all rely on energy consumption unimaginable a century ago to dramatically reduce forever?  I have this bridge for sale.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 05, 2020, 09:59:51 AM
Re: thread topic: Still parked at an almost-resolved first-round count.

Has anyone heard why Nevada is still not fully counted?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Caracal on November 05, 2020, 10:01:17 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 05, 2020, 09:59:51 AM
Re: thread topic: Still parked at an almost-resolved first-round count.

Has anyone heard why Nevada is still not fully counted?

M.

It just takes time to process all the mail ballots, some of which just came in on Election Day.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Stockmann on November 05, 2020, 11:04:32 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on November 05, 2020, 07:13:20 AM
Being essentially tied means equal numbers of people want very different things with the result that an idea of serving everyone equally doesn't really work when nearly half the people will be angry at any action.  Abandoning the idea of serving everyone in favor of pushing through dramatic change is not going to fly at all.

But isn't that exactly what happened in the US under Bush Jr.?


QuoteEven the temporary behavioral changes necessary for COVID when the technologies are on the horizon with better therapeutics and vaccines are a hard sell in most of the country.  It's pretty common to hear something like: You can't expect people to basically stay home for two years!

It may be common for people to say that, but the empirical reality is basically the opposite: where people have massively complied with hygiene and social distancing measures (the Far East, New Zealand), the pandemic was quickly brought under control and the more drastic measures could soon be safely lifted, or never even had to be imposed (Japan never had a lockdown, for example); where people largely ignored or resisted social distancing and hygiene measures (Europe and the Americas) there have been multiple major waves with little prospect of improvement until there is mass immunization, and in some cases with lockdowns no to avert a crisis but just to try to prevent the healthcare system from collapsing entirely (the UK).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on November 05, 2020, 02:45:07 PM
QuoteIt's not clear to me why the US needs much of a standing army at all, but even so, there's no reason why it needs to be such a behemoth.

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Having it may also mean that we Wont need it.

Do you think China would think twice about reining in the renegade republic of Taiwan IF the 7th fleet was not close by?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 05, 2020, 03:50:48 PM
Quote from: clean on November 05, 2020, 02:45:07 PM
QuoteIt's not clear to me why the US needs much of a standing army at all, but even so, there's no reason why it needs to be such a behemoth.

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.


Not when having it is a colossal waste of resources better spent elsewhere.

The amount of cash, time, and energy spent on waging war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere could have given all Americans universal healthcare instead. It could have greened the economy. It could have done any number of things. Instead, it just got heaped up and set on fire so that Americans could feel good about themselves by setting some brown people and their stuff on fire.

Quote
Having it may also mean that we Wont need it.

What, when Canada invades because you've got... something?... we want? When China sends a dolphibian invasion across the Pacific? For a country with plenty of resources and infrastructure, there's basically no point in going to war except to show off by hurting others. And the population doesn't have the stomach for a real war anyway (nor do most people any more, and rightly so).

For the record, I think you should just junk the whole thing. But what I'm saying is that you could reduce to the point where the US military is only twice as powerful as the next most powerful military, instead of the the next ten combined. The savings would be enormous, and all that energy and treasure would be better spent.


Quote
Do you think China would think twice about reining in the renegade republic of Taiwan IF the 7th fleet was not close by?

I think Taiwan is not your problem. And since war with China isn't a real option anyway, I think the threat is entirely empty.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 05, 2020, 04:13:37 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 05, 2020, 03:50:48 PM
Quote from: clean on November 05, 2020, 02:45:07 PM
QuoteIt's not clear to me why the US needs much of a standing army at all, but even so, there's no reason why it needs to be such a behemoth.

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.


Not when having it is a colossal waste of resources better spent elsewhere.

The amount of cash, time, and energy spent on waging war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere could have given all Americans universal healthcare instead. It could have greened the economy. It could have done any number of things. Instead, it just got heaped up and set on fire so that Americans could feel good about themselves by setting some brown people and their stuff on fire.

Quote
Having it may also mean that we Wont need it.

What, when Canada invades because you've got... something?... we want? When China sends a dolphibian invasion across the Pacific? For a country with plenty of resources and infrastructure, there's basically no point in going to war except to show off by hurting others. And the population doesn't have the stomach for a real war anyway (nor do most people any more, and rightly so).

For the record, I think you should just junk the whole thing. But what I'm saying is that you could reduce to the point where the US military is only twice as powerful as the next most powerful military, instead of the the next ten combined. The savings would be enormous, and all that energy and treasure would be better spent.


Quote
Do you think China would think twice about reining in the renegade republic of Taiwan IF the 7th fleet was not close by?

I think Taiwan is not your problem. And since war with China isn't a real option anyway, I think the threat is entirely empty.

Yeah, how else can you maintain American hegemony?

I think Carter hit the nail on the head when discussing the importance that peace has played in China's rise.  America could have high speed rail, but chose bombs.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 05, 2020, 04:17:20 PM
Don't cancel that fire insurance policy on the house! :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on November 05, 2020, 04:38:44 PM
QuoteHaving it may also mean that we Wont need it.


Peace through Strength

OR
I think this is from a Chevy Chase movie, "Peace through superior firepower"

either way...Having the resources to fight may mean that the enemy may think twice before picking the fight.


But Hell.... After what the Great Pumpkin said tonight, we may need it ALL here for the Battle of the  Great Vote Countegeddin
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 05, 2020, 04:41:09 PM
If you want peace, prepare for war!

Pax Romana, about 200+ years. Not bad, really.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 05, 2020, 05:09:15 PM
The issue for Taiwan is that they, like Hong Kong, and Tibet, have this big moose next door, just ready and willing to sit on them and squash them flat, and they do look for help from those who can spare it.

I don't agree with a lot of uses of the military, but the protection of small, well-intended allies with unique cultures, wherever possible, is not a big drain and helps keep the moose at bay overall.

We could do that much without any great outlay.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 05, 2020, 08:17:39 PM
Looks like Biden will pass Trump in PA between 1 and 4am EST. Sorry I won't be awake to see the call and accompanying breakdown from Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 05, 2020, 08:51:54 PM
An elected official is suddenly 'ashamed of the announcements coming from the WH...

You enabled the man for four years, and now you're "ashamed" he's just doing what he's been doing all along?

Hunh?

I said a year ago this could happen.

Where is your reality testing?

Hunh?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on November 06, 2020, 09:49:32 AM
The person is ashamed when it's convenient to be ashamed.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 06, 2020, 10:21:39 AM
There may be other things to be ashamed of that aren't getting commented on by people who should know better. For example Charles Blow at the NYT refusing to understand how Trump could have increased his black and minority vote. The sad fact that a respected (?) newspaper has such a deluded person writing for them.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 06, 2020, 11:51:38 AM
Speaking of things to be ashamed of here's another gem:

'As the political scientist Melanye Price wrote in October of the Trump campaign's efforts to court Black men, "Even if Black male Republican support increases in 2020, most of the responsibility for a second Trump victory will be attributable to White voters.'

from: https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/04/politics/black-voters-2020-election-donald-trump-white-nationalism/index.html

Not surprising considering 73% of Americans are white. Or anyway some 60% of us  are non-Hispanic white. Did this person take grade school arithmetic?

Gotta love CNN.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Cheerful on November 06, 2020, 12:41:40 PM
Biden and Harris are supposed to speak during prime time tv this evening.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 06, 2020, 03:37:50 PM
I'm just Biden my ti--ime....

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on November 06, 2020, 07:22:46 PM
I meant to post this earlier. On Wednesday morning, my colleagues and I watched the official ballot drop box get picked up by the city.  A large work crew loaded it on to an industrial truck in less than a half-hour.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 12:27:05 AM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on November 06, 2020, 07:22:46 PM
I meant to post this earlier. On Wednesday morning, my colleagues and I watched the official ballot drop box get picked up by the city.  A large work crew loaded it on to an industrial truck in less than a half-hour.

Therefore....?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 05:12:41 AM
The case for Trump having a legitimate beef about the voting.     https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/11/06/the_kafka_election_finding_a_way_out_of_the_maze__144618.html
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on November 07, 2020, 06:08:10 AM
The view from Canada:

"the so-called shining city on a hill is, instead, a black hole where hope, optimism, reason and the future go to die (https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/11/4/we-now-know-what-america-is/)."
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:31:44 AM
There is something so satisfying about watching this election slip through Trump's fingers in slow motion, while his fans and sycophants cry and complain and twist themselves into pretzels arguing, without evidence, that the election is being stolen and/or that we should abandon democratic processes for dear leader. Of course some Republican politicians egg it on, not because they actually believe that there is fraud going on, but because they want to secure the lunatic fringe vote for 2024. But the election is effectively over, as it has been for days, since Biden will have won convincingly and insurmountably, with 306 EC votes and a massive popular vote lead.

I imagine that the networks will call it today, once PA is above the recount threshold (0.5%), but I wouldn't mind if it dragged out a bit longer.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 07:40:39 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:31:44 AM
There is something so satisfying about watching this election slip through Trump's fingers in slow motion, while his fans and sycophants cry and complain and twist themselves into pretzels arguing, without evidence, that the election is being stolen and/or that we should abandon democratic processes for dear leader. Of course some Republican politicians egg it on, not because they actually believe that there is fraud going on, but because they want to secure the lunatic fringe vote for 2024. But the election is effectively over, as it has been for days, since Biden will have won convincingly and insurmountably, with 306 EC votes and a massive popular vote lead.

I imagine that the networks will call it today, once PA is above the recount threshold (0.5%), but I wouldn't mind if it dragged out a bit longer.

Well, regardless that Trump is not especially credible, the number of mail in ballots being much higher this time should guarantee some amount of controversy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:44:51 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 07:40:39 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:31:44 AM
There is something so satisfying about watching this election slip through Trump's fingers in slow motion, while his fans and sycophants cry and complain and twist themselves into pretzels arguing, without evidence, that the election is being stolen and/or that we should abandon democratic processes for dear leader. Of course some Republican politicians egg it on, not because they actually believe that there is fraud going on, but because they want to secure the lunatic fringe vote for 2024. But the election is effectively over, as it has been for days, since Biden will have won convincingly and insurmountably, with 306 EC votes and a massive popular vote lead.

I imagine that the networks will call it today, once PA is above the recount threshold (0.5%), but I wouldn't mind if it dragged out a bit longer.

Well, regardless that Trump is not especially credible, the number of mail in ballots being much higher this time should guarantee some amount of controversy.

Controversy among people who don't understand how counting works or choose to purposely misrepresent the validity of the counting process.

EDIT: Let me add that Trump would have claimed fraud no matter how the vote counts came in, and his followers (both Republican politicians and voters) would have believed him.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 07, 2020, 07:47:06 AM
I think it's weird that media outlets are dragging their heels on the call, and I suspect it serves to lend credibility to Trump's claims. It certainly keeps hope alive for his supporters.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 08:15:51 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:44:51 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 07:40:39 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:31:44 AM
There is something so satisfying about watching this election slip through Trump's fingers in slow motion, while his fans and sycophants cry and complain and twist themselves into pretzels arguing, without evidence, that the election is being stolen and/or that we should abandon democratic processes for dear leader. Of course some Republican politicians egg it on, not because they actually believe that there is fraud going on, but because they want to secure the lunatic fringe vote for 2024. But the election is effectively over, as it has been for days, since Biden will have won convincingly and insurmountably, with 306 EC votes and a massive popular vote lead.

I imagine that the networks will call it today, once PA is above the recount threshold (0.5%), but I wouldn't mind if it dragged out a bit longer.

Well, regardless that Trump is not especially credible, the number of mail in ballots being much higher this time should guarantee some amount of controversy.

Controversy among people who don't understand how counting works or choose to purposely misrepresent the validity of the counting process.

EDIT: Let me add that Trump would have claimed fraud no matter how the vote counts came in, and his followers (both Republican politicians and voters) would have believed him.

Again, some people vote negatively, so the fact that they voted for the Trump does not make them a Trump follower necessarily.

Do you think mail-in voting has the same amount of reliability as in person voting?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 08:25:48 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 08:15:51 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:44:51 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 07:40:39 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:31:44 AM
There is something so satisfying about watching this election slip through Trump's fingers in slow motion, while his fans and sycophants cry and complain and twist themselves into pretzels arguing, without evidence, that the election is being stolen and/or that we should abandon democratic processes for dear leader. Of course some Republican politicians egg it on, not because they actually believe that there is fraud going on, but because they want to secure the lunatic fringe vote for 2024. But the election is effectively over, as it has been for days, since Biden will have won convincingly and insurmountably, with 306 EC votes and a massive popular vote lead.

I imagine that the networks will call it today, once PA is above the recount threshold (0.5%), but I wouldn't mind if it dragged out a bit longer.

Well, regardless that Trump is not especially credible, the number of mail in ballots being much higher this time should guarantee some amount of controversy.

Controversy among people who don't understand how counting works or choose to purposely misrepresent the validity of the counting process.

EDIT: Let me add that Trump would have claimed fraud no matter how the vote counts came in, and his followers (both Republican politicians and voters) would have believed him.

Again, some people vote negatively, so the fact that they voted for the Trump does not make them a Trump follower necessarily.

Do you think mail-in voting has the same amount of reliability as in person voting?

I agree that many (maybe most) Trump voters probably won't attribute his loss to funny business, but his cores supporters and enablers in the media (e.g. Fox opinion hosts, online personalities, and radio hosts) and in the Republican party will.

I think mail-in voting is perfectly reliable and I've seen zero evidence to the contrary.  Where I live there is a rich tradition of mail in voting, among Democrats and Republicans, and nobody every cared about it until Trump started saying it was all fraud.  In any case, it isn't going to be close enough for any of this to make a difference and the idea that there is a vast conspiracy being carried out by election officials and ballot counters spread across several states is laughable.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 07, 2020, 07:47:06 AM
I think it's weird that media outlets are dragging their heels on the call, and I suspect it serves to lend credibility to Trump's claims. It certainly keeps hope alive for his supporters.

True, but the decision desks don't want to call it prematurely only to have to reverse later, especially a state that is going to decide the presidency.  That said, there is really no hope for Trump in Nevada at this point.  I wonder if AP would have called it already if not for that premature call on AZ.  PA is also out of reach, but there is a 1/1000 chance that he could win big in the provisional ballots, so I guess they want to be absolutely sure, and I don't object to that, although it certainly gives Trump an avenue to keep spreading disinformation.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: saffie on November 07, 2020, 08:29:52 AM
Looks like AP has called for Biden. (Spontaneous cheers in my neighborhood made me look.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 07, 2020, 08:32:47 AM
Quote from: saffie on November 07, 2020, 08:29:52 AM
Looks like AP has called for Biden. (Spontaneous cheers in my neighborhood made me look.)

Huzzah!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 07, 2020, 08:55:35 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 07, 2020, 08:32:47 AM
Quote from: saffie on November 07, 2020, 08:29:52 AM
Looks like AP has called for Biden. (Spontaneous cheers in my neighborhood made me look.)

Huzzah!

I'm still in shock (but glad) that it happened. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop (not that I want it to, just used to it).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 09:13:46 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 08:25:48 AM

Do you think mail-in voting has the same amount of reliability as in person voting?

I think mail-in voting is perfectly reliable and I've seen zero evidence to the contrary. 

[/quote]

My impression was no kind of voting is 100% reliable in a nation with so many voters.

QuoteWhere I live there is a rich tradition of mail in voting, among Democrats and Republicans, and nobody every cared about it until Trump started saying it was all fraud.  In any case, it isn't going to be close enough for any of this to make a difference and the idea that there is a vast conspiracy being carried out by election officials and ballot counters spread across several states is laughable.

Yeah but...the fact that nobody made any fuss about it doesn't mean it was 100 accurate.

Just ruminating. I'm not challenging what I'm being told on the boob tube, but the fact that people want to know more about how the voting is being tallied this year is not, to me, laughable, but foreseeable, given all the strange things we're working against. Pandemic, lots of mail-ins, different states doing things differently, slowed delivery.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Caracal on November 07, 2020, 10:17:03 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 09:13:46 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 08:25:48 AM

Do you think mail-in voting has the same amount of reliability as in person voting?

I think mail-in voting is perfectly reliable and I've seen zero evidence to the contrary. 


My impression was no kind of voting is 100% reliable in a nation with so many voters.

QuoteWhere I live there is a rich tradition of mail in voting, among Democrats and Republicans, and nobody every cared about it until Trump started saying it was all fraud.  In any case, it isn't going to be close enough for any of this to make a difference and the idea that there is a vast conspiracy being carried out by election officials and ballot counters spread across several states is laughable.

Yeah but...the fact that nobody made any fuss about it doesn't mean it was 100 accurate.

Just ruminating. I'm not challenging what I'm being told on the boob tube, but the fact that people want to know more about how the voting is being tallied this year is not, to me, laughable, but foreseeable, given all the strange things we're working against. Pandemic, lots of mail-ins, different states doing things differently, slowed delivery.
[/quote]

Sure, but it isn't like it is particularly mysterious. You can watch live feeds of people processing mail ballots. There are clear rules and procedures and anybody can go look them up.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 07, 2020, 10:53:34 AM
I concede on behalf of Trump.  There, it's over.  Congratulations to the winning candidate, Gridlock, for whom I've voted in every election that I can remember.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: alto_stratus on November 07, 2020, 10:57:20 AM
Quote from: Caracal on November 07, 2020, 10:17:03 AM
There are clear rules and procedures and anybody can go look them up.

To facilitate this process - https://ballotpedia.org/Election_recount_laws_and_procedures_in_the_50_states,_2020

I'm thankful I live in a state with an organized, quick process.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: namazu on November 07, 2020, 03:05:25 PM
This alternative energy discussion is really interesting.  Start a separate thread for it, please.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: eigen on November 07, 2020, 03:09:08 PM
Quote from: namazu on November 07, 2020, 03:05:25 PM
This alternative energy discussion is really interesting.  Start a separate thread for it, please.

Good idea. Splitting it into a new topic now.

::edit:: Done. New topic is here, I tried to get most of the posts on energy technology and policy from here. https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=1906.0
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 05:39:05 PM
Already Kamala Harris has said one thing that isn't accurate. Joe Biden wasn't the one who 'broke the barrier' by selecting a female running mate. Walter Mondale was.
Now she's doing the 'systemic racism' riff. It doesn't take long with some people, does it?
i think I agree with Writingprof. Gridlock is better than a lot of things.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 08:25:48 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 09:13:46 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 08:25:48 AM

Do you think mail-in voting has the same amount of reliability as in person voting?

I think mail-in voting is perfectly reliable and I've seen zero evidence to the contrary. 


My impression was no kind of voting is 100% reliable in a nation with so many voters.

QuoteWhere I live there is a rich tradition of mail in voting, among Democrats and Republicans, and nobody every cared about it until Trump started saying it was all fraud.  In any case, it isn't going to be close enough for any of this to make a difference and the idea that there is a vast conspiracy being carried out by election officials and ballot counters spread across several states is laughable.

Yeah but...the fact that nobody made any fuss about it doesn't mean it was 100 accurate.

Just ruminating. I'm not challenging what I'm being told on the boob tube, but the fact that people want to know more about how the voting is being tallied this year is not, to me, laughable, but foreseeable, given all the strange things we're working against. Pandemic, lots of mail-ins, different states doing things differently, slowed delivery.

Sure, people have a right to know how it works, not that it is a mystery, there have been a million articles explaining it and also explaining how the red mirage would give way to a late blue surge.  But this is not about some curiosity by the public.  Trump and his goofy lawyers are ginning people up with a lot of conspiracy theories that are in fact laughable.  And again, there is no evidence presented here or anywhere else to suggest any fraud or irregularities of the sort that would overturn thousands of votes, just a lot of "I don't know it seems unreliable."
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Ruralguy on November 07, 2020, 07:19:26 PM
This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:27:11 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 07, 2020, 07:19:26 PM
This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.

For reference, Wisconsin recount in 2016 changed 131 votes.  Anyway, Washington Post reports that this is all posturing to help Trump save face (or something). 

In any case, it is yet another national embarrassment from Trump and his enablers.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 07:31:57 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:27:11 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 07, 2020, 07:19:26 PM
This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.

For reference, Wisconsin recount in 2016 changed 131 votes.  Anyway, Washington Post reports that this is all posturing to help Trump save face (or something). 


That would be editorializing more than reporting. Not that I disagree.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: eigen on November 07, 2020, 07:53:27 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 07:31:57 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:27:11 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 07, 2020, 07:19:26 PM
This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.

For reference, Wisconsin recount in 2016 changed 131 votes.  Anyway, Washington Post reports that this is all posturing to help Trump save face (or something). 


That would be editorializing more than reporting. Not that I disagree.

That depends on whether it was something written by the staff, or whether they were reporting it being said by another party.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 08, 2020, 05:31:46 AM
Quote from: eigen on November 07, 2020, 07:53:27 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 07:31:57 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 07, 2020, 07:27:11 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 07, 2020, 07:19:26 PM
This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.

For reference, Wisconsin recount in 2016 changed 131 votes.  Anyway, Washington Post reports that this is all posturing to help Trump save face (or something). 


That would be editorializing more than reporting. Not that I disagree.

That depends on whether it was something written by the staff, or whether they were reporting it being said by another party.

It was reporting, a statement attributed to  a Presidential staffer (not named).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 08, 2020, 06:19:37 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 05:39:05 PM
Already Kamala Harris has said one thing that isn't accurate. Joe Biden wasn't the one who 'broke the barrier' by selecting a female running mate. Walter Mondale was.
Now she's doing the 'systemic racism' riff. It doesn't take long with some people, does it?
i think I agree with Writingprof. Gridlock is better than a lot of things.

I'll say this for Harris: She really believes her talking points. "Systemic racism" is not just a phrase written on a notecard; it's the idea that animates her entire political existence.  Happily, this ensures that she will never win a national election on the top of the ticket.  "Just shut up about it," they said.  "I literally can't," she answered.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 06:25:13 AM
Quote from: writingprof on November 08, 2020, 06:19:37 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2020, 05:39:05 PM
Already Kamala Harris has said one thing that isn't accurate. Joe Biden wasn't the one who 'broke the barrier' by selecting a female running mate. Walter Mondale was.
Now she's doing the 'systemic racism' riff. It doesn't take long with some people, does it?
i think I agree with Writingprof. Gridlock is better than a lot of things.

I'll say this for Harris: She really believes her talking points. "Systemic racism" is not just a phrase written on a notecard; it's the idea that animates her entire political existence.  Happily, this ensures that she will never win a national election on the top of the ticket.  "Just shut up about it," they said.  "I literally can't," she answered.

The thing that makes me sad is that this is despite the fact that her husband is white.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 08, 2020, 07:13:35 AM
^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Anyone else in the US having friends from afar emailing and texting to congratulate you on the election results?

So far, a cousin in Belgium, two friends in two different parts of France, one French/British couple, and a UK cousin have written, implying in a few cases that they were waiting with baited breath to see if we'd do it (i.e., dump Trump).

I do follow the French, UK, and Belgian events as well, but I don't recall having this many notes before.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kiana on November 08, 2020, 07:58:39 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 08, 2020, 07:13:35 AM
^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Anyone else in the US having friends from afar emailing and texting to congratulate you on the election results?

So far, a cousin in Belgium, two friends in two different parts of France, one French/British couple, and a UK cousin have written, implying in a few cases that they were waiting with baited breath to see if we'd do it (i.e., dump Trump).

I do follow the French, UK, and Belgian events as well, but I don't recall having this many notes before.

M.


Yes, from Germany, Australia, Canada, the UK, and Czech Republic so far.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 08, 2020, 08:08:52 AM
I'm still too relieved to be happy and excited.

And still too anxious about the fact that it was as close as it was.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 08, 2020, 08:16:11 AM
Yes. A friend and I both agreed as the first night's counting went on, it shouldn't have been this close.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 08, 2020, 08:30:34 AM
It was too close for comfort, but also not as close as it seemed because of the way votes were counted.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 09:00:12 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 08, 2020, 07:13:35 AM
^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)


Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on November 08, 2020, 09:46:04 AM
I realized the strange languid Sunday morning feeling I'm having is the long-forgotten feeling of not having to think (very much*) about what the Trump administration is up to. I'm very much looking forward to years of not having to think all that much about the executive branch because I can trust that competent people of good will are busy doing their jobs.

*They can of course still do quite a lot of damage on the way out the door, but not all that much that can't quickly be reversed with executive orders.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 09:00:12 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 08, 2020, 07:13:35 AM
^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)


Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.

You clearly don't understand this term. It doesn't mean everyone is racist, it means there are deep, systemic things in our society that perpetuate inequalities. It's not about what's in anyone's heart, it's about how legal, economic, educational, political, etc. systems impact people in ways that differ by race. But of course you would know that if you actually had even a fraction of an open mind rather than just assuming it means what you want it to mean.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 08, 2020, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 08, 2020, 07:13:35 AM
^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Harris is no more qualified to discuss racism than I am.  Even if we grant that the person who has experienced the most racism is the most qualified to discuss it (which I don't), it's not obvious that Harris has experienced more racism than I have. 

Or are we arguing that every "B"lack person has experienced more racism than every white person? 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 08, 2020, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: writingprof on November 08, 2020, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 08, 2020, 07:13:35 AM
^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Harris is no more qualified to discuss racism than I am.  Even if we grant that the person who has experienced the most racism is the most qualified to discuss it (which I don't), it's not obvious that Harris has experienced more racism than I have. 

Or are we arguing that every "B"lack person has experienced more racism than every white person?

Oops, sorry, I missed the part where you are the baseline judge of all things, against whom and which everything else is to be compared.

Guess I will have to go see about recalibrating my life expectations now....

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 10:53:47 AM
Quote from: Puget on November 08, 2020, 09:46:04 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 09:00:12 AM
Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.

You clearly don't understand this term. It doesn't mean everyone is racist, it means there are deep, systemic things in our society that perpetuate inequalities. It's not about what's in anyone's heart, it's about how legal, economic, educational, political, etc. systems impact people in ways that differ by race. But of course you would know that if you actually had even a fraction of an open mind rather than just assuming it means what you want it to mean.

So does that mean that everyone in society is equally responsible for it? (Since it's not about "what's in anyone's heart"?)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: eigen on November 08, 2020, 11:02:49 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 10:53:47 AM
Quote from: Puget on November 08, 2020, 09:46:04 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 09:00:12 AM
Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.

You clearly don't understand this term. It doesn't mean everyone is racist, it means there are deep, systemic things in our society that perpetuate inequalities. It's not about what's in anyone's heart, it's about how legal, economic, educational, political, etc. systems impact people in ways that differ by race. But of course you would know that if you actually had even a fraction of an open mind rather than just assuming it means what you want it to mean.

So does that mean that everyone in society is equally responsible for it? (Since it's not about "what's in anyone's heart"?)

Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on November 08, 2020, 11:20:18 AM
Whatever someone thinks about Harris, I and many others will never, no matter what, under any circumstance ever take her seriously on any issue after receiving a make work show up job for bedding Willie Brown in SF. Sorry, your "strong independent woman" card is permanently revoked when you start off with that strategy. Can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: eigen on November 08, 2020, 11:02:49 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 10:53:47 AM
Quote from: Puget on November 08, 2020, 09:46:04 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 09:00:12 AM
Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.

You clearly don't understand this term. It doesn't mean everyone is racist, it means there are deep, systemic things in our society that perpetuate inequalities. It's not about what's in anyone's heart, it's about how legal, economic, educational, political, etc. systems impact people in ways that differ by race. But of course you would know that if you actually had even a fraction of an open mind rather than just assuming it means what you want it to mean.

So does that mean that everyone in society is equally responsible for it? (Since it's not about "what's in anyone's heart"?)

Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.

Where does that leave people who are strongly opposed to explicit barriers, and who support non-identity-based social change, but who reject the "systemic" label?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on November 08, 2020, 01:08:47 PM
I have, in political discussion broadcasts, heard that the polls were way off on their per candidate shares of voter strength. I do not agree that is the case. Instead, it is my opinion that poll numbers were off for the purpose of "bandwagon fulllfillment", an intentional psychological tact meant to influence immature voters.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 08, 2020, 05:20:17 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 08, 2020, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 08, 2020, 07:13:35 AM
^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Harris is no more qualified to discuss racism than I am.  Even if we grant that the person who has experienced the most racism is the most qualified to discuss it (which I don't), it's not obvious that Harris has experienced more racism than I have. 

Or are we arguing that every "B"lack person has experienced more racism than every white person?

Once someone mistakenly thought I was Black. (Long story). It was a strange experience. The error was corrected and the reaction, change of vibe, etc was amazing.

I have never felt the same vibe with people who correctly assume I am white, for any reason.

So, while I can't say I have truly experienced racism, I can say that my brief experience of being Black was different than any other experience I have ever had, by a long shot.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: eigen on November 08, 2020, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: eigen on November 08, 2020, 11:02:49 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 10:53:47 AM
Quote from: Puget on November 08, 2020, 09:46:04 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 09:00:12 AM
Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.

You clearly don't understand this term. It doesn't mean everyone is racist, it means there are deep, systemic things in our society that perpetuate inequalities. It's not about what's in anyone's heart, it's about how legal, economic, educational, political, etc. systems impact people in ways that differ by race. But of course you would know that if you actually had even a fraction of an open mind rather than just assuming it means what you want it to mean.

So does that mean that everyone in society is equally responsible for it? (Since it's not about "what's in anyone's heart"?)

Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.

Where does that leave people who are strongly opposed to explicit barriers, and who support non-identity-based social change, but who reject the "systemic" label?

Honestly, I'd argue living in a dream world that doesn't mirror reality, and more than a little naive.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 08, 2020, 06:42:21 PM
Y'all should check out John McWhorter. His manner of speaking is gentle and respectful, and he has academic credentials that won't quit (although that doesn't seem to dissuade people from concluding that someone might be a total nut case; academia being a rough and tumble world --- nevertheless I will try encouraging you here.)  No one could remind you less of Donald Trump. But as long as racism has been identified by Harris and Biden as front and center of today's urgent concerns, then all things that might be racist in their effect (if not intent) are fair game for discussion. According to McWhorter it is racist to suppose that today's black American cannot survive and thrive without white people constantly accommodating him by guarding against implicit bias or those hidden evil things that we are certain lurk within the system. That he is that fragile and weak with coping skills that he cannot navigate himself through a world in which he regularly meets people who don't give a damn whether he succeeds or gets an even break.
To suppose that he needs such constant accommodation is to harmfully underestimate the personal agency he was born with. And these messages become internalized.
Racism? Hell yeah. From the Democrats.

As if the world wants to greet every white person with open arms. As I have been told, white people rule the USA. Which white people though? Not my wife and I.

A lot of the clash over questions of racism of all 57 varieties today is political anyway. It's part of a larger tug-of-war over who should have more control over government. It's the currency in the democratic party bank account, and once you've decided you don't have to be a democrat if you want, it starts looking like three dollar bills.

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 08, 2020, 05:20:17 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 08, 2020, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 08, 2020, 07:13:35 AM
^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Harris is no more qualified to discuss racism than I am.  Even if we grant that the person who has experienced the most racism is the most qualified to discuss it (which I don't), it's not obvious that Harris has experienced more racism than I have. 

Or are we arguing that every "B"lack person has experienced more racism than every white person?

Once someone mistakenly thought I was Black. (Long story). It was a strange experience. The error was corrected and the reaction, change of vibe, etc was amazing.

I have never felt the same vibe with people who correctly assume I am white, for any reason.

So, while I can't say I have truly experienced racism, I can say that my brief experience of being Black was different than any other experience I have ever had, by a long shot.

OOHHH!!! Most intriguing.

Not so fast. Some details would make your post interesting.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 08, 2020, 06:57:15 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 08, 2020, 05:20:17 PM

Once someone mistakenly thought I was Black. (Long story). It was a strange experience. The error was corrected and the reaction, change of vibe, etc was amazing.

I have never felt the same vibe with people who correctly assume I am white, for any reason.

So, while I can't say I have truly experienced racism, I can say that my brief experience of being Black was different than any other experience I have ever had, by a long shot.

Always I am mistaken for being Jewish, honestly. Short story. The experience is not strange if the error has to be corrected, for whatever reason.

I have never felt the same vibe with people who correctly assumed I am not Jewish, for any reason.

So, I cannot say I have experienced anti-semitism, but I can say that the experience of being seen as Jewish is no different from any other identification experience I've ever had, by a long shot.

Let us not conflate personal experiences with systemic racism. There was and is anti-semitism, but nowadays there is no systemic anti-semitism. [Well, exept at Harvard, as there was a long time ago, but it's probably OK because Asians are discriminated against as well. :-)]

Gimme a break.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 09, 2020, 05:38:12 AM
Quote from: eigen on November 08, 2020, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: eigen on November 08, 2020, 11:02:49 AM
Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.

Where does that leave people who are strongly opposed to explicit barriers, and who support non-identity-based social change, but who reject the "systemic" label?

Honestly, I'd argue living in a dream world that doesn't mirror reality, and more than a little naive.

Let's put this in statistical terms. If the claim is that there are only "racists" and "anti-racists", what is the statistical evidence for the distribution being bimodal, rather than Gaussian?

For example, in discussions about education, where some schools have much worse outcomes than others, progressives would argue that people are either less concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "racists"), or more concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "anti-racists").

What is the statistical evidence that the distribution is not Gaussian, i.e. that for the greatest number of people whether the children are black or not doesn't really affect how much they care about the quality of the schools?

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 09, 2020, 06:28:24 AM
QuoteLet us not conflate personal experiences with systemic racism.

Honest questions: is there anyone who thinks systemic racism is a lot of bunk, but implicit bias is a problem in need of serious work? Is there anyone who thinks implicit bias is a myth or grossly overstated while systemic racism is a serious problem? Or do we have to buy to whole package together?

Honest question: since we know that black people in the USA believe they are more bigoted than whites are, and whites, and virtually everyone else have a similar impression, is it acceptable for a white person to say they ought to do something about that, as Larry Elder and Tom Sowell do? If it's not acceptable for whites to say anything critical is it OK for people not white but other than black to?

https://www.oaoa.com/editorial/columns/opinion_columnist/sowell-who-is-racist/article_a7b9c3a2-ea82-11e2-8c20-0019bb30f31a.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlGE9dg7fyM
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 08:31:33 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2020, 05:38:12 AM
Quote from: eigen on November 08, 2020, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: eigen on November 08, 2020, 11:02:49 AM
Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.

Where does that leave people who are strongly opposed to explicit barriers, and who support non-identity-based social change, but who reject the "systemic" label?

Honestly, I'd argue living in a dream world that doesn't mirror reality, and more than a little naive.

Let's put this in statistical terms. If the claim is that there are only "racists" and "anti-racists", what is the statistical evidence for the distribution being bimodal, rather than Gaussian?

For example, in discussions about education, where some schools have much worse outcomes than others, progressives would argue that people are either less concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "racists"), or more concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "anti-racists").

What is the statistical evidence that the distribution is not Gaussian, i.e. that for the greatest number of people whether the children are black or not doesn't really affect how much they care about the quality of the schools?

Who ever said it is binary (racist vs non-racist)?  I think most people would see that it is a gradient.

Systemic racism is not really about racism in many ways (perhaps a poor choice of words), just that the system in place negatively impacts one race more than others.  I remember living in Mississippi and listening to a radio program stating that 97% of student in public school in one region were black (much higher than the general population as other groups tended to use private schools).  Since the public education system in that region is underfunded and not overly good, this will disproportionately impact the quality of education of black families.  This is not directly related to racism and is likely a consequence of income, but the lack of funding the public school disproportionately impacts one race.  School districts and funding models in the US are just one of many examples.     
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on November 09, 2020, 08:35:22 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 07, 2020, 07:19:26 PM
This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.

Election revenge terrorism is a valid concern.  But I'll take the concern that there might be isolated acts of such over the virtual certainty of widespread rioting had the results gone differently.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 09, 2020, 08:42:11 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 08:31:33 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2020, 05:38:12 AM
Quote from: eigen on November 08, 2020, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 08, 2020, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: eigen on November 08, 2020, 11:02:49 AM
Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.

Where does that leave people who are strongly opposed to explicit barriers, and who support non-identity-based social change, but who reject the "systemic" label?

Honestly, I'd argue living in a dream world that doesn't mirror reality, and more than a little naive.

Let's put this in statistical terms. If the claim is that there are only "racists" and "anti-racists", what is the statistical evidence for the distribution being bimodal, rather than Gaussian?

For example, in discussions about education, where some schools have much worse outcomes than others, progressives would argue that people are either less concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "racists"), or more concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "anti-racists").

What is the statistical evidence that the distribution is not Gaussian, i.e. that for the greatest number of people whether the children are black or not doesn't really affect how much they care about the quality of the schools?

Who ever said it is binary (racist vs non-racist)?  I think most people would see that it is a gradient.

Systemic racism is not really about racism in many ways (perhaps a poor choice of words), just that the system in place negatively impacts one race more than others.  I remember living in Mississippi and listening to a radio program stating that 97% of student in public school in one region were black (much higher than the general population as other groups tended to use private schools).  Since the public education system in that region is underfunded and not overly good, this will disproportionately impact the quality of education of black families.  This is not directly related to racism and is likely a consequence of income, but the lack of funding the public school disproportionately impacts one race.  School districts and funding models in the US are just one of many examples.    

This is a perfect example of an issue that is about class, i.e. wealth inequality, but is presented as an issue of race in order to have a bigger club to beat people over the head with if they aren't sufficiently engaged.  (You're a "racist"! Or, "The system is racist!")

Every issue related to economic inequality gets this treatement. But by doing so it avoids having the main discussion about the economic system, and instead makes it about discussing history, which has nothing to do with the poverty of certain groups like refugees, whereas improvements to the economic system would help everyone in poverty, regardless of what has put them there.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 08:52:07 AM
Yes, this example is more about class.  However, I think the discrepancy in economics in black communities cannot be completely separated from American history.

There are other examples where race is directly relevant, especially related to police activities such as carding etc.  I find it hard to understand how people do not see this.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 09, 2020, 09:08:09 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 08:52:07 AM
Yes, this example is more about class.  However, I think the discrepancy in economics in black communities cannot be completely separated from American history.

There are other examples where race is directly relevant, especially related to police activities such as carding etc.  I find it hard to understand how people do not see this.

The issue is not whether people see it; it's whether that is the most productive way to address it. At the very least, by making it about race, then by definition, it doesn't potentially apply to everyone. However, by making it about economics, since peoples' situations can change in ways their race cannot, it is of potential relevance to everyone.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 09, 2020, 09:45:38 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 08:52:07 AM
Yes, this example is more about class.  However, I think the discrepancy in economics in black communities cannot be completely separated from American history.

There are other examples where race is directly relevant, especially related to police activities such as carding etc.  I find it hard to understand how people do not see this.

OK, then, we see it, together. What do you propose doing about it. And I don't mean something we can do to make us like ourselves because we're trying to so something about it. I mean something that will change what's wrong....?

Reason I ask, not to be insolent, but....(1) what would actually work, long term, and assuming that can be identified, (!) who's going to pay for it. And if you say 'all white people', one of my questions is why are we taking our solutions to income inequality from academics who are getting rich off a system that adds to poverty (contingent labor) and what are they personally willing to sacrifice for positive change?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on November 09, 2020, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 08:31:33 AM
This is not directly related to racism and is likely a consequence of income, but the lack of funding the public school disproportionately impacts one race.  School districts and funding models in the US are just one of many examples.     

Actually, it is historically very much about racism-- when schools were forced to integrate, white families pulled their children out of the public schools and started all-white private schools.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 10:36:50 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2020, 09:08:09 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 08:52:07 AM
Yes, this example is more about class.  However, I think the discrepancy in economics in black communities cannot be completely separated from American history.

There are other examples where race is directly relevant, especially related to police activities such as carding etc.  I find it hard to understand how people do not see this.

The issue is not whether people see it; it's whether that is the most productive way to address it. At the very least, by making it about race, then by definition, it doesn't potentially apply to everyone. However, by making it about economics, since peoples' situations can change in ways their race cannot, it is of potential relevance to everyone.

Quote from: mahagonny on November 09, 2020, 09:45:38 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 08:52:07 AM
Yes, this example is more about class.  However, I think the discrepancy in economics in black communities cannot be completely separated from American history.

There are other examples where race is directly relevant, especially related to police activities such as carding etc.  I find it hard to understand how people do not see this.

OK, then, we see it, together. What do you propose doing about it. And I don't mean something we can do to make us like ourselves because we're trying to so something about it. I mean something that will change what's wrong....?

Reason I ask, not to be insolent, but....(1) what would actually work, long term, and assuming that can be identified, (!) who's going to pay for it. And if you say 'all white people', one of my questions is why are we taking our solutions to income inequality from academics who are getting rich off a system that adds to poverty (contingent labor) and what are they personally willing to sacrifice for positive change?

I think admitting that it exists is a great start.  Both of you seem to acknowledge it, but that is not the case for many.  I have seen countless people online saying that white privilege does not exist since they are white and poor, that they are not racist so it is not on them, etc.  Both of these points miss the point. 

I dont have all the answers and luckily i dont need to, but I think acknowledging its existence is a good start.  From there, ensuring all citizens have equal access to high quality education, medical care, etc. would also help stop the cycle from self propagating.   

For the record, I have never said "all white people" and think this needs to be addressed by all people.  Ironically, I suspect that black people also hold some of these deeply rooted views despite being black.  There was a study a while ago comparing male and female applications for academic jobs and the same CV with a male name was ranked higher than the female CV by both genders.  This is what makes this type of thing systemic.

As for contingent labour etc., I agree that it is a problem and should be addressed.  Where I am they are part of a union and we dont use them too much.  However, I suspect that funding for education needs to be increased to make this happen everywhere.  Trying to fix it without more funding seems futile.       

   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 10:42:50 AM
Quote from: Puget on November 09, 2020, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 08:31:33 AM
This is not directly related to racism and is likely a consequence of income, but the lack of funding the public school disproportionately impacts one race.  School districts and funding models in the US are just one of many examples.     

Actually, it is historically very much about racism-- when schools were forced to integrate, white families pulled their children out of the public schools and started all-white private schools.

Agreed.  That is why I said that class cannot be separated from history.  However, it is not a clear cut case where it is exclusively about race and there are better examples of where race is the only driver.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 11:30:36 AM
 
Quotelack of funding the public school

Evidence?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 09, 2020, 12:05:44 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 10:36:50 AM

I think admitting that it exists is a great start.  Both of you seem to acknowledge it, but that is not the case for many.  I have seen countless people online saying that white privilege does not exist since they are white and poor, that they are not racist so it is not on them, etc.  Both of these points miss the point. 

I dont have all the answers and luckily i dont need to, but I think acknowledging its existence is a good start.  From there, ensuring all citizens have equal access to high quality education, medical care, etc. would also help stop the cycle from self propagating.   

There are all kinds of people who are poor, whose ancestors weren't even in the country during slavery, or even during the civil rights movement, so it requires ridiculous contortions to somehow claim that their plight has to do with all that. Refugees, for example, often require language learning, and so are going to be poor at least in the short term. Thus, they will live in communities that are affordable. They will also be attracted to areas where earlier groups from their region have settled already, so therefore there will be concentrations of people from specific countries in specific neighbourhoods that has nothing to do with racism. (Unless, of course, it's those church and community groups helping them settle who are trying to keep them coralled in ethnic enclaves for nefarious purposes.)

Quote
For the record, I have never said "all white people" and think this needs to be addressed by all people.  Ironically, I suspect that black people also hold some of these deeply rooted views despite being black.  There was a study a while ago comparing male and female applications for academic jobs and the same CV with a male name was ranked higher than the female CV by both genders.  This is what makes this type of thing systemic.

OR it suggests that there is something unspecified that both male AND female academics perceive as different between male and female applicants.

Let's put this in a different context. Suppose these were resumes for ECE workers. Would it be a surprise if both men and women would more likely hire a female daycare worker?
And would it be because of sexism?

In the academic example, one of the questions that interviewers (male and female) tended to ask female candidates more than male ones was "Was your research topic your idea or your supervisor's?" (FWIW, my research topic for my Master's was my supervisor's idea, so I'm not offended by the question.) This suggests a subtle difference in perception about how men and women tend to collaborate, which the question was trying to address.



Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 12:14:18 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2020, 12:05:44 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 10:36:50 AM

I think admitting that it exists is a great start.  Both of you seem to acknowledge it, but that is not the case for many.  I have seen countless people online saying that white privilege does not exist since they are white and poor, that they are not racist so it is not on them, etc.  Both of these points miss the point. 

I dont have all the answers and luckily i dont need to, but I think acknowledging its existence is a good start.  From there, ensuring all citizens have equal access to high quality education, medical care, etc. would also help stop the cycle from self propagating.   

There are all kinds of people who are poor, whose ancestors weren't even in the country during slavery, or even during the civil rights movement, so it requires ridiculous contortions to somehow claim that their plight has to do with all that. Refugees, for example, often require language learning, and so are going to be poor at least in the short term. Thus, they will live in communities that are affordable. They will also be attracted to areas where earlier groups from their region have settled already, so therefore there will be concentrations of people from specific countries in specific neighbourhoods that has nothing to do with racism. (Unless, of course, it's those church and community groups helping them settle who are trying to keep them coralled in ethnic enclaves for nefarious purposes.)

Quote
For the record, I have never said "all white people" and think this needs to be addressed by all people.  Ironically, I suspect that black people also hold some of these deeply rooted views despite being black.  There was a study a while ago comparing male and female applications for academic jobs and the same CV with a male name was ranked higher than the female CV by both genders.  This is what makes this type of thing systemic.

OR it suggests that there is something unspecified that both male AND female academics perceive as different between male and female applicants.

Let's put this in a different context. Suppose these were resumes for ECE workers. Would it be a surprise if both men and women would more likely hire a female daycare worker?
And would it be because of sexism?

In the academic example, one of the questions that interviewers (male and female) tended to ask female candidates more than male ones was "Was your research topic your idea or your supervisor's?" (FWIW, my research topic for my Master's was my supervisor's idea, so I'm not offended by the question.) This suggests a subtle difference in perception about how men and women tend to collaborate, which the question was trying to address.

I didn't say their plight has anything to do with that.  Sometimes the solution to one problem helps address others as well.  I support social programs because they help with many different social problems.

As for the male vs female, it definitely comes down to our perceived difference that males and females have.  That is the whole point, thanks for agreeing?  They are being judged based on our systemic bias rather than the merit of the application.  Your example of the daycare worker is the same, they are being judged based on system bias rather than anything they did.  In these cases it is gender, but the principle is the same.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 12:15:02 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 11:30:36 AM
Quotelack of funding the public school

Evidence?

As I mentioned, this was a radio program and this is what they told me.  If you want to dive deeper, Google is your friend.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 09, 2020, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 11:30:36 AM
Quotelack of funding the public school

Evidence?

What? Lack of funding for public schools has clearly been shown to disproportionately effect the poor. African Americans are disproportionately poor relative to white Americans. What more evidence would you want to see?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 09, 2020, 12:28:25 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 12:14:18 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2020, 12:05:44 PM

Quote
For the record, I have never said "all white people" and think this needs to be addressed by all people.  Ironically, I suspect that black people also hold some of these deeply rooted views despite being black.  There was a study a while ago comparing male and female applications for academic jobs and the same CV with a male name was ranked higher than the female CV by both genders.  This is what makes this type of thing systemic.

OR it suggests that there is something unspecified that both male AND female academics perceive as different between male and female applicants.

Let's put this in a different context. Suppose these were resumes for ECE workers. Would it be a surprise if both men and women would more likely hire a female daycare worker?
And would it be because of sexism?

In the academic example, one of the questions that interviewers (male and female) tended to ask female candidates more than male ones was "Was your research topic your idea or your supervisor's?" (FWIW, my research topic for my Master's was my supervisor's idea, so I'm not offended by the question.) This suggests a subtle difference in perception about how men and women tend to collaborate, which the question was trying to address.

I didn't say their plight has anything to do with that.  Sometimes the solution to one problem helps address others as well.  I support social programs because they help with many different social problems.

As for the male vs female, it definitely comes down to our perceived difference that males and females have.  That is the whole point, thanks for agreeing?  They are being judged based on our systemic bias rather than the merit of the application.  Your example of the daycare worker is the same, they are being judged based on system bias rather than anything they did.  In these cases it is gender, but the principle is the same.

Is it biased to automatically put on a hat when leaving the house in the winter, without checking the temperature? If an application indicates everything necessary about a candidate, why have interviews at all?
We couldn't function in the world without making numerous statistical inferences every day; the important thing is that we are able to gather more data which can let us see that our inferences are invalid some of the time.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 09, 2020, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 11:30:36 AM
Quotelack of funding the public school

Evidence?

What? Lack of funding for public schools has clearly been shown to disproportionately effect the poor. African Americans are disproportionately poor relative to white Americans. What more evidence would you want to see?

Spending per pupil is quite high in heavily Black cities. Here are a few https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil (https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 12:33:29 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 09, 2020, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 11:30:36 AM
Quotelack of funding the public school

Evidence?

What? Lack of funding for public schools has clearly been shown to disproportionately effect the poor. African Americans are disproportionately poor relative to white Americans. What more evidence would you want to see?

Spending per pupil is quite high in heavily Black cities. Here are a few https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil (https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil)

Perhaps at the city level, but you would need to go deeper to look at equity. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-02-26/white-students-get-more-k-12-funding-than-students-of-color-report
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 09, 2020, 12:37:04 PM
QuoteAs for contingent labour etc., I agree that it is a problem and should be addressed.  Where I am they are part of a union and we dont use them too much.  However, I suspect that funding for education needs to be increased to make this happen everywhere.  Trying to fix it without more funding seems futile.     

Higher education is not 'underfunded.' That's the big lie that's repeated often enough to be believed. Saying it's underfunded is the subterfuge for getting the skilled labor done by people who are sealed off from jobs that enable advancement, status, equitable compensation, permanence. Higher ed is crowning achievement of a hypocritical political party.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: eigen on November 09, 2020, 01:01:44 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 09, 2020, 12:37:04 PM
QuoteAs for contingent labour etc., I agree that it is a problem and should be addressed.  Where I am they are part of a union and we dont use them too much.  However, I suspect that funding for education needs to be increased to make this happen everywhere.  Trying to fix it without more funding seems futile.     

Higher education is not 'underfunded.' That's the big lie that's repeated often enough to be believed. Saying it's underfunded is the subterfuge for getting the skilled labor done by people who are sealed off from jobs that enable advancement, status, equitable compensation, permanence. Higher ed is crowning achievement of a hypocritical political party.

I mean, it is underfunded because most schools cannot afford to give equitable compensation and security to all of their workers. Your point pretty much underscores the fact that higher ed is underfunded.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 01:09:49 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 12:33:29 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 09, 2020, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 11:30:36 AM
Quotelack of funding the public school

Evidence?

What? Lack of funding for public schools has clearly been shown to disproportionately effect the poor. African Americans are disproportionately poor relative to white Americans. What more evidence would you want to see?

Spending per pupil is quite high in heavily Black cities. Here are a few https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil (https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil)

Perhaps at the city level, but you would need to go deeper to look at equity. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-02-26/white-students-get-more-k-12-funding-than-students-of-color-report

The article cites a report saying income is not a proxy for race. I'm so glad to hear it!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 01:35:23 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 01:09:49 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 12:33:29 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 09, 2020, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 11:30:36 AM
Quotelack of funding the public school

Evidence?

What? Lack of funding for public schools has clearly been shown to disproportionately effect the poor. African Americans are disproportionately poor relative to white Americans. What more evidence would you want to see?

Spending per pupil is quite high in heavily Black cities. Here are a few https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil (https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil)

Perhaps at the city level, but you would need to go deeper to look at equity. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-02-26/white-students-get-more-k-12-funding-than-students-of-color-report

The article cites a report saying income is not a proxy for race. I'm so glad to hear it!

Yes, and yet minorities receive less funding per student on average.  I'm glad you are glad ;)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 09, 2020, 01:43:11 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 01:35:23 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 01:09:49 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 12:33:29 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 09, 2020, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 11:30:36 AM
Quotelack of funding the public school

Evidence?

What? Lack of funding for public schools has clearly been shown to disproportionately effect the poor. African Americans are disproportionately poor relative to white Americans. What more evidence would you want to see?

Spending per pupil is quite high in heavily Black cities. Here are a few https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil (https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil)

Perhaps at the city level, but you would need to go deeper to look at equity. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-02-26/white-students-get-more-k-12-funding-than-students-of-color-report

The article cites a report saying income is not a proxy for race. I'm so glad to hear it!

Yes, and yet minorities receive less funding per student on average.  I'm glad you are glad ;)

Try this one :https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 09, 2020, 02:05:13 PM
Quote from: eigen on November 09, 2020, 01:01:44 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 09, 2020, 12:37:04 PM
QuoteAs for contingent labour etc., I agree that it is a problem and should be addressed.  Where I am they are part of a union and we dont use them too much.  However, I suspect that funding for education needs to be increased to make this happen everywhere.  Trying to fix it without more funding seems futile.     

Higher education is not 'underfunded.' That's the big lie that's repeated often enough to be believed. Saying it's underfunded is the subterfuge for getting the skilled labor done by people who are sealed off from jobs that enable advancement, status, equitable compensation, permanence. Higher ed is crowning achievement of a hypocritical political party.

I mean, it is underfunded because most schools cannot afford to give equitable compensation and security to all of their workers. Your point pretty much underscores the fact that higher ed is underfunded.

You actually believe this? Merriam Webster says "equitable -  having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned."
Who or what is stopping higher education from doing this?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 02:16:13 PM
QuoteTry this one :https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion (https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion)

Now that's good. Shows what I think everyone is after:
QuotePoor-white school districts receive about $150 less per student than the national average—an injustice all to itself. Yet they are still receiving nearly $1,500 more than poor-nonwhite school districts.

Thus, an extra $1,650 would bring poor Black districts up to the national average. That's about 10% of Baltimore's spending per pupil. That's hardly worth discussing, especially since cost-of living differences aren't even being taken into account.







Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 09, 2020, 04:09:13 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 08, 2020, 06:57:15 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 08, 2020, 05:20:17 PM

Once someone mistakenly thought I was Black. (Long story). It was a strange experience. The error was corrected and the reaction, change of vibe, etc was amazing.

I have never felt the same vibe with people who correctly assume I am white, for any reason.

So, while I can't say I have truly experienced racism, I can say that my brief experience of being Black was different than any other experience I have ever had, by a long shot.

Always I am mistaken for being Jewish, honestly. Short story. The experience is not strange if the error has to be corrected, for whatever reason.

I have never felt the same vibe with people who correctly assumed I am not Jewish, for any reason.

So, I cannot say I have experienced anti-semitism, but I can say that the experience of being seen as Jewish is no different from any other identification experience I've ever had, by a long shot.

Let us not conflate personal experiences with systemic racism. There was and is anti-semitism, but nowadays there is no systemic anti-semitism. [Well, exept at Harvard, as there was a long time ago, but it's probably OK because Asians are discriminated against as well. :-)]

Gimme a break.

I am Jewish. But not obviously so.

The change in vibe/energy when people learn I am, after thinking I am not, is pretty undetectable. So, in that way, our experiences are similar.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on November 09, 2020, 08:33:36 PM
Quote from: financeguy on November 08, 2020, 11:20:18 AM
Whatever someone thinks about Harris, I and many others will never, no matter what, under any circumstance ever take her seriously on any issue after receiving a make work show up job for bedding Willie Brown in SF. Sorry, your "strong independent woman" card is permanently revoked when you start off with that strategy. Can't have it both ways.

High road? Screw that. (ha ha). Taking the high road vs. those taking the low road is a losing tactic.

It's more a matter of not going lower than the other side, and it's pretty obvious who is in the sewer. If this dirt is the best you can dig up to dis-credit Harris, then she's got nothing to worry about, when held up against the bottom of the barrel hypocrisy that has defined the last four years.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 12:47:12 AM
It's not "dirt" when both sides agree it happened and state salaries are public information. You don't need to guess on this one. She got a position that paid about 70k a year to show up a couple days a month based on who she was sleeping with at the time. She also said she "believes" Biden's accuser during the primary which means she either a) is willing to work for someone who is guilty of this to further her career or b) did not actually mean it and made the statement for political expediency. Neither is a great option. Just another hack using the race and/or gender card when convenient.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 10, 2020, 04:07:06 AM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 02:16:13 PM
QuoteTry this one :https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion (https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion)

Now that's good. Shows what I think everyone is after:
QuotePoor-white school districts receive about $150 less per student than the national average—an injustice all to itself. Yet they are still receiving nearly $1,500 more than poor-nonwhite school districts.

Thus, an extra $1,650 would bring poor Black districts up to the national average. That's about 10% of Baltimore's spending per pupil. That's hardly worth discussing, especially since cost-of living differences aren't even being taken into account.

Hardly worth discussing?  Seems pretty significant to me.

If you look at a class with 20 students (which seems low), that is $33 000 less.  Given that the bulk of costs are fixed, this $33 000 comes out of the variable costs and represents a much larger percentage of this.  You can buy a lot of crayons for 33k...
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on November 10, 2020, 06:11:22 AM

Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 12:47:12 AM
It's not "dirt" when both sides agree it happened and state salaries are public information. You don't need to guess on this one. She got a position that paid about 70k a year to show up a couple days a month based on who she was sleeping with at the time. She also said she "believes" Biden's accuser during the primary which means she either a) is willing to work for someone who is guilty of this to further her career or b) did not actually mean it and made the statement for political expediency. Neither is a great option. Just another hack using the race and/or gender card when convenient.

I look forward to the day when men will sleep their way to the top.....
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 10, 2020, 06:14:18 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on November 10, 2020, 06:11:22 AM

Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 12:47:12 AM
It's not "dirt" when both sides agree it happened and state salaries are public information. You don't need to guess on this one. She got a position that paid about 70k a year to show up a couple days a month based on who she was sleeping with at the time. She also said she "believes" Biden's accuser during the primary which means she either a) is willing to work for someone who is guilty of this to further her career or b) did not actually mean it and made the statement for political expediency. Neither is a great option. Just another hack using the race and/or gender card when convenient.

I look forward to the day when men will sleep their way to the top.....

I also look forward to it!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 10, 2020, 06:54:01 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on November 10, 2020, 06:11:22 AM

Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 12:47:12 AM
It's not "dirt" when both sides agree it happened and state salaries are public information. You don't need to guess on this one. She got a position that paid about 70k a year to show up a couple days a month based on who she was sleeping with at the time. She also said she "believes" Biden's accuser during the primary which means she either a) is willing to work for someone who is guilty of this to further her career or b) did not actually mean it and made the statement for political expediency. Neither is a great option. Just another hack using the race and/or gender card when convenient.

I look forward to the day when men will sleep their way to the top.....

"Daphne: It's not like men have never used sex to get what they want.

Frasier: How can we possibly use sex to get what we want? Sex is what we want!"
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 10, 2020, 07:59:58 AM
Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 12:47:12 AM
It's not "dirt" when both sides agree it happened and state salaries are public information. You don't need to guess on this one. She got a position that paid about 70k a year to show up a couple days a month based on who she was sleeping with at the time. She also said she "believes" Biden's accuser during the primary which means she either a) is willing to work for someone who is guilty of this to further her career or b) did not actually mean it and made the statement for political expediency. Neither is a great option. Just another hack using the race and/or gender card when convenient.

Wow. Women have sex. And don't wear a giant scarlet "A" for the rest of their lives.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 10, 2020, 08:10:30 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2020, 07:59:58 AM
Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 12:47:12 AM
It's not "dirt" when both sides agree it happened and state salaries are public information. You don't need to guess on this one. She got a position that paid about 70k a year to show up a couple days a month based on who she was sleeping with at the time. She also said she "believes" Biden's accuser during the primary which means she either a) is willing to work for someone who is guilty of this to further her career or b) did not actually mean it and made the statement for political expediency. Neither is a great option. Just another hack using the race and/or gender card when convenient.

Wow. Women have sex. And don't wear a giant scarlet "A" for the rest of their lives.

Does this apply to female school teachers who have been convicted of having sex with students (either male or female)?  Would it apply to a man who beat female applicants for a job by having sex with the interviewer/boss? Does the potential for personal advantage have no bearing on the appropriateness of sex? Is the answer the same for men and women?

(I haven't researched the Harris case. But in light of things like the Harvey Weinstein case, if it's wrong to ask for/demand sex as payment, is it perfectly OK to offer sex as payment? If only under certain circumstances, what are they?)

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 10, 2020, 09:06:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2020, 08:10:30 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2020, 07:59:58 AM
Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 12:47:12 AM
It's not "dirt" when both sides agree it happened and state salaries are public information. You don't need to guess on this one. She got a position that paid about 70k a year to show up a couple days a month based on who she was sleeping with at the time. She also said she "believes" Biden's accuser during the primary which means she either a) is willing to work for someone who is guilty of this to further her career or b) did not actually mean it and made the statement for political expediency. Neither is a great option. Just another hack using the race and/or gender card when convenient.

Wow. Women have sex. And don't wear a giant scarlet "A" for the rest of their lives.

Does this apply to female school teachers who have been convicted of having sex with students (either male or female)?  Would it apply to a man who beat female applicants for a job by having sex with the interviewer/boss? Does the potential for personal advantage have no bearing on the appropriateness of sex? Is the answer the same for men and women?

(I haven't researched the Harris case. But in light of things like the Harvey Weinstein case, if it's wrong to ask for/demand sex as payment, is it perfectly OK to offer sex as payment? If only under certain circumstances, what are they?)

SMDH
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: eigen on November 10, 2020, 09:37:49 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2020, 08:10:30 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2020, 07:59:58 AM
Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 12:47:12 AM
It's not "dirt" when both sides agree it happened and state salaries are public information. You don't need to guess on this one. She got a position that paid about 70k a year to show up a couple days a month based on who she was sleeping with at the time. She also said she "believes" Biden's accuser during the primary which means she either a) is willing to work for someone who is guilty of this to further her career or b) did not actually mean it and made the statement for political expediency. Neither is a great option. Just another hack using the race and/or gender card when convenient.

Wow. Women have sex. And don't wear a giant scarlet "A" for the rest of their lives.

Does this apply to female school teachers who have been convicted of having sex with students (either male or female)?  Would it apply to a man who beat female applicants for a job by having sex with the interviewer/boss? Does the potential for personal advantage have no bearing on the appropriateness of sex? Is the answer the same for men and women?

(I haven't researched the Harris case. But in light of things like the Harvey Weinstein case, if it's wrong to ask for/demand sex as payment, is it perfectly OK to offer sex as payment? If only under certain circumstances, what are they?)

Yes, comparing a consensual adult relationship is a great comparison to statutory rape. Totally the same thing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 10, 2020, 09:54:23 AM
Quote from: eigen on November 10, 2020, 09:37:49 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2020, 08:10:30 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2020, 07:59:58 AM
Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 12:47:12 AM
It's not "dirt" when both sides agree it happened and state salaries are public information. You don't need to guess on this one. She got a position that paid about 70k a year to show up a couple days a month based on who she was sleeping with at the time. She also said she "believes" Biden's accuser during the primary which means she either a) is willing to work for someone who is guilty of this to further her career or b) did not actually mean it and made the statement for political expediency. Neither is a great option. Just another hack using the race and/or gender card when convenient.

Wow. Women have sex. And don't wear a giant scarlet "A" for the rest of their lives.

Does this apply to female school teachers who have been convicted of having sex with students (either male or female)?  Would it apply to a man who beat female applicants for a job by having sex with the interviewer/boss? Does the potential for personal advantage have no bearing on the appropriateness of sex? Is the answer the same for men and women?

(I haven't researched the Harris case. But in light of things like the Harvey Weinstein case, if it's wrong to ask for/demand sex as payment, is it perfectly OK to offer sex as payment? If only under certain circumstances, what are they?)

Yes, comparing a consensual adult relationship is a great comparison to statutory rape. Totally the same thing.

Right, like an adult student and a prof. Absolutely no concerns there.

Were all of Harvey Weinstein's accusers minors at the time of their encounters?

What happened to all of the concerns people used to have about "power differentials"? As I indicated above, does it all just depend on who opens the negotiations?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 11:00:37 AM
I don't care if she or anyone else wanted to bed all of San Fran. What I care about is the doling out of a job based on this and then later in life presenting oneself as a role model chosen based on gender. In general we have too many idiot children and wives being given jobs based on their familial or romantic relationships. State agencies in general are employment agencies for the relatives of elected officials. I used to have a government contract for something and without fail every GS worker fell into this category.

Don't try to make my comment about prudish concerns about promiscuity. If you're doing the "strong successful woman" routine and being presented as a role model for the nation's women and girls, the fact that you got in via monetizing a sexual relationship is totally fair game just as much as critiquing the Bush dynasty, Hunter Biden, spousal hires or legacy admits.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 10, 2020, 11:31:34 AM
Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 11:00:37 AM

Don't try to make my comment about prudish concerns about promiscuity.

That's not my concern either. What interests me is that judgement of whether a relationship like this was OK or not seems to be made retroactively. If the woman doesn't regret it, it was fine. If she does, after apparently any length of time, (regardless of whether she did at the time), then it was harassment (or worse) and the man is guilty.

So having a time machine is the only way to determine whether it's OK to enter into a relationship of this sort. There are no rules which can be used by the temporally-restricted to make a decision.

 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 10, 2020, 12:39:00 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 09, 2020, 01:43:11 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 01:35:23 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 01:09:49 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 09, 2020, 12:33:29 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 09, 2020, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 09, 2020, 11:30:36 AM
Quotelack of funding the public school

Evidence?

What? Lack of funding for public schools has clearly been shown to disproportionately effect the poor. African Americans are disproportionately poor relative to white Americans. What more evidence would you want to see?

Spending per pupil is quite high in heavily Black cities. Here are a few https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil (https://www.asumag.com/research/top-10s/article/21126924/among-largest-districts-who-spends-the-most-per-pupil)

Perhaps at the city level, but you would need to go deeper to look at equity. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-02-26/white-students-get-more-k-12-funding-than-students-of-color-report

The article cites a report saying income is not a proxy for race. I'm so glad to hear it!

Yes, and yet minorities receive less funding per student on average.  I'm glad you are glad ;)

Try this one :https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion

I have to bring this up again. It is so important to be careful with data provided by interest groups, for it's all self-serving.

In the case of edbuild apparently $60 billion of federal Title I funds are left out of the calculation.  These funds are largely directed toward poor and minority school districts. This is almost three times the measured gap.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 10, 2020, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 12:47:12 AM
It's not "dirt" when both sides agree it happened and state salaries are public information. You don't need to guess on this one. She got a position that paid about 70k a year to show up a couple days a month based on who she was sleeping with at the time. She also said she "believes" Biden's accuser during the primary which means she either a) is willing to work for someone who is guilty of this to further her career or b) did not actually mean it and made the statement for political expediency. Neither is a great option. Just another hack using the race and/or gender card when convenient.

Women will have parity in politics when one gets to be the next Spiro Agnew John Edwards, Bob Packwood et al.



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-the-election-lawsuit-trump-should-win

Not being trained in legal matters, I would think that this question should be settled for the future even if it doesn't result in Trump getting Pennsylvania. So it's really not crazy to pursue it. It's important.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 10, 2020, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 11:00:37 AM
I don't care if she or anyone else wanted to bed all of San Fran. What I care about is the doling out of a job based on this and then later in life presenting oneself as a role model chosen based on gender. In general we have too many idiot children and wives being given jobs based on their familial or romantic relationships. State agencies in general are employment agencies for the relatives of elected officials. I used to have a government contract for something and without fail every GS worker fell into this category.

Don't try to make my comment about prudish concerns about promiscuity. If you're doing the "strong successful woman" routine and being presented as a role model for the nation's women and girls, the fact that you got in via monetizing a sexual relationship is totally fair game just as much as critiquing the Bush dynasty, Hunter Biden, spousal hires or legacy admits.

Oh please. Just because she boinked someone doesn't mean she didn't later do good work, get elected to higher office on her own, and root out and prosecute corruption.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 10, 2020, 05:17:18 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2020, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 11:00:37 AM
I don't care if she or anyone else wanted to bed all of San Fran. What I care about is the doling out of a job based on this and then later in life presenting oneself as a role model chosen based on gender. In general we have too many idiot children and wives being given jobs based on their familial or romantic relationships. State agencies in general are employment agencies for the relatives of elected officials. I used to have a government contract for something and without fail every GS worker fell into this category.

Don't try to make my comment about prudish concerns about promiscuity. If you're doing the "strong successful woman" routine and being presented as a role model for the nation's women and girls, the fact that you got in via monetizing a sexual relationship is totally fair game just as much as critiquing the Bush dynasty, Hunter Biden, spousal hires or legacy admits.

Oh please. Just because she boinked someone doesn't mean she didn't later do good work, get elected to higher office on her own, and root out and prosecute corruption.

This.  I dislike Harris and am happy to believe the worst about her, but it does not appear that she slept her way to the top.  Rather, she was on her way to the top anyway and slept with some folks on the journey, recreationally.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 10, 2020, 05:48:11 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 10, 2020, 05:17:18 PM

This.  I dislike Harris and am happy to believe the worst about her, but it does not appear that she slept her way to the top.  Rather, she was on her way to the top anyway and slept with some folks on the journey, recreationally.

Every once in a while, we mostly agree about something.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 10, 2020, 06:37:19 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 10, 2020, 05:17:18 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2020, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: financeguy on November 10, 2020, 11:00:37 AM
I don't care if she or anyone else wanted to bed all of San Fran. What I care about is the doling out of a job based on this and then later in life presenting oneself as a role model chosen based on gender. In general we have too many idiot children and wives being given jobs based on their familial or romantic relationships. State agencies in general are employment agencies for the relatives of elected officials. I used to have a government contract for something and without fail every GS worker fell into this category.

Don't try to make my comment about prudish concerns about promiscuity. If you're doing the "strong successful woman" routine and being presented as a role model for the nation's women and girls, the fact that you got in via monetizing a sexual relationship is totally fair game just as much as critiquing the Bush dynasty, Hunter Biden, spousal hires or legacy admits.

Oh please. Just because she boinked someone doesn't mean she didn't later do good work, get elected to higher office on her own, and root out and prosecute corruption.

This.  I dislike Harris and am happy to believe the worst about her, but it does not appear that she slept her way to the top.  Rather, she was on her way to the top anyway and slept with some folks on the journey, recreationally.

If she had the same lack of filter Donald Trump has, she might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing, for having an affair with Willie Brown. When you're 29, beautiful and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that.' And one could 'that's gross', but you couldn't say it isn't true.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 10, 2020, 06:46:31 PM
Selective contrarian obstreperousness gets boring after awhile.

Can we talk about the election?

Is anyone running book on when there'll be a concession speech?

I had to look up the Gore sequence of events to realize it was early December when he conceded the second time.

And then he disappeared for three months.

The next time I saw him was in a conference room with a beard and a mustache. That was a bit shocking.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 10, 2020, 07:09:59 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 10, 2020, 06:46:31 PM
Selective contrarian obstreperousness gets boring after awhile.

Can we talk about the election?

Is anyone running book on when there'll be a concession speech?

I had to look up the Gore sequence of events to realize it was early December when he conceded the second time.

And then he disappeared for three months.

The next time I saw him was in a conference room with a beard and a mustache. That was a bit shocking.

M.

Obviously there won't be one. Can you imagine Trump doing this?

Best case scenario: Eventually court cases will conclude, having given no lifeline to Trump's campaign, and Republicans will have to accept what they all already know and stop pretending that this election is still up in the air. Trump will complain and cry, but he'll also leave.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 10, 2020, 07:27:52 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 10, 2020, 06:46:31 PM
Selective contrarian obstreperousness gets boring after awhile.

Can we talk about the election?

Is anyone running book on when there'll be a concession speech?

I had to look up the Gore sequence of events to realize it was early December when he conceded the second time.

And then he disappeared for three months.

The next time I saw him was in a conference room with a beard and a mustache. That was a bit shocking.

M.

You are obviously referring to me. Mademoiselle, I submit you can either use the 'ignore user' option with me as you have announced to the forum that you are doing, or you can complain about my posting, but you shouldn't be able to do both.

And I think I made or at least alluded to a valid point about Trump's infamous 'grab 'em by the pussy' line, that being that his reputation proceeded him and women who didn't steer clear of him would likely have known what to expect.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: eigen on November 10, 2020, 07:46:20 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 10, 2020, 07:27:52 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 10, 2020, 06:46:31 PM
Selective contrarian obstreperousness gets boring after awhile.

Can we talk about the election?

Is anyone running book on when there'll be a concession speech?

I had to look up the Gore sequence of events to realize it was early December when he conceded the second time.

And then he disappeared for three months.

The next time I saw him was in a conference room with a beard and a mustache. That was a bit shocking.

M.

You are obviously referring to me. Mademoiselle, I submit you can either use the 'ignore user' option with me as you have announced to the forum that you are doing, or you can complain about my posting, but you shouldn't be able to do both.

And I think I made or at least alluded to a valid point about Trump's infamous 'grab 'em by the pussy' line, that being that his reputation proceeded him and women who didn't steer clear of him would likely have known what to expect.

You seem to keep conflating rape and sexual harassment (forced, unwanted sexual contact) with consensual recreational sex. It's not a good look for you or any quasi-logical reasoning you are intending to convey.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 10, 2020, 08:33:58 PM
QuoteSelective contrarian obstreperousness gets boring after awhile.

Actually, there's a quartet of you. Don't hog all the glory. It's not all, or only, or sometimes ever, about any one of you.

You're like a very rocky square-cornered spiral once you all get bumping along. Very predictable.

And--back to the election, yet again: Yes, I suspect this will be a fuzzier transition than most.

I think the most worrisome part is that funds may be held up without certain steps being taken (like partisan agency folks not signing off on the crossover accounts they're supposed to assign to the team), and information lost, withheld, or destroyed which may be needed to keep things turning over tickity-boo.

Or boob-ity-tick, if that's what's been turning over. Or how. Or whatever.

But the actual handing-off of functions, information, and so on needs to be facilitated, not obstructed.

And I'm starting to wonder at what point someone's going to need to sue for those things to prevent a stall-out in midair.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on November 11, 2020, 02:28:33 AM
There will be no concession speech or hints from Mitch McConnell about conceding as long as Elaine Chao is Secretary of Transportation.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: nebo113 on November 11, 2020, 03:50:43 AM
Quote from: spork on November 11, 2020, 02:28:33 AM
There will be no concession speech or hints from Mitch McConnell about conceding as long as Elaine Chao is Secretary of Transportation.

Chuckling!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 11, 2020, 07:51:05 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 10, 2020, 06:37:19 PM

If she had the same lack of filter Donald Trump has, she might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing, for having an affair with Willie Brown. When you're 29, beautiful and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that.' And one could 'that's gross', but you couldn't say it isn't true.


If she had been a man, s/he might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing for being a guy who seemed to have a lot of potential. When you're 29, handsome and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that without even having to sleep with anyone.' And one could 'that's gross', but you couldn't say it isn't true.

There. FTFY.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 11, 2020, 08:23:36 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 10, 2020, 06:37:19 PM
If she had the same lack of filter Donald Trump has, she might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing, for having an affair with Willie Brown. When you're 29, beautiful and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that.'

She should have said that!  It would have helped her!  "At least he's real" earned Trump a ton of votes in his career.  Meanwhile, Harris is one of those awful frauds who believe nothing, focus-group every syllable, and achieve wokeness by renouncing their entire lives up to the present.  (Biden is, too; they're made for each other.) 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 09:20:16 AM
Quote from: writingprof on November 11, 2020, 08:23:36 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 10, 2020, 06:37:19 PM
If she had the same lack of filter Donald Trump has, she might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing, for having an affair with Willie Brown. When you're 29, beautiful and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that.'

She should have said that!  It would have helped her!  "At least he's real" earned Trump a ton of votes in his career.  Meanwhile, Harris is one of those awful frauds who believe nothing, focus-group every syllable, and achieve wokeness by renouncing their entire lives up to the present.  (Biden is, too; they're made for each other.)

What has worked for Trump may backfire on most.  However, you are calling her a fraud who believes in nothing etc., implying that she does this more than Trump?

Trump used to be for gun control...but waffled
Trump has probably never been in a church...but now does bible photo ops
Trump literally has gold plated sinks (as tacky as it is)....Yet speaks of the "elites"

On a relative scale, Harris and Biden are pretty solid (even if they are Jello...).



Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 10:14:59 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 09:20:16 AM
Quote from: writingprof on November 11, 2020, 08:23:36 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 10, 2020, 06:37:19 PM
If she had the same lack of filter Donald Trump has, she might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing, for having an affair with Willie Brown. When you're 29, beautiful and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that.'

She should have said that!  It would have helped her!  "At least he's real" earned Trump a ton of votes in his career.  Meanwhile, Harris is one of those awful frauds who believe nothing, focus-group every syllable, and achieve wokeness by renouncing their entire lives up to the present.  (Biden is, too; they're made for each other.)

What has worked for Trump may backfire on most. 


This has fascinated me since 2016. It's not that Trump supporters don't know that he lies; it just doesn't matter that much. My theory is that his emotions are genuine.

For example, his talk of "bad hombres" from Mexico resonantes; not because most immigrants are bad, but because some are, and it's legitimate for people to admit that. (As a reminder, the 9/11 terrorists didn't sneak over the border from Mexico or Canada; they were legally in the US. It is completely reasonable to ask whether improved screening measures could prevent future events like that.)

Contrast this with politicians who, not wanting to be called racist or Islamaphobic, will avoid any serious discussion of the problem. The emotion they display is manufactured, because everything they say and do is chosen for effect. Voters get that.

Indeed, I would say one of the things that made Obama popular was that he seemed to come across with genuine respect even for people who didn't agree with him. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, came across as extremely manufactured. The "deplorables" comment was entirely in keeping with trying to appeal to specific voters, rather than a candid response in the heat of the moment.

TL;DR People are more trusting of someone who seems transparent but unscripted than of someone who appears to be completely following a predetermined agenda.

Question: Did Trump ever disparage voters who didn't vote for him? He villified opponents, and made accusations of fraud, but I can't recall him attacking voters themselves, which Clinton and others ("If you don't vote for me, you ain't black") had no problem doing.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Hegemony on November 11, 2020, 10:58:22 AM
This is proving to be a fascinating discussion of what kinds of values motivate people.

Pro-Trump: A really important thing is that he doesn't ridicule people who didn't vote for him.
Anti-Trump: A really important thing is that he separates immigrant families and keeps their kids in cages.

I don't know whether Trump actually ridiculed Democrat voters. He did ridicule the disabled, women opponents ("blood coming out her ... whatever"), and so on. But not specifically because they were Democrat voters. More because they were opponents in certain categories — if that's a valid distinction.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on November 11, 2020, 10:58:22 AM
This is proving to be a fascinating discussion of what kinds of values motivate people.

Pro-Trump: A really important thing is that he doesn't ridicule people who didn't vote for him.
Anti-Trump: A really important thing is that he separates immigrant families and keeps their kids in cages.

I don't know whether Trump actually ridiculed Democrat voters. He did ridicule the disabled, women opponents ("blood coming out her ... whatever"), and so on. But not specifically because they were Democrat voters. More because they were opponents in certain categories — if that's a valid distinction.

Well, if the Democrats want to potentially get more votes in 20204, then it would be something they could try without having to change any policies; just not scolding voters for even thinking of not voting "correctly".
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:06:19 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 10:14:59 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 09:20:16 AM
Quote from: writingprof on November 11, 2020, 08:23:36 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 10, 2020, 06:37:19 PM
If she had the same lack of filter Donald Trump has, she might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing, for having an affair with Willie Brown. When you're 29, beautiful and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that.'

She should have said that!  It would have helped her!  "At least he's real" earned Trump a ton of votes in his career.  Meanwhile, Harris is one of those awful frauds who believe nothing, focus-group every syllable, and achieve wokeness by renouncing their entire lives up to the present.  (Biden is, too; they're made for each other.)

What has worked for Trump may backfire on most. 


This has fascinated me since 2016. It's not that Trump supporters don't know that he lies; it just doesn't matter that much. My theory is that his emotions are genuine.

For example, his talk of "bad hombres" from Mexico resonantes; not because most immigrants are bad, but because some are, and it's legitimate for people to admit that. (As a reminder, the 9/11 terrorists didn't sneak over the border from Mexico or Canada; they were legally in the US. It is completely reasonable to ask whether improved screening measures could prevent future events like that.)

Contrast this with politicians who, not wanting to be called racist or Islamaphobic, will avoid any serious discussion of the problem. The emotion they display is manufactured, because everything they say and do is chosen for effect. Voters get that.

Indeed, I would say one of the things that made Obama popular was that he seemed to come across with genuine respect even for people who didn't agree with him. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, came across as extremely manufactured. The "deplorables" comment was entirely in keeping with trying to appeal to specific voters, rather than a candid response in the heat of the moment.

TL;DR People are more trusting of someone who seems transparent but unscripted than of someone who appears to be completely following a predetermined agenda.

Question: Did Trump ever disparage voters who didn't vote for him? He villified opponents, and made accusations of fraud, but I can't recall him attacking voters themselves, which Clinton and others ("If you don't vote for me, you ain't black") had no problem doing.

I think the whole Trump [phenomenon is very interesting and will undoubtedly be the source of a lot of study and reflection.  I have met a couple different brands of trump supporters, those who recognize he is dishonest and dont like his general behavior but like his policies (usually tax breaks, de-regulation, etc.), and others who claim he is the most/only honest politician.  I can understand the first group (although I disagree), it is the second group that I have a hard time reconciling.  I have even met a number of Canadians that fall in the second group and long for a Trump of the North.

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 



 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 11:14:23 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:06:19 AM

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 


Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 11:21:27 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 11:14:23 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:06:19 AM

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 


Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.

Googling around, I found several items of interest regarding the DJT odyssey. When he was younger and not yet in office he came across less angry, combative and more creative in his thoughts. One was an interview with Larry King in which he said Oprah Winfrey would be his favorite as a running mate (racist?); a David Letterman interview where he thought Mike Tyson should be released from prison early, perform at Trump's facility and raise millions be donated to rape victims (racist?); a Jordan Peterson interview where he says Donald Trump is clearly highly intelligent.
Other: obviously father Fred was a driven, severe man who liked  young donald because he had the right stuff to be forged in the image of his mega- businessman father. A brother, Fred, was not of their temperament, retiring more than competitive, and drank himself to premature death. It took Donald years to understand how Fred Sr's rejection of brother Fred was so destructive, but he did finally get it and regret his part in it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:55:45 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 11:14:23 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:06:19 AM

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 


Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.

I have a hard time seeing a lot of our leaders being electable in the US. 

As far as Justin goes, he does have nice hair and such but I don't think that was the driving force behind his wins.   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 11:21:27 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 11:14:23 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:06:19 AM

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 


Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.

Googling around, I found several items of interest regarding the DJT odyssey. When he was younger and not yet in office he came across less angry, combative and more creative in his thoughts. One was an interview with Larry King in which he said Oprah Winfrey would be his favorite as a running mate (racist?); a David Letterman interview where he thought Mike Tyson should be released from prison early, perform at Trump's facility and raise millions be donated to rape victims (racist?); a Jordan Peterson interview where he says Donald Trump is clearly highly intelligent.
Other: obviously father Fred was a driven, severe man who liked  young donald because he had the right stuff to be forged in the image of his mega- businessman father. A brother, Fred, was not of their temperament, retiring more than competitive, and drank himself to premature death. It took Donald years to understand how Fred Sr's rejection of brother Fred was so destructive, but he did finally get it and regret his part in it.

Yes, DJT definitely seems like he has evolved into the thing that he is.  Perhaps part of aging?

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 12:10:15 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:58:20 AM

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Absent explicit virtue-signalling, is there anything that can establish a person as non-racist? Or since one can't prove a negative, is everyone provisionally guilty so that over time their "racist-liklihood score" goes down unless/until they do something inappropriate? And are there "inappropriate" things that aren't explicitly racist, but which are nevertheless wrong?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 12:20:14 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 11:21:27 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 11:14:23 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:06:19 AM

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 


Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.

Googling around, I found several items of interest regarding the DJT odyssey. When he was younger and not yet in office he came across less angry, combative and more creative in his thoughts. One was an interview with Larry King in which he said Oprah Winfrey would be his favorite as a running mate (racist?); a David Letterman interview where he thought Mike Tyson should be released from prison early, perform at Trump's facility and raise millions be donated to rape victims (racist?); a Jordan Peterson interview where he says Donald Trump is clearly highly intelligent.
Other: obviously father Fred was a driven, severe man who liked  young donald because he had the right stuff to be forged in the image of his mega- businessman father. A brother, Fred, was not of their temperament, retiring more than competitive, and drank himself to premature death. It took Donald years to understand how Fred Sr's rejection of brother Fred was so destructive, but he did finally get it and regret his part in it.

Yes, DJT definitely seems like he has evolved into the thing that he is.  Perhaps part of aging?

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

You win. I am not going to argue that this person is or is not a racist. It's a fool's errand. We who are white are all racist. It either jumps out at you or lurks deep in the subconscious thoughts, shows itself in some little barely noticed gesture, results in the wrong person getting hired, etc or somewhere in between. I get it. Sign me up for the next regularly scheduled soul-cleansing confessional.
Nevertheless, liberal media was, once again, very wrong about what would happen in this election. given all of Trump's liabilities, it should have been a landslide and a blue tidal wave. Except the left is the right's best friend when it comes to peeling off votes.
Trumpism, as Pat Buchanan wrote recently, is going to be around for a while because it has been a predictable response to a dumb, dishonest mass phenomenon, using the racism bogeyman to demonize anyone who doesn't promote the liberal platform and sensibility. this was in full swing long before DJT became anyone in politics.
Half the nation, frankly, thinks you and the rest of academia full of crap, supercilious, insufferable. This will continue for the near future.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 12:26:07 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 12:10:15 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:58:20 AM

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Absent explicit virtue-signalling, is there anything that can establish a person as non-racist? Or since one can't prove a negative, is everyone provisionally guilty so that over time their "racist-liklihood score" goes down unless/until they do something inappropriate? And are there "inappropriate" things that aren't explicitly racist, but which are nevertheless wrong?

Well, I think all humans are inherently bias and this includes towards various different groups of people.  I suppose I dont think anyone is could be considered completely non-racist as such, and it is really just a question of the degree of racism.  It's like when people talk about media outlets or scientists being unbiased, I see this as impossible.  All we can do is minimize racism and bias. 

In the case of Trump, I dont know how racist he is.  Based on his statements and actions he seems quite prejudice, but it is hard to tell in his case because many of these may have actually just reflected his own personal interests (ie. he might have just said there are good people on both sides because it benefited him politically).  I think with Trump, he dosnt really care about a lot of issues he fights for (gun rights, anti-abortion, conservative judges) but they help him personally so he plays the part.

That being said, saying you have a black friend hardly means you are not racist, just that you are not racist to the point you could not be friends with black people.

   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 12:30:03 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 12:20:14 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 11:21:27 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 11:14:23 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:06:19 AM

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 


Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.

Googling around, I found several items of interest regarding the DJT odyssey. When he was younger and not yet in office he came across less angry, combative and more creative in his thoughts. One was an interview with Larry King in which he said Oprah Winfrey would be his favorite as a running mate (racist?); a David Letterman interview where he thought Mike Tyson should be released from prison early, perform at Trump's facility and raise millions be donated to rape victims (racist?); a Jordan Peterson interview where he says Donald Trump is clearly highly intelligent.
Other: obviously father Fred was a driven, severe man who liked  young donald because he had the right stuff to be forged in the image of his mega- businessman father. A brother, Fred, was not of their temperament, retiring more than competitive, and drank himself to premature death. It took Donald years to understand how Fred Sr's rejection of brother Fred was so destructive, but he did finally get it and regret his part in it.

Yes, DJT definitely seems like he has evolved into the thing that he is.  Perhaps part of aging?

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Half the nation, frankly, thinks you and the rest of academia full of crap, supercilious, insufferable. This will continue for the near future.

True, and in a survey 25% of people said they would not eat food that contained DNA.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 12:39:35 PM
But your answer to MW's question is disingenuous, because we all know that the inference is half of us (republicans) are eminently and threateningly racist. Which is not nice, and not demonstrated. And there are some pretty smart people around who have forceful counterarguments.
If that were not the story that has wide currency, there would be little reason for racism to be so prevalent in discussions, news commentary.

Remember, racism is a bad thing for a person to cultivate, because it is not nice.

Quote
Quote
Half the nation, frankly, thinks you and the rest of academia full of crap, supercilious, insufferable. This will continue for the near future.

True, and in a survey 25% of people said they would not eat food that contained DNA.
[/quote][/quote]

[my new comment] The point being, democrats, including and maybe even especially some of the most extensively educated members of society, repeatedly think they are convincing people of their views when they are not. I find this interesting.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 12:44:13 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 12:26:07 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 12:10:15 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:58:20 AM

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Absent explicit virtue-signalling, is there anything that can establish a person as non-racist? Or since one can't prove a negative, is everyone provisionally guilty so that over time their "racist-liklihood score" goes down unless/until they do something inappropriate? And are there "inappropriate" things that aren't explicitly racist, but which are nevertheless wrong?

Well, I think all humans are inherently bias and this includes towards various different groups of people.  I suppose I dont think anyone is could be considered completely non-racist as such, and it is really just a question of the degree of racism.  It's like when people talk about media outlets or scientists being unbiased, I see this as impossible.  All we can do is minimize racism and bias. 


Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 12:39:35 PM
But your answer to MW's question is disingenuous, because we all know that the inference is half of us (republicans) are eminently and threateningly racist. Which is not nice, and not demonstrated. And there are some pretty smart people around who have forceful counterarguments.
If that were not the story that has wide currency, there would be little reason for racism to be so prevalent in discussions, news commentary.

Remember, racism is a bad thing for a person to cultivate, because it is not nice.

No, you miss the point. If everyone is somewhat racist, then people are divided into "racist-racists" and "racist-anti-racists".

Doesn't that clear it all up?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on November 11, 2020, 12:50:38 PM
I'll guess that all the people yammering about race on this thread are white. Zzzzz.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 12:53:52 PM
Quote from: spork on November 11, 2020, 12:50:38 PM
I'll guess that all the people yammering about race on this thread are white. Zzzzz.

Since every politician, news commentator, and anyone else in front of a microphone is talking about "systemic racism", then it's a popular topic.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 01:27:17 PM
Quote from: spork on November 11, 2020, 12:50:38 PM
I'll guess that all the people yammering about race on this thread are white. Zzzzz.

Go ahead and put more blacks on the tenure track if you like. I won't interfere. I think it's something like two per cent currently.

edited to add: If I've been yammering about anyone it's mostly white academics who are on the self-appointed 'anti-racism' kick. Honestly, it has been a personal disappointment to see what some of them have been doing. The 'just because someone has a black friend does not mean he is not a racist' riff is very stale. It sounds like dog whistling.


Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 12:44:13 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 12:26:07 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 12:10:15 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:58:20 AM

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Absent explicit virtue-signalling, is there anything that can establish a person as non-racist? Or since one can't prove a negative, is everyone provisionally guilty so that over time their "racist-liklihood score" goes down unless/until they do something inappropriate? And are there "inappropriate" things that aren't explicitly racist, but which are nevertheless wrong?

Well, I think all humans are inherently bias and this includes towards various different groups of people.  I suppose I dont think anyone is could be considered completely non-racist as such, and it is really just a question of the degree of racism.  It's like when people talk about media outlets or scientists being unbiased, I see this as impossible.  All we can do is minimize racism and bias. 


Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 12:39:35 PM
But your answer to MW's question is disingenuous, because we all know that the inference is half of us (republicans) are eminently and threateningly racist. Which is not nice, and not demonstrated. And there are some pretty smart people around who have forceful counterarguments.
If that were not the story that has wide currency, there would be little reason for racism to be so prevalent in discussions, news commentary.

Remember, racism is a bad thing for a person to cultivate, because it is not nice.

No, you miss the point. If everyone is somewhat racist, then people are divided into "racist-racists" and "racist-anti-racists".

Doesn't that clear it all up?


No it doesn't, because there is no mainstream debate over whether or not we are against racism. We are against it. That question has been settled for many years.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 12:39:35 PM
But your answer to MW's question is disingenuous, because we all know that the inference is half of us (republicans) are eminently and threateningly racist. Which is not nice, and not demonstrated. And there are some pretty smart people around who have forceful counterarguments.
If that were not the story that has wide currency, there would be little reason for racism to be so prevalent in discussions, news commentary.

Remember, racism is a bad thing for a person to cultivate, because it is not nice.

Quote
Quote
Half the nation, frankly, thinks you and the rest of academia full of crap, supercilious, insufferable. This will continue for the near future.

True, and in a survey 25% of people said they would not eat food that contained DNA.
[/quote]

[my new comment] The point being, democrats, including and maybe even especially some of the most extensively educated members of society, repeatedly think they are convincing people of their views when they are not. I find this interesting.
[/quote]

No, that is your inference (and often media's). I suspect that the average level of racism among republicans is higher than among democrats, but there would be a lot of overlap with some democrats being more racist than some republicans and vice versa.   

I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 02:24:03 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 12:44:13 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 12:26:07 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2020, 12:10:15 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 11, 2020, 11:58:20 AM

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Absent explicit virtue-signalling, is there anything that can establish a person as non-racist? Or since one can't prove a negative, is everyone provisionally guilty so that over time their "racist-liklihood score" goes down unless/until they do something inappropriate? And are there "inappropriate" things that aren't explicitly racist, but which are nevertheless wrong?

Well, I think all humans are inherently bias and this includes towards various different groups of people.  I suppose I dont think anyone is could be considered completely non-racist as such, and it is really just a question of the degree of racism.  It's like when people talk about media outlets or scientists being unbiased, I see this as impossible.  All we can do is minimize racism and bias. 


Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 12:39:35 PM
But your answer to MW's question is disingenuous, because we all know that the inference is half of us (republicans) are eminently and threateningly racist. Which is not nice, and not demonstrated. And there are some pretty smart people around who have forceful counterarguments.
If that were not the story that has wide currency, there would be little reason for racism to be so prevalent in discussions, news commentary.

Remember, racism is a bad thing for a person to cultivate, because it is not nice.

No, you miss the point. If everyone is somewhat racist, then people are divided into "racist-racists" and "racist-anti-racists".

Doesn't that clear it all up?

I see what you are getting at, but my point is that dividing us into two groups in the first place would be wrong because it is not black and white (pun intended). 

There are also a lot of people (myself included) that are somewhat ambivalent.  Sure, I have opinions and may express them in a pseudo anonymous forum, but I am hardly out on the street marching or fighting for change.  I dont think of myself as racist, but I definitely have my biases. 

More important than labeling people racist or not racist, is to look at policy and address systemic inequality.         
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 03:57:28 PM
Quote
I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 11, 2020, 08:53:38 PM
@DecisionDeskHQ calls AZ for Biden. Expect other networks to follow suit soon.

Will Trump end this ridiculous lie about vote fraud? Probably not, but this may push a few more in the GOP to congratulate Biden and concede that this election is effectively over.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 03:51:52 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 03:57:28 PM
Quote
I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 05:12:33 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 03:51:52 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 03:57:28 PM
Quote
I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 12, 2020, 06:42:01 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 03:51:52 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 03:57:28 PM
Quote
I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

OK I see your point. Speaking for myself, I am not qualified to say there is no systemic racism, I am willing to believe there is, but the people who say there isn't enough of a systemic racism factor to explain the differences in prosperity between American blacks and whites or American blacks and American Asians (Glenn Loury would be one) have more ring of truth for me than the chorus of liberal academics.
Particularly when other factors are hugely present -- the dissolution of the black family for example.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 12, 2020, 07:57:57 AM
Quote

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes?

Why try to jump start a boring discussion like that one when you've got a proven money maker with traction already humming along, with Al  Sharpton, pro basketball players, Hollywood, mass demonstrations, already fanning the flame? Screw the humanities graduates. They made poor life choices. We've got a place for them where they won't make trouble: adjunct land.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 11:10:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 05:12:33 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 03:51:52 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 03:57:28 PM
Quote
I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 11:15:46 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 11:10:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 05:12:33 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 03:51:52 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 03:57:28 PM
Quote
I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

Why? What is different in using the word "systemic" about that situation from how it is used in "systemic" racism, since the point is that even if the system wasn't explicitly set up to penalize one group, the fact that one group disproportionately suffers is the issue?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 12, 2020, 11:20:24 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 11:10:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 05:12:33 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 03:51:52 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 03:57:28 PM
Quote
I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

It's not any sillier than assuming that different demographic groups must always achieve equal levels of success or else society is doing something unfair to them. This is being done regularly by academics who have been trained to insist on evidence.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 12:56:38 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 11:15:46 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 11:10:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 05:12:33 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 03:51:52 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 03:57:28 PM
Quote
I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

Why? What is different in using the word "systemic" about that situation from how it is used in "systemic" racism, since the point is that even if the system wasn't explicitly set up to penalize one group, the fact that one group disproportionately suffers is the issue?

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 12, 2020, 11:20:24 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 11:10:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 05:12:33 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 03:51:52 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 11, 2020, 03:57:28 PM
Quote
I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

It's not any sillier than assuming that different demographic groups must always achieve equal levels of success or else society is doing something unfair to them. This is being done regularly by academics who have been trained to insist on evidence.

I have never said that all groups must always achieve equal levels of success, just that there should not be artificial barriers that prevent it.  There are many examples of people being discriminated against based on their race.   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on November 12, 2020, 01:05:07 PM
We've apparently made the decision that any problem experienced by a group is the result of something outside the group. You don't just see this with race and gender but school systems as well. It's never an "us" problem. Rather than saying systematic issues are one possible reason for a portion of an outcome, we insist on an all or nothing answer to give a silver bullet. Genetic explanations of any kind for any issue are totally off bounds regardless of merit. Straight to the "R Word" penalty box if even mentioned as a possibility. The idea that whatever phenomena one suggests as the root of differences in outcomes should be backed by evidence is simply proof of "supporting the existing systemic structure." Facts are now at minimum micro aggressions and at worst tools of an oppressive system.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: fourhats on November 12, 2020, 01:42:18 PM
QuoteI'll guess that all the people yammering about race on this thread are white. Zzzzz.

Thank you for that, Spork.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 12:56:38 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 11:15:46 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 11:10:13 AM

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

Why? What is different in using the word "systemic" about that situation from how it is used in "systemic" racism, since the point is that even if the system wasn't explicitly set up to penalize one group, the fact that one group disproportionately suffers is the issue?

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?

As mahagonny* pointed out there are life choices about whether to have children out of wedlock, whether to stay in the home where one has fathered a child, as well as whether to join a gang, etc. I don't believe any of those are gnetically-determined for people who are born black.

(*And Obama, Denzel Washington, and others)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 12, 2020, 02:01:19 PM
Quote from: fourhats on November 12, 2020, 01:42:18 PM
QuoteI'll guess that all the people yammering about race on this thread are white. Zzzzz.

Thank you for that, Spork.

I think it's one of the most richly ironic things I've heard in quite awhile considering this entire forum caters to the concerns of the tenure track and its noble place in culture as the owners of the monopoly on unrestrained truth, the tenure track is two per cent African American, yet sees itself as urgently concerned over 'underrepresented' demographic and racial groups, and the fact that the posters Spork refers to are the less-than-liberal outliers here, whereas the constant, unrelenting focus on race in our culture is clearly the work of the left and its higher ed fortress.
But maybe this needs a split-off.

edited to add: the prevailing take on this in academia is the left can talk about race as often as they want and it's only someone heroic stepping in to prevent a wrong. They have innoculized themselves against the 'white fragility' charge.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 02:03:17 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 12:56:38 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 11:15:46 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 11:10:13 AM

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

Why? What is different in using the word "systemic" about that situation from how it is used in "systemic" racism, since the point is that even if the system wasn't explicitly set up to penalize one group, the fact that one group disproportionately suffers is the issue?

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?

As mahagonny* pointed out there are life choices about whether to have children out of wedlock, whether to stay in the home where one has fathered a child, as well as whether to join a gang, etc. I don't believe any of those are gnetically-determined for people who are born black.

(*And Obama, Denzel Washington, and others)

Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   

   





Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 12, 2020, 03:02:43 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 02:03:17 PM


Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   

   

Let's get busy and change those centuries.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 12, 2020, 05:24:09 PM
So, back to elections...

One article I saw suggested that the orange-tufted gooney bird is going to build a news network to out-fox Fox.

    https://www.axios.com/trump-fox-news-digital-media-competitor-25afddee-144d-4820-8ed4-9eb0ffa42420.html

I read it and thought--ah-ah, there's the answer.  As Marilyn French's character, Val, observed in "The Women's Room,"

"...You [paraphrasing here] have to move someone else in on a guy if you want to drop him. They won't go because you tell them you don't want to be with them any more, because they can't believe that could be true. Obviously you need them, you're a woman, you MUST need a guy in your life, and they're already there, so why wouldn't you need them? They won't understand unless you move someone else into that role, and then they can accept that, OK, you don't need them but you do need someone else, and that person has now come along, so they can go because you have someone else."

So, to apply that logic in this case, Trump could be enticed to leave the Presidency IF he had something else more interesting/potentially rewarding to do. He'll move on when he has something to move to, in other words.

I suggest Biden find funding for Trump's new shiny play-toy-news-network and shoehorn him out that way.

He still may not formally concede, and he could be even more dangerous, but at least he'd leave.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 05:28:06 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 02:03:17 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 12:56:38 PM

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?

As mahagonny* pointed out there are life choices about whether to have children out of wedlock, whether to stay in the home where one has fathered a child, as well as whether to join a gang, etc. I don't believe any of those are gnetically-determined for people who are born black.

(*And Obama, Denzel Washington, and others)

Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   

   

There's a problem with that (source (https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d21/d2156.pdf)):
Quote
Between 1880 and 1960, the proportion of black children in single-parent
families exhibited a remarkable stability hovering in a narrow band around 20 percent. Then, abruptly, after
1960, this demographic equilibrium shattered as the proportion of black children in single-parent families
doubled between 1960 and 1980 then continued its sharp rise reaching a new stable demographic
equilibrium just above 50 percent near 1990.


For nearly a century after the end of slavery, there were vastly fewer fatherless homes. (And if slavery represents the worst degree of racism, then the collapse of families had to be due to something else.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 13, 2020, 05:39:19 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 05:28:06 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 02:03:17 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 12:56:38 PM

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?

As mahagonny* pointed out there are life choices about whether to have children out of wedlock, whether to stay in the home where one has fathered a child, as well as whether to join a gang, etc. I don't believe any of those are gnetically-determined for people who are born black.

(*And Obama, Denzel Washington, and others)

Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   

   

There's a problem with that (source (https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d21/d2156.pdf)):
Quote
Between 1880 and 1960, the proportion of black children in single-parent
families exhibited a remarkable stability hovering in a narrow band around 20 percent. Then, abruptly, after
1960, this demographic equilibrium shattered as the proportion of black children in single-parent families
doubled between 1960 and 1980 then continued its sharp rise reaching a new stable demographic
equilibrium just above 50 percent near 1990.


For nearly a century after the end of slavery, there were vastly fewer fatherless homes. (And if slavery represents the worst degree of racism, then the collapse of families had to be due to something else.)

I would posit that the collapse of the family is rooted in the present, or at least the very recent past. white liberal have sold us, and especially black Americans a bill of goods. The option for a single woman to raise a child was looked at as a win for women's rights and a challenge to the patriarchy. When Murphy Brown did this it was the general consensus that Dan Quayle, with his antiquated male dominance views was the one who didn't get it. Nobody gave a damn what this meant for poor people. Years later Obama tried to influence people back toward tradition but he got nowhere.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 13, 2020, 08:08:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 05:28:06 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 02:03:17 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2020, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 12:56:38 PM

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?

As mahagonny* pointed out there are life choices about whether to have children out of wedlock, whether to stay in the home where one has fathered a child, as well as whether to join a gang, etc. I don't believe any of those are gnetically-determined for people who are born black.

(*And Obama, Denzel Washington, and others)

Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   

   

There's a problem with that (source (https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d21/d2156.pdf)):
Quote
Between 1880 and 1960, the proportion of black children in single-parent
families exhibited a remarkable stability hovering in a narrow band around 20 percent. Then, abruptly, after
1960, this demographic equilibrium shattered as the proportion of black children in single-parent families
doubled between 1960 and 1980 then continued its sharp rise reaching a new stable demographic
equilibrium just above 50 percent near 1990.


For nearly a century after the end of slavery, there were vastly fewer fatherless homes. (And if slavery represents the worst degree of racism, then the collapse of families had to be due to something else.)

Like, mass incarceration of Black men?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 08:14:30 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 13, 2020, 08:08:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 05:28:06 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 02:03:17 PM
Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   


There's a problem with that (source (https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d21/d2156.pdf)):
Quote
Between 1880 and 1960, the proportion of black children in single-parent
families exhibited a remarkable stability hovering in a narrow band around 20 percent. Then, abruptly, after
1960, this demographic equilibrium shattered as the proportion of black children in single-parent families
doubled between 1960 and 1980 then continued its sharp rise reaching a new stable demographic
equilibrium just above 50 percent near 1990.


For nearly a century after the end of slavery, there were vastly fewer fatherless homes. (And if slavery represents the worst degree of racism, then the collapse of families had to be due to something else.)

Like, mass incarceration of Black men?

So what activities were suddenly criminalized that hadn't been for the previous 80 years, resulting in those incarcerations?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 13, 2020, 08:23:10 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 08:14:30 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 13, 2020, 08:08:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 05:28:06 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 12, 2020, 02:03:17 PM
Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   


There's a problem with that (source (https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d21/d2156.pdf)):
Quote
Between 1880 and 1960, the proportion of black children in single-parent
families exhibited a remarkable stability hovering in a narrow band around 20 percent. Then, abruptly, after
1960, this demographic equilibrium shattered as the proportion of black children in single-parent families
doubled between 1960 and 1980 then continued its sharp rise reaching a new stable demographic
equilibrium just above 50 percent near 1990.


For nearly a century after the end of slavery, there were vastly fewer fatherless homes. (And if slavery represents the worst degree of racism, then the collapse of families had to be due to something else.)

Like, mass incarceration of Black men?

So what activities were suddenly criminalized that hadn't been for the previous 80 years, resulting in those incarcerations?

The war on drugs?  Maybe not new laws, but more focus.  It can also be about more than what laws are in place, but how they are applied and enforced and how harshly different groups are penalized for the same crimes. 


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 13, 2020, 10:53:59 AM
If we could have gotten wealthy liberals to stop stuffing cocaine up their noses we might have had a chance at keeping drugs off the streets.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 24, 2020, 05:34:43 AM
Elections meet football!

https://twitter.com/ejmaroun/status/1330994425720426497?s=21
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 24, 2020, 08:13:00 AM
At least they've finally released the transition budget monies...

   https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/23/politics/transition-biden-gsa-begin/index.html

Let the games begin...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on November 24, 2020, 10:23:32 AM
Listening to Biden announce Cabinet picks. It's nice having a President again who is capable of speaking in complete sentences.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 24, 2020, 01:35:12 PM
Quote from: spork on November 24, 2020, 10:23:32 AM
Listening to Biden announce Cabinet picks. It's nice having a President again who is capable of speaking in complete sentences.

I agree. It is also refreshing to not be lambasted by hatred and vitriol with a side of gas lighting and fearmongering.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on November 24, 2020, 01:47:25 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 24, 2020, 01:35:12 PM
Quote from: spork on November 24, 2020, 10:23:32 AM
Listening to Biden announce Cabinet picks. It's nice having a President again who is capable of speaking in complete sentences.

I agree. It is also refreshing to not be lambasted by hatred and vitriol with a side of gas lighting and fearmongering.

And to have competent, highly experienced people of good will chosen for cabinet posts rather than political hacks who want to destroy the agencies they head. I can only imagine the relief of the career civil servants who will be allowed to simply do their jobs again.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 24, 2020, 07:48:19 PM
Far too many hawks among the cabinet picks for my taste.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 24, 2020, 07:57:41 PM
Maybe, but it's not yet time to let the subdivisions within the party start splintering support for Biden overall.

The way things are looking, any slight crack will be used to break up a very necessary unity that will be needed to fend off things like the mess being made with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and other schemes to tear the house down and burn up the pieces before handing it on.
   
   https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/the-trump-administration-may-privatize-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-and-it-could-disrupt-the-nations-housing-finance-system-11606208076

This transition period could be foundational in several different ways.

A bit more discipline might yet be needed; AOC and company really don't seem to realize that, laudable as their goals well may be, they're going to take things down with them if they don't learn some pulling-together-instead-of-pulling-apart strategies.

"Getting things done," vs. "getting your own way," hasn't yet seeped into their understanding, it seems.

Especially if the Senate races in GA don't put Schumer in McConnell's seat, they're neither going to get what they want, nor let anyone else get anything done, and they just don't seem to realize that.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 25, 2020, 05:24:13 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 24, 2020, 07:57:41 PM



A bit more discipline might yet be needed; AOC and company really don't seem to realize that, laudable as their goals well may be, they're going to take things down with them if they don't learn some pulling-together-instead-of-pulling-apart strategies.

"Getting things done," vs. "getting your own way," hasn't yet seeped into their understanding, it seems.

Especially if the Senate races in GA don't put Schumer in McConnell's seat, they're neither going to get what they want, nor let anyone else get anything done, and they just don't seem to realize that.

M.

This is the kind of thing Bill Maher pointed out about why so many people voted for Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgrZAPUvKyA
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 07:50:50 AM
Minority voters voting republican more often is a good thing. It puts more diversity in their population. Diversity, do we remember that idea?

Both parties should be trying to get black votes and blacks should have real reasons to choose either one over the other.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 25, 2020, 05:24:13 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 24, 2020, 07:57:41 PM



A bit more discipline might yet be needed; AOC and company really don't seem to realize that, laudable as their goals well may be, they're going to take things down with them if they don't learn some pulling-together-instead-of-pulling-apart strategies.

"Getting things done," vs. "getting your own way," hasn't yet seeped into their understanding, it seems.

Especially if the Senate races in GA don't put Schumer in McConnell's seat, they're neither going to get what they want, nor let anyone else get anything done, and they just don't seem to realize that.

M.

This is the kind of thing Bill Maher pointed out about why so many people voted for Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgrZAPUvKyA

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 25, 2020, 08:20:40 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 24, 2020, 07:57:41 PM
Maybe, but it's not yet time to let the subdivisions within the party start splintering support for Biden overall.

The way things are looking, any slight crack will be used to break up a very necessary unity that will be needed to fend off things like the mess being made with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and other schemes to tear the house down and burn up the pieces before handing it on.
   
   https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/the-trump-administration-may-privatize-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-and-it-could-disrupt-the-nations-housing-finance-system-11606208076

This transition period could be foundational in several different ways.

A bit more discipline might yet be needed; AOC and company really don't seem to realize that, laudable as their goals well may be, they're going to take things down with them if they don't learn some pulling-together-instead-of-pulling-apart strategies.

"Getting things done," vs. "getting your own way," hasn't yet seeped into their understanding, it seems.

Especially if the Senate races in GA don't put Schumer in McConnell's seat, they're neither going to get what they want, nor let anyone else get anything done, and they just don't seem to realize that.

M.

If that's the concern, then it seems to me that the best way to get the left of the party on board is to throw them a bone or two. Telling them to shut up--especially while they throw any number of bones to Republicans and the party's right and centre wings--is not conciliatory. It's antagonistic. If you (a generic you, not you specifically!) want them on board, then give them a reason to get on board. Actually address some of their concerns. Don't just stand there whining about the fact that they aren't supporting you. It's such an entitled Boomer thing to do, and so infantilizing.

Besides, I think that a dose of criticism is a good thing. Biden's never been the drawer's sharpest knife, and his instincts have never been very good. If everyone in the party accepts him as God-Emperor like Fepublicans did Trump, then there will be nobody around to check his worst impulses. We'll be left with another batch of sycophants. (Or, worse, ghouls and pirates with their own agenda who aren't reined in by the president because he's a milquetoast do-nothing.)


As far as the current nominees go:

Antony Blinken is the advisor who got Biden to be the chief Democratic cheerleader for the war in Iraq and was one of the chief architects of the partition plan for that country. He was a big proponent of the war in Libya, too. Then he left government to found a defense consultancy, WestExec Advisors (with Michèle Flournoy, who's also under consideration; Avril Haines, the nominee for National Intelligence Director, was also a principal at WestExec). To my mind, that's a bad confluence of issues for a Secretary of State.

Avril Haines is affiliated with WestExec Advisors and Palantir (so there's that corporate swinging door at work) and was a cheerleader for torture. She helped craft the Obama administration's drone assassination program, was centrally involved in deciding who to murder by drone.

Michèle Flournoy, who is being considered for the Pentagon, helped found WestExec Advisors (gee, that's three of them already). She's on the board of Booz Allen Hamil­ton, a military contractor, and co-founded the Cen­ter for a New Amer­i­can Secu­ri­ty. She helped cheerlead Libya and Afghanistan, and was opposed to getting troops out of Iraq.

Rahm Emanuel is a fucking ghoul who literally covered up a murder (a police murder of a Black teenager). That's what got him booted from the mayorship of Chicago. That he's even being considered for the Biden administration is a fucking disgrace.  And it's shameful that it's fallen on AOC and "The Squad" to point this out. And that's not even getting into his horrible-no-good-very-bad record in the Obama white house where, among other disasters, he did everything he could to tank the ACA.

Bruce Reed, who's under consideration for Management and Budget, is a deficit hawk (oh yeah! That's what we need right now!) who's tried real hard to cut Medicare and Social Security. Then again, Biden has spent most of his career advocating the same cuts, so I guess it's a match made in heaven. Still not a good idea, though.

It seems to me that dissent over these picks is perfectly reasonable. In fact, I think it's a good and necessary thing, because these are terrible picks. Other options are available. They don't have to be perfect--Jake Sullivan, for instance, isn't perfect--but they should be better.


If the party's left doesn't hold Biden's feet to the fire, nobody else will, and he'll govern from the right, which is all he's ever wanted to do throughout his entire career. True, a lot of people don't think that's a bad thing. But a lot do, and as he's so fond of reminding us, he's got to be everybody's president.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on November 25, 2020, 08:37:54 AM
The USA is a plutocracy. What did you expect?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 25, 2020, 09:00:55 AM
Quote from: spork on November 25, 2020, 08:37:54 AM
The USA is a plutocracy. What did you expect?

Oh, I don't expect better from Biden. My expectations for him are abysmally low. That doesn't mean the criticism isn't warranted, however.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on November 25, 2020, 09:52:35 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 25, 2020, 09:00:55 AM
Quote from: spork on November 25, 2020, 08:37:54 AM
The USA is a plutocracy. What did you expect?

Oh, I don't expect better from Biden. My expectations for him are abysmally low. That doesn't mean the criticism isn't warranted, however.

I agree. Inside the Beltway is similar to the preponderance of Northeast Catholic Harvard/Yale graduates on the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 25, 2020, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 07:50:50 AM
Minority voters voting republican more often is a good thing. It puts more diversity in their population. Diversity, do we remember that idea?

Both parties should be trying to get black votes and blacks should have real reasons to choose either one over the other.


It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 25, 2020, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 07:50:50 AM
Minority voters voting republican more often is a good thing. It puts more diversity in their population. Diversity, do we remember that idea?

Both parties should be trying to get black votes and blacks should have real reasons to choose either one over the other.


It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.

Another Nostradamus

Democrats were, once again, astonished to find (1) the expected blue wave never came and (2) although Trump lost, he almost didn't, and (3) the party continues to make progress with minority votes.









Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 25, 2020, 12:35:07 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 25, 2020, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 07:50:50 AM
Minority voters voting republican more often is a good thing. It puts more diversity in their population. Diversity, do we remember that idea?

Both parties should be trying to get black votes and blacks should have real reasons to choose either one over the other.


It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.

So, are the 12% of Black voters, 32% of Hispanic/Latino voters, 31% of Asian voters, and 40% of "Other" voters who voted for Trump self-loathing or just too stupid to miss the " the racisms that is central to [GOP] politics"?

Source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184425/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-ethnicity-us/
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 25, 2020, 02:17:02 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 25, 2020, 12:35:07 PM

So, are the 12% of Black voters, 32% of Hispanic/Latino voters, 31% of Asian voters, and 40% of "Other" voters who voted for Trump self-loathing or just too stupid to miss the " the racisms that is central to [GOP] politics"?

Source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184425/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-ethnicity-us/

I think it's a combination of factors. Some are ignorant. Some are gullible and misled. Some don't see themselves as appropriate targets of Trump and Republicans' racism, some don't see themselves as being targeted by Trump and Republicans and really hate some other group of people. Some have inherited their voting position from their parents and their parents' parents, and so on. And some--probably quite a lot of them--care a lot more about something else that's on offer. Like tax cuts, for example.

That said, if the prospect of tax cuts (or some other, comparable desire) outweighs your ability to care about the fate of other people who will be immiserated to secure those tax cuts (or that comparable desire), then I think there's something wrong with you. It might be that you're stupid, that you're bigoted, that you're greedy, that you're a bad person, etc. I don't know, but I have an open mind.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 25, 2020, 02:19:48 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 25, 2020, 12:35:07 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 25, 2020, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 07:50:50 AM
Minority voters voting republican more often is a good thing. It puts more diversity in their population. Diversity, do we remember that idea?

Both parties should be trying to get black votes and blacks should have real reasons to choose either one over the other.


It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.

So, are the 12% of Black voters, 32% of Hispanic/Latino voters, 31% of Asian voters, and 40% of "Other" voters who voted for Trump self-loathing or just too stupid to miss the " the racisms that is central to [GOP] politics"?

Source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184425/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-ethnicity-us/

They're not really black.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 02:36:01 PM
Jeez, we don't have to guess. Let's ask just one black person. That's at least a start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbozDBM67lY

You can always figure too, talk is cheap, but lower unemployment and a little more income go a long way.

Unfortunately, there are a few, of any and all races, who don't try really hard to be regularly employed, and fall on the safety net. Not necessarily a healthy situation. You know how people are.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 25, 2020, 03:22:37 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 25, 2020, 11:42:50 AM
It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.

Anti-white racism is central to Democratic politics. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 25, 2020, 03:32:41 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 25, 2020, 02:17:02 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 25, 2020, 12:35:07 PM

So, are the 12% of Black voters, 32% of Hispanic/Latino voters, 31% of Asian voters, and 40% of "Other" voters who voted for Trump self-loathing or just too stupid to miss the " the racisms that is central to [GOP] politics"?

Source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184425/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-ethnicity-us/

I think it's a combination of factors. Some are ignorant. Some are gullible and misled. Some don't see themselves as appropriate targets of Trump and Republicans' racism, some don't see themselves as being targeted by Trump and Republicans and really hate some other group of people. Some have inherited their voting position from their parents and their parents' parents, and so on. And some--probably quite a lot of them--care a lot more about something else that's on offer. Like tax cuts, for example.

That said, if the prospect of tax cuts (or some other, comparable desire) outweighs your ability to care about the fate of other people who will be immiserated to secure those tax cuts (or that comparable desire), then I think there's something wrong with you. It might be that you're stupid, that you're bigoted, that you're greedy, that you're a bad person, etc. I don't know, but I have an open mind.

A one party system would be so much better, since only stupid or evil people vote for the other party.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 25, 2020, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 25, 2020, 03:32:41 PM
only stupid or evil people vote for the other party.

It's not that I think that's true globally. I do think it's true locally, however. Sometimes a party gets so bad that it has nothing to recommend it. I think that's true of the Republican party. I think it's been true for a while, but it's especially true in 2020.

For context: I don't think it's true of the Conservative Party of Canada. I think they're awful, but there's still room for reasonable disagreement. I think individual members of that party are awful and evil in various ways, or total morons, but it's just not the same.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 05:13:45 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 25, 2020, 03:22:37 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 25, 2020, 11:42:50 AM
It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.

Anti-white racism is central to Democratic politics.

Yeah, hating The USA too, which goes back to the Vietnam War era, but has taken on new aspects.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 25, 2020, 07:56:59 PM
Wanting growth is not hatred.

Wanting the death of something or someone is hatred.

Wanting their growth is wanting their life to go on, become stronger, better, more mature, happier.

Being stuck in any one moment belies the dance.

Staticity is not life, it's death.

So, wanting staticity is hatred.

Not wanting growth.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on November 25, 2020, 08:57:50 PM
Random thoughts:

1)  many of those minority Trump voters are more or less in the same situation as those poor white Trumpers-- they have been sold a bill of goods by propaganda, including an ever-increasing amount of social media-driven *self*-propaganda, that tells them things that are just not true, repeats these lies over and over again, and in the hands of a master con-artist like Trump, effectively enabled by a cowed and obedient GOP congress, becomes very hard to resist.   It is of course also true that these folks are largely uneduated, victims of those sh*itty public schools, and as such lack the critical thinking skills and knowledge base needed to effectively evaluate the BS they have been sold.   Also, at least wrt those poor white Trumpers, never underestimate the poisonous effects of groupthink and tribal identity politics to aid Trump's vote totals.

2) Greed.    Tax cuts, even though those cuts are largely not going to most of the Trump base, white or otherwise, are stunningly effective means to get people to vote for those advocating such cuts.   That propaganda aids in this effort, of course, and lies and/ or obfuscates the reality that a) taxes, as Oliver Wendell Holmes notes, 'buy civilization' and b) most of these folks owe their prosperity to past taxation and redistribution efforts, however much they want to ignore this, and often get very pissy when you try to point it out, point out that 'socialism' is and has been rife in America, and is often very good.   Indeed, Americans are pretty much alone amongst westernized democracies, in terms of our insane taxophobia.   We can of course discuss why this is.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 26, 2020, 05:11:04 AM
I appreciate K16's random thoughts and add mine:
If eight per cent of blacks voted for Trump versus six or fewer four years ago, and people vote out of economic self interest ('greed'?), and also black unemployment is down and earnings are up under Trump, then:

(1) We should expect the blacks who switched to Trump are likely the ones feeling more prosperous than they did a few years ago,
(2)  They may have owed their prosperity to democratic policies four years ago, but their future could easily looks brighter under Trump, so they have not changed their criteria in picking a candidate,
(3) If they had again voted for Biden, it would have been out of a sense of duty to others or altruism, which is a luxury of the relatively much more wealthy. So we shouldn't necessarily expect it of them.

on edit: which if the following sounds negative hopeless and futile, and which sounds uplifting and hopeful?

1. Black men are now voting for Trump in higher numbers because they are attracted to his male chauvinism, bullying, objectifying women. They think callous, exploitative domination of women is what has traditionally made the white man the icon of success and strength that he is, and they aspire to that position. - (compassionate left-leaners)
2. Men have been devalued, but remain extremely important to the success of the family, by being around and being the primary breadwinners.  - (Candace Owens the black man in the video I linked upthread)


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 26, 2020, 05:25:59 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 25, 2020, 08:57:50 PM

   Also, at least wrt those poor white Trumpers, never underestimate the poisonous effects of groupthink and tribal identity politics to aid Trump's vote totals.

How can those possibly be big things among minority voters? By definition, they aren't the majority of Trump supporters, and they aren't voting with the majority of their own"tribe"???? They are acting "anti-tribally", if anything.
Are you saying white and non-white Trump voters do so for entirely different reasons?


Quote
  Tax cuts, even though those cuts are largely not going to most of the Trump base, white or otherwise, are stunningly effective means to get people to vote for those advocating such cuts.   That propaganda aids in this effort, of course, and lies and/ or obfuscates the reality that a) taxes, as Oliver Wendell Holmes notes, 'buy civilization' and b) most of these folks owe their prosperity to past taxation and redistribution efforts, however much they want to ignore this, and often get very pissy when you try to point it out, point out that 'socialism' is and has been rife in America, and is often very good.   Indeed, Americans are pretty much alone amongst westernized democracies, in terms of our insane taxophobia.   We can of course discuss why this is.

Find one person outside the US that would ever use the term "socialist" to describe the US. Having government programs does not make a country socialist; by that definition every country ever has been "socialist".

The American "taxophobia" is part of the general paranoia about government, which is a particular
American obsession.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 26, 2020, 06:47:25 AM
Quote from: writingprof on November 25, 2020, 03:22:37 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 25, 2020, 11:42:50 AM
It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.

Anti-white racism is central to Democratic politics.

That belief/narrative is in line with this:
   https://thehill.com/homenews/news/527641-obama-republican-party-members-believe-white-males-are-victims

I agree that white males have in some ways unwittingly pulled the bookshelves over on themselves, and I am not unsympathetic to claims of pain and disenfranchisement in some areas of life--like providing for their families and shouldering national conflicts at the level of personal, military mortality.

In part, they were/are victimized by the very set of linked beliefs some want to claim could "Make America Great (i.e.white/male--this KKK dogwhistle phrase, = "white male again," as a black female friend recently reminded me) Again."

Folks like my dad (who, on the other hand, helped found the Interracial Acarima frat chapter at OSU) were in some ways tortured by the perceived (inherent, unqueried racist/sexist) need to deny themselves the benefits of a wider, more diversely supportive base population by which to "get things done." The very folks being excluded could have shared and made less scary the kinds of change that needed to happen for the betterment of the whole society.

Guys like my dad were raised to believe themselves resposible for and capable of solving the world's problems as well as their family's needs, and many--whether mentally, spiritually, physically, or in some combination--died trying, or believing  that they just hadn't tried hard enough.

That well-meaning sense of--maybe guilt, maybe exhaustion--made them sitting ducks for phrases like Nixon's "Moral Majority," (another dogwhistle phrase run amok, which I thought at the time gave birth to the later so-called 'Tea Party' and "Faith Forward" movements).

I saw shifts in my own family's backpedalling from joining a very forward-looking church in the 50s, to becoming quite upset with its direction in the 70s and ghosting out of most of its more socially-conscious activities (I,  on the other hsnd, found support there for my art, dance and music activities, and remained).

The juicy hopefulness of my parents' generation in the 50s ran through the tighter, more sclerosed veins of cynicism and trickle-down gullibility by the 80s. While a kid put a daisy in a gun 100 miles north of us, I began to ponder things; my dad railed against them. The split between us might have started then...I nowrealize he'd run dry on answers and was just sputtering.

So to an extent, by my observation, white males trapped themselves--and accepted the trapping they'd been raised to believe in--within a narrow, box-like structure.

Again, I am not completely unsympathetic. I often say kiddingly to fellows as I hold the door for them, entering a building together, "See? Liberation means I can do kind things for YOU, too..." Because those rigidly defined roles were often like a very clunky chain mail vest for fellows expected to be on "Knight in Shining Armor " duty 24/7.

It hurt them as much as it hurt us to be locked so tightly into our roles.

But some don't see this. Insisting so much on their inherent power to command (and right to be heard above all other voices), when others' particular insights into the needs of people of color (or those otherwise unlike them), or the strengths and helps those others could bring to what can become a crushing burden of expectations and responsibilities, they have boxed themselves into an echo chamber, yelling so loudly about their plight that they can't hear the voices, just outside, of those who could help them out of it.

And I'm sorry to say, but that won't work. That echo chamber might well become their coffin if they don't learn some humility, and shut up, and listen.

Pax in terra omnibus.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 26, 2020, 06:49:45 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 26, 2020, 05:25:59 AM
The American "taxophobia" is part of the general paranoia about government, which is a particular
American obsession.

I see we've begun making lists of things we're thankful for.  I'm with you.

Quote from: mamselle on November 25, 2020, 07:56:59 PM
Wanting the death of something or someone is hatred.

So much agreement!  The Left's decade-old obsession with white demographic collapse is indeed hatred.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 26, 2020, 10:54:35 AM
You're really misinterpreting a desire to see collegial expansion and inclusion as a collapse of something that doesn't exist to begin with.

"White demographic collapse" presumes a white demographic as a rarified homogenous entity.

Nowhere on the planet has there ever only been a fully, exclusively white population that existed without members of other races (often propping it up).

Recognizing that fact is not hatred of whites, it's celebrating the fact that people can get together and create something larger than any of them.

I'm white, my prayer partner is black. Neither of us hates the other; we pray with and for each other all the time. I learn and teach dance and music from Asian, South American, African and various European sources--the cultures that gave birth to those dances rejoice in their being shared. I read articles and look at visual sources from all over the world--the verbal texts in translation if I must, or in the original language if I can. 

If I limited myself to only white-produced cultural materials, or tried to understand, say, only the gravestones in a nearby burying ground that has two stones and two more (possibly four more) burials of Blacks from the same era, I'd be misrepresenting the historical record (as it is, the site misrepresents its own setting: there were probably 20+ Blacks in town at any one time--something I've called attention to in every tour and talk I've done since 1978).

Two of those blacks were soldiers in the colonial militia that defended the birth of your freedoms. Shall I leave them out to assuage your white-manque sense of grievance? Or would you just rather they hadn't seen fit to die on your behalf, as well as that of others, including the 100 or so freed Blacks living in a part of the town on the other side of the river?

Your distinctions in this dimension make no sense to me.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 26, 2020, 02:29:56 PM
While I appreciate your careful reasoning, I fear that you're willfully ignoring my point, which is that Democrats and their media allies have been gleefully riding the "demography is destiny" train for twenty years.  They want white people to age out and die so that the "coalition of the ascendant" can rule the country.  Surely you don't deny the existence of this phenomenon.

Wanting a particular race to decrease so that another can increase is obviously racist, which was my argument from the beginning.

Quote from: writingprof on November 25, 2020, 03:22:37 PM
Anti-white racism is central to Democratic politics. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 26, 2020, 02:33:22 PM
QuoteI fear that you're willfully ignoring my point, which is that Democrats and their media allies have been gleefully riding the "demography is destiny" train for twenty years.  They want white people to age out and die so that the "coalition of the ascendant" can rule the country.  Surely you don't deny the existence of this phenomenon.

First I've heard of it.

And I've written for the media.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 26, 2020, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 26, 2020, 02:33:22 PM
QuoteI fear that you're willfully ignoring my point, which is that Democrats and their media allies have been gleefully riding the "demography is destiny" train for twenty years.  They want white people to age out and die so that the "coalition of the ascendant" can rule the country.  Surely you don't deny the existence of this phenomenon.

First I've heard of it.

And I've written for the media.

M.

...and the media decide what exists and what doesn't, don't they.

Megan Kelly explains why the press and academia live in the same bubble. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdWw_yGbvBs

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on November 26, 2020, 03:29:54 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 26, 2020, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 26, 2020, 02:33:22 PM
QuoteI fear that you're willfully ignoring my point, which is that Democrats and their media allies have been gleefully riding the "demography is destiny" train for twenty years.  They want white people to age out and die so that the "coalition of the ascendant" can rule the country.  Surely you don't deny the existence of this phenomenon.

First I've heard of it.

And I've written for the media.

M.

...and the media decide what exists and what doesn't, don't they.

Megan Kelly explains why the press and academia live in the same bubble. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdWw_yGbvBs

Megan Kelly --Do you mean Megyn Kelly?

First rule in journalism: spell their names right.

M

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 27, 2020, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 26, 2020, 02:33:22 PM
QuoteI fear that you're willfully ignoring my point, which is that Democrats and their media allies have been gleefully riding the "demography is destiny" train for twenty years.  They want white people to age out and die so that the "coalition of the ascendant" can rule the country.  Surely you don't deny the existence of this phenomenon.

First I've heard of it.

And I've written for the media.

M.

Are you ignorant or full of s--t?  I would lean toward the latter, but the gemstone purity of your tone-deafness ("And I've written for the media") is such that the former must also be considered.  You've "written" for "the media"?  Congratulations.  So has the guy who leaks celebrity nudes and includes a caption.  That you seem not to know that the gatekeeper system no longer exists is certainly in keeping with your (alleged) unfamiliarity with a major plotline in electoral analysis for at least the last three cycles.  So, points for consistency, I guess.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 02:13:54 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 25, 2020, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 07:50:50 AM
Minority voters voting republican more often is a good thing. It puts more diversity in their population. Diversity, do we remember that idea?

Both parties should be trying to get black votes and blacks should have real reasons to choose either one over the other.


It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.

Another Nostradamus

Democrats were, once again, astonished to find (1) the expected blue wave never came and (2) although Trump lost, he almost didn't, and (3) the party continues to make progress with minority votes.

Not sure what this has to do with my comment. But in general GOP/Trump did not do well with minorities and in fact Black turnout in a few key cities was key to his defeat.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 02:13:54 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 25, 2020, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 07:50:50 AM
Minority voters voting republican more often is a good thing. It puts more diversity in their population. Diversity, do we remember that idea?

Both parties should be trying to get black votes and blacks should have real reasons to choose either one over the other.


It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.

Another Nostradamus

Democrats were, once again, astonished to find (1) the expected blue wave never came and (2) although Trump lost, he almost didn't, and (3) the party continues to make progress with minority votes.

Not sure what this has to do with my comment. But in general GOP/Trump did not do well with minorities and in fact Black turnout in a few key cities was key to his defeat.

I believe the arithmetic problem is this: if only 8% of black people who vote vote for Trump, then a high turnout of black voters is good for Biden. Stacey Abrams and some others probably accomplished a lot in getting voters in her region registered and to the polls. Which is legal, and good for democracy, I guess. It's legitimate, not cheating or fraud. But having increasing proportions of minority votes go to the candidate who has been consistently lampooned as the 'racist' 'xenophobe' etc. is something the democrats cannot figure out, and particularly when individual minorities identify reasons for choosing Trump that actually, broadside, defy the left's characterization of him and his aims point by point.
They couldn't figure out Bush over Kerry in 2004, or Trump over Clinton in 2016 either.
The 'Nostradamus' wisecrack meant I include you in the group of left leaning academics who think you have your finger on the pulse of the American electorate, but keep getting surprised by what happens.
And in fact, one forumite revealed in a moment of candor recently that's it's not important to him to persuade others of his worldview, fervent though he is in holding it, because he doesn't run for office. He has tenure. And I think that anecdote is a piece of what's going on.
Jimmy Carter said in 2016 'both candidates this time are unpopular, but of the two I'll vote for Hillary.' He had a better idea what was going on than this forum did.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Chris J on November 27, 2020, 03:26:36 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 27, 2020, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 26, 2020, 02:33:22 PM
QuoteI fear that you're willfully ignoring my point, which is that Democrats and their media allies have been gleefully riding the "demography is destiny" train for twenty years.  They want white people to age out and die so that the "coalition of the ascendant" can rule the country.  Surely you don't deny the existence of this phenomenon.

First I've heard of it.

And I've written for the media.

M.

Are you ignorant or full of s--t?  I would lean toward the latter, but the gemstone purity of your tone-deafness ("And I've written for the media") is such that the former must also be considered.  You've "written" for "the media"?  Congratulations.  So has the guy who leaks celebrity nudes and includes a caption.  That you seem not to know that the gatekeeper system no longer exists is certainly in keeping with your (alleged) unfamiliarity with a major plotline in electoral analysis for at least the last three cycles.  So, points for consistency, I guess.

Writingprof, you should apologize for this objectionable opening question to Mamselle. Do you speak that way IRL to your colleagues and students? Or only here anonymously?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 03:33:15 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 02:13:54 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 25, 2020, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 07:50:50 AM
Minority voters voting republican more often is a good thing. It puts more diversity in their population. Diversity, do we remember that idea?

Both parties should be trying to get black votes and blacks should have real reasons to choose either one over the other.


It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.

Another Nostradamus

Democrats were, once again, astonished to find (1) the expected blue wave never came and (2) although Trump lost, he almost didn't, and (3) the party continues to make progress with minority votes.

Not sure what this has to do with my comment. But in general GOP/Trump did not do well with minorities and in fact Black turnout in a few key cities was key to his defeat.

I believe the arithmetic problem is this: if only 8% of black people who vote vote for Trump, then a high turnout of black voters is good for Biden. Stacey Abrams and some others probably accomplished a lot in getting voters in her region registered and to the polls. Which is legal, and good for democracy, I guess. It's legitimate, not cheating or fraud. But having increasing proportions of minority votes go to the candidate who has been consistently lampooned as the 'racist' 'xenophobe' etc. is something the democrats cannot figure out, and particularly when individual minorities identify reasons for choosing Trump that actually, broadside, defy the left's characterization of him and his aims point by point.
They couldn't figure out Bush over Kerry in 2004, or Trump over Clinton in 2016 either.
The 'Nostradamus' wisecrack meant I include you in the group of left leaning academics who think you have your finger on the pulse of the American electorate, but keep getting surprised by what happens.
And in fact, one forumite revealed in a moment of candor recently that's it's not important to him to persuade others of his worldview, fervent though he is in holding it, because he doesn't run for office. He has tenure. And I think that anecdote is a piece of what's going on.

Trump is "lampooned" as racist because he says racist things frequently (e.g. his birtherism, his calls for minorities born in America to go back to their countries, his statement that there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements). Minorities voted for him in small numbers despite that. There are various hypotheses about why that is, but I wouldn't call it a mystery, just something that will require data collection and analysis to clarify. I also wouldn't put much stock in some youtube video by an individual black person.

As for the Nostradamus crack, I wasn't surprised by what happened. I thought Trump would probably lose, and he did. I thought Trump might win Florida, which would drag out the relevant counting, and that is what happened. I thought the Democrats had about a 50/50 chance of winning the Senate, and that was about right. Look at my posts throughout this thread and you'll see that I based most of my takes on the election on the polling, with an understanding for polling errors.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on November 27, 2020, 03:36:41 PM
Quote from: Chris J on November 27, 2020, 03:26:36 PM
Quote from: writingprof on November 27, 2020, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: mamselle on November 26, 2020, 02:33:22 PM
QuoteI fear that you're willfully ignoring my point, which is that Democrats and their media allies have been gleefully riding the "demography is destiny" train for twenty years.  They want white people to age out and die so that the "coalition of the ascendant" can rule the country.  Surely you don't deny the existence of this phenomenon.

First I've heard of it.

And I've written for the media.

M.

Are you ignorant or full of s--t?  I would lean toward the latter, but the gemstone purity of your tone-deafness ("And I've written for the media") is such that the former must also be considered.  You've "written" for "the media"?  Congratulations.  So has the guy who leaks celebrity nudes and includes a caption.  That you seem not to know that the gatekeeper system no longer exists is certainly in keeping with your (alleged) unfamiliarity with a major plotline in electoral analysis for at least the last three cycles.  So, points for consistency, I guess.

Writingprof, you should apologize for this objectionable opening question to Mamselle. Do you speak that way IRL to your colleagues and students? Or only here anonymously?

Only here, anonymously.  But, you know, I think you're on to something with your insightful realization that real-life and anonymous-message-board etiquettes differ.  Have you considered writing that up for publication?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 03:55:57 PM
Quotethat there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements

As far as I'm aware, the most condoning thing Trump has said about racist movements is 'I don't know these people you're asking me about.' In the brouhaha over the confederate statues he was taken out of context.

I didn't vote for Trump. I think the birtherism thing was an embarrassment.

If he is racist for courting votes of people who are considered racist, that's potentially very concerning; on the other hand, if your idea of a hard core racist voter includes people like Larry Elder or Pat Buchanan, once again, you're not getting it.
At the same time, democrats do not mind when ignorant people vote for them.

He has often said 'I'm the least racist person you'll meet' which is off putting by being boastful, but the stated intent to be a non-racist presence has not been approached with good faith.
I hope you don't start with the 'wanting to make a dent in illegal immigration is racist' thing that they all do.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 04:08:23 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 03:55:57 PM
Quotethat there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements

As far as I'm aware, the most condoning thing Trump has said about racist movements is 'I don't know these people you're asking me about.' In the brouhaha over the confederate statues he was taken out of context.

I didn't vote for Trump. I think the birtherism thing was an embarrassment.

He has often said 'I'm the least racist person you'll meet' which is off putting by being boastful, but the stated intent to be a non-racist presence has not been approached with good faith.
I hope you don't start with the 'wanting to make a dent in illegal immigration is racist' thing that they all do.

Trump has gone out of his way to court racists and to stoke racism in the electorate. He has said any number of hateful things about individual minorities and about minority groups. Even if one or two of his comments were taken out of context by the media, there are plenty of other examples of racism from Trump, including Birtherism, which is a racist conspiracy theory that only an idiot would believe, and his calls for minority members of the "Squad" to go back to their countries.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 04:08:23 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 03:55:57 PM
Quotethat there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements

As far as I'm aware, the most condoning thing Trump has said about racist movements is 'I don't know these people you're asking me about.' In the brouhaha over the confederate statues he was taken out of context.

I didn't vote for Trump. I think the birtherism thing was an embarrassment.

He has often said 'I'm the least racist person you'll meet' which is off putting by being boastful, but the stated intent to be a non-racist presence has not been approached with good faith.
I hope you don't start with the 'wanting to make a dent in illegal immigration is racist' thing that they all do.

Trump has gone out of his way to court racists and to stoke racism in the electorate. He has said any number of hateful things about individual minorities and about minority groups. Even if one or two of his comments were taken out of context by the media, there are plenty of other examples of racism from Trump, including Birtherism, which is a racist conspiracy theory that only an idiot would believe, and his calls for minority members of the "Squad" to go back to their countries.

Trump's rudeness has so many targets that it's not racism that jumps out at me. More like a propensity for antagonistic speech that's as ready to go as budweiser on tap at an 1970's sports bar.
The 'squad' going away would be good for the democrats' future I believe (as long as we can all get into the telling-the-future business with no penalty other than embarrassment later.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 27, 2020, 04:16:27 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 02:13:54 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 25, 2020, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 25, 2020, 07:50:50 AM
Minority voters voting republican more often is a good thing. It puts more diversity in their population. Diversity, do we remember that idea?

Both parties should be trying to get black votes and blacks should have real reasons to choose either one over the other.


It would be a healthier democracy if both parties attracted minority voters. But it is up to GOP to earn minority votes and part of doing that will require them to disavow and eliminate the racisms that is central to their politics.

Another Nostradamus

Democrats were, once again, astonished to find (1) the expected blue wave never came and (2) although Trump lost, he almost didn't, and (3) the party continues to make progress with minority votes.

Not sure what this has to do with my comment. But in general GOP/Trump did not do well with minorities and in fact Black turnout in a few key cities was key to his defeat.

I believe the arithmetic problem is this: if only 8% of black people who vote vote for Trump, then a high turnout of black voters is good for Biden. Stacey Abrams and some others probably accomplished a lot in getting voters in her region registered and to the polls. Which is legal, and good for democracy, I guess. It's legitimate, not cheating or fraud. But having increasing proportions of minority votes go to the candidate who has been consistently lampooned as the 'racist' 'xenophobe' etc. is something the democrats cannot figure out, and particularly when individual minorities identify reasons for choosing Trump that actually, broadside, defy the left's characterization of him and his aims point by point.
They couldn't figure out Bush over Kerry in 2004, or Trump over Clinton in 2016 either.
The 'Nostradamus' wisecrack meant I include you in the group of left leaning academics who think you have your finger on the pulse of the American electorate, but keep getting surprised by what happens.
And in fact, one forumite revealed in a moment of candor recently that's it's not important to him to persuade others of his worldview, fervent though he is in holding it, because he doesn't run for office. He has tenure. And I think that anecdote is a piece of what's going on.
Jimmy Carter said in 2016 'both candidates this time are unpopular, but of the two I'll vote for Hillary.' He had a better idea what was going on than this forum did.

I assume you are referring to my comment about not caring about changing people's minds.  In case anyone cares, which I doubt, it is in part that I am not in politics but also that I don't feel that I have the ability.  I know that my opinion is not going to make you come to some epiphany and change sides, nor are your arguments going to flip me to join the dark side.  I do have strong opinions about a lot of things, as most people do, but what we have discussed here is not my top priority by any means.  I am also not exceptionally enthusiastic about any political party (I am in Canada anyway, so...).

What I do find interesting about you though, is that most of your posts are all about unions and improving labour conditions.  Yet, you seem to be a fervent supporter of the "right to work" party.  It reminds me of when I lived in the deep South and everyone there was so strongly against social programs when they were the ones in need of them.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 04:18:38 PM
Why, oh why, is there still all this talk about Trump? It's clear he lost the election, even to him, as he said he would quit when the electoral college decides against him.

It may be that the Democratic Party has nothing else but Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 04:19:26 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 04:08:23 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 03:55:57 PM
Quotethat there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements

As far as I'm aware, the most condoning thing Trump has said about racist movements is 'I don't know these people you're asking me about.' In the brouhaha over the confederate statues he was taken out of context.

I didn't vote for Trump. I think the birtherism thing was an embarrassment.

He has often said 'I'm the least racist person you'll meet' which is off putting by being boastful, but the stated intent to be a non-racist presence has not been approached with good faith.
I hope you don't start with the 'wanting to make a dent in illegal immigration is racist' thing that they all do.

Trump has gone out of his way to court racists and to stoke racism in the electorate. He has said any number of hateful things about individual minorities and about minority groups. Even if one or two of his comments were taken out of context by the media, there are plenty of other examples of racism from Trump, including Birtherism, which is a racist conspiracy theory that only an idiot would believe, and his calls for minority members of the "Squad" to go back to their countries.

Trump's rudeness has so many targets that it's not racism that jumps out at me. More like a propensity for antagonistic speech that's as ready to go as budweiser on tap at an 1970's sports bar.
The 'squad' going away would be good for the democrats' future I believe (as long as we can all get into the telling-the-future business with no penalty other than embarrassment later.)

Well you are right that Trump is awful all around. He is hateful and rude to many people, and he is also racist, sexist, corrupt, authoritarian, and I could go on.

Biden's win in the primary and in the general constitute a loss for the squad, Bernie, and Warren, and that is fine with me. None of that, however, excuses telling minorities to go back to their countries, particularly when they were born in the US.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 27, 2020, 04:23:26 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 04:08:23 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 03:55:57 PM
Quotethat there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements

As far as I'm aware, the most condoning thing Trump has said about racist movements is 'I don't know these people you're asking me about.' In the brouhaha over the confederate statues he was taken out of context.

I didn't vote for Trump. I think the birtherism thing was an embarrassment.

He has often said 'I'm the least racist person you'll meet' which is off putting by being boastful, but the stated intent to be a non-racist presence has not been approached with good faith.
I hope you don't start with the 'wanting to make a dent in illegal immigration is racist' thing that they all do.

Trump has gone out of his way to court racists and to stoke racism in the electorate. He has said any number of hateful things about individual minorities and about minority groups. Even if one or two of his comments were taken out of context by the media, there are plenty of other examples of racism from Trump, including Birtherism, which is a racist conspiracy theory that only an idiot would believe, and his calls for minority members of the "Squad" to go back to their countries.

One thing I have noticed among Black and Latino friends is a certain level of inurement to racist comments, just like women become inured to sexist comments.

Not that these comments are not noticed, it's just that they are so used to it that they assume all whites, males, or whomevers think that way. Some just say it out loud, that's all. So these comments aren't always a deal breaker. People look at other issues. What do they think about... guns, abortions, education, religion, taxes, immigration, etc etc etc?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 04:25:10 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 04:18:38 PM
Why, oh why, is there still all this talk about Trump? It's clear he lost the election, even to him, as he said he would quit when the electoral college decides against him.

It may be that the Democratic Party has nothing else but Trump.

Democratic party has lots of things on its agenda, including expanding healthcare coverage, addressing climate change, trying to rebuild alliances that Trump trampled over, and of course dealing with the crises of COVID and the economy.

Trump is still in the news because of his never ending lies about the election, which he now claims to have lost only because of fraud (hardly demonstrating that he has a clear understanding that he lost - although I assume he knows and is just trying to delegitimize American democracy on his way out the door).

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 27, 2020, 04:23:26 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 04:08:23 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 03:55:57 PM
Quotethat there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements

As far as I'm aware, the most condoning thing Trump has said about racist movements is 'I don't know these people you're asking me about.' In the brouhaha over the confederate statues he was taken out of context.

I didn't vote for Trump. I think the birtherism thing was an embarrassment.

He has often said 'I'm the least racist person you'll meet' which is off putting by being boastful, but the stated intent to be a non-racist presence has not been approached with good faith.
I hope you don't start with the 'wanting to make a dent in illegal immigration is racist' thing that they all do.

Trump has gone out of his way to court racists and to stoke racism in the electorate. He has said any number of hateful things about individual minorities and about minority groups. Even if one or two of his comments were taken out of context by the media, there are plenty of other examples of racism from Trump, including Birtherism, which is a racist conspiracy theory that only an idiot would believe, and his calls for minority members of the "Squad" to go back to their countries.

One thing I have noticed among Black and Latino friends is a certain level of inurement to racist comments, just like women become inured to sexist comments.

Not that these comments are not noticed, it's just that they are so used to it that they assume all whites, males, or whomevers think that way. Some just say it out loud, that's all. So these comments aren't always a deal breaker. People look at other issues. What do they think about... guns, abortions, education, religion, taxes, immigration, etc etc etc?


Yes, I could see that being the case.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 27, 2020, 04:25:37 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 04:19:26 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 27, 2020, 04:08:23 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 03:55:57 PM
Quotethat there are good people on both sides of the racist vs. anti-racist movements

As far as I'm aware, the most condoning thing Trump has said about racist movements is 'I don't know these people you're asking me about.' In the brouhaha over the confederate statues he was taken out of context.

I didn't vote for Trump. I think the birtherism thing was an embarrassment.

He has often said 'I'm the least racist person you'll meet' which is off putting by being boastful, but the stated intent to be a non-racist presence has not been approached with good faith.
I hope you don't start with the 'wanting to make a dent in illegal immigration is racist' thing that they all do.

Trump has gone out of his way to court racists and to stoke racism in the electorate. He has said any number of hateful things about individual minorities and about minority groups. Even if one or two of his comments were taken out of context by the media, there are plenty of other examples of racism from Trump, including Birtherism, which is a racist conspiracy theory that only an idiot would believe, and his calls for minority members of the "Squad" to go back to their countries.

Trump's rudeness has so many targets that it's not racism that jumps out at me. More like a propensity for antagonistic speech that's as ready to go as budweiser on tap at an 1970's sports bar.
The 'squad' going away would be good for the democrats' future I believe (as long as we can all get into the telling-the-future business with no penalty other than embarrassment later.)

Well you are right that Trump is awful all around. He is hateful and rude to many people, and he is also racist, sexist, corrupt, authoritarian, and I could go on.

Biden's win in the primary and in the general constitute a loss for the squad, Bernie, and Warren, and that is fine with me. None of that, however, excuses telling minorities to go back to their countries, particularly when they were born in the US.

Or calling Warren Pocahontas....
Or telling the proud boys to stand back and stand ready.....
Or to "liberate" Michigan....
Or........
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 27, 2020, 04:26:22 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 04:18:38 PM
Why, oh why, is there still all this talk about Trump? It's clear he lost the election, even to him, as he said he would quit when the electoral college decides against him.

It may be that the Democratic Party has nothing else but Trump.

Because he is still the President.

Soledad O'Brien, on The Daily Show, said the problem the media has is because DJT is President, his actions and even his words are newsworthy. Once he is no longer an elected official, the media won't be obligated to report on him. Let's hope they stop with the clickbait-like-actions of whatever ridiculous thing he does/says and go on to more attention-worthy topics.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 04:31:37 PM
QuoteWhat I do find interesting about you though, is that most of your posts are all about unions and improving labour conditions.  Yet, you seem to be a fervent supporter of the "right to work" party.  It reminds me of when I lived in the deep South and everyone there was so strongly against social programs when they were the ones in need of them.

Unions are a mixed bag of course. You should see what some of the State Police Troopers have gotten away with in terms of phony overtime and assorted wrongs. I do prefer a functioning NLRB rather than one stacked with anti-labor attorneys, but even on a good day, the NLRB can't help adjunct faculty much. Adjunct faculty are disposable day laborers in a system designed and implemented by liberals who go around crowing about academic freedom, social injustice, wage inequity. The high ranking officials in the universities are often liberal politicians who rode to fame on union endorsements. then when the adjuncts want a union, he has the provost harass them with emails did=ssuading them from collective bargaining. That's why I find Writingprof's voice a refreshing piece of honesty. It's not that it's lovable. It's just real.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on November 27, 2020, 04:41:26 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 04:31:37 PM
QuoteWhat I do find interesting about you though, is that most of your posts are all about unions and improving labour conditions.  Yet, you seem to be a fervent supporter of the "right to work" party.  It reminds me of when I lived in the deep South and everyone there was so strongly against social programs when they were the ones in need of them.

Unions are a mixed bag of course. You should see what some of the State Police Troopers have gotten away with in terms of phony overtime and assorted wrongs. I do prefer a functioning NLRB rather than one stacked with anti-labor attorneys, but even on a good day, the NLRB can't help adjunct faculty much. Adjunct faculty are disposable day laborers in a system designed and implemented by liberals who go around crowing about academic freedom, social injustice, wage inequity. The high ranking officials in the universities are often liberal politicians who rode to fame on union endorsements. then when the adjuncts want a union, he has the provost harass them with emails did=ssuading them from collective bargaining. That's why I find Writingprof's voice a refreshing piece of honesty. It's not that it's lovable. It's just real.

They are definitely a mixed bag, but from a quick look it seems to me that adjuncts generally have better conditions in democratic states (not universal).  So despite your contention that university administration is full of hypocritical lefties, it still seems that you are voting against yourself (on this particular topic).  Ultimately, many of the more liberal ideologies would benefit adjuncts and other precarious jobs.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 04:47:45 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on November 27, 2020, 04:41:26 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 04:31:37 PM
QuoteWhat I do find interesting about you though, is that most of your posts are all about unions and improving labour conditions.  Yet, you seem to be a fervent supporter of the "right to work" party.  It reminds me of when I lived in the deep South and everyone there was so strongly against social programs when they were the ones in need of them.

Unions are a mixed bag of course. You should see what some of the State Police Troopers have gotten away with in terms of phony overtime and assorted wrongs. I do prefer a functioning NLRB rather than one stacked with anti-labor attorneys, but even on a good day, the NLRB can't help adjunct faculty much. Adjunct faculty are disposable day laborers in a system designed and implemented by liberals who go around crowing about academic freedom, social injustice, wage inequity. The high ranking officials in the universities are often liberal politicians who rode to fame on union endorsements. then when the adjuncts want a union, he has the provost harass them with emails did=ssuading them from collective bargaining. That's why I find Writingprof's voice a refreshing piece of honesty. It's not that it's lovable. It's just real.

They are definitely a mixed bag, but from a quick look it seems to me that adjuncts generally have better conditions in democratic states (not universal).  So despite your contention that university administration is full of hypocritical lefties, it still seems that you are voting against yourself (on this particular topic).  Ultimately, many of the more liberal ideologies would benefit adjuncts and other precarious jobs.

I actually did not vote this time. I was staying out of state state and couldn't get home. It kind of let me off the hook. I couldn't bring myself to vote for the pussy grabber and I couldn't bring myself to vote for the Iraq invasion.
There is no way to vote against the mess that is academia today, which is fortunate for the people who are OK with it. If adjuncts were numerous enough to be interesting to politicians, either party could try and grab them.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 04:49:21 PM
The reason adjuncts are paid so little is because there are so many adjuncts. Must be a lucrative occupation, for otherwise fewer would pursue it.

Raising wages through unionization, if effective, merely makes some or many adjuncts unemployed.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Hegemony on November 27, 2020, 05:00:56 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 04:49:21 PM

Raising wages through unionization, if effective, merely makes some or many adjuncts unemployed.

How did it work then, before adjuncts became so ubiquitous in universities? Because if there were fewer adjuncts, there would still be the same number of students to teach. And universities can't raise their class sizes indefinitely because they simply don't have enough rooms to teach most classes at 100 or 150 students. How did the universities afford to pay all their tenure-track faculty living wages and not employ adjuncts?  I suspect it has something to do with having less luxurious physical plant (no fancy gyms with climbing walls), less on athletics, etc., although the necessity of great numbers of frequently outdated computers is also a drain on a university. But if paying adjuncts a good wage means fewer adjuncts but adjuncts who are compensated well, I think the profession would vote for that, including the adjuncts.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 05:01:31 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 04:49:21 PM
The reason adjuncts are paid so little is because there are so many adjuncts. Must be a lucrative occupation, for otherwise fewer would pursue it.


It's easy to get the jobs. And compared with getting on the tenure track, it's extremely easy. There isn't much pursuit.

Quote
Raising wages through unionization, if effective, merely makes some or many adjuncts unemployed.

It takes a lot of wage raising before adjunct hiring isn't still a good deal. Some of the resulting growth of the full time non- TT positions is done out of spite, and also to staff your operation where there more often isn't a union.  Adjunct unions are considered subversive while tenure track unions are accepted. Plutocracy. We are the last to unionize. Way after the guys who rake your leaves. By the time we get up and running the organization is very grumpy about unions.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 05:08:44 PM
QuoteHow did it work then, before adjuncts became so ubiquitous in universities?

Because there was no large supply of adjuncts! Look, universities do it because they can.

Adjuncts will remain a good deal with union wage raising, but fewer of them.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 06:02:18 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 05:08:44 PM
QuoteHow did it work then, before adjuncts became so ubiquitous in universities?

Because there was no large supply of adjuncts! Look, universities do it because they can.

Adjuncts will remain a good deal with union wage raising, but fewer of them.

So you are in favor of this, right?

Tenure track faculty claim they don't like adjunct hiring because competition for the jobs is lightweight and standards are low. So higher pay would mean more competition and better options in hiring and better teaching.
Except in reality, they don't seem to want this at all. If they did, there would be much more partnering of tenure track and adjunct unions for increased clout. More often they let us twist in the wind.
Because if wages rise they don't have a second-rate professoriate with whom they easily compare advantageously?

...and you appear to be dissuading us from unionizing here. Or do I read too much into your remarks?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 06:38:52 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2020, 06:02:18 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 05:08:44 PM
QuoteHow did it work then, before adjuncts became so ubiquitous in universities?

Because there was no large supply of adjuncts! Look, universities do it because they can.

Adjuncts will remain a good deal with union wage raising, but fewer of them.

So you are in favor of this, right?

Tenure track faculty claim they don't like adjunct hiring because competition for the jobs is lightweight and standards are low. So higher pay would mean more competition and better options in hiring and better teaching.
Except in reality, they don't seem to want this at all. If they did, there would be much more partnering of tenure track and adjunct unions for increased clout. More often they let us twist in the wind.
Because if wages rise they don't have a second-rate professoriate with whom they easily compare advantageously?

...and you appear to be dissuading us from unionizing here. Or do I read too much into your remarks?


Wrong. My statements are like those of a doctor: S/he doesn't want patients to die, but the road of unionization means that some will.

An individual who joins a union or is forced to unionize may make hem or her self better off, but not all adjuncts can be made better off that way.

Don't give even a second thought to tenured faculty's opinions. These are also in self-interest. Adjuncts are competitors to full-time faculty. They are not your friends.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 27, 2020, 06:45:54 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 27, 2020, 04:26:22 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 04:18:38 PM
Why, oh why, is there still all this talk about Trump? It's clear he lost the election, even to him, as he said he would quit when the electoral college decides against him.

It may be that the Democratic Party has nothing else but Trump.

Because he is still the President.

Soledad O'Brien, on The Daily Show, said the problem the media has is because DJT is President, his actions and even his words are newsworthy. Once he is no longer an elected official, the media won't be obligated to report on him. Let's hope they stop with the clickbait-like-actions of whatever ridiculous thing he does/says and go on to more attention-worthy topics.

Obligated? He's been a gold mine for them. His oturageousness makes their job trivial; they can just film him and no analysis or commentary is required. If he actually leaves the limelight in a couple of months the media will be in a crisis of having to actually investigate things, which they haven't had to do for the last 4+ years. (Imagine a student who entered a journalism program at the beginning of the Trump era and who is just graduating now. What possible idea will such a student have about having to look at an issue from all sides, when there are many different well-meaning people with different perspectives? Their brains will explode.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ergative on November 28, 2020, 01:06:10 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 27, 2020, 06:45:54 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 27, 2020, 04:26:22 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 27, 2020, 04:18:38 PM
Why, oh why, is there still all this talk about Trump? It's clear he lost the election, even to him, as he said he would quit when the electoral college decides against him.

It may be that the Democratic Party has nothing else but Trump.

Because he is still the President.

Soledad O'Brien, on The Daily Show, said the problem the media has is because DJT is President, his actions and even his words are newsworthy. Once he is no longer an elected official, the media won't be obligated to report on him. Let's hope they stop with the clickbait-like-actions of whatever ridiculous thing he does/says and go on to more attention-worthy topics.

Obligated? He's been a gold mine for them. His oturageousness makes their job trivial; they can just film him and no analysis or commentary is required. If he actually leaves the limelight in a couple of months the media will be in a crisis of having to actually investigate things, which they haven't had to do for the last 4+ years. (Imagine a student who entered a journalism program at the beginning of the Trump era and who is just graduating now. What possible idea will such a student have about having to look at an issue from all sides, when there are many different well-meaning people with different perspectives? Their brains will explode.)
I think that's a little unkind to the media. I absolutely, absolutely agree that they were just having a good time for a while before they realized how serious things were. But they did start shaping up around the beginning of the general election season. Remember the real-time fact-checking during debates, and the deep dives into the measures preventing voter fraud from being the problem that Trump claimed it was? Remember the analyses of whether and how much mail service was being slowed down under DeJoy?

I suspect they'll continue in this vein for a while, because there will be lots of Trump-adjacent stories related to cleaning up after him. My concern is that with a competent, boring administration they'll start losing readers again now that the crisis is over and people don't care as much about keeping up with the competent boring government business, and have to return to the sideshow approach to prevent people from canceling subscriptions.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 28, 2020, 04:29:26 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 27, 2020, 04:23:26 PM

One thing I have noticed among Black and Latino friends is a certain level of inurement to racist comments, just like women become inured to sexist comments.

Not that these comments are not noticed, it's just that they are so used to it that they assume all whites, males, or whomevers think that way. Some just say it out loud, that's all. So these comments aren't always a deal breaker. People look at other issues. What do they think about... guns, abortions, education, religion, taxes, immigration, etc etc etc?

A little perspective would help though.
First, some whites these days are so worried about saying the wrong thing around a black person that they get tongue tied or quiet.

Second: consider a red state white guy who's sizing up the candidates.  Alternatively, he could vote for the people who want to talk about systemic racism and white privilege, but are no better, and likely weaker than his guy (republican) at getting the economy humming. Picture a white guy who grew up on a farm, can barely read, had an alcoholic father, repeated fourth grade, who has to drive a truck for $25/hour his whole life while being told he should have gone farther in life because he's got nice, white skin? There are many problems that people experience. There are many unpleasant experiences you can get from being around insensitive people. Racism is one of them. People rubbing it in that you're lucky you never had to be anything but white and male is another. And this is where, particularly coastal liberals and the media have been campaigning for republicans and still don't even know it. And I wouldn't surprised if that continues even with Trump gone (if indeed he is). And there could be a lot of people that are something like this man. It pays to be able to count.
This point has been made before but bears repeating.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 28, 2020, 05:35:49 AM
Voting on policy and issues rather than one's identity....yes, people do that.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on November 28, 2020, 10:40:56 AM
Policy and issues, yes, but the guy you describe probably does not know what these are.  Likely does not care, either.

If he did, he'd  realize that Trump and his policies have actually done nothing for men like him, whereas the Democrats do have ideas and views that would.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 28, 2020, 10:48:16 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 28, 2020, 10:40:56 AM
Policy and issues, yes, but the guy you describe probably does not know what these are.  Likely does not care, either.

If he did, he'd  realize that Trump and his policies have actually done nothing for men like him, whereas the Democrats do have ideas and views that would.

And all it will cost him is having to accept his "white male privilege" and his part in "systemic racism".
If his dignity has no value to him, then it's easy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 28, 2020, 11:12:33 AM
The man I described is someone I know. He voted for Trump in 2016 but Biden this time. He's miserable because the price of his insulin has skyrocketed, and he thought Trump would make the pharmaceutical companies behave. Now he probably thinks Biden will, which is another long shot.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 28, 2020, 10:48:16 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 28, 2020, 10:40:56 AM
Policy and issues, yes, but the guy you describe probably does not know what these are.  Likely does not care, either.

If he did, he'd  realize that Trump and his policies have actually done nothing for men like him, whereas the Democrats do have ideas and views that would.

And still the democrats can't barely get his vote, because he suspects they think they are smarter than everyone else, and he's right.

And all it will cost him is having to accept his "white male privilege" and his part in "systemic racism".
If his dignity has no value to him, then it's easy.

And still the hapless democrats can only get his vote sporadically. Which is what they deserve.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 28, 2020, 03:20:45 PM
Turns out Michele Flournoy, Lloyd Austin, and Antony Blinken are also involved with Pine Island Capital Partners (they're partners in the firm). IApparently, in its filings to the SEC, the firm boasted it would have special access to the Biden administration, and could secure big profits.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on November 28, 2020, 09:20:43 PM
That guy's insulin would cost almost nothing for him if he were on medicare, in a blue state that allowed for medicare expansion.   Heck, even the regular Obamacare plan here in Mass. requires me to pay almost nothing for mine, given my income.   Ideas, and policies, have consequences.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 29, 2020, 06:52:05 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 28, 2020, 09:20:43 PM
That guy's insulin would cost almost nothing for him if he were on medicare, in a blue state that allowed for medicare expansion.   Heck, even the regular Obamacare plan here in Mass. requires me to pay almost nothing for mine, given my income.   Ideas, and policies, have consequences.

As do ideologies.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 29, 2020, 08:58:40 AM
This pretty succinctly captures my thoughts on the Cabinet picks so far: https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2020/11/29/The-professionals-Joe-Biden-Cabinet-President/stories/202011290054
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on November 29, 2020, 01:38:41 PM
Most immigrants do not like to be categorized under the broad brush of "people of color" as this is not how they see themselves. Many of the votes for Trump were in fact votes against the Democrats who according to immigrants lump them into homogenous groups such as "Latino" and "Asian-American" and thus lack the ability to think for themselves or have any kind of agency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/opinion/sunday/immigrants-vote-election-politics.html?searchResultPosition=2
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on November 29, 2020, 06:08:46 PM
Quote from: Langue_doc on November 29, 2020, 01:38:41 PM
Most immigrants do not like to be categorized under the broad brush of "people of color" as this is not how they see themselves. Many of the votes for Trump were in fact votes against the Democrats who according to immigrants lump them into homogenous groups such as "Latino" and "Asian-American" and thus lack the ability to think for themselves or have any kind of agency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/opinion/sunday/immigrants-vote-election-politics.html?searchResultPosition=2

You are touching on something that should be discussed more often, but no one wants to go far enough. It's very true that "Most immigrants do not like to be categorized under the broad brush of "people of color" as this is not how they see themselves."

Going deeper into uncomfortable territory, think of very recent Sudanese immigrants or Haitian immigrants who are quick to point out that they are not the same as the people who are referenced as "black" or even "African-American" and do not want to think that they share anything in common with those that have the same skin color, but whose ancestors were forcibly brought over to North America centuries earlier.  Think of new Asian immigrants who get frustrated when they are confused with Latinos. Think of more pale-skinned Latin Americans, who look down on the darker-skinned people from their same region. They all want a leg-up, and they are willing to un-identify with those that they share more relatively common common roots (when compared with those that have European ancestry), and even throw them under the bus, and further, even exercise their option to vote for an anti-immigrant politician, so they can assure themselves that they are different from those that they look down upon.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 29, 2020, 06:18:10 PM
QuoteThey all want a leg-up, and they are willing to un-identify with those that they share more relatively common common roots (when compared with those that have European ancestry), and even throw them under the bus, and further, even exercise their option to vote for an anti-immigrant politician, so they can assure themselves that they are different from those that they look down upon.

An offer of success associated with identity can only be made by politicians, and then only if identity means anything real to many, many people.

Immigrants can individually succeed without a Pied Piper.

That is the fundamental political divide.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 29, 2020, 07:21:33 PM
Quote from: lightning on November 29, 2020, 06:08:46 PM
and they are willing to un-identify with those that they share more relatively common common roots (when compared with those that have European ancestry)

For what it's worth, this isn't something you can assume. Sharing a skin colour or other phenotypical features is a bad proxy for genetic similarity/heritage. That's because our 'racial' classifications are not based on genetics. Sharing a language is actually a better predictor of shared genetic heritage (not that it's a great one, for obvious reasons, but it is better, which tells you something).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 29, 2020, 08:05:33 PM
Quote from: lightning on November 29, 2020, 06:08:46 PM
Quote from: Langue_doc on November 29, 2020, 01:38:41 PM
Most immigrants do not like to be categorized under the broad brush of "people of color" as this is not how they see themselves. Many of the votes for Trump were in fact votes against the Democrats who according to immigrants lump them into homogenous groups such as "Latino" and "Asian-American" and thus lack the ability to think for themselves or have any kind of agency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/opinion/sunday/immigrants-vote-election-politics.html?searchResultPosition=2

You are touching on something that should be discussed more often, but no one wants to go far enough. It's very true that "Most immigrants do not like to be categorized under the broad brush of "people of color" as this is not how they see themselves."

Going deeper into uncomfortable territory, think of very recent Sudanese immigrants or Haitian immigrants who are quick to point out that they are not the same as the people who are referenced as "black" or even "African-American" and do not want to think that they share anything in common with those that have the same skin color, but whose ancestors were forcibly brought over to North America centuries earlier.  Think of new Asian immigrants who get frustrated when they are confused with Latinos. Think of more pale-skinned Latin Americans, who look down on the darker-skinned people from their same region. They all want a leg-up, and they are willing to un-identify with those that they share more relatively common common roots (when compared with those that have European ancestry), and even throw them under the bus, and further, even exercise their option to vote for an anti-immigrant politician, so they can assure themselves that they are different from those that they look down upon.

Alternatively, they don't want to be stereotyped as having history, experiences or perspectives that they simply don't have.

Maybe people want to be recognized as individuals rather than a gender or ethnic group?

In my case, I'm a woman. I'm even married to a man. But I wanted to build a career and had zero interest in pushing for on-site day care, as I don't have children. And to hell with the "mommy-track" traps/roles I had to watch out for.







Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on November 29, 2020, 08:36:43 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 29, 2020, 08:05:33 PM
Quote from: lightning on November 29, 2020, 06:08:46 PM
Quote from: Langue_doc on November 29, 2020, 01:38:41 PM
Most immigrants do not like to be categorized under the broad brush of "people of color" as this is not how they see themselves. Many of the votes for Trump were in fact votes against the Democrats who according to immigrants lump them into homogenous groups such as "Latino" and "Asian-American" and thus lack the ability to think for themselves or have any kind of agency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/opinion/sunday/immigrants-vote-election-politics.html?searchResultPosition=2

You are touching on something that should be discussed more often, but no one wants to go far enough. It's very true that "Most immigrants do not like to be categorized under the broad brush of "people of color" as this is not how they see themselves."

Going deeper into uncomfortable territory, think of very recent Sudanese immigrants or Haitian immigrants who are quick to point out that they are not the same as the people who are referenced as "black" or even "African-American" and do not want to think that they share anything in common with those that have the same skin color, but whose ancestors were forcibly brought over to North America centuries earlier.  Think of new Asian immigrants who get frustrated when they are confused with Latinos. Think of more pale-skinned Latin Americans, who look down on the darker-skinned people from their same region. They all want a leg-up, and they are willing to un-identify with those that they share more relatively common common roots (when compared with those that have European ancestry), and even throw them under the bus, and further, even exercise their option to vote for an anti-immigrant politician, so they can assure themselves that they are different from those that they look down upon.

Alternatively, they don't want to be stereotyped as having history, experiences or perspectives that they simply don't have.

Maybe people want to be recognized as individuals rather than a gender or ethnic group?

In my case, I'm a woman. I'm even married to a man. But I wanted to build a career and had zero interest in pushing for on-site day care, as I don't have children. And to hell with the "mommy-track" traps/roles I had to watch out for.

Immigrants do want to be recognized as individuals who can think for themselves rather than be profiled as non-white which seems to be the only thing that the Democrats notice about them.

NYC has a large number of immigrants from the Caribbean who do not identify with other groups based on their skin color or language but instead want to be recognized as hard-working individuals. You'll find French-speaking Haitians, English-speaking people from several of the islands, and also Spanish speakers from some of the islands in NYC's schools and community colleges. Most immigrants want to learn English and are understandably upset when they are automatically classified as non-white, instead of being seen as individuals who are often professionals. Spanish-speakers from the Dominican Republic do not always identify with Spanish speakers from other regions or countries. Likewise, Asians range from speakers of several languages in the Indian subcontinent to those from the far east. I remember a Korean student complaining about being mistaken for someone from Japan; he was quite visibly upset by the profiling because this happened during a guided tour at the MET when the guide kept looking at him when discussing a Japanese exhibit.

Immigrants merely want to be recognized as individuals who have agency instead of being seen as ethnic groups who might not be educated or understand English. If the Democrats want the immigrants' votes, they should stop grouping them as "Latino", "Asian-American" and "African American".

Incidentally, Obama doesn't belong to the "African American" category. His mother was Caucasian, and his father an international student from Kenya who went back to his home country when Obama was still a toddler.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Hegemony on November 29, 2020, 10:12:36 PM
For all immigrants want to be recognized as individuals, they are demonized pretty much across the board by those who dislike immigrants. Distinctions are not widely made, except for white people immigrating from Europe. And for black immigrants, they may feel they're different from African-Americans, but the point is that the bigots don't care. They all, immigrants and longtime Americans, have an equal interest in not being targeted for their skin color.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 30, 2020, 06:39:03 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on November 29, 2020, 08:36:43 PM

Incidentally, Obama doesn't belong to the "African American" category. His mother was Caucasian, and his father an international student from Kenya who went back to his home country when Obama was still a toddler.

Neither would Kamala Harris who is more Indian-British Jamaican. Yet voters who were too inattentive to notice that were welcome to see her as African American if that was helpful to Biden-Harris politically. I don't remember her making a point of having people know her origins. All is of this is fair play of course, just like Donald Trump courting the vote of people who don't turn red with anger every time they walk past a statue of Woodrow Wilson.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Stockmann on November 30, 2020, 07:21:25 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on November 29, 2020, 01:38:41 PM
Most immigrants do not like to be categorized under the broad brush of "people of color" as this is not how they see themselves. Many of the votes for Trump were in fact votes against the Democrats who according to immigrants lump them into homogenous groups such as "Latino" and "Asian-American" and thus lack the ability to think for themselves or have any kind of agency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/opinion/sunday/immigrants-vote-election-politics.html?searchResultPosition=2

Actually, one thing I've noticed is that American discussions on race, very much including these boards (this thread being a rather lonely exception), tend to focus on blacks and whites and ignore anyone else - so Latinos, etc aren't even lumped into one category but are often ignored altogether.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 30, 2020, 07:27:07 AM
Neera Tanden, currently expected to be Biden's pick for the Office of Budget Management, has been trying to cut social security, medicare, and medicaid since 2010.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Cheerful on November 30, 2020, 09:35:31 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 30, 2020, 07:27:07 AM
Neera Tanden, currently expected to be Biden's pick for the Office of Budget Management, has been trying to cut social security, medicare, and medicaid since 2010.

So many of the articles about his appointees emphasize "the first woman...," "the first South Asian American..." "the first..."  These emphases are insulting to appointees, suggesting they're appointed due to demographics.

I don't care about demographic "firsts," I care about qualifications, reputations, plans.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on November 30, 2020, 12:38:59 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 30, 2020, 09:35:31 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 30, 2020, 07:27:07 AM
Neera Tanden, currently expected to be Biden's pick for the Office of Budget Management, has been trying to cut social security, medicare, and medicaid since 2010.

So many of the articles about his appointees emphasize "the first woman...," "the first South Asian American..." "the first..."  These emphases are insulting to appointees, suggesting they're appointed due to demographics.

I don't care about demographic "firsts," I care about qualifications, reputations, plans.

My sentiments exactly. These references to ethnicity are more about the professed wokeness of the journalists and politicians rather than the qualifications of the nominees. According to the New York Times, "Mr. Biden's picks include Janet L. Yellen, the former Federal Reserve chair, who if confirmed would be the first woman to serve as Treasury secretary; Cecilia Rouse of Princeton University, the first Black nominee to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers; and Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress think tank, who would be the first woman of color to run the Office of Management and Budget. All three have focused on efforts to boost worker earnings and reduce racial and gender discrimination in the economy." (emphasis mine)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/business/biden-economics-yellen-labor.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Are men ever referred to as "men of color" or is this term reserved for women?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 30, 2020, 12:55:23 PM
I think it's part and parcel of the infantilization of the left. This is them throwing a bone to the left.

Kind of like how the Conservative party here thinks that the way to get young people on board is to use social media rather than acknowledge the legitimacy of their concerns and try to address them.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on November 30, 2020, 01:19:35 PM
I do not think Tanden is qualified for this high post either, but what is your evidence that she supports cuts to these programs?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 01:26:56 PM
Every one of them is eminently qualified. You may have issues with them (Parasophalus has stated his), but the rest of you seem stunned (bitter?) that the fact that they are in fact "firsts" is newsworthy.

Here is a different fact. Donald Trump was completely unqualified to be President, and he picked many equally unqualified people for his Cabinet. I think that is a far greater tragedy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 30, 2020, 01:34:28 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 01:26:56 PM
Every one of them is eminently qualified.

I agree 100%. I think they're awful picks, but I certainly don't think they're unqualified or insufficiently qualified. (Not yet, anyway. If Buttigieg gets something, I'll change my tune.)


Quote from: kaysixteen on November 30, 2020, 01:19:35 PM
I do not think Tanden is qualified for this high post either, but what is your evidence that she supports cuts to these programs?

She's popped up periodically to voice support for the idea. In 2010, her think tank was boosting the idea of cutting SS in 2012. She did the rounds promoting the idea, and similar proposals, over the next few years. There's an interview with her here (https://www.c-span.org/video/?304505-4/neera-tanden-progressive-movement), too, where she names SS, medicare, and medicaid as targets for cuts in order to reform "entitlements". In 2016, she did some tweeting in support of chaining CPI to keep SS 'solvent'.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 30, 2020, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 30, 2020, 12:55:23 PM
I think it's part and parcel of the infantilization of the left. This is them throwing a bone to the left.

Kind of like how the Conservative party here thinks that the way to get young people on board is to use social media rather than acknowledge the legitimacy of their concerns and try to address them.

Like the other "groups" mentioned above, young people aren't a monolith. "Their concerns" will not all be the same.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on November 30, 2020, 02:09:07 PM
My late father, a lifelong republican, was in favor of cutting social security benefits to people like himself, because had a corporate pension sufficient to support himself and Mom. But he intended the effect of that to be to insure that funds would be available for people who were dependent on social security to get by. Which, you know...is a gamble. When you give money to government there's no telling where it will end up.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 30, 2020, 02:19:07 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 30, 2020, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 30, 2020, 12:55:23 PM
I think it's part and parcel of the infantilization of the left. This is them throwing a bone to the left.

Kind of like how the Conservative party here thinks that the way to get young people on board is to use social media rather than acknowledge the legitimacy of their concerns and try to address them.

Like the other "groups" mentioned above, young people aren't a monolith. "Their concerns" will not all be the same.

I agree. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't premise your youth outreach strategy on speaking to the issues youth care about.

For context, I'm talking about a recent interview with a Tory MP in which she was asked how the new party leader planned to court the youth vote. The answer was that he would use Twitter and Facebook. When pressed to speak to specific issues they could use to engage the youth vote, she came up empty. That's grossly infantilizing.


Likewise, to bring it back 'round to the American election: it's true that 'the left' cares about diversity. But that doesn't mean it cares only about diversity, or about diversity at all costs. To think so--if that's what's going on, and I'm not sure it is (it's probably some of it, but I would be surprised if it was all of it--these people are Biden's ideological allies, of course, and many are leftovers from Obama's administration)--then it's also grossly infantilizing. The way to court the party's left wing is with substance, not appearance. (If you can combine the two, fabulous! And, really, I don't see why you can't. These people are hardly the only ones out there with that profile.)

Incidentally, I don't have any real complaints about Janet Yellen.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 02:24:04 PM
As a strategic matter, Biden need not court the left wing of his party because the left has nowhere else to go.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on November 30, 2020, 02:33:17 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 30, 2020, 02:19:07 PM

Likewise, to bring it back 'round to the American election: it's true that 'the left' cares about diversity. But that doesn't mean it cares only about diversity, or about diversity at all costs.


Tell that to the mob condemning McDonald's for "cultural appropriation" for offering a jerk chicken sandwich.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 30, 2020, 03:49:40 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 02:24:04 PM
As a strategic matter, Biden need not court the left wing of his party because the left has nowhere else to go.

Same thing was said of white Southern Democrats after LBJ passed Civil Rights... and look how that turned out.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 03:54:49 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 30, 2020, 02:33:17 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 30, 2020, 02:19:07 PM

Likewise, to bring it back 'round to the American election: it's true that 'the left' cares about diversity. But that doesn't mean it cares only about diversity, or about diversity at all costs.


Tell that to the mob condemning McDonald's for "cultural appropriation" for offering a jerk chicken sandwich.

We left the US again with this one, correct?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 30, 2020, 03:49:40 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 02:24:04 PM
As a strategic matter, Biden need not court the left wing of his party because the left has nowhere else to go.

Same thing was said of white Southern Democrats after LBJ passed Civil Rights... and look how that turned out.

Recently read that white Southern Democrats stayed with the Democratic party for a long, long time, until the 1990's when trade liberalization put paid to Southern textiles. In any case, the white Southern Democrats could  haveconceivably gone to the Republicans all the time. It is inconceivable [to me] that the left wing of the Democratic Party would go to the Republicans today. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on November 30, 2020, 04:00:39 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 30, 2020, 03:49:40 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 02:24:04 PM
As a strategic matter, Biden need not court the left wing of his party because the left has nowhere else to go.

Same thing was said of white Southern Democrats after LBJ passed Civil Rights... and look how that turned out.

Recently read that white Southern Democrats stayed with the Democratic party for a long, long time, until the 1990's when trade liberalization put paid to Southern textiles. In any case, the white Southern Democrats could  haveconceivably gone to the Republicans all the time. It is inconceivable [to me] that the left wing of the Democratic Party would go to the Republicans today.

They won't go to the Republicans, but they won't necessarily show up to vote for the Democrats.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:13:48 PM
Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on November 30, 2020, 04:24:53 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 30, 2020, 04:00:39 PM

They won't go to the Republicans, but they won't necessarily show up to vote for the Democrats.

Yup. Or splinter off, or do what they can to take over. Currently, they're trying to take over, with some success. I expect that once a critical 'takeover' mass builds in the House or Senate, however, that the party will splinter. At least, if those in power are still pussyfooting with lite Republicanism, which, duh.

But we'll see. Things will be much clearer in ten years.


Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:13:48 PM
Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

Surely it's all the more reason to throw them a bone and get them onside. Democrats need those votes. The left turned out big time for the presidential election, against the worst incumbent ever (with a horrible economy, an uncontrolled disease, and hundreds of thousands of American corpses at his feet), and the Democrats still barely won it (they came within what, 80k votes across three states of a 269-tie?). And they got smashed downballot. In a census year, which means things aren't going to get easier for Democrats. They need every vote they can muster in order to beat Republicans.

If the left doesn't find a home in the Democratic party, it will find itself a home elsewhere. And that's not necessarily good news for Democrats, even the centrist or rightist ones. They're just about still holding the ship together, but the people in power are old. They can't keep it up much longer.

Plus, you know. There are real problems that need to be solved, and someone needs to show some interest in solving them. Not that that seems to motivate anyone.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:13:48 PM
Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:35:44 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:13:48 PM
Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.

The Democratic Party can move right. On account of the States in which rightists reside. The Left is coastal; the Right is widely dispersed.

At present, this is all theoretical speculation. The next year to two should give us some evidence.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:35:44 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:13:48 PM
Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.

The Democratic Party can move right. On account of the States in which rightists reside. The Left is coastal; the Right is widely dispersed.

At present, this is all theoretical speculation. The next year to two should give us some evidence.

Going to respectfully disagree. I think the last two elections provide plenty of evidence.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 05:10:34 PM
We shall see.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on November 30, 2020, 05:34:25 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 03:58:02 PM

Recently read that white Southern Democrats stayed with the Democratic party for a long, long time, until the 1990's when trade liberalization put paid to Southern textiles. In any case, the white Southern Democrats could  haveconceivably gone to the Republicans all the time. It is inconceivable [to me] that the left wing of the Democratic Party would go to the Republicans today.

The Southern strategy was started by Nixon and continued by Reagan to court social conservatives, since there weren't enough fiscal conservatives to get a majority. They realized there were a large number of disaffected white Southern Democrats, mad at both parties, sitting out the vote. But dangle a few red meat issues in front of them - School prayer! Abortion! Gay marriage! And they were reliable voters.

Now the question is about the disaffected Berniecrats - did they sit home in 2016? Can they be rallied back? Or will they decide neither party speaks to them, and one party or another will find a hot-button issue to bring them over?

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 04:26:37 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:13:48 PM
Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.

Unless you totally disbelieve statistics, then you have to acknowledge that the electorate fits a Bell curve. Most people are clustered near the centre. Since both parties get close to 50% of the votes, the battle ground is the centre.  Getting all of the votes out at either fringe is going to be less valuable then getting a narrow wedge of votes from the other side of centre.

Moral: Parties need to be near the centre to have a hope. This is especially true in a two party system where votes can't be split.

I'll leave it to someone with specific knowledge to comment on the voter staying home phenomenon.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 01, 2020, 05:44:20 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 04:26:37 AM

I'll leave it to someone with specific knowledge to comment on the voter staying home phenomenon.

Specific knowledge of me suggests I would stay home if my party's candidate

(1) says he's going to do certain things as president I would like but may well not, because he's just shifting this way or that following polls, or for example
(2) says that he was against the Iraq invasion when he voted for it

Therefore, while I prefer that candidate over the other, I really don't know what I'm getting. Trump and Reagan never had this problem, because they said the same things every time, so you knew they meant them. Whereas Biden said he was against the Iraq invasion initially, what he really meant was he was calculating whether or not the invasion proposition was going to be a winner before deciding to get on board. Reagan, OTOH, admitted that he used to be a democrat, but explained that was before he saw the light. And you could believe he meant it.
theory: if you have a candidate that is perceived to be more real, whatever that is, that should affect whether people stay home or go out and vote.
When have the democrats had such a person? Sanders maybe.
Of course, having been a senator for a long time never helps you because you've got a trail of votes they can spin against you. Advantage: Trump, Reagan, George W.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on December 01, 2020, 05:58:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 04:26:37 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:13:48 PM
Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.

Unless you totally disbelieve statistics, then you have to acknowledge that the electorate fits a Bell curve. Most people are clustered near the centre. Since both parties get close to 50% of the votes, the battle ground is the centre.  Getting all of the votes out at either fringe is going to be less valuable then getting a narrow wedge of votes from the other side of centre.

Moral: Parties need to be near the centre to have a hope. This is especially true in a two party system where votes can't be split.

I'll leave it to someone with specific knowledge to comment on the voter staying home phenomenon.

It might in fact be a Normal Distribution. I'm going to guess there also are better ways to think of the way we split politically. But let's go with it.

The problem for me is much the same as the socialism conversation. You say Canada has a robust social support structure. I say as Candidate jimbogumbo I'd like more of that in the USA. I'm labeled a socialist by Republican strategists, and their campaign paints me as out near the tail. Am I Far Left? Of course not, but who would vote for an Antifa loving Communist sympathizer like me? Certainly not the folks just to the right of the mean.

I think the better strategy is to unite almost everyone on the left side of the mean, and get out the vote. Then, "help" the right side split, and when one of their candidates loses pick up a few them if the further right candidate wins, or hope the Far Right sits out if the centrist wins.

The US is far too fractured right now for the moderation strategy to work.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 06:08:25 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 01, 2020, 05:58:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 04:26:37 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:13:48 PM
Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.

Unless you totally disbelieve statistics, then you have to acknowledge that the electorate fits a Bell curve. Most people are clustered near the centre. Since both parties get close to 50% of the votes, the battle ground is the centre.  Getting all of the votes out at either fringe is going to be less valuable then getting a narrow wedge of votes from the other side of centre.

Moral: Parties need to be near the centre to have a hope. This is especially true in a two party system where votes can't be split.

I'll leave it to someone with specific knowledge to comment on the voter staying home phenomenon.

It might in fact be a Normal Distribution. I'm going to guess there also are better ways to think of the way we split politically. But let's go with it.

The problem for me is much the same as the socialism conversation. You say Canada has a robust social support structure. I say as Candidate jimbogumbo I'd like more of that in the USA. I'm labeled a socialist by Republican strategists, and their campaign paints me as out near the tail. Am I Far Left? Of course not, but who would vote for an Antifa loving Communist sympathizer like me? Certainly not the folks just to the right of the mean.

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 06:47:01 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 06:08:25 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 01, 2020, 05:58:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 04:26:37 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:13:48 PM
Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.

Unless you totally disbelieve statistics, then you have to acknowledge that the electorate fits a Bell curve. Most people are clustered near the centre. Since both parties get close to 50% of the votes, the battle ground is the centre.  Getting all of the votes out at either fringe is going to be less valuable then getting a narrow wedge of votes from the other side of centre.

Moral: Parties need to be near the centre to have a hope. This is especially true in a two party system where votes can't be split.

I'll leave it to someone with specific knowledge to comment on the voter staying home phenomenon.

It might in fact be a Normal Distribution. I'm going to guess there also are better ways to think of the way we split politically. But let's go with it.

The problem for me is much the same as the socialism conversation. You say Canada has a robust social support structure. I say as Candidate jimbogumbo I'd like more of that in the USA. I'm labeled a socialist by Republican strategists, and their campaign paints me as out near the tail. Am I Far Left? Of course not, but who would vote for an Antifa loving Communist sympathizer like me? Certainly not the folks just to the right of the mean.

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

Median voter theory is a thing, and playing to the center is usually the right move in general elections (primaries may be different), but each party has to make gestures to the right/left as well to get out the base. It is a tricky balance.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 07:09:56 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 06:47:01 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 06:08:25 AM

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

Median voter theory is a thing, and playing to the center is usually the right move in general elections (primaries may be different), but each party has to make gestures to the right/left as well to get out the base. It is a tricky balance.

One way that parties manage that is with the difference between social and economic issues; Biden won by being socially liberal to court progressives while being economically conservative to court moderates.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on December 01, 2020, 07:31:26 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 06:08:25 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 01, 2020, 05:58:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 04:26:37 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 30, 2020, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 30, 2020, 04:13:48 PM
Good point. And all the more reason for the Democratic Center and Right to ignore the Democratic Left.

I think that Sun_Worshiper's point is exactly why they can't ignore them. The last election proved that nearly 50% of the electorate will never vote for them. They can't ignore the Democratic Left and win.

Unless you totally disbelieve statistics, then you have to acknowledge that the electorate fits a Bell curve. Most people are clustered near the centre. Since both parties get close to 50% of the votes, the battle ground is the centre.  Getting all of the votes out at either fringe is going to be less valuable then getting a narrow wedge of votes from the other side of centre.

Moral: Parties need to be near the centre to have a hope. This is especially true in a two party system where votes can't be split.

I'll leave it to someone with specific knowledge to comment on the voter staying home phenomenon.

It might in fact be a Normal Distribution. I'm going to guess there also are better ways to think of the way we split politically. But let's go with it.

The problem for me is much the same as the socialism conversation. You say Canada has a robust social support structure. I say as Candidate jimbogumbo I'd like more of that in the USA. I'm labeled a socialist by Republican strategists, and their campaign paints me as out near the tail. Am I Far Left? Of course not, but who would vote for an Antifa loving Communist sympathizer like me? Certainly not the folks just to the right of the mean.

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

That statement would work for people who get there news from normal sources. That is increasingly fewer of the just to the right of center folks.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on December 01, 2020, 07:34:25 AM
I guess I'm getting way more pessimistic. I know median voter theory is a thing; I just don't think it worked in 2016, and I also don't think it worked in 2020. I simply do not believe  Biden would have had a chance against any Republican other than Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 07:49:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 07:09:56 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 06:47:01 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 06:08:25 AM

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

Median voter theory is a thing, and playing to the center is usually the right move in general elections (primaries may be different), but each party has to make gestures to the right/left as well to get out the base. It is a tricky balance.

One way that parties manage that is with the difference between social and economic issues; Biden won by being socially liberal to court progressives while being economically conservative to court moderates.

Not sure I agree with this assessment of Biden's strategy. He ran with a pretty ambitious economic plan and stayed away from the more contentious social issues (e.g. "defund" the police).

Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 01, 2020, 07:34:25 AM
I guess I'm getting way more pessimistic. I know median voter theory is a thing; I just don't think it worked in 2016, and I also don't think it worked in 2020. I simply do not believe  Biden would have had a chance against any Republican other than Trump.

Conventional thinking is that Biden wasn't a very strong candidate, and Trump was a historically weak one, so you may be right. However, my guess is that 2020 will be looked back at as a victory to the median voter strategy: Trump ran to the right, Biden ran to the center (sort of) and the center candidate won.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 07:56:36 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 07:49:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 07:09:56 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 06:47:01 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 06:08:25 AM

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

Median voter theory is a thing, and playing to the center is usually the right move in general elections (primaries may be different), but each party has to make gestures to the right/left as well to get out the base. It is a tricky balance.

One way that parties manage that is with the difference between social and economic issues; Biden won by being socially liberal to court progressives while being economically conservative to court moderates.

Not sure I agree with this assessment of Biden's strategy. He ran with a pretty ambitious economic plan and stayed away from the more contentious social issues (e.g. "defund" the police).


Actually he let Harris talk about "systemic racism" and so on. So the message gets out, but without him being able to be quoted on it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on December 01, 2020, 07:58:13 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 01, 2020, 07:34:25 AM
I guess I'm getting way more pessimistic. I know median voter theory is a thing; I just don't think it worked in 2016, and I also don't think it worked in 2020. I simply do not believe  Biden would have had a chance against any Republican other than Trump.

Many people voted for Biden the way they voted for Hillary: they held their noses and did what they thought was their duty. Biden was most definitely not seen as a strong candidate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on December 01, 2020, 08:11:45 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 06:08:25 AM
Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement. Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

"Defund the police" is not about completely getting rid of public safety, and never has been.

It's about using police appropriately, and funding things like schools, social services, mental health, and so on, before things devolve to where police and jails are sucking up all the resources.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 08:21:21 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 07:56:36 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 07:49:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 07:09:56 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 06:47:01 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 06:08:25 AM

Most Americans don't want to dismantle Obamacare.
Most Americans don't want to defund the police.

A moderate from either party can therefore be in support of both Obamacare and law enforcement, while acknowledging that both have room for improvement.  Most people don't see burning things to the ground as a good starting point; that's what the fringes do.

How would people think you love Antifa? That's a pretty easy one to deal with. "No, I don't support any sort of violent protests for any political cause. People who engage in criminal activity should be prosecuted."
That covers violence from both ends of the political spectrum.

Median voter theory is a thing, and playing to the center is usually the right move in general elections (primaries may be different), but each party has to make gestures to the right/left as well to get out the base. It is a tricky balance.

One way that parties manage that is with the difference between social and economic issues; Biden won by being socially liberal to court progressives while being economically conservative to court moderates.

Not sure I agree with this assessment of Biden's strategy. He ran with a pretty ambitious economic plan and stayed away from the more contentious social issues (e.g. "defund" the police).


Actually he let Harris talk about "systemic racism" and so on. So the message gets out, but without him being able to be quoted on it.

"Letting" his running mate talk about systemic racism feels like a far cry from him running as a liberal on social issues.

EDIT: Sorry I need to add to this. He is not running as a social conservative, because he is the candidate for the liberal party, but he ran to the center of the Democratic party on social issues.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 01, 2020, 08:26:30 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 07:09:56 AM

One way that parties manage that is with the difference between social and economic issues; Biden won by being socially liberal to court progressives while being economically conservative to court moderates.

Biden did not win on policy, and to think so is, I think, delusional. He won because people thought Trump was a historic threat. And even then, he barely squeaked out a victory.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 08:33:26 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 01, 2020, 08:11:45 AM
"Defund the police" is not about completely getting rid of public safety, and never has been.

It's about using police appropriately, and funding things like schools, social services, mental health, and so on, before things devolve to where police and jails are sucking up all the resources.

"USE POLICE APPROPRIATELY, AND FUND SCHOOLS, SOCIAL SERVICES, AND MENTAL HEALTH BEFORE THINGS DEVOLVE TO WHERE POLICE AND JAILS SUCK UP ALL THE RESOURCES!"

Kind of long for a placard, but who would disagree with that? That's my point. A more nuanced, less "click-baity" statment would be much less divisive.


Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 08:21:21 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 07:56:36 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 07:49:54 AM

Not sure I agree with this assessment of Biden's strategy. He ran with a pretty ambitious economic plan and stayed away from the more contentious social issues (e.g. "defund" the police).


Actually he let Harris talk about "systemic racism" and so on. So the message gets out, but without him being able to be quoted on it.

"Letting" his running mate talk about systemic racism feels like a far cry from him running as a liberal on social issues.

His choice of Harris for a running mate, with all of the associated hoopla, was very much about appealing to the progressives, so her statements would be expected to make the correct talking points. Which she did.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 08:33:26 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 01, 2020, 08:11:45 AM
"Defund the police" is not about completely getting rid of public safety, and never has been.

It's about using police appropriately, and funding things like schools, social services, mental health, and so on, before things devolve to where police and jails are sucking up all the resources.

"USE POLICE APPROPRIATELY, AND FUND SCHOOLS, SOCIAL SERVICES, AND MENTAL HEALTH BEFORE THINGS DEVOLVE TO WHERE POLICE AND JAILS SUCK UP ALL THE RESOURCES!"

Kind of long for a placard, but who would disagree with that? That's my point. A more nuanced, less "click-baity" statment would be much less divisive.


Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 08:21:21 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 07:56:36 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 01, 2020, 07:49:54 AM

Not sure I agree with this assessment of Biden's strategy. He ran with a pretty ambitious economic plan and stayed away from the more contentious social issues (e.g. "defund" the police).


Actually he let Harris talk about "systemic racism" and so on. So the message gets out, but without him being able to be quoted on it.

"Letting" his running mate talk about systemic racism feels like a far cry from him running as a liberal on social issues.

His choice of Harris for a running mate, with all of the associated hoopla, was very much about appealing to the progressives, so her statements would be expected to make the correct talking points. Which she did.

Harris is not on the left flank of the party. She was seen as someone that was moderate but a POC, which would appeal to both parts of the party.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on December 01, 2020, 08:46:56 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 08:33:26 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 01, 2020, 08:11:45 AM
"Defund the police" is not about completely getting rid of public safety, and never has been.

It's about using police appropriately, and funding things like schools, social services, mental health, and so on, before things devolve to where police and jails are sucking up all the resources.

"USE POLICE APPROPRIATELY, AND FUND SCHOOLS, SOCIAL SERVICES, AND MENTAL HEALTH BEFORE THINGS DEVOLVE TO WHERE POLICE AND JAILS SUCK UP ALL THE RESOURCES!"

Kind of long for a placard, but who would disagree with that? That's my point. A more nuanced, less "click-baity" statment would be much less divisive.

Agreed. But when Faux News, etc extends the statement, it becomes "Defund the police and let the gangs, rapists and murderers run rampant because someone is mad that some thug* with a criminal history** got shot by the police for robbing*** a liquor store."

* young black man
** truancy because his underfunded school was a miserable place to be
*** scaring the owner who thought he might have a gun even though he was just shoplifting a Gatorade because he didn't have any money.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on December 01, 2020, 12:42:44 PM
The Democratic left is resisting some of Biden's nominees. It appears that the candidate to head the Coronovirus team isn't "pure" enough politically.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/us/politics/biden-staff-business-zients.html
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 02, 2020, 07:17:56 AM
Trump allies take out a full page ad in the Washington Times calling for martial law: https://www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-call-martial-law-comes-amid-violent-threats-trump-election-defeat-1551769

This is after Trump's lawyer called for the execution of Chris Krebs for not supporting yet another of the President's idiotic conspiracy theories.

These people are truly insane and blatantly anti-democratic.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 02, 2020, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 01, 2020, 08:46:56 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 01, 2020, 08:33:26 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 01, 2020, 08:11:45 AM
"Defund the police" is not about completely getting rid of public safety, and never has been.

It's about using police appropriately, and funding things like schools, social services, mental health, and so on, before things devolve to where police and jails are sucking up all the resources.

"USE POLICE APPROPRIATELY, AND FUND SCHOOLS, SOCIAL SERVICES, AND MENTAL HEALTH BEFORE THINGS DEVOLVE TO WHERE POLICE AND JAILS SUCK UP ALL THE RESOURCES!"

Kind of long for a placard, but who would disagree with that? That's my point. A more nuanced, less "click-baity" statment would be much less divisive.

Agreed. But when Faux News, etc extends the statement, it becomes "Defund the police and let the gangs, rapists and murderers run rampant because someone is mad that some thug* with a criminal history** got shot by the police for robbing*** a liquor store."

* young black man
** truancy because his underfunded school was a miserable place to be
*** scaring the owner who thought he might have a gun even though he was just shoplifting a Gatorade because he didn't have any money.


Barack Obama tries to talk a little common sense and diplomacy and gets shot down by 'the squad.' Maybe this squaring off will bring something good. Like the end of the careers of those four. What an embarassment they are.
Maybe the democrats could try something like "all the people in favor of common sense on this side of the room. All the people in favor of the nonsense that comes from the squad, on this side of the room. Now, let's have two different parties."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/progressives-fire-back-at-obama-after-he-criticizes-defund-the-police-movement
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 02, 2020, 04:12:42 PM
Quote
Rep. Jim Clyburn, the House majority whip and the highest-ranking Black lawmaker in Congress, said the slogan had the potential to lose public support for Black Lives Matter and other movements on the left.

"I came out very publicly and very forcibly against sloganeering," Clyburn, D-S.C., said during an interview on CNN's "State of the Union." He compared it to the "burn, baby, burn" slogan that became popular during the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles, and which Clyburn said cost support for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

"We can't pick up these things just because it makes a good headline, it sometimes destroys headway," he said.  "We need to work on what makes headway rather than what makes headlines."

This should be graven on tablets of stone and tatooed on the foreheads  of every politician,  journalist, and "activist" academic.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 02, 2020, 04:53:27 PM
God forbid activists should say things! Oh nose! Teh h0rr0rz! Clearly, they're the enemy. It's activists who have prevented us from doing the things we want to do. It's activists who nearly made us lose the presidential campaign, and who made us bleed support downballot. It's because of activists that we have police brutality, that we can't have healthcare, that we torture 'folks', that the climate is screwed. Those fuckers. /rolleyes


Let's also remember that the reason activists have adopted the slogan is because of decades of total inaction on the part of local, state, and federal governments. Including Obama's own dismal failures to act.


Quote"You lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done," Obama said. "The key is deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?"

Seems a bit rich, coming from someone who chose the latter option over and over again.

Honestly, the further his presidency is in my rearview mirror, the less I like it, and the less I like him. What a colossal asshole.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on December 03, 2020, 01:28:29 AM
This is a totally surface level comment but I always thought Bush Jr and Obama both had the entitled "smirk" that made it very difficult for me to consider the content of anything either said.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 04:22:47 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 02, 2020, 04:53:27 PM
God forbid activists should say things! Oh nose! Teh h0rr0rz! Clearly, they're the enemy. It's activists who have prevented us from doing the things we want to do. It's activists who nearly made us lose the presidential campaign, and who made us bleed support downballot. It's because of activists that we have police brutality, that we can't have healthcare, that we torture 'folks', that the climate is screwed. Those fuckers. /rolleyes

Academics, even if they are activists, should understand the need for subtlety and nuance to accurately explain things and to suggest effective evidence-based improvements.

They do a disservice to their profession by oversimplifying issues and whipping up emotions that make rational work towards sustained progress less likely.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 06:25:19 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 04:22:47 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 02, 2020, 04:53:27 PM
God forbid activists should say things! Oh nose! Teh h0rr0rz! Clearly, they're the enemy. It's activists who have prevented us from doing the things we want to do. It's activists who nearly made us lose the presidential campaign, and who made us bleed support downballot. It's because of activists that we have police brutality, that we can't have healthcare, that we torture 'folks', that the climate is screwed. Those fuckers. /rolleyes

Academics, even if they are activists, should understand the need for subtlety and nuance to accurately explain things and to suggest effective evidence-based improvements.

They do a disservice to their profession by oversimplifying issues and whipping up emotions that make rational work towards sustained progress less likely.

It's the activists who think 'silence is violence and looting is not' as Bill Maher put it. It's the activists who think it's OK to torment people paying for an experience at a restaurant by chanting at them.

'Silence is violence' - another overly dramatic pronouncement lending itself to bullying. Especially when, if you do speak up on matters of race, there is only one acceptable set of perceptions one may have.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 03, 2020, 06:57:02 AM
Hard to imagine being upset about a slogan or a smirk at this moment, when the President and his sycophants are actively trying to overturn a democratic election. Fortunately they will almost certainly fail, but in the process they are undermining American democracy, spreading dangerous (and idiotic) conspiracy theories, and emboldening violent elements. And Republicans in the national spotlight are mostly playing along or even encouraging this lunacy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on December 03, 2020, 07:18:12 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 02, 2020, 04:53:27 PM

Honestly, the further his presidency is in my rearview mirror, the less I like it, and the less I like him. What a colossal asshole.

Serious question for context. Would you list one President/presidency you really did like?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 07:18:53 AM
I am upset about both. I find it hard to imagine starting a movement to reinforce a group of people's rights to dignity, safety, fair treatment and success and then choosing a mascot who was into armed home invasions and gang burglary. And then putting his face on your new T-shirt.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 03, 2020, 07:20:54 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 07:18:53 AM
I am upset about both. I find it hard to imagine starting a movement to reinforce a group of people's rights to dignity, safety, fair treatment and success and then choosing a mascot who was into armed home invasions and gang burglary. And then putting his face on your new T-shirt.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 07:24:20 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 03, 2020, 07:20:54 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 07:18:53 AM
I am upset about both. I find it hard to imagine starting a movement to reinforce a group of people's rights to dignity, safety, fair treatment and success and then choosing a mascot who was into armed home invasions and gang burglary. And then putting his face on your new T-shirt.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure it's a George Floyd reference.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 03, 2020, 07:34:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 07:24:20 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 03, 2020, 07:20:54 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 07:18:53 AM
I am upset about both. I find it hard to imagine starting a movement to reinforce a group of people's rights to dignity, safety, fair treatment and success and then choosing a mascot who was into armed home invasions and gang burglary. And then putting his face on your new T-shirt.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure it's a George Floyd reference.

Ah of course. The personal background of a guy who was killed by apparent police brutality is comparable to an American president crapping all over American democracy. Give me a break.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 07:37:11 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 07:24:20 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 03, 2020, 07:20:54 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 07:18:53 AM
I am upset about both. I find it hard to imagine starting a movement to reinforce a group of people's rights to dignity, safety, fair treatment and success and then choosing a mascot who was into armed home invasions and gang burglary. And then putting his face on your new T-shirt.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure it's a George Floyd reference.

I do understand that you don't have to be showing meritorious behavior to be a victim. Still, it's weird. How would you like it if you were the woman whose apartment the gang invaded and you go the mall and there's his face staring at you from the display rack in the clothing store? Doesn't her life matter? How about the cops who apprehended them. Wouldn't she rather have a T-shirt with their faces on it?

Sun Worshiper: it's not just any personal background. It's a noteworthy one.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 03, 2020, 07:45:19 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 07:37:11 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 07:24:20 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 03, 2020, 07:20:54 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 07:18:53 AM
I am upset about both. I find it hard to imagine starting a movement to reinforce a group of people's rights to dignity, safety, fair treatment and success and then choosing a mascot who was into armed home invasions and gang burglary. And then putting his face on your new T-shirt.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure it's a George Floyd reference.

I do understand that you don't have to be showing meritorious behavior to be a victim. Still, it's weird. How would you like it if you were the woman whose apartment the gang invaded and you go the mall and there's his face staring at you from the display rack in the clothing store? Doesn't her life matter? How about the cops who apprehended them. Wouldn't she rather have a T-shirt with their faces on it?

Sun Worshiper: it's not just any personal background. It's a noteworthy one.

I don't care about George Floyd as a person, I care about police brutality. But more immediately, I care about the President and his allies trying to dismantle American democracy. You claim to be upset by that too, but for some reason you change the subject away from it or, in our last exchange, make excuses for Trump, every time the topic comes up.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 03, 2020, 07:58:06 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 03, 2020, 07:18:12 AM

Serious question for context. Would you list one President/presidency you really did like?

None in my lifetime. Of those, Obama was probably the 'best', but as I said, I sour on him more year-by-year. The souring began with his abject failure to close Guantanamo Bay and other CIA black sites, and his subsequent efforts to cover up and carry water for US torturers. It probably should have begun with his refusal to use his majorities to help ordinary people hurt by the financial crisis, but I put his misguided efforts at bipartisanship down to inexperience and gave him a pass. Not that my good opinion matters, of course.

If we're going back before my birth to the last president I think was more or less ok... I dunno, Carter? Probably Johnson, on the whole, although the Vietnam escalation is a serious black mark, and maybe Eisenhower, although I think all the regime change outweighs the good. FDR.

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 04:22:47 AM

Academics, even if they are activists, should understand the need for subtlety and nuance to accurately explain things and to suggest effective evidence-based improvements.

They do a disservice to their profession by oversimplifying issues and whipping up emotions that make rational work towards sustained progress less likely.

Obama wasn't talking about academics, nor was he being subtle, nuanced, or accurate, and nor has he done rational work towards making sustained progress on the issue.

But if you don't know what the academics who support the movement for Black lives are agitating for, then you either haven't paid adequate attention, or you haven't been listening.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 03, 2020, 08:02:07 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 07:37:11 AM
Doesn't her life matter? How about the cops who apprehended them.

Her life matters so much that she still has it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 08:28:13 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 03, 2020, 07:58:06 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 03, 2020, 07:18:12 AM

Serious question for context. Would you list one President/presidency you really did like?

None in my lifetime. Of those, Obama was probably the 'best', but as I said, I sour on him more year-by-year. The souring began with his abject failure to close Guantanamo Bay and other CIA black sites, and his subsequent efforts to cover up and carry water for US torturers. It probably should have begun with his refusal to use his majorities to help ordinary people hurt by the financial crisis, but I put his misguided efforts at bipartisanship down to inexperience and gave him a pass. Not that my good opinion matters, of course.

If we're going back before my birth to the last president I think was more or less ok... I dunno, Carter? Probably Johnson, on the whole, although the Vietnam escalation is a serious black mark, and maybe Eisenhower, although I think all the regime change outweighs the good. FDR.

Just a tad.....

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 08:57:11 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 03, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

I don't care about George Floyd as a person, I care about police brutality. But more immediately, I care about the President and his allies trying to dismantle American democracy. You claim to be upset by that too, but for some reason you change the subject away from it or, in our last exchange, make excuses for Trump, every time the topic comes up.

The smart thing to do then, in my opinion, would be to lobby for better ways to curtail police brutality, using as evidence, the total number of Americans of all races brutalized by police over a specific period, which is much higher than just the number of POC brutalized by police. You would have a stronger case and more people engaged. But thanks to the irrational objection to the the phrase 'all lives matter' and any associated sentiment, that's not going to happen.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 03, 2020, 09:35:50 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 08:28:13 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 03, 2020, 07:58:06 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 03, 2020, 07:18:12 AM

Serious question for context. Would you list one President/presidency you really did like?

None in my lifetime. Of those, Obama was probably the 'best', but as I said, I sour on him more year-by-year. The souring began with his abject failure to close Guantanamo Bay and other CIA black sites, and his subsequent efforts to cover up and carry water for US torturers. It probably should have begun with his refusal to use his majorities to help ordinary people hurt by the financial crisis, but I put his misguided efforts at bipartisanship down to inexperience and gave him a pass. Not that my good opinion matters, of course.

If we're going back before my birth to the last president I think was more or less ok... I dunno, Carter? Probably Johnson, on the whole, although the Vietnam escalation is a serious black mark, and maybe Eisenhower, although I think all the regime change outweighs the good. FDR.

Just a tad.....

It absolutely is. But the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the 'great society' and the 'war on poverty'... those were unalloyed goods. I'm happy to grant that presidential administrations and their legacies are complicated and mixed affairs. My problem with Obama is that he was always more interested in pursuing power than in using it, and his uses of his power were... underwhelming, at best.

Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 08:57:11 AM

The smart thing to do then, in my opinion, would be to lobby for better ways to curtail police brutality, using as evidence, the total number of Americans of all races brutalized by police over a specific period, which is much higher than just the number of POC brutalized by police. You would have a stronger case and more people engaged. But thanks to the irrational objection to the the phrase 'all lives matter' and any associated sentiment, that's not going to happen.

The point of the movement for Black lives is to address (and end) police brutality. Not to end it only for Black people. The reason the 'Black' part comes into it is because it disproportionately targets Black people, and because when it does so, it's much more often excused by voices such as yours.

Objections to 'all lives matter' are not rooted in the 'all lives' part. They're rooted in the phrase's origin as a means of trivializing, and its use to dismiss, concerns about racialized police violence. It's kind of like if in response to all your ravings about adjuncts' rights, someone were to repeatedly insist that that we also consider the troubles of TT faculty. Your point isn't to deny that TT faculty deserve better working conditions (or am I being too generous?), but rather to highlight the fact that one segment of the instructional population has a particularly rough deal, and that its working conditions need to be ameliorated. By repeatedly insisting that you're forgetting about TT faculty, I'm just grasping for excuses to deny the basic--and just!--reforms you're advocating for. I'm needlessly complicating things to ensure you can't get a fair shake. There are limits to the analogy, of course, but I think it mostly holds.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on December 03, 2020, 10:20:29 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 03, 2020, 09:35:50 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 08:28:13 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 03, 2020, 07:58:06 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 03, 2020, 07:18:12 AM

Serious question for context. Would you list one President/presidency you really did like?

None in my lifetime. Of those, Obama was probably the 'best', but as I said, I sour on him more year-by-year. The souring began with his abject failure to close Guantanamo Bay and other CIA black sites, and his subsequent efforts to cover up and carry water for US torturers. It probably should have begun with his refusal to use his majorities to help ordinary people hurt by the financial crisis, but I put his misguided efforts at bipartisanship down to inexperience and gave him a pass. Not that my good opinion matters, of course.

If we're going back before my birth to the last president I think was more or less ok... I dunno, Carter? Probably Johnson, on the whole, although the Vietnam escalation is a serious black mark, and maybe Eisenhower, although I think all the regime change outweighs the good. FDR.

Just a tad.....

It absolutely is. But the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the 'great society' and the 'war on poverty'... those were unalloyed goods. I'm happy to grant that presidential administrations and their legacies are complicated and mixed affairs. My problem with Obama is that he was always more interested in pursuing power than in using it, and his uses of his power were... underwhelming, at best.

Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 08:57:11 AM

The smart thing to do then, in my opinion, would be to lobby for better ways to curtail police brutality, using as evidence, the total number of Americans of all races brutalized by police over a specific period, which is much higher than just the number of POC brutalized by police. You would have a stronger case and more people engaged. But thanks to the irrational objection to the the phrase 'all lives matter' and any associated sentiment, that's not going to happen.

The point of the movement for Black lives is to address (and end) police brutality. Not to end it only for Black people. The reason the 'Black' part comes into it is because it disproportionately targets Black people, and because when it does so, it's much more often excused by voices such as yours.

Objections to 'all lives matter' are not rooted in the 'all lives' part. They're rooted in the phrase's origin as a means of trivializing, and its use to dismiss, concerns about racialized police violence. It's kind of like if in response to all your ravings about adjuncts' rights, someone were to repeatedly insist that that we also consider the troubles of TT faculty. Your point isn't to deny that TT faculty deserve better working conditions (or am I being too generous?), but rather to highlight the fact that one segment of the instructional population has a particularly rough deal, and that its working conditions need to be ameliorated. By repeatedly insisting that you're forgetting about TT faculty, I'm just grasping for excuses to deny the basic--and just!--reforms you're advocating for. I'm needlessly complicating things to ensure you can't get a fair shake. There are limits to the analogy, of course, but I think it mostly holds.

Let me help you you out with the soundbites version of what you are trying to say:

"Adjunct Faculty Matter!"

"All Faculty Matter!"
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 10:47:43 AM
QuoteThe point of the movement for Black lives is to address (and end) police brutality. Not to end it only for Black people. The reason the 'Black' part comes into it is because it disproportionately targets Black people, and because when it does so, it's much more often excused by voices such as yours.

Nothing about that here. https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on December 03, 2020, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 10:47:43 AM
QuoteThe point of the movement for Black lives is to address (and end) police brutality. Not to end it only for Black people. The reason the 'Black' part comes into it is because it disproportionately targets Black people, and because when it does so, it's much more often excused by voices such as yours.

Nothing about that here. https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

Sentence #2: Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.

So, you infer from that the organization only wants to end police brutality against Blacks. You don't see a generalization on your part that is a logical fallacy?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 11:41:51 AM
...and it's an especially stupid name for a group that purports to have the mission of ending or reducing police brutality, if that's what it is. Because it makes the police's counterargument for them. Now they are able to say 'not only do we agree that black lives matter, we've been aware of this well before 2013 when you came along with your soapbox in 2013. That's why we've been risking our lives to be available to all communities where we're needed including urban high crime ones. Because the people there desperately need our service, living among the George Floyds of the world, and some even worse.' Whereas 'stop police brutality' would have been a specific, defendable proposition (though we know they will never do their job perfectly, there's reason to ask for improvement.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 03, 2020, 12:40:30 PM
Quote from: lightning on December 03, 2020, 10:20:29 AM

Let me help you you out with the soundbites version of what you are trying to say:

"Adjunct Faculty Matter!"

"All Faculty Matter!"

Thanks!

Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 11:41:51 AM
...and it's an especially stupid name for a group that purports to have the mission of ending or reducing police brutality, if that's what it is. Because it makes the police's counterargument for them. Now they are able to say 'not only do we agree that black lives matter, we've been aware of this well before 2013 when you came along with your soapbox in 2013. That's why we've been risking our lives to be available to all communities where we're needed including urban high crime ones. Because the people there desperately need our service, living among the George Floyds of the world, and some even worse.' Whereas 'stop police brutality' would have been a specific, defendable proposition (though we know they will never do their job perfectly, there's reason to ask for improvement.)

'Adjunct' is a stupid title for essential workers who do the bulk of an institution's teaching. But you work with what you have.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on December 03, 2020, 01:38:22 PM
Floyd (and society as a whole) were failed by the criminal justice system. This happened when they let him out of jail the early the previous times. Eight prison terms between 1997 and 2005? This shouldn't even be possible. Once you're on jail term number four, five or so within a decade, I think it's safe to say you haven't gotten the point and need to be incarcerated for longer periods of time. Drug treatment? Sure. Training? Sure. Professional non-punative environment? Sure. Just not out.

If we had a functioning criminal justice system, people like Floyd would not be interacting with cops as frequently to begin with since they would still be in jail for their last offence. Everyone I know that's a cop says its rearresting the same people over and over again. Imagine the amount of resources wasted by this continual revolving door. We talk about the cost of incarceration but not the cost of having these people out and about. Not only did Floyd himself lose his life, many business owners were destroyed and numerous citizens were injured or had their homes vandalized. All because we refuse to follow through once someone demonstrates they are a repeat offender.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 03, 2020, 02:02:42 PM
Quote from: financeguy on December 03, 2020, 01:38:22 PM
Floyd (and society as a whole) were failed by the criminal justice system. This happened when they let him out of jail the early the previous times. Eight prison terms between 1997 and 2005? This shouldn't even be possible. Once you're on jail term number four, five or so within a decade, I think it's safe to say you haven't gotten the point and need to be incarcerated for longer periods of time. Drug treatment? Sure. Training? Sure. Professional non-punative environment? Sure. Just not out.

If we had a functioning criminal justice system, people like Floyd would not be interacting with cops as frequently to begin with since they would still be in jail for their last offence. Everyone I know that's a cop says its rearresting the same people over and over again. Imagine the amount of resources wasted by this continual revolving door. We talk about the cost of incarceration but not the cost of having these people out and about. Not only did Floyd himself lose his life, many business owners were destroyed and numerous citizens were injured or had their homes vandalized. All because we refuse to follow through once someone demonstrates they are a repeat offender.

I guess this raises an entirely different (yet related) issue about how to minimize recidivism, and I really dont see longer sentences as the solution. I am no expert, but my understanding is that an overly punitive approach only increases the rate of re-offense.  It may feel like the best approach, but I dont think that is supported by the data.

Many of George his crimes were pretty minor, and prison is not always the solution.  In fact, it could be argues that harsh sentences for early minor crimes can lead to escalation.  Regardless, as others have mentioned, his past crimes do not justify his death. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on December 03, 2020, 02:35:39 PM
As a matter of arithmetic, the longer offenders are imprisoned, the fewer offenses there will be on the street.

Problem is what constitutes an offense? A large share of the incarcerated are in prison on account of the so-called War on Drugs. One hell of a lot of that is for possession, not violence.

Legalize and tax; tax and legalize.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 05:02:38 PM
We - all of us Americans - need to do more to root out racism from the language and customs and psyche of our society. Only then will it be impossible for an overweight middle aged idiot with heart disease to get high on fentanyl and amphetamine, get in trouble over an additional stupid little crime, overwhelm a couple rookie police officers by peeing his pants and carrying on like a child, then finally be roughed up by an overzealous veteran cop with a history of violence until his life is snuffed out. As the vice president elect pointed out, it's all about race and the demonstrations need to continue.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on December 03, 2020, 07:24:51 PM
This is incidentally unrelated to the new Netflix film Hillbilly Elegy. My aunt wanted to know if I'd watched it since we'd discussed the book after it came out. We got into a disagreement over the "what to do" question about those in the same situation as the drug addict mother. My response was (and is) that asking what you can do for those people is a fine question to ask, but only after asking the question of how do we protect those in society who are not f*ing up from the effects of their behavior. Unfortunately this priority all to often takes a back seat to what we can do for the criminal.

I have no animosity toward her, Floyd or anyone else who has exhibited criminal behavior either due to drugs or for unrelated reasons. I simply do not wish to deal with them personally until there's a reasonable chance they are not going to continue their criminal behavior. What's the best approach? A jail with punishment as objective? A treatment facility? A different medical option? A hybrid solution? Something else? I don't really care as long as they are in no way interacting with me in my daily life. If this means incarceration rates are longer, so be it. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on December 04, 2020, 01:13:27 AM
You are absolutely right, of course.   Misguided liberal-ish notions of not looking down on people like this does them no good, nor society.   Sadly, I see people like this every day at work in Rusty City (and in the neighborhood I live in)-- new policies on weed legalization are but one aspect of exactly the wrong thing being done with people like this, to the great hurt of them and society at large.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 04:35:40 AM
Quote from: financeguy on December 03, 2020, 07:24:51 PM

I have no animosity toward her, Floyd or anyone else who has exhibited criminal behavior either due to drugs or for unrelated reasons. I simply do not wish to deal with them personally until there's a reasonable chance they are not going to continue their criminal behavior. What's the best approach? A jail with punishment as objective? A treatment facility? A different medical option? A hybrid solution? Something else? I don't really care as long as they are in no way interacting with me in my daily life. If this means incarceration rates are longer, so be it.

I wish proponents of "harm reduction programs", such as safe injection sites, would publish statistics about their rate of getting people into treatment programs and how many are drug-free X years later. Any sane person can see that it's better to get these people (back) to being productive members of society than to incarcerate them, but it's not at all clear how frequently that happens. And there is evidence that the existence of safe injection sites will induce some people to try harder drugs ("moral hazzard"), but it should be possible to run the numbers and establish objectively whether the overall effect is positive.

I (probably like many other people) would be glad to support funding for these programs if the evidence indicates that they have an overall benefit. Just keeping people alive longer, without getting any of them out of their addictions, is an extremely low bar to set.
 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 04, 2020, 06:10:28 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 04, 2020, 01:13:27 AM
You are absolutely right, of course.   Misguided liberal-ish notions of not looking down on people like this does them no good, nor society.   Sadly, I see people like this every day at work in Rusty City (and in the neighborhood I live in)-- new policies on weed legalization are but one aspect of exactly the wrong thing being done with people like this, to the great hurt of them and society at large.

Not looking down on people like these is a Christian thing to do. But then, so is accepting that one may say 'there were good people on both sides.'

Assuming we believe that we would all like to see black Americans become yet more prosperous, safe and fulfilled, I suggest that we democrats applaud those blacks who are recently having success as republican politicians. That would include those who are strict on law enforcement.

About marijuana: it's not nearly as safe as people believe. But then why fight a drug war over things like alcohol and THC. It never works.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on December 04, 2020, 07:42:17 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 04:35:40 AM
Quote from: financeguy on December 03, 2020, 07:24:51 PM

I have no animosity toward her, Floyd or anyone else who has exhibited criminal behavior either due to drugs or for unrelated reasons. I simply do not wish to deal with them personally until there's a reasonable chance they are not going to continue their criminal behavior. What's the best approach? A jail with punishment as objective? A treatment facility? A different medical option? A hybrid solution? Something else? I don't really care as long as they are in no way interacting with me in my daily life. If this means incarceration rates are longer, so be it.

I wish proponents of "harm reduction programs", such as safe injection sites, would publish statistics about their rate of getting people into treatment programs and how many are drug-free X years later. Any sane person can see that it's better to get these people (back) to being productive members of society than to incarcerate them, but it's not at all clear how frequently that happens. And there is evidence that the existence of safe injection sites will induce some people to try harder drugs ("moral hazzard"), but it should be possible to run the numbers and establish objectively whether the overall effect is positive.

I (probably like many other people) would be glad to support funding for these programs if the evidence indicates that they have an overall benefit. Just keeping people alive longer, without getting any of them out of their addictions, is an extremely low bar to set.


Well, having them using out of sight, instead of lying on the street, is certainly a nice start.

We have a needle exchange once a week around the corner in our "transitional" neighborhood. It's the cleanest safest evening of the week. Only the civilized junkies show up for that.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 04, 2020, 08:05:39 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 03, 2020, 08:57:11 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 03, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

I don't care about George Floyd as a person, I care about police brutality. But more immediately, I care about the President and his allies trying to dismantle American democracy. You claim to be upset by that too, but for some reason you change the subject away from it or, in our last exchange, make excuses for Trump, every time the topic comes up.

The smart thing to do then, in my opinion, would be to lobby for better ways to curtail police brutality, using as evidence, the total number of Americans of all races brutalized by police over a specific period, which is much higher than just the number of POC brutalized by police. You would have a stronger case and more people engaged. But thanks to the irrational objection to the the phrase 'all lives matter' and any associated sentiment, that's not going to happen.

Again, I'm not actually talking about this, but rather the ongoing assault on democracy by the President.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 09:43:43 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 03, 2020, 02:35:39 PM
As a matter of arithmetic, the longer offenders are imprisoned, the fewer offenses there will be on the street.

Problem is what constitutes an offense? A large share of the incarcerated are in prison on account of the so-called War on Drugs. One hell of a lot of that is for possession, not violence.

Legalize and tax; tax and legalize.

Your arithmetic is flawed though.  It assumes that the probability/rate of criminal offense is static when we know this is not the case.  Long jail sentences lead to an increased rate of recidivism, so the math is not that simple and longer sentences do not necessarily result in less overall crime, even if criminals spend less time on the street.  As you mention, many people start their career in jail for drugs, or other minor crimes, but harsh punishment can lead to escalation.

Again, it may feel right to punish the bad guys but if the main objective is to reduce overall crime rates this may not be the most effective or efficient approach.  As a person of science, I think policies should be data driven...   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 09:47:53 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 04, 2020, 06:10:28 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 04, 2020, 01:13:27 AM
You are absolutely right, of course.   Misguided liberal-ish notions of not looking down on people like this does them no good, nor society.   Sadly, I see people like this every day at work in Rusty City (and in the neighborhood I live in)-- new policies on weed legalization are but one aspect of exactly the wrong thing being done with people like this, to the great hurt of them and society at large.

Not looking down on people like these is a Christian thing to do. But then, so is accepting that one may say 'there were good people on both sides.'

Assuming we believe that we would all like to see black Americans become yet more prosperous, safe and fulfilled, I suggest that we democrats applaud those blacks who are recently having success as republican politicians. That would include those who are strict on law enforcement.

About marijuana: it's not nearly as safe as people believe. But then why fight a drug war over things like alcohol and THC. It never works.

What I find odd is why taking drugs is a criminal offense in the first place.  What is even weirder is that the people who are most likely to be the most hard line about this are the same people who tout small government, self determination, and personal liberties.  For example, you can't tell me I have to wear a mask, but dont let my neighbour smoke a doob!   

I am in Canada, where Cannabis has been legal for a while now.  The sky has not fallen.  In fact, it has created tax revenue, taken money from organized crime, and has been mostly beneficial.  Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 10:23:11 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 09:47:53 AM
What I find odd is why taking drugs is a criminal offense in the first place.  What is even weirder is that the people who are most likely to be the most hard line about this are the same people who tout small government, self determination, and personal liberties.  For example, you can't tell me I have to wear a mask, but dont let my neighbour smoke a doob!   

Then you have to have specific legislation about "impaired [EVERYTHING]" with the corresponding increased penalties. Drunk (or high) drivers, pilots, health professionals,...... need to be get SERIOUS jail time for endangering others by their "totally legal" hobbies.


Quote
I am in Canada, where Cannabis has been legal for a while now.  The sky has not fallen.  In fact, it has created tax revenue, taken money from organized crime, and has been mostly beneficial.  Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...

One of the annoying things about cannabis (and vaping) is that in the rush to legalize everything they are starting to see the danger to underage people engaging in these things. (Cognitive development, emotional effects, etc.) Should there be penalties for adults providing these for young people? How severe?

If all drugs are legal, should selling fentanyl be legal? Why not? (If not, "Officer that garage full of product is for my own personal use. I like to buy in bulk.")



Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 04, 2020, 10:26:44 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 09:47:53 AM
Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...
[snip]
In fact, it has created tax revenue, taken money from organized crime, and has been mostly beneficial.  Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...

Make them just like alcohol & the state lottery, a tax you pay for the privilege of being stupid.

Quote
One of the annoying things about cannabis (and vaping) is that in the rush to legalize everything they are starting to see the danger to underage people engaging in these things. (Cognitive development, emotional effects, etc.) Should there be penalties for adults providing these for young people? How severe?

If all drugs are legal, should selling fentanyl be legal? Why not? (If not, "Officer that garage full of product is for my own personal use. I like to buy in bulk.")

Not to mention cannabis can cause serious prolonged mental illness in some adults. Depersonalization, derealization, anxiety disorders. And increase the likelihood of schizophrenia in young adults who are genetically predisposed.

I know people hate to hear from the self-righteous about inebriating chemicals, but the facts are on our side.


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 10:23:11 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 09:47:53 AM
What I find odd is why taking drugs is a criminal offense in the first place.  What is even weirder is that the people who are most likely to be the most hard line about this are the same people who tout small government, self determination, and personal liberties.  For example, you can't tell me I have to wear a mask, but dont let my neighbour smoke a doob!   

Then you have to have specific legislation about "impaired [EVERYTHING]" with the corresponding increased penalties. Drunk (or high) drivers, pilots, health professionals,...... need to be get SERIOUS jail time for endangering others by their "totally legal" hobbies.


Quote
I am in Canada, where Cannabis has been legal for a while now.  The sky has not fallen.  In fact, it has created tax revenue, taken money from organized crime, and has been mostly beneficial.  Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...

One of the annoying things about cannabis (and vaping) is that in the rush to legalize everything they are starting to see the danger to underage people engaging in these things. (Cognitive development, emotional effects, etc.) Should there be penalties for adults providing these for young people? How severe?

If all drugs are legal, should selling fentanyl be legal? Why not? (If not, "Officer that garage full of product is for my own personal use. I like to buy in bulk.")

1) Legal or illegal, we need laws around impaired driving.  This was one of the big issues in Canada when it was being legalized.  Everyone was saying if it is legal people will drive stoned and we need laws.  Fact is that people were driving stoned before it was legal and that issue did not change at all.  It is still illegal to drive impaired in any way, and this issue is not related to the legality of taking the drug in question.

2) As with point 1, underage people have always been smoking pot.  Surveys in Canada found that it was easier for youth to access cannabis (when it was illegal) than it was to get alcohol.  So, again, the legal status has little impact on this issue.  As with alcohol, there are penalties for adults providing cannabis to youth. 

3) Yes, fentanyl should be legal.  Legalization dosn't mean you can sell it on the street, it means that there is a legal source that is regulated.  The main issue with fentanyl is that it is often found in other street drugs and people accidentally overdose.  The whole point of a legalized supply chain is so that you can ensure quality control and accurate dosing.  People are using drugs, it is best to make sure they are as safe as they can be.     

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 10:36:33 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 04, 2020, 10:26:44 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 09:47:53 AM
Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...
[snip]
In fact, it has created tax revenue, taken money from organized crime, and has been mostly beneficial.  Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...

Make them just like alcohol & the state lottery, a tax you pay for the privilege of being stupid.

Quote
One of the annoying things about cannabis (and vaping) is that in the rush to legalize everything they are starting to see the danger to underage people engaging in these things. (Cognitive development, emotional effects, etc.) Should there be penalties for adults providing these for young people? How severe?

If all drugs are legal, should selling fentanyl be legal? Why not? (If not, "Officer that garage full of product is for my own personal use. I like to buy in bulk.")

Not to mention cannabis can cause serious prolonged mental illness in some adults. Depersonalization, derealization, anxiety disorders. And increase the likelihood of schizophrenia in young adults who are genetically predisposed.

I know people hate to hear from the self-righteous about inebriating chemicals, but the facts are on our side.

Have you been watching reefer madness again?

I am not saying that there are no negative effects to drugs, but why do you care if I choose to use them?  Do you also want to mandate my physical activity level to help with my cardiovascular health and mental well being?  Will you force me to eat my broccoli too?  Again, it is ironic that the people who tout personal responsibility want to decide what I ingest.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 10:43:25 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 10:35:38 AM

3) Yes, fentanyl should be legal.  Legalization dosn't mean you can sell it on the street, it means that there is a legal source that is regulated.  The main issue with fentanyl is that it is often found in other street drugs and people accidentally overdose. The whole point of a legalized supply chain is so that you can ensure quality control and accurate dosing.  People are using drugs, it is best to make sure they are as safe as they can be.   

There's something very disturbing about people employed by the government to administer poison (i.e. dangerous chemicals for no medical reason) and being paid by taxpayers to do so with the justification that we're administering the poison in a way that is "as safe as can be".

This gets into the whole idea of medically assisted suicide for people with mental illness. If a clinically depressed person wants to commit suicide, should the government provide the "service" so that it can be done as safely(?) effectively as possible?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 10:50:10 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 10:43:25 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 10:35:38 AM

3) Yes, fentanyl should be legal.  Legalization dosn't mean you can sell it on the street, it means that there is a legal source that is regulated.  The main issue with fentanyl is that it is often found in other street drugs and people accidentally overdose. The whole point of a legalized supply chain is so that you can ensure quality control and accurate dosing.  People are using drugs, it is best to make sure they are as safe as they can be.   

There's something very disturbing about people employed by the government to administer poison (i.e. dangerous chemicals for no medical reason) and being paid by taxpayers to do so with the justification that we're administering the poison in a way that is "as safe as can be".

This gets into the whole idea of medically assisted suicide for people with mental illness. If a clinically depressed person wants to commit suicide, should the government provide the "service" so that it can be done as safely(?) effectively as possible?

With legalization, it is not necessarily government people administering it.  It is simply a legal framework for people to produce, sell, and use it.  Alcohol is a horrible drug that kills tens of thousands in the US every year, but is sold legally.  This makes sense because if it were not regulated, people would still drink but would do so in more dangerous settings and there would be safety concerns with unregulated production (ie methanol contamination).  There is also the fact that it would line the pockets organized crime. 

It is the same with drugs.  People still use them, but they are at higher risk because they are forced into the shadows and many street drugs are contaminated (ie fentanyl) and gangs are making billions. 

The pitch for legalization is not to promote drug use.  It is just an acceptance that we have lost the war on drugs and that there are more effective, safer approaches.  Taking the same course and expecting different results is insanity...   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 10:52:10 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 10:43:25 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 10:35:38 AM

3) Yes, fentanyl should be legal.  Legalization dosn't mean you can sell it on the street, it means that there is a legal source that is regulated.  The main issue with fentanyl is that it is often found in other street drugs and people accidentally overdose. The whole point of a legalized supply chain is so that you can ensure quality control and accurate dosing.  People are using drugs, it is best to make sure they are as safe as they can be.   

There's something very disturbing about people employed by the government to administer poison (i.e. dangerous chemicals for no medical reason) and being paid by taxpayers to do so with the justification that we're administering the poison in a way that is "as safe as can be".

This gets into the whole idea of medically assisted suicide for people with mental illness. If a clinically depressed person wants to commit suicide, should the government provide the "service" so that it can be done as safely(?) effectively as possible?

On a very related note, I also find it very disturbing that the government runs and profits from gambling, preying on the vulnerable, but perhaps this is less harmful than leaving it to the private sector or pushing it underground...   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 10:50:10 AM

With legalization, it is not necessarily government people administering it.  It is simply a legal framework for people to produce, sell, and use it.  Alcohol is a horrible drug that kills tens of thousands in the US every year, but is sold legally.  This makes sense because if it were not regulated, people would still drink but would do so in more dangerous settings and there would be safety concerns with unregulated production (ie methanol contamination).  There is also the fact that it would line the pockets organized crime. 

There are a few things that make alcohol different. The first it that alcohol is mostly a component of drinks; very little is sold or consumed by itself. Second, the main market for alcohol is not to alcoholics; it is to people who have a drink or two at a time. In fact, it is illegal to serve alcohol to a person who is already intoxicated.

All of these factors are very different than the sale of street drugs. Specifically, the people buying them are typically addicted, are actually trying to get them in their undiluted form, and are intentionally trying to consume enough to get high.

Quote
The pitch for legalization is not to promote drug use.  It is just an acceptance that we have lost the war on drugs and that there are more effective, safer approaches.  Taking the same course and expecting different results is insanity...

As I indicated before, if "posession" of drugs in legal, then it's very easy to hide the sale of drugs behind that.   Drug dealers will not remotely disappear.

Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 10:52:10 AM
On a very related note, I also find it very disturbing that the government runs and profits from gambling, preying on the vulnerable, but perhaps this is less harmful than leaving it to the private sector or pushing it underground...

I've never been a fan of this, and it hasn't eliminated illegal gambling either.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on December 04, 2020, 11:39:42 AM
I'm fairly libertarian on almost everything, including drug legalization. That said, I recognize that many drug users can not/will not be helped and will never stop the criminal behavior associated with their use until incarcerated or dead. You can not reason with someone who has specifically taken a substance to remove reason and enter an alternate reality. The fact that we continue to try to do so rather than locking them up once criminal behavior begins leads me to believe we are crazier than most on the substances. My general rule of thumb is pretty clear: Do whatever you want with your life unless and until if intrudes on mine, at which point I'm willing to be as aggressive as possible in preventing your ability to do so.

This is very similar to my stance on single motherhood or anything else where irresponsible behavior affects another person. Want to get knocked up by unemployed face tattoo guy who leaves and pop out a kid you have no ability to care for? Your right to do so but I'm totally for taking it away rather than subsidizing and socially reinforcing your decision. My libertarian switch is immediately flicked off once another person is affected. I don't understand why this general attitude of "do what you want until" is so rare in favor of totally permissive or draconian all the time.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on December 04, 2020, 11:43:55 AM
Most of the things we see that we don't like are not the product of drug use but of the illegality of drugs.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 04, 2020, 12:06:26 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 10:36:33 AM

Not to mention cannabis can cause serious prolonged mental illness in some adults. Depersonalization, derealization, anxiety disorders. And increase the likelihood of schizophrenia in young adults who are genetically predisposed.

I know people hate to hear from the self-righteous about inebriating chemicals, but the facts are on our side.

Have you been watching reefer madness again?
[/quote]

What did I post that's not accurate. Show us.

QuoteI am not saying that there are no negative effects to drugs, but why do you care if I choose to use them?  Do you also want to mandate my physical activity level to help with my cardiovascular health and mental well being?  Will you force me to eat my broccoli too?  Again, it is ironic that the people who tout personal responsibility want to decide what I ingest.

I don't care a lot if you use them, although we would have a better world without it, but that's not going to happen. As P. J. O'Rourke said we don't have freedom of choice so we can be better. We have it so we can be anything we damn please.
What I hate though, and will fight, is when people promote recreational drugs who don't know about the potential for harm to certain individuals and don't go to the trouble to find out. I say it as one who has paid a big price and was sold a bill of goods by the culture of the sixties. And BTW, some of the same people who make fun of reefer madness get their information from people like the Grateful Dead and rappers who sing about 'purple drank' so I suggest your comment does not become a scholarly person like you are.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 04, 2020, 12:25:31 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 04:35:40 AM
I wish proponents of "harm reduction programs", such as safe injection sites, would publish statistics about their rate of getting people into treatment programs and how many are drug-free X years later. Any sane person can see that it's better to get these people (back) to being productive members of society than to incarcerate them, but it's not at all clear how frequently that happens. And there is evidence that the existence of safe injection sites will induce some people to try harder drugs ("moral hazzard"), but it should be possible to run the numbers and establish objectively whether the overall effect is positive.

I (probably like many other people) would be glad to support funding for these programs if the evidence indicates that they have an overall benefit. Just keeping people alive longer, without getting any of them out of their addictions, is an extremely low bar to set.


Insite, in Vancouver, has been operational since 2003. It was the first supervised injection site in North America. They keep pretty detailed records about their interventions, and they've been studied pretty extensively. In fact, it was a condition of allowing it to operate that it be rigorously studied. All the evidence indicates that it's significantly reduced harm. This is especially true for immediate harms, which are its primary focus (e.g. overdoses, drugs cut with fentanyl and carfentanyl, which you can screen for there, and sharing needles). The evidence also indicates it's been effective at increasing the use of detox services. You can read at least one of the many, many studies of Insite here (https://www.cmaj.ca/content/175/11/1399.short) (it's from 2006).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 12:41:22 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 04, 2020, 12:06:26 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 10:36:33 AM

Not to mention cannabis can cause serious prolonged mental illness in some adults. Depersonalization, derealization, anxiety disorders. And increase the likelihood of schizophrenia in young adults who are genetically predisposed.

I know people hate to hear from the self-righteous about inebriating chemicals, but the facts are on our side.

Have you been watching reefer madness again?

What did I post that's not accurate. Show us.

QuoteI am not saying that there are no negative effects to drugs, but why do you care if I choose to use them?  Do you also want to mandate my physical activity level to help with my cardiovascular health and mental well being?  Will you force me to eat my broccoli too?  Again, it is ironic that the people who tout personal responsibility want to decide what I ingest.

I don't care a lot if you use them, although we would have a better world without it, but that's not going to happen. As P. J. O'Rourke said we don't have freedom of choice so we can be better. We have it so we can be anything we damn please.
What I hate though, and will fight, is when people promote recreational drugs who don't know about the potential for harm to certain individuals and don't go to the trouble to find out. I say it as one who has paid a big price and was sold a bill of goods by the culture of the sixties. And BTW, some of the same people who make fun of reefer madness get their information from people like the Grateful Dead and rappers who sing about 'purple drank' so I suggest your comment does not become a scholarly person like you are.
[/quote]

It's not that what you said is inaccurate, but I do feel it is blown out of proportion to some degree.  Many hate the comparison, but alcohol and tobacco are quantifiabaly more deadly than many other drugs but they get a free pass because society says it is ok.  The reference to refer madness is apt since you are focusing on the harms of cannabis as if it is a great danger while ignoring the fact that alcohol causes far more harm.  So again, I do not deny that there are negative effects of cannabis, especially for a subset of the population, but there are worse offenders.

Regardless, the negative effects of cannabis or any other drugs are a moot point when discussing legalization because the laws don't stop people from using them.  If the goal is to reduce the negative impacts of drugs across society, criminalization is the wrong approach.       
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: financeguy on December 04, 2020, 11:39:42 AM
I'm fairly libertarian on almost everything, including drug legalization. That said, I recognize that many drug users can not/will not be helped and will never stop the criminal behavior associated with their use until incarcerated or dead. You can not reason with someone who has specifically taken a substance to remove reason and enter an alternate reality. The fact that we continue to try to do so rather than locking them up once criminal behavior begins leads me to believe we are crazier than most on the substances. My general rule of thumb is pretty clear: Do whatever you want with your life unless and until if intrudes on mine, at which point I'm willing to be as aggressive as possible in preventing your ability to do so.

This is very similar to my stance on single motherhood or anything else where irresponsible behavior affects another person. Want to get knocked up by unemployed face tattoo guy who leaves and pop out a kid you have no ability to care for? Your right to do so but I'm totally for taking it away rather than subsidizing and socially reinforcing your decision. My libertarian switch is immediately flicked off once another person is affected. I don't understand why this general attitude of "do what you want until" is so rare in favor of totally permissive or draconian all the time.

Sure, but much of their criminal activity is spurred by the fact that it is illegal.  Regardless, you should punish them for the crime they commit rather than why they did it. 

I think you also underestimate the number of functional drug users among us.  They are not all junkies looking for their next fix... 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 04, 2020, 01:06:57 PM
Prof Kron, now you've got me going.
Laws don't stop people from using harmful things as long as the numbers of people who want them are sufficient to keep peddlers in business, but public opinion against tobacco, the tobacco magnates, litter in the streets, second hand smoke, smoking in bed/fires and the cost to the public health system from smoking have brought about a drastic reduction in the use of tobacco in the USA. Whereas the harmful effects of marijuana get downplayed, not known or flat out denied, and the drug still gets glorified in popular culture. That's why once in a while you will run into a noisy, informed person like me who says most of us don't know the real story. That's all I'm doing here. No argument about the futility of the war on 'illicit' drugs, nor on classifying them that way.
There's a stigma against speaking ill of cannabis. It's supposed to be something that you 'can handle.' Whereas peer pressure to smoke cigarettes is perhaps 1/10 what it was when I was young.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 12:41:22 PM
Regardless, the negative effects of cannabis or any other drugs are a moot point when discussing legalization because the laws don't stop people from using them.  If the goal is to reduce the negative impacts of drugs across society, criminalization is the wrong approach.       

Legalizing cannabis hasn't ended the illegal trade. Part of the argument with legalization is that it would make illicit sales unprofitable. It hasn't.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on December 04, 2020, 01:40:03 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 12:41:22 PM
Regardless, the negative effects of cannabis or any other drugs are a moot point when discussing legalization because the laws don't stop people from using them.  If the goal is to reduce the negative impacts of drugs across society, criminalization is the wrong approach.       

Legalizing cannabis hasn't ended the illegal trade. Part of the argument with legalization is that it would make illicit sales unprofitable. It hasn't.

The stuff isn't legalized everywhere. It's "decriminalized" in places for carrying personal use quantities. The illegal trade will not stop until all is legalized, including commercial use, not merely restrictively decriminalized.

Depending on the tax rate. :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 01:49:47 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 04, 2020, 01:06:57 PM
Prof Kron, now you've got me going.
Laws don't stop people from using harmful things as long as the numbers of people who want them are sufficient to keep peddlers in business, but public opinion against tobacco, the tobacco magnates, litter in the streets, second hand smoke, smoking in bed/fires and the cost to the public health system from smoking have brought about a drastic reduction in the use of tobacco in the USA. Whereas the harmful effects of marijuana get downplayed, not known or flat out denied, and the drug still gets glorified in popular culture. That's why once in a while you will run into a noisy, informed person like me who says most of us don't know the real story. That's all I'm doing here. No argument about the futility of the war on 'illicit' drugs, nor on classifying them that way.
There's a stigma against speaking ill of cannabis. It's supposed to be something that you 'can handle.' Whereas peer pressure to smoke cigarettes is perhaps 1/10 what it was when I was young.

Yes, publicity campaigns have curbed tobacco use.  Since legalization in Canada, I have seen more of that for Cannabis as well (espacially targeted at youth) and cannabis use among teens is down here following legalization, so it seems that making cannabis illegal did not reduce teen use.  You are basically supporting my point, that using our limited resources on education, treatment, etc. is more effective than criminalization.

When I was young, they used the reefer madness approach to drug education.  I feel this backfires as once it becomes evident that many of their "facts" were not valid, it makes their whole pitch suspect. 

I agree that the glorification of cannabis in pop culture is problematic, but I also feel that our cultural love of alcohol is worse.  This is in pop culture, but also in social interactions.  You are often a pariah if you dont drink.  I had a friend when I was younger that once told me to never trust a man that dosn't drink...and yes, he is essentially an alcoholic now.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 01:51:46 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 12:41:22 PM
Regardless, the negative effects of cannabis or any other drugs are a moot point when discussing legalization because the laws don't stop people from using them.  If the goal is to reduce the negative impacts of drugs across society, criminalization is the wrong approach.       

Legalizing cannabis hasn't ended the illegal trade. Part of the argument with legalization is that it would make illicit sales unprofitable. It hasn't.

Yes, they were naive to think it would vanish but I think it is about half of the market now where it used to be all of the market.  So, legalization has cut about half the funds from the black market.  It is also worth noting that this has only been a couple years.  Do you think bootleggers vanished immediately following prohibition of alcohol?  I suspect they slowly vanished as the legal market developed.  This is what I suspect will happen with cannabis.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 01:56:30 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 01:51:46 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 12:41:22 PM
Regardless, the negative effects of cannabis or any other drugs are a moot point when discussing legalization because the laws don't stop people from using them.  If the goal is to reduce the negative impacts of drugs across society, criminalization is the wrong approach.       

Legalizing cannabis hasn't ended the illegal trade. Part of the argument with legalization is that it would make illicit sales unprofitable. It hasn't.
Yes, they were naive to think it would vanish but I think it is about half of the market now where it used to be all of the market.  So, legalization has cut about half the funds from the black market and organized crime.  It is also worth noting that this has only been a couple years.  Do you think bootleggers vanished immediately following prohibition of alcohol?  I suspect they slowly vanished as the legal market developed.  This is what I suspect will happen with cannabis.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on December 04, 2020, 03:01:21 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: financeguy on December 04, 2020, 11:39:42 AM
I'm fairly libertarian on almost everything, including drug legalization. That said, I recognize that many drug users can not/will not be helped and will never stop the criminal behavior associated with their use until incarcerated or dead. You can not reason with someone who has specifically taken a substance to remove reason and enter an alternate reality. The fact that we continue to try to do so rather than locking them up once criminal behavior begins leads me to believe we are crazier than most on the substances. My general rule of thumb is pretty clear: Do whatever you want with your life unless and until if intrudes on mine, at which point I'm willing to be as aggressive as possible in preventing your ability to do so.

This is very similar to my stance on single motherhood or anything else where irresponsible behavior affects another person. Want to get knocked up by unemployed face tattoo guy who leaves and pop out a kid you have no ability to care for? Your right to do so but I'm totally for taking it away rather than subsidizing and socially reinforcing your decision. My libertarian switch is immediately flicked off once another person is affected. I don't understand why this general attitude of "do what you want until" is so rare in favor of totally permissive or draconian all the time.

Sure, but much of their criminal activity is spurred by the fact that it is illegal.  Regardless, you should punish them for the crime they commit rather than why they did it. 

I think you also underestimate the number of functional drug users among us.  They are not all junkies looking for their next fix...


The "why they did it" only matters to me to the extent that it indicates continued activity. Someone who is doing whatever they are doing while on drugs is not particularly likely to cease the underlying cause. I'm not primarily trying to punish, I'm primarily trying to segregate from myself and others who know how to behave. A guy who kills his wife and best friend after walking in on them is not likely to do that same thing again but someone with 15 DUIs is highly likely to get to number 16. Even though the former crime is more "severe" I am personally more likely to advocate strong punishment for the latter due to the likelihood of a repeat harming myself or others.

A hypothetical world where someone gets 5 years for the double murder and and 10 years for their 15th DUI is not crazy at all to me. The driver has proven that he will not stop. Why is he even able to get to number 15? If you think this is a facetious statement or pure hyperbole, it is not. There are no shortage of recipients of double digit DUI convictions or double digit drug related convictions beyond simple possession of the substance itself. These people don't tend to "get the point" after the first, second or tenth time. That's why I want the key thrown away, not because I have some prudish obsession with drugs. They are literally way more dangerous to society based on their likelihood to harm in the future than a murderer, a crime with a surprisingly low recidivism rate.

I also oppose public benefits of any kind for drug users. Again, I don't care if you want to use drugs, but if you can afford them, you don't need my money. Same with anyone who has a tattoo. Regardless of how much you "like" or "dislike" these things, they are discretionary purchases. The fact that most losers on the dole have multiple substances of choice and a body art collection resembling a tagged freeway underpass infuriates the rest of us more than imagined. We don't care if someone wants the take meth and have someone tat the spider web on their elbow but we don't want to pay for it. A lot of animosity toward drug users comes down to this aspect. Don't get in a car, don't care for a child while high, get off the dole and suddenly people aren't as concerned that you want to use.



Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Stockmann on December 04, 2020, 06:56:18 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 04, 2020, 10:26:44 AM
I know people hate to hear from the self-righteous about inebriating chemicals, but the facts are on our side.

Actually, the facts are that the illegal drug trade is destroying entire nations (Colombia, Honduras, Mexico and Afghanistan, to name a few) and that the war on drugs is an abject failure that would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. NATO didn't even pretend to try to fight it in Afghanistan, and in Mexico the President has personally gone to pay his respects to El Chapo's Mom, to say nothing of the pathetic charade of the DEA arresting and then letting go a former Mexican Defense Secretary on charges of being basically a drug lord, to name some of the most dramatic examples of how farcical it's become. I have a very low opinion of recreational addicts (including alcoholics and excluding folks who use opiates for genuine medical reasons), in which I suspect we agree, but at least addicts who get it from legal sources or grow their own pot or produce their own moonshine or whatever are not funding the drug cartels, which resemble IS in their brutality.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 05, 2020, 07:28:45 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 04, 2020, 01:40:03 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 04, 2020, 12:41:22 PM
Regardless, the negative effects of cannabis or any other drugs are a moot point when discussing legalization because the laws don't stop people from using them.  If the goal is to reduce the negative impacts of drugs across society, criminalization is the wrong approach.       

Legalizing cannabis hasn't ended the illegal trade. Part of the argument with legalization is that it would make illicit sales unprofitable. It hasn't.

The stuff isn't legalized everywhere. It's "decriminalized" in places for carrying personal use quantities. The illegal trade will not stop until all is legalized, including commercial use, not merely restrictively decriminalized.

Depending on the tax rate. :-)

You can try to eliminate the criminal trade in something, OR you can tax it, but you can't do both. The profit in the criminal trade comes from not paying taxes (among other things). So, if you want to make it all legit, give it away for free. If you want to make tax revenue, accept that the higher the tax rate the more criminals will be able to profit from it.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 05, 2020, 08:19:00 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on December 04, 2020, 06:56:18 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 04, 2020, 10:26:44 AM
I know people hate to hear from the self-righteous about inebriating chemicals, but the facts are on our side.

Actually, the facts are that the illegal drug trade is destroying entire nations (Colombia, Honduras, Mexico and Afghanistan, to name a few) and that the war on drugs is an abject failure that would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. NATO didn't even pretend to try to fight it in Afghanistan, and in Mexico the President has personally gone to pay his respects to El Chapo's Mom, to say nothing of the pathetic charade of the DEA arresting and then letting go a former Mexican Defense Secretary on charges of being basically a drug lord, to name some of the most dramatic examples of how farcical it's become. I have a very low opinion of recreational addicts (including alcoholics and excluding folks who use opiates for genuine medical reasons), in which I suspect we agree, but at least addicts who get it from legal sources or grow their own pot or produce their own moonshine or whatever are not funding the drug cartels, which resemble IS in their brutality.

Most interesting, thank you. And not to push my point, but we drastically reduced the consumption of tobacco mostly through changes in collective attitude. The tobacco companies are still there but the have to prey on others besides us. If we had the will to do it we could get Americans to stop using recreation dope.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on December 05, 2020, 08:20:35 AM
I think Kron3007 has it right with the cut in half reference to Prohibition. IMO, you can never completely eliminate something like the drug trade. You might as well put your resources into attempting to eliminate rats. You'd do more good, and be equally unsuccessful.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 05, 2020, 08:35:42 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 05, 2020, 08:20:35 AM
I think Kron3007 has it right with the cut in half reference to Prohibition. IMO, you can never completely eliminate something like the drug trade. You might as well put your resources into attempting to eliminate rats. You'd do more good, and be equally unsuccessful.

So what drugs do you make legal to produce? Heroin? Crack? Meth? Does every chemical that people manage to acquire automatically get government sanction for production and distribution?

Should there be laws about storage of one's stash? If kids get into their parents' drugs and OD, are the parents criminally negligent?

These aren't Easter eggs we're talking about here......

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 05, 2020, 08:53:56 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 05, 2020, 08:20:35 AM
I think Kron3007 has it right with the cut in half reference to Prohibition. IMO, you can never completely eliminate something like the drug trade. You might as well put your resources into attempting to eliminate rats. You'd do more good, and be equally unsuccessful.

Still, there's no reason we couldn't have a culture with a drastically lower amount of alcohol consumption than we have now. The Mormons do it. It's like abstinence or contraception. It only works when it's tried. We have alcoholism, acute and chronic, everywhere because we've decided it's OK. And I am a former teetotaler, so I don't speak from self-righteousness. Just observation.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on December 05, 2020, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 05, 2020, 08:35:42 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 05, 2020, 08:20:35 AM
I think Kron3007 has it right with the cut in half reference to Prohibition. IMO, you can never completely eliminate something like the drug trade. You might as well put your resources into attempting to eliminate rats. You'd do more good, and be equally unsuccessful.

So what drugs do you make legal to produce? Heroin? Crack? Meth? Does every chemical that people manage to acquire automatically get government sanction for production and distribution?

Should there be laws about storage of one's stash? If kids get into their parents' drugs and OD, are the parents criminally negligent?

These aren't Easter eggs we're talking about here......

People have used (and will continue to use) substances throughout history that have altered their state of mind regardless of enforcement policies. That is all I'm saying.

I grew up Methodist, attended Loyal Temperance League meetings (actual Kool Aid was served). Most Protestant denominations in the Midwest at least discouraged alcohol use. They were certainly far less successful than the Latter Day Saints.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 05, 2020, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 05, 2020, 08:35:42 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 05, 2020, 08:20:35 AM
I think Kron3007 has it right with the cut in half reference to Prohibition. IMO, you can never completely eliminate something like the drug trade. You might as well put your resources into attempting to eliminate rats. You'd do more good, and be equally unsuccessful.

So what drugs do you make legal to produce? Heroin? Crack? Meth? Does every chemical that people manage to acquire automatically get government sanction for production and distribution?

Should there be laws about storage of one's stash? If kids get into their parents' drugs and OD, are the parents criminally negligent?

These aren't Easter eggs we're talking about here......

If I was Lord and ruler, yes, they would all be legal and regulated Yes, there would be rules about storage, and yes, you could be charged for neglegence. 

In the case of Cannabis in Canada, it all comes in tamper/child proof packaging and is well labelled.  In the case of black market, it generally comes in an unmarked plastic bag.  So, again, this isn't to say drugs are harmless or to promote their use, the intent is to minimize risk/harm.  Likewise, with legalization, people would be more inclined to seek help before hitting rock bottom.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 05, 2020, 07:48:36 PM
Quote from: financeguy on December 04, 2020, 03:01:21 PM
I also oppose public benefits of any kind for drug users. Again, I don't care if you want to use drugs, but if you can afford them, you don't need my money. Same with anyone who has a tattoo. Regardless of how much you "like" or "dislike" these things, they are discretionary purchases. The fact that most losers on the dole have multiple substances of choice and a body art collection resembling a tagged freeway underpass infuriates the rest of us more than imagined. We don't care if someone wants the take meth and have someone tat the spider web on their elbow but we don't want to pay for it. A lot of animosity toward drug users comes down to this aspect. Don't get in a car, don't care for a child while high, get off the dole and suddenly people aren't as concerned that you want to use.

I appreciate the logic here, the expression of a libertarian point of view. To me it's a breath of fresh air among the lunacy of academic bleeding hard liberalism and whitey- blaming. Still I see a problem though, or maybe I'm not getting it yet. The poor unskilled like maybe, not to keep picking on him, but George Floyd, cannot have recreational drugs in their life without costing us even if they understand it's on them if they choose to do it. Because they will become unemployable, so even if we're not paying for their drugs or rehabilitation from drugs, they're getting food stamps and subsidized rent, basically, because they choose to be druggies. So for me the only solution left is an all out war on drugs. Meaning, teaching children that getting high is wrong. Not a street war with the dealers. A war against the belief that getting high is cool. Or else, just lifetime incarceration.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on December 05, 2020, 09:28:56 PM
I'm open to whatever practical method would be consistent with this philosophy overall. Those with low income/education who chose to continue to use could not only lose benefits but face incarceration upon failing a regularly scheduled test that is mandated for receipt of benefits. Taking away children from parents (especially single mothers) who are born with a chemical dependency is another step.

The severity of consequences for those who affect others can go as high as necessary as far as I'm concerned. This ultimately becomes an academic debate since there are very few drug users who don't negatively affect someone else due to their drug use, but I have no problem respecting the person choice of the few that do exist.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 05, 2020, 10:22:34 PM
You're monstrous.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 06, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 05, 2020, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 05, 2020, 08:35:42 AM


So what drugs do you make legal to produce? Heroin? Crack? Meth? Does every chemical that people manage to acquire automatically get government sanction for production and distribution?

Should there be laws about storage of one's stash? If kids get into their parents' drugs and OD, are the parents criminally negligent?

These aren't Easter eggs we're talking about here......

If I was Lord and ruler, yes, they would all be legal and regulated Yes, there would be rules about storage, and yes, you could be charged for neglegence. 

In the case of Cannabis in Canada, it all comes in tamper/child proof packaging and is well labelled.  In the case of black market, it generally comes in an unmarked plastic bag.  So, again, this isn't to say drugs are harmless or to promote their use, the intent is to minimize risk/harm.  Likewise, with legalization, people would be more inclined to seek help before hitting rock bottom.

Here's an example (https://www.thegrowthop.com/cannabis-news/year-old-boy-hospitalized-after-suspected-overdose-of-tylenol-and-cannabis) of what to expect.

From the article:
Quote
It is not clear how a one-year-old boy ended up ingesting enough Tylenol and cannabis that an ambulance had to be called and the child had to be hospitalized.

There are all kinds of stories from the US of people dying from gunshots inflicted by toddlers and young children because of irresponsible adults who obviously aren't careful enough to keep their guns secure. The same will be true with drugs. In fact, since drug addicts are people with poor judgement and impulse control, it will be much worse.  A few years back there was the story of a child who died by drinking methadone-containing orange juice. (The father was on a methadone program, and put it in orange juice to make it more palatable.)

In the news story above, it was only cannabis; with things like fentanyl where tiny amounts can be deadly, deaths of children will skyrocket if people are allowed to posess them, no matter what restrictions are placed on how they are supposed to be handled. These aren't accidents; they are completely preventable deaths which only occur because dangerous, unhealthy behaviour is indulged.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 06, 2020, 08:06:43 AM
Another day, another set of efforts to overthrow the results of a democratic election:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-kemp-call-georgia/2020/12/05/fd8d677c-3721-11eb-8d38-6aea1adb3839_story.html

And another insane conspiracy-laden rant of lies from the President to undermine trust in the democratic process:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/05/trump-obama-events-heat-up-georgia-senate-races-before-voter-registration-deadline/

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: histchick on December 06, 2020, 08:20:45 AM
"Your governor could stop it very easily if he knew what the hell he was doing," the president said. 

Um, no.  That's not how our state works.  We're screwed up, in many ways, but at least Gov. Kemp understands that he can't just magically give those electoral votes to Trump. 

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 06, 2020, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 06, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 05, 2020, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 05, 2020, 08:35:42 AM


So what drugs do you make legal to produce? Heroin? Crack? Meth? Does every chemical that people manage to acquire automatically get government sanction for production and distribution?

Should there be laws about storage of one's stash? If kids get into their parents' drugs and OD, are the parents criminally negligent?

These aren't Easter eggs we're talking about here......

If I was Lord and ruler, yes, they would all be legal and regulated Yes, there would be rules about storage, and yes, you could be charged for neglegence. 

In the case of Cannabis in Canada, it all comes in tamper/child proof packaging and is well labelled.  In the case of black market, it generally comes in an unmarked plastic bag.  So, again, this isn't to say drugs are harmless or to promote their use, the intent is to minimize risk/harm.  Likewise, with legalization, people would be more inclined to seek help before hitting rock bottom.

Here's an example (https://www.thegrowthop.com/cannabis-news/year-old-boy-hospitalized-after-suspected-overdose-of-tylenol-and-cannabis) of what to expect.

From the article:
Quote
It is not clear how a one-year-old boy ended up ingesting enough Tylenol and cannabis that an ambulance had to be called and the child had to be hospitalized.

There are all kinds of stories from the US of people dying from gunshots inflicted by toddlers and young children because of irresponsible adults who obviously aren't careful enough to keep their guns secure. The same will be true with drugs. In fact, since drug addicts are people with poor judgement and impulse control, it will be much worse.  A few years back there was the story of a child who died by drinking methadone-containing orange juice. (The father was on a methadone program, and put it in orange juice to make it more palatable.)

In the news story above, it was only cannabis; with things like fentanyl where tiny amounts can be deadly, deaths of children will skyrocket if people are allowed to posess them, no matter what restrictions are placed on how they are supposed to be handled. These aren't accidents; they are completely preventable deaths which only occur because dangerous, unhealthy behaviour is indulged.

You do realize that people using illegal drugs already have children right?  This issue is just like the DUIs, it is a real problem but it already exists. Legalization dosn't change this, but it does allow the government to regulate packaging and formulations.  It is interesting that you also include an example with Tylenol overdose, a completely legal item that is by far more toxic than the cannabis in the story (Tylenol can do permanent kidney damage, the cannabis would only cause a relatively minor event).

For those saying most drug users do not make good choices and such, again, you may be surprised to know how many functional drug users there are that lead perfectly normal lives.  One thing that has been interesting with cannabis legalization in Canada is how this has made people more open about it.  I use cannabis (rarely smoke it), and know many other professors, CEOs of companies, teachers, nurses, and other professionals who partake.  The whole stereotype of the lazy stoner is mostly a product of decades of propaganda.  This isn't to say they don't exist, but it is a good lessen in correlation not equalling causation.

You may not agree with my life choices, but I see no reason that should matter unless they are impacting you (or others).  We store it safely away from our children, don't drive under the influence, pay our taxes, give to charity, and are generally good members of society, just a little stoned sometimes.  If my younger self had been sent to jail for this, I could be leading a very different life, not for the better.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 06, 2020, 04:44:38 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 05, 2020, 10:22:34 PM
You're monstrous.

Under financeguy's proposed, feasible system, George Floyd would still be living.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 06, 2020, 05:32:43 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 06, 2020, 03:13:42 PM

For those saying most drug users do not make good choices and such, again, you may be surprised to know how many functional drug users there are that lead perfectly normal lives.  One thing that has been interesting with cannabis legalization in Canada is how this has made people more open about it.  I use cannabis (rarely smoke it), and know many other professors, CEOs of companies, teachers, nurses, and other professionals who partake.  The whole stereotype of the lazy stoner is mostly a product of decades of propaganda.  This isn't to say they don't exist, but it is a good lessen in correlation not equalling causation.

You may not agree with my life choices, but I see no reason that should matter unless they are impacting you (or others).  We store it safely away from our children, don't drive under the influence, pay our taxes, give to charity, and are generally good members of society, just a little stoned sometimes.  If my younger self had been sent to jail for this, I could be leading a very different life, not for the better.


This is like gun ownership. There are many gun owners who are very responsible; they keep them properly locked up, away from children, unloaded, etc.  However, when a child dies because of irresponsible actions, it gets called a "tragic accident", rather than a completely preventable death that was the result of criminal negligence.

To get back to drugs; part of the reason for making posession illegal is that it makes it easy to arrest dealers without having to catch them actually selling; if they have the drugs, they're guilty. If posession is legal, then my example of the person claiming the garage full is their personal stash is the kind of thing that becomes untouchable.

Is drug dealing something that should be illegal? If so, how can it be stopped if posession is perfectly OK?

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 06, 2020, 09:48:23 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 06, 2020, 05:32:43 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 06, 2020, 03:13:42 PM

For those saying most drug users do not make good choices and such, again, you may be surprised to know how many functional drug users there are that lead perfectly normal lives.  One thing that has been interesting with cannabis legalization in Canada is how this has made people more open about it.  I use cannabis (rarely smoke it), and know many other professors, CEOs of companies, teachers, nurses, and other professionals who partake.  The whole stereotype of the lazy stoner is mostly a product of decades of propaganda.  This isn't to say they don't exist, but it is a good lessen in correlation not equalling causation.

You may not agree with my life choices, but I see no reason that should matter unless they are impacting you (or others).  We store it safely away from our children, don't drive under the influence, pay our taxes, give to charity, and are generally good members of society, just a little stoned sometimes.  If my younger self had been sent to jail for this, I could be leading a very different life, not for the better.


This is like gun ownership. There are many gun owners who are very responsible; they keep them properly locked up, away from children, unloaded, etc.  However, when a child dies because of irresponsible actions, it gets called a "tragic accident", rather than a completely preventable death that was the result of criminal negligence.

To get back to drugs; part of the reason for making posession illegal is that it makes it easy to arrest dealers without having to catch them actually selling; if they have the drugs, they're guilty. If posession is legal, then my example of the person claiming the garage full is their personal stash is the kind of thing that becomes untouchable.

Is drug dealing something that should be illegal? If so, how can it be stopped if posession is perfectly OK?

Sure, sale of recreational drugs, like gambling, is immoral and unhealthy, except when the government's getting a cut of the profit.

'I am shocked to find that gambling is going on here!'
'Here you are, your winnings, sir.'
"Ah...thank you!'
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 06, 2020, 10:40:59 PM
QuoteFor those saying most drug users do not make good choices and such, again, you may be surprised to know how many functional drug users there are that lead perfectly normal lives.

And now you prompt me to think of this:
Or we can be reminded how many abnormal lives have produced advances in knowledge, culture and art. Think of drunk Richard Burton on the stage and screen, drunk Mussorgsky composing, drunk Truman Capote writing books and song lyrics, Hugh Hefner putting in 100 hour weeks building the Playboy empire and Charlie Parker practicing the saxophone 15 hours per day, both fueled by amphetamines. Do they become a burden on the system? Yes, sometimes. But they're also giving us something.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on December 07, 2020, 12:05:53 AM
I dont read this thread much anymore as the elections are, for th emost part, over, and the topic long since detoured to downtown Twilight Zone, but dont mind me...

I am here to comment on drug use. 

I wonder how many people are dead or addicted because they followed their doctor's advice.  As a back pain sufferer, I had my experiences with Hydrocodone.  Im not exactly a fan. It certainly helps with the pain, but also aggravates my sleep apnea so Im still awake, but drugged.  Not a great experience for me.  At the peak dosage (after back spasms sent me to the ER), I was on 20mg (whatever the units are).  It helped the pain but I was not able to function.  At the lowest dosage of 1/2 of a 5mg pill, I was able to function with the edge off of the pain, but I wasnt stupid from the drugs.

Anyway, not to get too far afield other than to say I was on it long enough to understand what each dosage strength would do for as well as to me.  I understand that others became addicted to it and moved to codeine (a poor substitute) and heroine as a cheaper alternative.

The bottom line is that I avoided the drug addiction phase, and others were not so fortunate, but the beginning of their problem was not a moral failing, but a prescription from their physician!

Would Mr Floyd be alive?  to quote the owl, "The world may never know".  The problems of the police may very well have their roots in drug use, though power trips have existed for a long, long time before there was a drug epidemic. 


So returning more directly to the elections... IS Trump's delusion of having the election stolen from him going to cost the GOP the 2 Ga Senate seats and therefore a majority? 
If it does, what would a life in the US be like with the government in the complete hands of the democrats (save the Supreme Court)?

Are there any 'moderates' anymore, or has the world in the middle been taken over by 'yellow lines and dead armadillos?"

How soon will the Election of 2024 begin?  Do we assume that Biden will NOT run or CAN we make that assumption?  (Will he be a caretaker president, or worse, will HE be marginalized by HIS party?)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 07, 2020, 04:33:43 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 06, 2020, 05:32:43 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 06, 2020, 03:13:42 PM

For those saying most drug users do not make good choices and such, again, you may be surprised to know how many functional drug users there are that lead perfectly normal lives.  One thing that has been interesting with cannabis legalization in Canada is how this has made people more open about it.  I use cannabis (rarely smoke it), and know many other professors, CEOs of companies, teachers, nurses, and other professionals who partake.  The whole stereotype of the lazy stoner is mostly a product of decades of propaganda.  This isn't to say they don't exist, but it is a good lessen in correlation not equalling causation.

You may not agree with my life choices, but I see no reason that should matter unless they are impacting you (or others).  We store it safely away from our children, don't drive under the influence, pay our taxes, give to charity, and are generally good members of society, just a little stoned sometimes.  If my younger self had been sent to jail for this, I could be leading a very different life, not for the better.


This is like gun ownership. There are many gun owners who are very responsible; they keep them properly locked up, away from children, unloaded, etc.  However, when a child dies because of irresponsible actions, it gets called a "tragic accident", rather than a completely preventable death that was the result of criminal negligence.

To get back to drugs; part of the reason for making posession illegal is that it makes it easy to arrest dealers without having to catch them actually selling; if they have the drugs, they're guilty. If posession is legal, then my example of the person claiming the garage full is their personal stash is the kind of thing that becomes untouchable.

Is drug dealing something that should be illegal? If so, how can it be stopped if posession is perfectly OK?

Well, what they call gun deaths depends on the source you are reading.  I suspect it is covered differently in Canada, and these events are far less common.  Not because guns are banned, but they are heavily regulated.

Regarding dealers, most of this would naturally disappear with legalization and what doesn't would still be a crime.  With legalization, there would be a limit on how much you can have on you, which is less than a dealer would have.  If you have more than the limit, especially in small pre-packaged amounts, it is pretty clear.    So, if you have a garage full, you have exceeded the personal amount and could be charged.  Admittedly, this is not the case with Cannabis in Canada as we are allowed to grow out own and have as much as we want, but there is a limit on how much we can carry.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 05:43:09 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 07, 2020, 04:33:43 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 06, 2020, 05:32:43 PM

To get back to drugs; part of the reason for making posession illegal is that it makes it easy to arrest dealers without having to catch them actually selling; if they have the drugs, they're guilty. If posession is legal, then my example of the person claiming the garage full is their personal stash is the kind of thing that becomes untouchable.

Is drug dealing something that should be illegal? If so, how can it be stopped if posession is perfectly OK?

Regarding dealers, most of this would naturally disappear with legalization and what doesn't would still be a crime.  With legalization, there would be a limit on how much you can have on you, which is less than a dealer would have.  If you have more than the limit, especially in small pre-packaged amounts, it is pretty clear.    So, if you have a garage full, you have exceeded the personal amount and could be charged.  Admittedly, this is not the case with Cannabis in Canada as we are allowed to grow out own and have as much as we want, but there is a limit on how much we can carry.

Easy-peasy. The drugs are delivered to my garage by the manufacturer. Clients have to come to my garage to pick up their purchases. I never "carry" any.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 05:46:03 AM
Quote from: clean on December 07, 2020, 12:05:53 AM

Are there any 'moderates' anymore, or has the world in the middle been taken over by 'yellow lines and dead armadillos?"


There are lots of moderates, but they tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut because they're tired of being villified by both sides, including the media who pander to one side or the other. A nuanced position which doesn't have an immediate, simple, emotionally satisfying "solution" to any specific problem is unacceptable.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 07, 2020, 07:44:16 AM
Quote from: clean on December 07, 2020, 12:05:53 AM

So returning more directly to the elections... IS Trump's delusion of having the election stolen from him going to cost the GOP the 2 Ga Senate seats and therefore a majority? 
If it does, what would a life in the US be like with the government in the complete hands of the democrats (save the Supreme Court)?

Are there any 'moderates' anymore, or has the world in the middle been taken over by 'yellow lines and dead armadillos?"

How soon will the Election of 2024 begin?  Do we assume that Biden will NOT run or CAN we make that assumption?  (Will he be a caretaker president, or worse, will HE be marginalized by HIS party?)

With democrats in control of everything and if the media is any indication, things will be marginally less crazy than they've been under Trump. Consider this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/07/biden-diversity-top-political-jobs-illusion-change-america

"Joe Biden's drive for diversity in top political jobs is only an illusion of change."
Nesrine Malik

^   I surely hope so. Considering the kind of change that could be coming with all of the left in charge and Biden just tagging along. Maybe now we'll have a chance to see if Biden actually believes anything.

I'm happy to see many more women in top government positions (hopefully not Elizabeth Warren, who wants a serious discussion of reparations for slavery.) I'd rather see 50 women I've never heard of than one Beto O'Rourke in the cabinet and its supporting staff.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on December 07, 2020, 07:53:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 05:46:03 AM
Quote from: clean on December 07, 2020, 12:05:53 AM

Are there any 'moderates' anymore, or has the world in the middle been taken over by 'yellow lines and dead armadillos?"


There are lots of moderates, but they tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut because they're tired of being villified by both sides, including the media who pander to one side or the other. A nuanced position which doesn't have an immediate, simple, emotionally satisfying "solution" to any specific problem is unacceptable.

There is an awful lot of that unattractive "if you're not for us you're against us" stuff out there.

And then there are those who don't look to politics for our salvation.  In our neighborhood there is a conspicuously red-and-blue yard sign that says "Jesus 2020."  I'm guessing that the person who placed it is trying to plead for peace between the angry political factions.  It could also perhaps be seen as a kind of polite "a plague on both your houses" statement.  At any rate it's a reminder that there are other things in life.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 07, 2020, 07:56:46 AM
Quote from: clean on December 07, 2020, 12:05:53 AM

So returning more directly to the elections... IS Trump's delusion of having the election stolen from him going to cost the GOP the 2 Ga Senate seats and therefore a majority? 
If it does, what would a life in the US be like with the government in the complete hands of the democrats (save the Supreme Court)?


Maybe, but it is an uphill clime for the Democrats to win both of those seats

Quote from: clean on December 07, 2020, 12:05:53 AM

Are there any 'moderates' anymore, or has the world in the middle been taken over by 'yellow lines and dead armadillos?"


Biden is a moderate and he won the primary and a national election with 80m votes, so I'd say there are plenty of moderates. Most of the people around him are moderates, and the progressive wing of the Democratic party has been marginalized and was already not very large, so there is that too. In general my opinion is that the Democrats are a moderate party but people focus on a small and loud segment.

There are moderate Republicans too, but few and far between. My guess is that moderation will become more common with the party in the minority and Trump gone.

Quote from: clean on December 07, 2020, 12:05:53 AM

How soon will the Election of 2024 begin?  Do we assume that Biden will NOT run or CAN we make that assumption?  (Will he be a caretaker president, or worse, will HE be marginalized by HIS party?)

I would assume that Biden will run again if he is healthy. He may use the rhetoric of being a one-term president, but incumbents have a significant advantage and so he'll be the favorite in 2024 if he decides to run. If he doesn't run, then there will be a primary and it is too early to do any meaningful prediction about what that would look like.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 07:59:46 AM
Quote from: apl68 on December 07, 2020, 07:53:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 05:46:03 AM
Quote from: clean on December 07, 2020, 12:05:53 AM

Are there any 'moderates' anymore, or has the world in the middle been taken over by 'yellow lines and dead armadillos?"


There are lots of moderates, but they tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut because they're tired of being villified by both sides, including the media who pander to one side or the other. A nuanced position which doesn't have an immediate, simple, emotionally satisfying "solution" to any specific problem is unacceptable.

There is an awful lot of that unattractive "if you're not for us you're against us" stuff out there.

And then there are those who don't look to politics for our salvation.  In our neighborhood there is a conspicuously red-and-blue yard sign that says "Jesus 2020."  I'm guessing that the person who placed it is trying to plead for peace between the angry political factions.  It could also perhaps be seen as a kind of polite "a plague on both your houses" statement.  At any rate it's a reminder that there are other things in life.

Maybe for non-religious people there could be a "Civility 2020" sign. It would be intersting to see how that would be received.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on December 07, 2020, 08:25:48 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 07:59:46 AM
Quote from: apl68 on December 07, 2020, 07:53:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 05:46:03 AM
Quote from: clean on December 07, 2020, 12:05:53 AM

Are there any 'moderates' anymore, or has the world in the middle been taken over by 'yellow lines and dead armadillos?"


There are lots of moderates, but they tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut because they're tired of being villified by both sides, including the media who pander to one side or the other. A nuanced position which doesn't have an immediate, simple, emotionally satisfying "solution" to any specific problem is unacceptable.

There is an awful lot of that unattractive "if you're not for us you're against us" stuff out there.

And then there are those who don't look to politics for our salvation.  In our neighborhood there is a conspicuously red-and-blue yard sign that says "Jesus 2020."  I'm guessing that the person who placed it is trying to plead for peace between the angry political factions.  It could also perhaps be seen as a kind of polite "a plague on both your houses" statement.  At any rate it's a reminder that there are other things in life.

Maybe for non-religious people there could be a "Civility 2020" sign. It would be intersting to see how that would be received.

I'd vote for that candidate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 08:29:19 AM
Quote from: apl68 on December 07, 2020, 08:25:48 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 07:59:46 AM
Quote from: apl68 on December 07, 2020, 07:53:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 05:46:03 AM
Quote from: clean on December 07, 2020, 12:05:53 AM

Are there any 'moderates' anymore, or has the world in the middle been taken over by 'yellow lines and dead armadillos?"


There are lots of moderates, but they tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut because they're tired of being villified by both sides, including the media who pander to one side or the other. A nuanced position which doesn't have an immediate, simple, emotionally satisfying "solution" to any specific problem is unacceptable.

There is an awful lot of that unattractive "if you're not for us you're against us" stuff out there.

And then there are those who don't look to politics for our salvation.  In our neighborhood there is a conspicuously red-and-blue yard sign that says "Jesus 2020."  I'm guessing that the person who placed it is trying to plead for peace between the angry political factions.  It could also perhaps be seen as a kind of polite "a plague on both your houses" statement.  At any rate it's a reminder that there are other things in life.

Maybe for non-religious people there could be a "Civility 2020" sign. It would be intersting to see how that would be received.

I'd vote for that candidate.

But they'd never get any media coverage. Outrage sells!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 07, 2020, 08:32:03 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 08:29:19 AM
Quote from: apl68 on December 07, 2020, 08:25:48 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 07:59:46 AM
Quote from: apl68 on December 07, 2020, 07:53:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 05:46:03 AM
Quote from: clean on December 07, 2020, 12:05:53 AM

Are there any 'moderates' anymore, or has the world in the middle been taken over by 'yellow lines and dead armadillos?"


There are lots of moderates, but they tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut because they're tired of being villified by both sides, including the media who pander to one side or the other. A nuanced position which doesn't have an immediate, simple, emotionally satisfying "solution" to any specific problem is unacceptable.

There is an awful lot of that unattractive "if you're not for us you're against us" stuff out there.

And then there are those who don't look to politics for our salvation.  In our neighborhood there is a conspicuously red-and-blue yard sign that says "Jesus 2020."  I'm guessing that the person who placed it is trying to plead for peace between the angry political factions.  It could also perhaps be seen as a kind of polite "a plague on both your houses" statement.  At any rate it's a reminder that there are other things in life.

Maybe for non-religious people there could be a "Civility 2020" sign. It would be intersting to see how that would be received.

I'd vote for that candidate.

But they'd never get any media coverage. Outrage sells!

Wasn't that basically Biden's message?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 08:33:56 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 05:46:03 AM

There are lots of moderates, but they tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut because they're tired of being villified by both sides, including the media who pander to one side or the other. A nuanced position which doesn't have an immediate, simple, emotionally satisfying "solution" to any specific problem is unacceptable.

They should try being right, for a change.  Or being more interested in using their power for the common good than simply seeking out power.


A nuanced position that doesn't achieve anything significant is not worth very much. Case in point:  How about $20 000 in student debt relief for Pell Grant recipients who start a business in a disadvantaged community and operate that business for at least three years? That's nuanced and moderate! And a recipe for forgiving approximately three people's loans--in other words, for doing nothing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 07, 2020, 08:36:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 05:43:09 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 07, 2020, 04:33:43 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 06, 2020, 05:32:43 PM

To get back to drugs; part of the reason for making posession illegal is that it makes it easy to arrest dealers without having to catch them actually selling; if they have the drugs, they're guilty. If posession is legal, then my example of the person claiming the garage full is their personal stash is the kind of thing that becomes untouchable.

Is drug dealing something that should be illegal? If so, how can it be stopped if posession is perfectly OK?

Regarding dealers, most of this would naturally disappear with legalization and what doesn't would still be a crime.  With legalization, there would be a limit on how much you can have on you, which is less than a dealer would have.  If you have more than the limit, especially in small pre-packaged amounts, it is pretty clear.    So, if you have a garage full, you have exceeded the personal amount and could be charged.  Admittedly, this is not the case with Cannabis in Canada as we are allowed to grow out own and have as much as we want, but there is a limit on how much we can carry.

Easy-peasy. The drugs are delivered to my garage by the manufacturer. Clients have to come to my garage to pick up their purchases. I never "carry" any.

But then why wouldn't they just order it from the distributor themselves instead of buying it from you for more?  Also, in the case of Cannabis (which serves as a model), you can only order what is legal to ship/carry, so if you wanted to start dealing you would need to order many small packages, which would be flagged.   

This just dosn't make sense... 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: FishProf on December 07, 2020, 08:44:15 AM
Quote from: apl68 on December 07, 2020, 07:53:13 AM
In our neighborhood there is a conspicuously red-and-blue yard sign that says "Jesus 2020." 

You don't VOTE for (King of) Kings!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 08:46:31 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 07, 2020, 08:36:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 05:43:09 AM
Easy-peasy. The drugs are delivered to my garage by the manufacturer. Clients have to come to my garage to pick up their purchases. I never "carry" any.

But then why wouldn't they just order it from the distributor themselves instead of buying it from you for more?  Also, in the case of Cannabis (which serves as a model), you can only order what is legal to ship/carry, so if you wanted to start dealing you would need to order many small packages, which would be flagged.   

This just dosn't make sense...

So what kind of restrictions would there be on becoming a heroin (fentanyl, crack, etc.) distributor?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 08:48:24 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 08:33:56 AM

A nuanced position that doesn't achieve anything significant is not worth very much. Case in point:  How about $20 000 in student debt relief for Pell Grant recipients who start a business in a disadvantaged community and operate that business for at least three years? That's nuanced and moderate! And a recipe for forgiving approximately three people's loans--in other words, for doing nothing.

What kind of business, after operating for three years, wouldn't have provided enough income for the owner to pay off $20 000 in debt?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 08:56:59 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 08:48:24 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 08:33:56 AM

A nuanced position that doesn't achieve anything significant is not worth very much. Case in point:  How about $20 000 in student debt relief for Pell Grant recipients who start a business in a disadvantaged community and operate that business for at least three years? That's nuanced and moderate! And a recipe for forgiving approximately three people's loans--in other words, for doing nothing.

What kind of business, after operating for three years, wouldn't have provided enough income for the owner to pay off $20 000 in debt?

A restaurant? Anything with razor-thin profit margins? I dunno. My business imagination is stunted.

But you're only illustrating the point: it's a nuanced policy designed by and for moderates, and it achieves nothing. It was rightly criticized. Simply "being moderate" doesn't ensure your ideas are any good, or inure you from criticism (and nor should it).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: waterboy on December 07, 2020, 09:13:11 AM
Some of us are repulsed by the extremes on either side. I guess that makes me a useless moderate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 09:21:31 AM
Quote from: waterboy on December 07, 2020, 09:13:11 AM
Some of us are repulsed by the extremes on either side. I guess that makes me a useless moderate.

I suppose it depends on what repulses you and how useless your touted policies are.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 07, 2020, 09:56:53 AM
Quote from: waterboy on December 07, 2020, 09:13:11 AM
Some of us are repulsed by the extremes on either side. I guess that makes me a useless moderate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTbViyH3vp0
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 08:56:59 AM

But you're only illustrating the point: it's a nuanced policy designed by and for moderates, and it achieves nothing. It was rightly criticized. Simply "being moderate" doesn't ensure your ideas are any good, or inure you from criticism (and nor should it).

OK, now I get it. Communism or Fascism are the only options that achieve anything. That simplifies matters.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 10:43:05 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 08:56:59 AM

But you're only illustrating the point: it's a nuanced policy designed by and for moderates, and it achieves nothing. It was rightly criticized. Simply "being moderate" doesn't ensure your ideas are any good, or inure you from criticism (and nor should it).

OK, now I get it. Communism or Fascism are the only options that achieve anything. That simplifies matters.

False dichotomies simplify matters a lot more.

You yourself acknowledged it was worthless as a policy. So what's your point?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 07, 2020, 11:02:56 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 08:46:31 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 07, 2020, 08:36:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 05:43:09 AM
Easy-peasy. The drugs are delivered to my garage by the manufacturer. Clients have to come to my garage to pick up their purchases. I never "carry" any.

But then why wouldn't they just order it from the distributor themselves instead of buying it from you for more?  Also, in the case of Cannabis (which serves as a model), you can only order what is legal to ship/carry, so if you wanted to start dealing you would need to order many small packages, which would be flagged.   

This just dosn't make sense...

So what kind of restrictions would there be on becoming a heroin (fentanyl, crack, etc.) distributor?

The process would likely be modeled after the pharmaceutical industry, who already produce and distribute morphine, codeine, oxyconton, and any number of other drug and have extensive QA and security requirements.  We already do this...
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 07, 2020, 11:03:45 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 08:48:24 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 08:33:56 AM

A nuanced position that doesn't achieve anything significant is not worth very much. Case in point:  How about $20 000 in student debt relief for Pell Grant recipients who start a business in a disadvantaged community and operate that business for at least three years? That's nuanced and moderate! And a recipe for forgiving approximately three people's loans--in other words, for doing nothing.

What kind of business, after operating for three years, wouldn't have provided enough income for the owner to pay off $20 000 in debt?

Most businesses are not profitable for the first 2-3 years, so probably a lot of them.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 11:16:06 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 10:43:05 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 08:56:59 AM

But you're only illustrating the point: it's a nuanced policy designed by and for moderates, and it achieves nothing. It was rightly criticized. Simply "being moderate" doesn't ensure your ideas are any good, or inure you from criticism (and nor should it).

OK, now I get it. Communism or Fascism are the only options that achieve anything. That simplifies matters.

False dichotomies simplify matters a lot more.

You yourself acknowledged it was worthless as a policy. So what's your point?

You were the one who seemed to suggest that "moderate" was somehow synonymous with useless, so presumably only more "extreme" measures are the only ones that are effective. My point was that the farther measures go toward one extreme or the toher, the worse they get. A moderate position is one which ackowledges that both extremes overemphasize something and underemphasize something else.

So in the example of student debt, simply forgiving all student debt would be finacially ruinous, while at the same time being unfair to all of the people who worked part-time, etc. to avoid taking on student debt. On the other hand, education costs rising above the inflation rate is unsustainable. There is a real probelm, but something like "make all education free!" ignores all kinds of realities that need to be taken into account, as does making education all funded by tuition.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on December 07, 2020, 11:47:38 AM
QuoteOn the other hand, education costs rising above the inflation rate is unsustainable. There is a real probelm, but something like "make all education free!" ignores all kinds of realities that need to be taken into account, as does making education all funded by tuition.

Is it really?  I am not sure that the costs are rising above inflation, but I could be wrong.  The majority of the costs of higher education flow to faculty. I have certainly not been getting raises above inflation, and I doubt that many of my coworkers are either. 

I will agree that the fee paid by STUDENTS HAS increased.  BUT that is because states, mine in particular, have changed their view of the benefits of education, and decided that IF the benefits flow directly to the student, then the tuition should flow from them (and less so from the state).

AS student loans have been more available, states have reduced their funding of higher education, thus the percentage of the 'cost' of education has been shifted to the students. 

However, I wonder IF the cost has truly increased above inflation?

(On the other hand, I can certainly see that while faculty salaries are not moving much, that some administration salaries just might be!!)

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 12:15:24 PM
Quote from: clean on December 07, 2020, 11:47:38 AM
QuoteOn the other hand, education costs rising above the inflation rate is unsustainable. There is a real probelm, but something like "make all education free!" ignores all kinds of realities that need to be taken into account, as does making education all funded by tuition.

Is it really?  I am not sure that the costs are rising above inflation, but I could be wrong.  The majority of the costs of higher education flow to faculty. I have certainly not been getting raises above inflation, and I doubt that many of my coworkers are either. 

I will agree that the fee paid by STUDENTS HAS increased.  BUT that is because states, mine in particular, have changed their view of the benefits of education, and decided that IF the benefits flow directly to the student, then the tuition should flow from them (and less so from the state).

AS student loans have been more available, states have reduced their funding of higher education, thus the percentage of the 'cost' of education has been shifted to the students. 

However, I wonder IF the cost has truly increased above inflation?

(On the other hand, I can certainly see that while faculty salaries are not moving much, that some administration salaries just might be!!)

This all still supports my point. Simply making education "free" covers up the fact that much of the cost is not due to actual education per se, but due to all kinds of trappings that have been added. On the other hand, society and the economy have real needs for people with certain kinds of skills. So there could be value to more heavily subsidizing the cost of education in those specific areas.

TL;DR "All education should be free!" and "Students pay all the costs since they get all the benefits" are both extreme positions, and neither is in the best interests of society.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 12:21:24 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 11:16:06 AM
You were the one who seemed to suggest that "moderate" was somehow synonymous with useless, so presumably only more "extreme" measures are the only ones that are effective. My point was that the farther measures go toward one extreme or the toher, the worse they get. A moderate position is one which ackowledges that both extremes overemphasize something and underemphasize something else.

I'm happy to support 'moderate' policies when they make significant progress towards the goals I deem desirable. Unfortunately, my experience of 'moderates'--especially of the American variety!--is that they fetishize means-testing and drop-in-the-bucket 'solutions' to the exclusion of actually achieving significant improvements. This is true of Kamala Harris's student debt plan, which I described above. It's true of Biden's floated debt relief plan, as well. It's true of Buttigieg's absolutely unworkable healthcare 'plan'; and it's true of the Biden team's climate plans so far.

Those all satisfy your criterion of nuance and wonkiness. But they're also a waste of everyone's time and energy.

The middle way is not always the best (or even good) way. And when you trip over yourself to be in the middle, it's very easy to lose sight of the fact that the 'middle' has been dragged further and further and further right over time, to the point where it doesn't actually reflect the desires and priorities of the actual 'middle' of the country. What the 'left wing' of the Democratic party is advocating for is not actually all that far left by most standards, and most of their agenda enjoys broad support in the population (as evidenced by the many progressive ballot measures just passed, even in states that voted Republican).


QuoteSo in the example of student debt, simply forgiving all student debt would be finacially ruinous,

It wouldn't be, though. What's financially ruinous is the way student debt is structured in the US--and it's ruinous for borrowers, not for the state (which, incidentally, often never recoups the full cost of the loan anyway).

As for the supposed 'unfairness'... it's really not. And even if it were, it's not a good argument against relieving current suffering.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 12:21:24 PM


QuoteSo in the example of student debt, simply forgiving all student debt would be finacially ruinous,

It wouldn't be, though. What's financially ruinous is the way student debt is structured in the US--and it's ruinous for borrowers, not for the state (which, incidentally, often never recoups the full cost of the loan anyway).

As for the supposed 'unfairness'... it's really not. And even if it were, it's not a good argument against relieving current suffering.

So I suppose you were in favour of bailouts for banks during the financial crisis as well; they certainly suffered due to their decisions which they assumed would eventually pay off.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 01:15:31 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 12:51:28 PM

So I suppose you were in favour of bailouts for banks during the financial crisis as well; they certainly suffered due to their decisions which they assumed would eventually pay off.

Banks can't suffer. They're inanimate entities.


As for the bailouts... I wasn't (and am not) against them in principle. What I was (and am) against is bailing out investment banks and doing nothing for ordinary people. Edit: similarly, I'm not against our own government currently offering pandemic rental relief for businesses. But I think it's terrible that they haven't offered pandemic rental relief for people, too.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 01:48:00 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 01:15:31 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 12:51:28 PM

So I suppose you were in favour of bailouts for banks during the financial crisis as well; they certainly suffered due to their decisions which they assumed would eventually pay off.

Banks can't suffer. They're inanimate entities.


As for the bailouts... I wasn't (and am not) against them in principle. What I was (and am) against is bailing out investment banks and doing nothing for ordinary people. Edit: similarly, I'm not against our own government currently offering pandemic rental relief for businesses. But I think it's terrible that they haven't offered pandemic rental relief for people, too.

Fair enough; however my concern is that bailouts for bad decisions encourage more bad decisions. The bad loans that led to the crisis made no long-term financial sense. Neither do decisions by students to go into 10's (or more) thousands in debt to get degrees which don't have particularly well-established employment prospects. (Especially if they think that paying a premium to get a Navelgazing degree from  Pomposity University is smart since just the name of the institution gives them a golden ticket.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 07, 2020, 04:09:46 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 01:48:00 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 07, 2020, 01:15:31 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 12:51:28 PM

So I suppose you were in favour of bailouts for banks during the financial crisis as well; they certainly suffered due to their decisions which they assumed would eventually pay off.

Banks can't suffer. They're inanimate entities.


As for the bailouts... I wasn't (and am not) against them in principle. What I was (and am) against is bailing out investment banks and doing nothing for ordinary people. Edit: similarly, I'm not against our own government currently offering pandemic rental relief for businesses. But I think it's terrible that they haven't offered pandemic rental relief for people, too.

Fair enough; however my concern is that bailouts for bad decisions encourage more bad decisions. The bad loans that led to the crisis made no long-term financial sense. Neither do decisions by students to go into 10's (or more) thousands in debt to get degrees which don't have particularly well-established employment prospects. (Especially if they think that paying a premium to get a Navelgazing degree from  Pomposity University is smart since just the name of the institution gives them a golden ticket.)

From what I have read, humanities majors' long term earnings are comparable to professional fields, so I don't know how you deem a discipline worthless.  Of course their earnings may not be a result of the degree per se, but hardly seems like a death sentence or that it is any worse than many 'good' degrees.  If you are talking about graduate school, I tend to agree more.

I don't know if I buy into completely free university, but it should be affordable and lack of money should not prevent people from accessing it. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 08, 2020, 05:37:54 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 07, 2020, 04:09:46 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 01:48:00 PM
Fair enough; however my concern is that bailouts for bad decisions encourage more bad decisions. The bad loans that led to the crisis made no long-term financial sense. Neither do decisions by students to go into 10's (or more) thousands in debt to get degrees which don't have particularly well-established employment prospects. (Especially if they think that paying a premium to get a Navelgazing degree from  Pomposity University is smart since just the name of the institution gives them a golden ticket.)

From what I have read, humanities majors' long term earnings are comparable to professional fields, so I don't know how you deem a discipline worthless.  Of course their earnings may not be a result of the degree per se, but hardly seems like a death sentence or that it is any worse than many 'good' degrees.  If you are talking about graduate school, I tend to agree more.

There are lots of disciplines that I wouldn't deem "worthless", but whose graduates complain about their emplyment prospects. In fact, these kinds of discussions would never happen if all graduates were happy with their employment. The issue isn't primarily money; if graduates were happy working for non-profits in fulfilling roles it wouldn't matter much that soem others working for big corporations were better off financially.

Quote
I don't know if I buy into completely free university, but it should be affordable and lack of money should not prevent people from accessing it.

The question  is how much money should be poured anto making education "affordable" for people who wind up disillusioned at the end of it because it hasn't materially improved their lives? (And in certain disciplines, even encouraged placing blame on others for any of their own disappointments.)

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on December 08, 2020, 08:39:39 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 08, 2020, 05:37:54 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 07, 2020, 04:09:46 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2020, 01:48:00 PM
Fair enough; however my concern is that bailouts for bad decisions encourage more bad decisions. The bad loans that led to the crisis made no long-term financial sense. Neither do decisions by students to go into 10's (or more) thousands in debt to get degrees which don't have particularly well-established employment prospects. (Especially if they think that paying a premium to get a Navelgazing degree from  Pomposity University is smart since just the name of the institution gives them a golden ticket.)

From what I have read, humanities majors' long term earnings are comparable to professional fields, so I don't know how you deem a discipline worthless.  Of course their earnings may not be a result of the degree per se, but hardly seems like a death sentence or that it is any worse than many 'good' degrees.  If you are talking about graduate school, I tend to agree more.

There are lots of disciplines that I wouldn't deem "worthless", but whose graduates complain about their emplyment prospects. In fact, these kinds of discussions would never happen if all graduates were happy with their employment. The issue isn't primarily money; if graduates were happy working for non-profits in fulfilling roles it wouldn't matter much that soem others working for big corporations were better off financially.

Quote
I don't know if I buy into completely free university, but it should be affordable and lack of money should not prevent people from accessing it.

The question  is how much money should be poured anto making education "affordable" for people who wind up disillusioned at the end of it because it hasn't materially improved their lives? (And in certain disciplines, even encouraged placing blame on others for any of their own disappointments.)

Yes, but I think people would be much less disillusioned if they were not strapped with huge debt.  It definitely is a question of priorities as a society.  I personally used to be quite conservative (libertarian would be the better description, have always been socially liberal), and voted as such.  My tune really changed when I moved to the deep south in the US and saw how many of these policies play out.  So, I get why people dont support a lot of social programs and once agreed, but I now feel these things are for the greater societal good.     

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 08, 2020, 09:07:55 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on December 08, 2020, 08:39:39 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 08, 2020, 05:37:54 AM

The question  is how much money should be poured anto making education "affordable" for people who wind up disillusioned at the end of it because it hasn't materially improved their lives? (And in certain disciplines, even encouraged placing blame on others for any of their own disappointments.)

Yes, but I think people would be much less disillusioned if they were not strapped with huge debt.


If their disillusionment were that, despite having employment they find meangful, their debt is hard to manage, then I'd agree with you. But if they can't find meaningful employment, even with no debt, something is still wrong.


Being unsatisfied with something that cost more of someone else's money and less of their own is hardly a great leap forward.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on December 08, 2020, 11:13:21 AM
Is the only concern here "what someone wants to do" with their education? If I'm putting my money into the mix, perhaps to the extent that this education is free, are my wants and needs at 0%? Is it crazy for me to say that when we are importing nurses from Africa and Engineers from India while every barista at Starbucks has a Sociology or English lit degree, perhaps the monetary incentives of education in those fields should not be the same.

In short, you can study whatever you want, but if society is putting their money on the line, society should get some say about the desired outcomes. If society values waiting less time in an ER after being shot than they do having a service worker whose subpar attitude is coupled with a knowledge of Foucault, that seems like a reasonable decision that someone footing the bill should have an input on. What I find from almost every Joe Public is that they value education in fields they consider to be "real" and discount fields they consider to be of little value to society.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 08, 2020, 12:38:08 PM
Quote from: financeguy on December 08, 2020, 11:13:21 AM
Is the only concern here "what someone wants to do" with their education? If I'm putting my money into the mix, perhaps to the extent that this education is free, are my wants and needs at 0%? Is it crazy for me to say that when we are importing nurses from Africa and Engineers from India while every barista at Starbucks has a Sociology or English lit degree, perhaps the monetary incentives of education in those fields should not be the same.

In short, you can study whatever you want, but if society is putting their money on the line, society should get some say about the desired outcomes. If society values waiting less time in an ER after being shot than they do having a service worker whose subpar attitude is coupled with a knowledge of Foucault, that seems like a reasonable decision that someone footing the bill should have an input on. What I find from almost every Joe Public is that they value education in fields they consider to be "real" and discount fields they consider to be of little value to society.

My understanding, (but I stand to be corrected), is that the system in Germany works somewhat like this. Education is free, but the number of spaces in a discipline is based on the number needed to fit the economy. So if you get into a program, you're pretty likely to be employed in that field soon after graduation.

Seems like a smart system to me.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 08, 2020, 02:25:11 PM
Quote from: financeguy on December 08, 2020, 11:13:21 AM
Is the only concern here "what someone wants to do" with their education? If I'm putting my money into the mix, perhaps to the extent that this education is free, are my wants and needs at 0%? Is it crazy for me to say that when we are importing nurses from Africa and Engineers from India while every barista at Starbucks has a Sociology or English lit degree, perhaps the monetary incentives of education in those fields should not be the same.

In short, you can study whatever you want, but if society is putting their money on the line, society should get some say about the desired outcomes. If society values waiting less time in an ER after being shot than they do having a service worker whose subpar attitude is coupled with a knowledge of Foucault, that seems like a reasonable decision that someone footing the bill should have an input on. What I find from almost every Joe Public is that they value education in fields they consider to be "real" and discount fields they consider to be of little value to society.

If everybody were educated enough to appreciate art, we wouldn't need a National Endowment for the Arts. Money saved.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on December 08, 2020, 08:59:11 PM
No need to even go down that path. We don't need one now.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on December 10, 2020, 07:51:22 AM
There is an interesting, to me at least, late finishing Senatorial contest in a state in which I might vote. The policy aspects and positions do receive an ample amount of attention as to the vague and assumed candidate stands on the issues[?]. However, before I complete my hypothesizing as to whom I would vote for, I would like the Democrat to model himself in an Elvis wig and the Republican contender to appear with a "Mullet" cut.To be practical, an artist's rendering of the Republican's "do" would surfice.

Why, you ask.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on December 10, 2020, 08:02:55 AM
Quote from: financeguy on December 08, 2020, 08:59:11 PM
No need to even go down that path. We don't need one now.

Do you mean we would leave the evolution of public taste to the free market? That sounds disastrous. That's how we ended up with Paul Whiteman, George Gershwin, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Bing Crosby and those other no talents.

Quote from: mahagonny on December 08, 2020, 02:25:11 PM
Quote from: financeguy on December 08, 2020, 11:13:21 AM
Is the only concern here "what someone wants to do" with their education? If I'm putting my money into the mix, perhaps to the extent that this education is free, are my wants and needs at 0%? Is it crazy for me to say that when we are importing nurses from Africa and Engineers from India while every barista at Starbucks has a Sociology or English lit degree, perhaps the monetary incentives of education in those fields should not be the same.

In short, you can study whatever you want, but if society is putting their money on the line, society should get some say about the desired outcomes. If society values waiting less time in an ER after being shot than they do having a service worker whose subpar attitude is coupled with a knowledge of Foucault, that seems like a reasonable decision that someone footing the bill should have an input on. What I find from almost every Joe Public is that they value education in fields they consider to be "real" and discount fields they consider to be of little value to society.

If everybody were educated enough to appreciate art, we wouldn't need a National Endowment for the Arts. Money saved.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Economizer on December 10, 2020, 08:46:10 AM
Speaking of Joe Public and insurance, the issue should be the cost of healthcare to the individual, no matter who, goverment [?] insurance firm [?] employer [?] magnanimous benefactor [?] WHOEVER [?], pays for the service. As I understand it, each organization making payments negotiates billing or billed rates while uninsured individuals probably pay higher rates for services. My suggestion would be for uninsured patients to be billed for no higher amounts than the lowest negotiated prices with healthcare coverage providers. Individuals and government could then work on finance assists. Should be easy enough to do, huh?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 10, 2020, 09:07:24 AM
Quote from: Economizer on December 10, 2020, 08:46:10 AM
Speaking of Joe Public and insurance, the issue should be the cost of healthcare to the individual, no matter who, goverment [?] insurance firm [?] employer [?] magnanimous benefactor [?] WHOEVER [?], pays for the service. As I understand it, each organization making payments negotiates billing or billed rates while uninsured individuals probably pay higher rates for services. My suggestion would be for uninsured patients to be billed for no higher amounts than the lowest negotiated prices with healthcare coverage providers. Individuals and government could then work on finance assists. Should be easy enough to do, huh?

Easier not to bill individuals at all!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on December 10, 2020, 10:30:53 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 08, 2020, 12:38:08 PM
Quote from: financeguy on December 08, 2020, 11:13:21 AM
Is the only concern here "what someone wants to do" with their education? If I'm putting my money into the mix, perhaps to the extent that this education is free, are my wants and needs at 0%? Is it crazy for me to say that when we are importing nurses from Africa and Engineers from India while every barista at Starbucks has a Sociology or English lit degree, perhaps the monetary incentives of education in those fields should not be the same.

In short, you can study whatever you want, but if society is putting their money on the line, society should get some say about the desired outcomes. If society values waiting less time in an ER after being shot than they do having a service worker whose subpar attitude is coupled with a knowledge of Foucault, that seems like a reasonable decision that someone footing the bill should have an input on. What I find from almost every Joe Public is that they value education in fields they consider to be "real" and discount fields they consider to be of little value to society.

My understanding, (but I stand to be corrected), is that the system in Germany works somewhat like this. Education is free, but the number of spaces in a discipline is based on the number needed to fit the economy. So if you get into a program, you're pretty likely to be employed in that field soon after graduation.

Seems like a smart system to me.

Maybe... but then doesn't it become stifling and self-fulfilling?

For example, the economy needs data-entry clerks, so it trains lots of keypunch operators. Then, why computerize or train computer scientists? You have a huge infrastructure of keypunchers, people who train and certify keypunchers, and a bureaucracy and labor union in place to protect the jobs of keypunch operators.

Or stenographers with wonderful shorthand. Who needs typewriters? Or with all the scribes, who needs a printing press? We have flat rocks and clay, why start making paper?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 10, 2020, 01:24:50 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 10, 2020, 10:30:53 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 08, 2020, 12:38:08 PM
My understanding, (but I stand to be corrected), is that the system in Germany works somewhat like this. Education is free, but the number of spaces in a discipline is based on the number needed to fit the economy. So if you get into a program, you're pretty likely to be employed in that field soon after graduation.

Seems like a smart system to me.

Maybe... but then doesn't it become stifling and self-fulfilling?

For example, the economy needs data-entry clerks, so it trains lots of keypunch operators. Then, why computerize or train computer scientists? You have a huge infrastructure of keypunchers, people who train and certify keypunchers, and a bureaucracy and labor union in place to protect the jobs of keypunch operators.

If all industries were state-owned, that may work. However, automation is still much cheaper than labour with ongoing costs. For a private company, automation will still be cheaper in the long run.

Also, presumably whoever is allocating spaces for programs is going to be looking at trends for employment, so the number of spaces will be anticipating the need a few years later. It wouldn't be entirely static. Once a profession starts to decline, the spaces will decline faster.

Quote

Or stenographers with wonderful shorthand. Who needs typewriters? Or with all the scribes, who needs a printing press? We have flat rocks and clay, why start making paper?

One printing press will replace dozens (hundreds?) of scribes; as I said, unless the business is state-owned, and so "full employment" is constitutionally required, the printing press wins in a heartbeat.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on December 14, 2020, 08:11:19 AM
Today's the day.

Praying/thinking all good thoughts for the Electoral College and its members, now and up until Jan 6th.

   https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/14/politics/electoral-college-donald-trump-joe-biden/index.html

If we get through this, the careful, patient, courageous journalists who have picked through this administration's offal and exposed its undigested lies to the sunlight deserve all the credit.

There are 126 Republicans that I wonder about, too. They probably think they are doing a good thing as they look at themselves in the mirror each morning.

What will it take for them to learn?

This is very much an issue of higher education....or education and learning in the upper branches of the social and civic hierarchy.

At least from my perspective, it is.

Who taught them logic? They have something to answer for....

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 14, 2020, 08:28:09 AM
Quote from: mamselle on December 14, 2020, 08:11:19 AM
Today's the day.


There are 126 Republicans that I wonder about, too. They probably think they are doing a good thing as they look at themselves in the mirror each morning.

What will it take for them to learn?



Do you seriously think it would be better if members of the electoral college just did whatever they felt like, rather than doing what they were appointed to do?

If that's not a recipe for civil war, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on December 14, 2020, 09:43:16 AM
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

That's nothing like what I said.

I'm hoping the EC does follow the will of the voting public, as supported over the past month by all the state and national judicial decisions against the doofuses seeking to change that.

Do you concatenate the most unlikely possible interpretation of something to pick a fight over, and then sit back to watch/join in the fray?

If you hadn't directly misrepresented my own words, I'd have ignored it and gone on, but just in case there was the tiniest possible chance I wasn't clear, I thought I'd better address it now.

Sorry, you're busted.

All the pessimism, and no obvious evidence of Puddleglum's redeeming qualities...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 14, 2020, 10:06:47 AM
Quote from: mamselle on December 14, 2020, 09:43:16 AM
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

That's nothing like what I said.

I'm hoping the EC does follow the will of the voting public, as supported over the past month by all the state and national judicial decisions against the doofuses seeking to change that.

Do you concatenate the most unlikely possible interpretation of something to pick a fight over, and then sit back to watch/join in the fray?



My mistake. I assumed the 126 Republicans referred to members of the electoral college.


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on December 14, 2020, 10:24:18 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 14, 2020, 10:06:47 AM
Quote from: mamselle on December 14, 2020, 09:43:16 AM
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

That's nothing like what I said.

I'm hoping the EC does follow the will of the voting public, as supported over the past month by all the state and national judicial decisions against the doofuses seeking to change that.

Do you concatenate the most unlikely possible interpretation of something to pick a fight over, and then sit back to watch/join in the fray?


My mistake. I assumed the 126 Republicans referred to members of the electoral college.


No, it's the list of House Republicans, including my own representative, who signed on to the Texas case. Mine posted on Facebook, "Democrats believe that voter suppression happens but voter fraud doesn't!" To which someone responded, essentially, yes--because there's proof of one and not the other.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on December 14, 2020, 12:05:25 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 14, 2020, 10:06:47 AM
Quote from: mamselle on December 14, 2020, 09:43:16 AM
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

That's nothing like what I said.

I'm hoping the EC does follow the will of the voting public, as supported over the past month by all the state and national judicial decisions against the doofuses seeking to change that.

Do you concatenate the most unlikely possible interpretation of something to pick a fight over, and then sit back to watch/join in the fray?



My mistake. I assumed the 126 Republicans referred to members of the electoral college.

OK. Forgiven.

Maybe you do know Puddleglum, after all...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on December 14, 2020, 04:16:31 PM
One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.

They are sending up the votes of an "alternative" slate of Republican electors. This is already happening.

Based on the ridiculous shenanigans so far, I predict that the Republicans will try to appoint the senate as a sort of "Supremer Court" that will hear the Trump campaign's case, judge it, and offer relief in the form of invalidating the votes of the electoral college and installing Trump, with this "alternative" slate of electors.

However, this will fail because ultimately, both the house and senate have to "object" and "accept" the objection. That's not going to happen with a House of Reps. controlled by the Dems (although this raises an interesting option for future sore losers of a presidential race, if the candidate's party controls both chambers).

If they don't get what they want, I would predict that Pence would refuse to recognize and would not announce and would not declare Biden as the winner. Republicans would seize on that as an opportunity to declare an impasse and an excuse to overturn and replace the election results. Where it would go from there is beyond shenanigans, but I'm sure the Republican fantasy would involve armed "patriots." It usually does.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on December 14, 2020, 04:21:54 PM
Quote from: lightning on December 14, 2020, 04:16:31 PM
One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.

They are sending up the votes of an "alternative" slate of Republican electors. This is already happening.

Based on the ridiculous shenanigans so far, I predict that the Republicans will try to appoint the senate as a sort of "Supremer Court" that will hear the Trump campaign's case, judge it, and offer relief in the form of invalidating the votes of the electoral college and installing Trump, with this "alternative" slate of electors.

However, this will fail because ultimately, both the house and senate have to "object" and "accept" the objection. That's not going to happen with a House of Reps. controlled by the Dems (although this raises an interesting option for future sore losers of a presidential race, if the candidate's party controls both chambers).

If they don't get what they want, I would predict that Pence would refuse to recognize and would not announce and would not declare Biden as the winner. Republicans would seize on that as an opportunity to declare an impasse and an excuse to overturn and replace the election results. Where it would go from there is beyond shenanigans, but I'm sure the Republican fantasy would involve armed "patriots." It usually does.

I so long to celebrate the end of this election saga in a positive, hopeful way.

I very much hope we get to do so.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 15, 2020, 05:46:49 AM
Quote from: lightning on December 14, 2020, 04:16:31 PM
One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.


The thing that has to be acknowledged is the twisted symbiosis with the media. (And I'm not just talking Fox news.) After the inauguration, there will no doubt still be a fringe that won't accept the result. As there always has been a fringe that doesn't trust any government. However, they will still get media coverage, because the more fringy they are the more eyeballs they will get. And that's what drives the media.

If the media would focus more on what is important, even when it isn't flashy or controversial, rather than on what is  shocking, the world would be a better place. (Sometimes what is important is shocking, but that's the exception rather than the rule.)

The media should not be long-format Twitter.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ergative on December 15, 2020, 05:59:09 AM
Quote from: lightning on December 14, 2020, 04:16:31 PM

If they don't get what they want, I would predict that Pence would refuse to recognize and would not announce and would not declare Biden as the winner. Republicans would seize on that as an opportunity to declare an impasse and an excuse to overturn and replace the election results. Where it would go from there is beyond shenanigans, but I'm sure the Republican fantasy would involve armed "patriots." It usually does.

The media circles I read say that in the event of such an impasse we get President-by-default Pelosi. But that is so unprecedented that it would be pretty ugly no matter what the official constitutional line of succession says anyway.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on December 15, 2020, 08:49:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2020, 05:46:49 AM
Quote from: lightning on December 14, 2020, 04:16:31 PM
One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.


The thing that has to be acknowledged is the twisted symbiosis with the media. (And I'm not just talking Fox news.) After the inauguration, there will no doubt still be a fringe that won't accept the result. As there always has been a fringe that doesn't trust any government. However, they will still get media coverage, because the more fringy they are the more eyeballs they will get. And that's what drives the media.

If the media would focus more on what is important, even when it isn't flashy or controversial, rather than on what is  shocking, the world would be a better place. (Sometimes what is important is shocking, but that's the exception rather than the rule.)

The media should not be long-format Twitter.

Agreed. Trump played the media with antics (he is a reality TV celebrity, after all), and that's why he got (gets) so much free publicity. Biden, Clinton, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, and Bush, are too boring for eyeballs, clicks, and ratings, other than as targets of derision for Trump. In other words, in terms of publicity & coverage, "the media" is beneficial to Trump and his party.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Cheerful on December 15, 2020, 09:38:46 AM
Quote from: lightning on December 15, 2020, 08:49:34 AM
The media should not be long-format Twitter.

Yep.  What the U.S. needs desperately is journalism.  The Wikipedia definition is somewhat good but incomplete: "Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence. The word journalism applies to the occupation, as well as citizen journalists who gather and publish information based on facts and supported with proof or evidence."  What's missing here is "absent the opinion of the writer" or some such.  "Straight news" articles these days are often embedded with opinions of reporters/news orgs.

I don't consider CNN, FoxNews, or MSNBC news orgs.  They are mostly opinion orgs.

Any journalism profs on this board?  Any hope?  NewsNation, Newsy, and Shep Smith on CNBC seem like cause for some optimism.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on December 15, 2020, 10:00:57 AM
Ummm.....those articles where the writer goes to eye-scratchingly painful lengths to research and point out dissimulations, misinformation, and outright lies have been useful to me...and many I've seen were from CNN.

Given deadlines, level of detail, and the amount of smelly stuff to be dug through and discarded, they may well be imperfect, but in comparison with Germany in the 1930s, I've thought they were doing rather well.

A chacun son gout...

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on December 15, 2020, 03:32:09 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2020, 05:46:49 AM
Quote from: lightning on December 14, 2020, 04:16:31 PM
One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.


The thing that has to be acknowledged is the twisted symbiosis with the media. (And I'm not just talking Fox news.) After the inauguration, there will no doubt still be a fringe that won't accept the result. As there always has been a fringe that doesn't trust any government. However, they will still get media coverage, because the more fringy they are the more eyeballs they will get. And that's what drives the media.

If the media would focus more on what is important, even when it isn't flashy or controversial, rather than on what is  shocking, the world would be a better place. (Sometimes what is important is shocking, but that's the exception rather than the rule.)

The media should not be long-format Twitter.

I take back part of what I said. In my and our focus on "the media," I fell for your deflection and overlooked one thing that should be overtly acknowledged, regardless of how/why "the media" covers it, and that's the fringe that you mention. Yes, "the media" loves the fringe because it's good for "the media" bottom line. What I failed to re-articulate over your hackneyed deflection to "the media" conversation is that 126 Republicans in the House of Representatives and 17+ state attorney generals consciously and unconscionably went along with the fringe.  These are not the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies that the media likes to spotlight for the views. These are mostly elected officials, presumably with some modicum of education, wisdom, and moral standing, and who hold real power. That's the scary part--they hold real power. And, I'm glad "the media" has covered it, along with all the other shenanigans. Although at one time, they could define their standing differently from the so called fringe, the Republicans can no longer point to the fringe and cry about how the media spends too much attention on the fringe. No, the Republicans, in putting their 126 names on the list, are no different from the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies on the fringe. They own it. The Republicans are the fringe.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 15, 2020, 04:04:56 PM
Quote from: lightning on December 15, 2020, 03:32:09 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2020, 05:46:49 AM
Quote from: lightning on December 14, 2020, 04:16:31 PM
One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.


The thing that has to be acknowledged is the twisted symbiosis with the media. (And I'm not just talking Fox news.) After the inauguration, there will no doubt still be a fringe that won't accept the result. As there always has been a fringe that doesn't trust any government. However, they will still get media coverage, because the more fringy they are the more eyeballs they will get. And that's what drives the media.

If the media would focus more on what is important, even when it isn't flashy or controversial, rather than on what is  shocking, the world would be a better place. (Sometimes what is important is shocking, but that's the exception rather than the rule.)

The media should not be long-format Twitter.

I take back part of what I said. In my and our focus on "the media," I fell for your deflection and overlooked one thing that should be overtly acknowledged, regardless of how/why "the media" covers it, and that's the fringe that you mention. Yes, "the media" loves the fringe because it's good for "the media" bottom line. What I failed to re-articulate over your hackneyed deflection to "the media" conversation is that 126 Republicans in the House of Representatives and 17+ state attorney generals consciously and unconscionably went along with the fringe.  These are not the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies that the media likes to spotlight for the views. These are mostly elected officials, presumably with some modicum of education, wisdom, and moral standing, and who hold real power. That's the scary part--they hold real power. And, I'm glad "the media" has covered it, along with all the other shenanigans. Although at one time, they could define their standing differently from the so called fringe, the Republicans can no longer point to the fringe and cry about how the media spends too much attention on the fringe. No, the Republicans, in putting their 126 names on the list, are no different from the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies on the fringe. They own it. The Republicans are the fringe.

Was there ever any real chance they would somehow succeed? Unless there was a legitimate possibility that they would, then all that focusing on them does is give them even more attention. People will get their idea of the seriousness of a threat by how much coverage it gets, because they aren't legal scholars who can determine whether any of these challenges have any merit.

There are lots of important challenges the new administration will face after the inauguration, and there would be much more value in informing people about some of those issues than in showing the soap opera of denial. But informing is a lot more work than shocking, so it takes a back seat.

In what way is knowing about "the list" and who is on it going to have real effects on the lives of people watching? Getting outraged doesn't materially improve anyone's life; in fact, it will make them more anxious and stressed.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on December 15, 2020, 04:11:44 PM
The media are not at fault for anything. The media wish to make money. To make money, they appeal to us.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on December 15, 2020, 04:55:47 PM
With McConnell's public* and private** statements today, it seems that the Republican establishment is finally turning the page on Trump. 

* https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/15/politics/mitch-mcconnell-congratulates-joe-biden/index.html
** https://apnews.com/article/mitch-mcconnell-congratulates-joe-biden-2ed09a34fbbc3342fe45c733ee0dd725
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2020, 05:13:17 PM
Anyone else have the stomach to watch Biden's (leaked) Zoom call with civil rights leaders?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on December 16, 2020, 05:19:38 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 15, 2020, 04:11:44 PM
The media are not at fault for anything. The media wish to make money. To make money, they appeal to us.

I'd rather not have all "news" basically become tabloid-style. Just like other corporations, making a profit is not the same as making the highest profit margin by whatever means possible.

And the more people, from anywhere on the political spectrum, think the news is biased, the less they will tune in, which will make the business fail. News organizations that are trusted by the most people will have the best chance of survival. Getting trusted by the most people will require them to come across as unbiased either way.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on December 16, 2020, 11:08:02 AM
QuoteGetting trusted by the most people will require them to come across as unbiased either way.

Apparently not.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 03, 2021, 03:39:19 AM
Still at it:

   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-throws-grenades-high-stakes-georgia-senate-runoffs-final-stretch-n1252672

Syphillitic megalomania?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 03, 2021, 05:36:07 AM
Quote from: lightning on December 15, 2020, 03:32:09 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2020, 05:46:49 AM
Quote from: lightning on December 14, 2020, 04:16:31 PM
One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.


The thing that has to be acknowledged is the twisted symbiosis with the media. (And I'm not just talking Fox news.) After the inauguration, there will no doubt still be a fringe that won't accept the result. As there always has been a fringe that doesn't trust any government. However, they will still get media coverage, because the more fringy they are the more eyeballs they will get. And that's what drives the media.

If the media would focus more on what is important, even when it isn't flashy or controversial, rather than on what is  shocking, the world would be a better place. (Sometimes what is important is shocking, but that's the exception rather than the rule.)

The media should not be long-format Twitter.

I take back part of what I said. In my and our focus on "the media," I fell for your deflection and overlooked one thing that should be overtly acknowledged, regardless of how/why "the media" covers it, and that's the fringe that you mention. Yes, "the media" loves the fringe because it's good for "the media" bottom line. What I failed to re-articulate over your hackneyed deflection to "the media" conversation is that 126 Republicans in the House of Representatives and 17+ state attorney generals consciously and unconscionably went along with the fringe.  These are not the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies that the media likes to spotlight for the views. These are mostly elected officials, presumably with some modicum of education, wisdom, and moral standing, and who hold real power. That's the scary part--they hold real power. And, I'm glad "the media" has covered it, along with all the other shenanigans. Although at one time, they could define their standing differently from the so called fringe, the Republicans can no longer point to the fringe and cry about how the media spends too much attention on the fringe. No, the Republicans, in putting their 126 names on the list, are no different from the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies on the fringe. They own it. The Republicans are the fringe.

Eisenhower allowed McCarthy to run rampant to preserve a GOP majority in Congress, and he let Hoover feed McCarthy unsubstantiated accusations on Hoover's perceived enemies. Power corrupts. Rarely is this adequately investigated by journalists and communicated to a public that, for the most part, doesn't care.

I haven't seen the media, except for an occasional brief blurb in places like The Wall Street Journal, discuss Trump vetoing the NDAA because it contained changes to bank secrecy and anti-money laundering laws. Trump's ties to money laundering operations (https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/trump-taj-mahal/index.html) haven't been covered recently. Instead, the media simply parroted Trump's statement that he vetoed the bill because it didn't make social media companies liable for content -- an attempt at distraction. For the most part the media still just presents Trump as a clown. It's good for ratings. NPR hosts and reporters laugh during stories about Trump, and the stories are about Trump's destruction of democratic institutions of government. It's all fun and games until you're the person whose spouse is deported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/04/04/the-last-ditch-effort-to-save-a-trump-voters-husband-from-deportation/) or who dies of SARS-CoV-2 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/daughter-trump-supporter-who-died-covid-rips-president-s-pandemic-n1239777).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 08:41:05 AM
Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 03, 2021, 08:52:56 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 08:41:05 AM
Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

But whatabout the whatabouts of whatabout!

Let's be serious here, there is no evidence that a good number of Democrats believe that setting fire to police cruisers is ok - certainly not Democratic leadership. (If you have some evidence feel free to share it.) On the other hand, you literally have a large segment of GOP leadership trying to overthrow a free and fair election, a small segment calling for martial law, and much of the Republican electorate believing downright stupid conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on January 03, 2021, 10:19:11 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 08:41:05 AM
Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

No, Mahagonny. The democrats have not "become the fringe too." The democratic party won the presidency with a moderate democrat, with a centrist message that won the votes in the middle, and just enough of a tip of the hat to the so-called fringe democrats, to come out to vote against Trump (instead of staying on the sidelines like they did in 2016).

The Republican party (or should I say the Trump party), on the other hand, IS the fringe, and their army of armed "patriot" militias are showing up with their tools of violence and intimidation (Proud Boys, etc.), to support the Republican party's efforts to subvert the election results and keep the party of Trump in power.

Stop mitigating the atrocious behavior of Republicans by contextualizing the murder of African-Americans by police, as an equivalency to Republican attempts to undermine democracy. You're too smart to argue, by using weak equivalencies . . . . or maybe not.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 03, 2021, 11:09:37 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 03, 2021, 10:19:11 AM
The democratic party won the presidency with a moderate democrat, with a centrist message that won the votes in the middle, and just enough of a tip of the hat to the so-called fringe democrats, to come out to vote against Trump (instead of staying on the sidelines like they did in 2016).

It may make more sense to separate economic and social dimensions of politics here. The mainstream democrats tend to be economically conservative while being socially liberal (such as tech billionaires), whereas the "progressives" are both socially and economically liberal. Among the republicans there are social and economic conservatives, (particularly among evangelicals), but there are also economically conservative and socially liberal libertarians.*

Getting elected requires a party to get some combination of economic and social <whatever> voters, which includes a chunk that differ on the economic and social dimensions.


*There are also voters who are socially conservative and economically liberal, which I have mostly seen in middle-of-the-road religious groups, but they are, in my experience, less common than the other 3 quadrants. This is because they have to be both self-disciplined and self-sacrificing,  which is not popular.


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 03, 2021, 01:38:41 PM
Washington Post publishes audio and transcript of Trump's call to Georgia officials in which he tries to get them to subvert the election results:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html?).

Highlights (I'm leaving out chunks of the discussion):

"Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong."

"I won this election by hundreds of thousands of votes. There's no way I lost Georgia. There's no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes."

"Mr. President, the problem you have with social media, they — people can say anything."

"Oh this isn't social media. This is Trump media . . . So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break."

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 03:16:19 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 03, 2021, 08:52:56 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 08:41:05 AM
Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

But whatabout the whatabouts of whatabout!

Let's be serious here, there is no evidence that a good number of Democrats believe that setting fire to police cruisers is ok - certainly not Democratic leadership. (If you have some evidence feel free to share it.) On the other hand, you literally have a large segment of GOP leadership trying to overthrow a free and fair election, a small segment calling for martial law, and much of the Republican electorate believing downright stupid conspiracy theories.

I agree that what these Republicans are doing is shocking and dangerous.

Quote from: lightning on January 03, 2021, 10:19:11 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 08:41:05 AM
Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

Stop mitigating the atrocious behavior of Republicans by contextualizing the murder of African-Americans by police, as an equivalency to Republican attempts to undermine democracy. You're too smart to argue, by using weak equivalencies . . . . or maybe not.

There is no epidemic of police murdering African-Americans relative to any other racial or ethnic group, but the media either pretends or believes there is. One would think academics are too smart to be swept along in mass hysteria instead of the normal habit of looking at the facts...or maybe not.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on January 03, 2021, 03:47:53 PM
Well,  there really is no comfy political place in this country for folks like me, who identify as strongly socially conservative and economically liberal.   I make do the best I can, as a Democrat voting  independent.   But I still will firmly assert that the democrats ignore people with views like mine, which has largely allowed the GOP to grab up such folks (who, like it or not,  tend to be older, more religious,  and less well educated), and thereby snooker them into voting against their own  best interests,  while never seriously delivering on those phony baloney social issues promises.  I try to convince people in my own religious orbit of this myself,  but probably have less success in 2021 than I had 5 years ago,  as many of these folks have doubled down on their bad choices,  largely to mitigate against cognitive dissonance and reassure themselves that they've been acting correctly.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 03, 2021, 04:20:07 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 03:16:19 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 03, 2021, 08:52:56 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 08:41:05 AM
Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

But whatabout the whatabouts of whatabout!

Let's be serious here, there is no evidence that a good number of Democrats believe that setting fire to police cruisers is ok - certainly not Democratic leadership. (If you have some evidence feel free to share it.) On the other hand, you literally have a large segment of GOP leadership trying to overthrow a free and fair election, a small segment calling for martial law, and much of the Republican electorate believing downright stupid conspiracy theories.

I agree that what these Republicans are doing is shocking and dangerous.

Quote from: lightning on January 03, 2021, 10:19:11 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 08:41:05 AM
Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

Stop mitigating the atrocious behavior of Republicans by contextualizing the murder of African-Americans by police, as an equivalency to Republican attempts to undermine democracy. You're too smart to argue, by using weak equivalencies . . . . or maybe not.

There is no epidemic of police murdering African-Americans relative to any other racial or ethnic group, but the media either pretends or believes there is. One would think academics are too smart to be swept along in mass hysteria instead of the normal habit of looking at the facts...or maybe not.

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3660&context=faculty_scholarship

You are just wrong.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 03, 2021, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 03, 2021, 03:47:53 PM
Well,  there really is no comfy political place in this country for folks like me, who identify as strongly socially conservative and economically liberal.   I make do the best I can, as a Democrat voting  independent.   But I still will firmly assert that the democrats ignore people with views like mine, which has largely allowed the GOP to grab up such folks (who, like it or not,  tend to be older, more religious,  and less well educated), and thereby snooker them into voting against their own best interests.

We'll never agree about the broader issues, obviously, but I do wonder why you take for granted that "their own best interests" must necessarily be "economic" rather than "social."  My own best interest is to live in a country that doesn't murder thousands of babies every day.  That certainly means more to me than whether Uncle Stupid takes 39% or 40% of some rich guy's income.  I absolutely reject the idea that my support of Republicans goes against my best interests simply because the other party would redistribute more of someone else's money my way.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 06:48:43 PM
Jimbogumbo:
Wow. Interesting. Thanks for the link. Just curious, (1) have you read the whole thing, and if yes (2) how many studies attempting to answer this question have you read all the way through, not just the summary?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on January 03, 2021, 07:32:59 PM
You would have a better argument  if:

1.  The GOP actually did anything about abortion.

2.  The GOP demonstrated that it was more pro-life than pro-birth.  Even before the pandemic, thousands of Americans have died owing to bad GOP policies wrt health care, living wages vs trickle down economics,  wealth inequality,  3d world conditions, etc.  Really, it would.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 08:05:26 PM
If I understand writing prof, he votes for the republicans not because they have everything figured out and no hypocrisy within; rather, he does that because he couldn't align with people who would legalize abortion. I don't think I have any special gift, but I find that not hard to understand.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: financeguy on January 04, 2021, 02:28:36 AM
Quick side note: I don't believe anyone has the right to use the term "pro choice" as opposed to "pro abortion" to describe their views if the only area they support "choice" involves terminating a pregnancy while totally fine with every regulation on the planet for any other possible issue.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 04, 2021, 02:43:50 AM
But you're all guys, right?

So--while you might indeed have an opinion, it may not be very fact-based or experientially informed, on all the ramifications of any one of all the difficult choices involved.

I'm thankful I never had to decide, but when I left my abusive husband in 1980, it was a lot simpler because I had no children whose lives I also had to fear for.

There's more than one way to kill a child.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 04, 2021, 05:30:40 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 04, 2021, 02:43:50 AM
But you're all guys, right?

So--while you might indeed have an opinion, it may not be very fact-based or experientially informed, on all the ramifications of any one of all the difficult choices involved.

I'm thankful I never had to decide, but when I left my abusive husband in 1980, it was a lot simpler because I had no children whose lives I also had to fear for.

There's more than one way to kill a child.

M.

A similar argument could be made that the death penalty is a good thing because some people have been killed by people released from prison after a sentence for murder. The fact that some bad situations would not arise if <policy X> were enacted does not make a slam-dunk case for <policy X>. Has legalized government-run gambling stopped problem gambling? Has legalized alcohol eliminated all of the problems prohibitionists were concerned about?

Reductions in the secondary causes of harm caused by the restriction of choices  does not automatically outweigh the primary harm caused by allowing the choice.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 04, 2021, 06:17:45 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 06:48:43 PM
Jimbogumbo:
Wow. Interesting. Thanks for the link. Just curious, (1) have you read the whole thing, and if yes (2) how many studies attempting to answer this question have you read all the way through, not just the summary?

Yes.

Two recently. PNAS published a study which claimed there were no differences based on the data reviewed. There was an exchange in which other researchers reanalyzed the data on stating that claim was made on the basis of statistics which would not support it, and in fact there were differences. The article was then retracted.

The researchers who argued against the finding used a Bayesian analysis that a lay person won't understand.

This is not my area, but I have had a substantial amount of statistics at graduate level, and have used it in a different area. I've only been interested in this topic on a personal level.

You and I disagree on this topic. I don't want to prolong a discussion, but please look closely at the two recenT cases in Columbus OH. We have to do something different in policing. Society can't keep having people killed for possessing a sandwich or a cell phone.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 04, 2021, 07:17:08 AM
QuoteYou and I disagree on this topic. I don't want to prolong a discussion, but please look closely at the two recenT cases in Columbus OH. We have to do something different in policing. Society can't keep having people killed for possessing a sandwich or a cell phone.
We don't disagree on this. My problem with BLM and the democrats who pander to them for votes is where they go next. The case for better policing is much stronger if you actually educate yourself about the 1000 or so police killings happening every year, most of whom are not black. Instead of doing that, we're getting people going 'say their names', calling looting reparations and requiring us to learn how to teach 'anti-racistly.' Is this a blank check to be drawn from your account of academic freedom? Could be. Where are those verbose defenders of tenure and free dissemination of knowledge now? AWOL, mostly.
I know the people on my campus who are clamoring for new improved 'anti-racist' teaching. They are not educated in statistics, criminal justice, sociology. They are laypersons like me, but their demands are being considered essential because of their numbers, emotion, the administration's perceived need to appear like they're doing something, and the background of white guilt. That's why I've used the term 'hysteria.' And the democrats will use it to win elections.
I guess one consolation might be that administrators are happy to appear like they're doing something while things don't really change. CYA.
I read half the study yesterday. You are correct; it's tough going for the layperson. I'll read the rest of it today.

QuoteThe researchers who argued against the finding used a Bayesian analysis that a lay person won't understand.

I believe you.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 04, 2021, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 03, 2021, 04:20:07 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 03, 2021, 03:16:19 PM
There is no epidemic of police murdering African-Americans relative to any other racial or ethnic group, but the media either pretends or believes there is. One would think academics are too smart to be swept along in mass hysteria instead of the normal habit of looking at the facts...or maybe not.

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3660&context=faculty_scholarship

You are just wrong.

I'm only partway through, but here are a couple of observations:
Quote
Professors Robert Sampson and
Stephen Raudenbush combined objective neighborhood video footage with
survey data to identify the predictors of perceived danger and disorder. Their
results showed that as the concentration of minority groups increased within a neighborhood, local residents of any race or ethnicity perceived greater disorder,
even after controlling for the actual level of disorder shown in carefully analyzed
video observations.


Interesting that residents, regardless of ethnicity, perceived greater disorder based on the same factors.

Quote
Concentrated patrol activity in high crime neighborhoods reinforces the message that these are dangerous places
simply by the repetition of that label. And that label provides convenient
shorthand not only to carry out patrols but also to use police discretion to take
actions in those places—especially stops and misdemeanor arrests.


This is puzzling, because it's not clear what the alternative is. More frequent patrols in high-crime neighborhoods are intended to deter crime and to allow quicker response when it occurs. Does this comment suggest that by having fewer patrols in high crime areas  that crime would be reduced?

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 04, 2021, 11:03:47 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 03, 2021, 03:47:53 PM
Well,  there really is no comfy political place in this country for folks like me, who identify as strongly socially conservative and economically liberal. 

I've thought for many years now that our nation's political parties have increasingly come to embody the worst of what tends to be associated with both "conservative" and "liberal," not the best.  Our politics are failing because our society has failed.  I've come to the conclusion that politics represents a false hope.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 04, 2021, 11:07:15 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 03, 2021, 07:32:59 PM
You would have a better argument  if:

1.  The GOP actually did anything about abortion.

2.  The GOP demonstrated that it was more pro-life than pro-birth.  Even before the pandemic, thousands of Americans have died owing to bad GOP policies wrt health care, living wages vs trickle down economics,  wealth inequality,  3d world conditions, etc.  Really, it would.

With regard to number one, what could they do that they haven't done? Many states have passed laws limiting the number of abortions, only to see those laws tossed out by the Supreme Court. Thus, conservatives and their political representatives in the GOP have embarked on a decades-long project to remake the judiciary. It is hard work. It is hit-or-miss given the vagaries of the selection and confirmation processes. It will probably amount to nothing. But the idea that they haven't "actually done anything" is ridiculous.

With regard to number two, blah, blah, blah, shut up. One needn't embrace soft-Marxist policy proposals to be pro-life. Surely you know  that's progressive propaganda, right?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on January 04, 2021, 02:45:00 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 04, 2021, 11:07:15 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 03, 2021, 07:32:59 PM
You would have a better argument  if:

1.  The GOP actually did anything about abortion.

2.  The GOP demonstrated that it was more pro-life than pro-birth.  Even before the pandemic, thousands of Americans have died owing to bad GOP policies wrt health care, living wages vs trickle down economics,  wealth inequality,  3d world conditions, etc.  Really, it would.

With regard to number one, what could they do that they haven't done? Many states have passed laws limiting the number of abortions, only to see those laws tossed out by the Supreme Court. Thus, conservatives and their political representatives in the GOP have embarked on a decades-long project to remake the judiciary. It is hard work. It is hit-or-miss given the vagaries of the selection and confirmation processes. It will probably amount to nothing. But the idea that they haven't "actually done anything" is ridiculous.

With regard to number two, blah, blah, blah, shut up. One needn't embrace soft-Marxist policy proposals to be pro-life. Surely you know  that's progressive propaganda, right?

On item 1, what SHOULD be done is to treat abortion as an unfortunate health outcome to be avoided at almost any cost. Prevent unwanted pregnancies and you won't have as many abortions. Unfortunately, the same politicians who oppose abortion also oppose birth control of any sort: pills, condoms, education.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 04, 2021, 03:37:03 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 04, 2021, 10:39:49 AM
here are a couple of observations:
Quote
Professors Robert Sampson and
Stephen Raudenbush combined objective neighborhood video footage with
survey data to identify the predictors of perceived danger and disorder. Their
results showed that as the concentration of minority groups increased within a neighborhood, local residents of any race or ethnicity perceived greater disorder,
even after controlling for the actual level of disorder shown in carefully analyzed
video observations.


Interesting that residents, regardless of ethnicity, perceived greater disorder based on the same factors.

Quote
Concentrated patrol activity in high crime neighborhoods reinforces the message that these are dangerous places
simply by the repetition of that label. And that label provides convenient
shorthand not only to carry out patrols but also to use police discretion to take
actions in those places—especially stops and misdemeanor arrests.


This is puzzling, because it's not clear what the alternative is. More frequent patrols in high-crime neighborhoods are intended to deter crime and to allow quicker response when it occurs. Does this comment suggest that by having fewer patrols in high crime areas  that crime would be reduced?

I can't understand the mathematic formulas. I give up on that. I'll take my whips for being a limited-education forumite. I'm damn good at my job though.

Unless I missed it, the study doesn't seem to delve much into the interaction between the civilian and the policeman in the encounters except to say police should know more about mental illness and where possible, know ahead of time when a 911 involves a mentally ill person. Sure, makes sense. How people act when they are apprehended is a factor in how things play out. If people say 'he had his hands up and said please don't shoot' and the media reports it when in fact it didn't happen that way, it doesn't persuade me to talk about implicit bias and race. Then too some are not mentally ill, but drunk or high, and maybe belligerent. Some are both.
When the police apprehend you and you're doing something wrong, you're going to see them as the enemy, because they are. Doesn't matter what color you are. Intelligent parenting would mean telling your kids 'don't let this happen to you.' Not 'the cops hate you because of the color of your skin.'
And again, not that the study doesn't uncover something, but the breakdown of the family is the worse culprit.
Perhaps police could meet more with these neighborhood folks, off duty, make friends, and develop a feeling of working together. Fund the police, but differently.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 04, 2021, 04:11:50 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 04, 2021, 03:37:03 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 04, 2021, 10:39:49 AM
here are a couple of observations:
Quote
Professors Robert Sampson and
Stephen Raudenbush combined objective neighborhood video footage with
survey data to identify the predictors of perceived danger and disorder. Their
results showed that as the concentration of minority groups increased within a neighborhood, local residents of any race or ethnicity perceived greater disorder,
even after controlling for the actual level of disorder shown in carefully analyzed
video observations.


Interesting that residents, regardless of ethnicity, perceived greater disorder based on the same factors.

Quote
Concentrated patrol activity in high crime neighborhoods reinforces the message that these are dangerous places
simply by the repetition of that label. And that label provides convenient
shorthand not only to carry out patrols but also to use police discretion to take
actions in those places—especially stops and misdemeanor arrests.


This is puzzling, because it's not clear what the alternative is. More frequent patrols in high-crime neighborhoods are intended to deter crime and to allow quicker response when it occurs. Does this comment suggest that by having fewer patrols in high crime areas  that crime would be reduced?

I can't understand the mathematic formulas. I give up on that. I'll take my whips for being a limited-education forumite. I'm damn good at my job though.

Unless I missed it, the study doesn't seem to delve much into the interaction between the civilian and the policeman in the encounters except to say police should know more about mental illness and where possible, know ahead of time when a 911 involves a mentally ill person. Sure, makes sense. How people act when they are apprehended is a factor in how things play out. If people say 'he had his hands up and said please don't shoot' and the media reports it when in fact it didn't happen that way, it doesn't persuade me to talk about implicit bias and race. Then too some are not mentally ill, but drunk or high, and maybe belligerent. Some are both.
When the police apprehend you and you're doing something wrong, you're going to see them as the enemy, because they are. Doesn't matter what color you are. Intelligent parenting would mean telling your kids 'don't let this happen to you.' Not 'the cops hate you because of the color of your skin.'
And again, not that the study doesn't uncover something, but the breakdown of the family is the worse culprit.
Perhaps police could meet more with these neighborhood folks, off duty, make friends, and develop a feeling of working together. Fund the police, but differently.

I assume every forumite is educated, but in very different things. I'm confident I'd suck at whatever you teach.

I don't have any answers to the questions you an marshwiggle pose. I've just watched enough cities burn after truly awful events that I know something has to change. The Watts riots (multiple times) did not happen in a vacuum. Nor did Detroit, LA after Rodney King, Memphis, Tulsa and on and on and on. We can't continue to do a Vonnegut and go on with "and so it goes".

I think any rationale human would agree with your concluding statement.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Nightshade on January 04, 2021, 04:27:26 PM
Quote from: spork on January 03, 2021, 01:38:41 PM
Washington Post publishes audio and transcript of Trump's call to Georgia officials in which he tries to get them to subvert the election results:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html?).

Highlights (I'm leaving out chunks of the discussion):

"Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong."

"I won this election by hundreds of thousands of votes. There's no way I lost Georgia. There's no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes."

"Mr. President, the problem you have with social media, they — people can say anything."

"Oh this isn't social media. This is Trump media . . . So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break."

Have just listened to ALL of this disturbing audio. All should listen/read. I'm going to read the transcript now.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 04, 2021, 04:40:06 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 04, 2021, 02:45:00 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 04, 2021, 11:07:15 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 03, 2021, 07:32:59 PM
You would have a better argument  if:

1.  The GOP actually did anything about abortion.

2.  The GOP demonstrated that it was more pro-life than pro-birth.  Even before the pandemic, thousands of Americans have died owing to bad GOP policies wrt health care, living wages vs trickle down economics,  wealth inequality,  3d world conditions, etc.  Really, it would.

With regard to number one, what could they do that they haven't done? Many states have passed laws limiting the number of abortions, only to see those laws tossed out by the Supreme Court. Thus, conservatives and their political representatives in the GOP have embarked on a decades-long project to remake the judiciary. It is hard work. It is hit-or-miss given the vagaries of the selection and confirmation processes. It will probably amount to nothing. But the idea that they haven't "actually done anything" is ridiculous.

With regard to number two, blah, blah, blah, shut up. One needn't embrace soft-Marxist policy proposals to be pro-life. Surely you know  that's progressive propaganda, right?

On item 1, what SHOULD be done is to treat abortion as an unfortunate health outcome to be avoided at almost any cost. Prevent unwanted pregnancies and you won't have as many abortions. Unfortunately, the same politicians who oppose abortion also oppose birth control of any sort: pills, condoms, education.

Please identify the congressional Republicans who oppose birth control--not, mind you, those who merely oppose the government paying for everyone's birth control.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on January 04, 2021, 10:40:30 PM
Random thoughts:

The GOP has been telling us for years, just vote for us and we'll get rid of abortion.   Long before Trump,  SCOTUS regularly had conservative majorities appointed by GOP presidents, and for a goodly percentage of the 21st century,  both houses of congress were in GOP hands during Repub  administrations.  And yet Roe remains.   A few easy votes taken in red states by conservative politicians,  to pass abortion restrictions that never are going to get upheld by SCOTUS, which BTW those politicians know, and also BTW most of these laws are never even accepted for review by SCOTUS, won't change that.  Fool me once, shame on you.   Fool me repeatedly over 40 years,  shame on me.

2.  Rick Santorum opposes birth control.  Mesuspects he ain't the only one, some of whom are likely still in office.  Such opposition, after all, remains the official position of the RC church.

3.  Cut the crap wrt meaningless and baseless accusations  of my supposedly being a 'Marxist ', neo or otherwise.  (And of course this term, especially in its 'neo 'guise, is one of the most ill- and wrongly-used conservative canard of the Age of Trump).  If you say you are 'pro-life' but support taking food stamps away from children,  allowing the Walmart of the world to foist off the wages of their employees onto the taxpayers  by virtue of paying them so little that they qualify for welfare,  showing blithe disregard for proper responses to deadly  pandemics, etc etc etc, I don't want to hear this self-satisfying smug lie.  Really, I don't,  and not wanting that doesn't make me a Marxist.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 05, 2021, 12:28:17 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 04, 2021, 10:40:30 PM

3.  Cut the crap wrt meaningless and baseless accusations  of my supposedly being a 'Marxist ', neo or otherwise.  (And of course this term, especially in its 'neo 'guise, is one of the most ill- and wrongly-used conservative canard of the Age of Trump). If you say you are 'pro-life' but support taking food stamps away from children,  allowing the Walmart of the world to foist off the wages of their employees onto the taxpayers  by virtue of paying them so little that they qualify for welfare, showing blithe disregard for proper responses to deadly  pandemics, etc etc etc, I don't want to hear this self-satisfying smug lie.  Really, I don't,  and not wanting that doesn't make me a Marxist.

Of course, at the same time, if the self-identified pro-life conservative academic chooses to he can point out that the nerve center of the liberal democratic-voting world, higher education, also wants to foist off the problem of underpaid 'temporary' faculty by sending them to food stamps & medicaid, while the tenure track and administration hoard job security, promotions, money and health insurance for themselves. Nobody who is in a position to change things is fighting over that. Throw some good money around, and the liberal bleeding hearts and the callous right wing nut jobs will be shaking hands and pouring champagne.

Unvarnished truth, everyone is pro-life. Here and there.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 05, 2021, 12:35:18 AM
Jimbogumbo,

I have one answer. Tenured faculty are not worried about new improved anti-racist teaching mania because they won't lose their job over it. If it becomes a serious enough thing, requiring actual change of classroom technique, assignments, etc. they'll go along with it, because they will be making a lot of money in trade for their principles.


Quote from: Nightshade on January 04, 2021, 04:27:26 PM
Quote from: spork on January 03, 2021, 01:38:41 PM
Washington Post publishes audio and transcript of Trump's call to Georgia officials in which he tries to get them to subvert the election results:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html?).

Highlights (I'm leaving out chunks of the discussion):

"Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong."

"I won this election by hundreds of thousands of votes. There's no way I lost Georgia. There's no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes."

"Mr. President, the problem you have with social media, they — people can say anything."

"Oh this isn't social media. This is Trump media . . . So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break."

Have just listened to ALL of this disturbing audio. All should listen/read. I'm going to read the transcript now.

BUMP

Intimidation is hard to prove, but we know it when we see it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 05, 2021, 05:45:03 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 04, 2021, 10:40:30 PM
If you say you are 'pro-life' but support taking food stamps away from children,  allowing the Walmart of the world to foist off the wages of their employees onto the taxpayers  by virtue of paying them so little that they qualify for welfare,  showing blithe disregard for proper responses to deadly  pandemics, etc etc etc, I don't want to hear this self-satisfying smug lie.  Really, I don't,  and not wanting that doesn't make me a Marxist.

Ah, yes. You can't oppose abortion unless you adopt the appropriate anti-Walmart posture. Also, you couldn't be against the Holocaust unless you supported a full-employment program for European Jews.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 05, 2021, 05:59:42 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 04, 2021, 04:11:50 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 04, 2021, 03:37:03 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 04, 2021, 10:39:49 AM
Quote
Concentrated patrol activity in high crime neighborhoods reinforces the message that these are dangerous places
simply by the repetition of that label. And that label provides convenient
shorthand not only to carry out patrols but also to use police discretion to take
actions in those places—especially stops and misdemeanor arrests.


This is puzzling, because it's not clear what the alternative is. More frequent patrols in high-crime neighborhoods are intended to deter crime and to allow quicker response when it occurs. Does this comment suggest that by having fewer patrols in high crime areas  that crime would be reduced?

I can't understand the mathematic formulas. I give up on that. I'll take my whips for being a limited-education forumite. I'm damn good at my job though.

Unless I missed it, the study doesn't seem to delve much into the interaction between the civilian and the policeman in the encounters except to say police should know more about mental illness and where possible, know ahead of time when a 911 involves a mentally ill person. Sure, makes sense. How people act when they are apprehended is a factor in how things play out. If people say 'he had his hands up and said please don't shoot' and the media reports it when in fact it didn't happen that way, it doesn't persuade me to talk about implicit bias and race. Then too some are not mentally ill, but drunk or high, and maybe belligerent. Some are both.
When the police apprehend you and you're doing something wrong, you're going to see them as the enemy, because they are. Doesn't matter what color you are. Intelligent parenting would mean telling your kids 'don't let this happen to you.' Not 'the cops hate you because of the color of your skin.'
And again, not that the study doesn't uncover something, but the breakdown of the family is the worse culprit.
Perhaps police could meet more with these neighborhood folks, off duty, make friends, and develop a feeling of working together. Fund the police, but differently.

I assume every forumite is educated, but in very different things. I'm confident I'd suck at whatever you teach.

I don't have any answers to the questions you an marshwiggle pose. I've just watched enough cities burn after truly awful events that I know something has to change. The Watts riots (multiple times) did not happen in a vacuum. Nor did Detroit, LA after Rodney King, Memphis, Tulsa and on and on and on. We can't continue to do a Vonnegut and go on with "and so it goes".

I think any rationale human would agree with your concluding statement.

Here'a another quotation from the report about the methodology:
Quote
While the Washington Post database reports the race of the decedent, some decedents were missing a racial identifier. To determine the race or ethnicity of those decedents, we applied a verified and commonly used method that assigns the probability of a person being a particular race or ethnicity using census data. The U.S. Census Bureau used self-reported race or ethnicity data to compile a list of over 160,000 surnames occurring 100 or more times from the 2010 Census. Combining these names with the self-reports of race and ethnicity, the Census Bureau computed the probability of a person living in the United States with that name being white, Asian, Black, Latinx, or Native American or Pacific Islander. For each of these racial or ethnic groups, we coded the classifications at three levels of probability: 60%, 75%, and 90%. Persons whose names did not meet the 60% threshold for any of the population groups were coded as missing on the race or ethnicity variable. Accordingly, our main estimates of race and ethnicity effects for decedents used the 60% classification threshold.

Unfortunately they don't say (or I couldn't find) any indication of how much of the sample had their race identified this way. A 60% threshhold means that the identification of race for some portion of the sample was slightly more reliable than a coin toss.  Assuming the identification was unbiased, then since white people make up a much bigger proportion of the population, there are going to be many more white victims identifed as black than the other way around. So comparing the number of apparently black victims to the proportion of the population that is black is going to overerestimate  them, and comparing the number of apparently white victims to the proportion of the population that is white is going to underestimate  them.

Without knowing how much of the sample this applies to makes the error margins completely unknown. It would be very helpful if they did a re-analysis using ONLY the people whose race was clearly identified in the data.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: histchick on January 05, 2021, 11:41:06 AM
Quote from: Nightshade on January 04, 2021, 04:27:26 PM
Quote from: spork on January 03, 2021, 01:38:41 PM
Washington Post publishes audio and transcript of Trump's call to Georgia officials in which he tries to get them to subvert the election results:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html?).

Highlights (I'm leaving out chunks of the discussion):

"Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong."

"I won this election by hundreds of thousands of votes. There's no way I lost Georgia. There's no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes."

"Mr. President, the problem you have with social media, they — people can say anything."

"Oh this isn't social media. This is Trump media . . . So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break."

Have just listened to ALL of this disturbing audio. All should listen/read. I'm going to read the transcript now.

If you haven't seen it yet, you should also take a look at Gabriel Sterling's point-by-point rebuttal to all of the liar-liar-pants-on-fire disinformation that's out there about this election.  I'm in Georgia, and very proud of the way the Secretary of State's office is handling all of this.  Hope these folks get a much-deserved vacation very soon. 

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/04/953321408/georgia-election-official-dont-let-misinformation-suppress-your-own-vote
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 05, 2021, 09:36:36 PM
Glad to say that it looks like Dems will win the Senate, as the red mirage in favor of Perdue continues to evaporate. Republicans deserve to lose for their Trump-era embrace of hatefulness in many forms, authoritarianism, and dishonesty. This should be a hell of a wake up call.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 05, 2021, 10:32:56 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 05, 2021, 09:36:36 PM
Glad to say that it looks like Dems will win the Senate, as the red mirage in favor of Perdue continues to evaporate. Republicans deserve to lose for their Trump-era embrace of hatefulness in many forms, authoritarianism, and dishonesty. This should be a hell of a wake up call.

I'd say both parties deserve to lose, but I'm satisfied enough to see the less shitty of the two get a break this time.

Black Americans who think they are going to be rolling in clover once we figure out how to get a handle on controlling racism in all its forms are in for a surprise; whereas, some of the ones who've already figured out they have way more significant problems that can/must be worked on by they themselves (read: opportunity knocks) or in fact never really thought much of how the system is holding them down, have been increasingly voting republican, and still more will, and the democratic party will deserve that. My prediction.
Trump has got to go, no question. He's walking chaos. But he wasn't wrong about everything, and his influence will be felt. Hopefully the better parts of it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 05:43:10 AM
I'm pretty dispirited, which should be a good sign for most of you. The problem is not the losses but that conservatives can't agree on the cause. Half the party blames Trump; the other half blames the GOP for "betraying" Trump. (How, exactly?) I suppose every party does this after every lost election, and of course the Democrats had their own too-progressive-not-progressive-enough argument after losing a few House seats. But the current Republican chaos is of a more lasting kind.

My only consolation is that the filibuster will not be nuked, new states will not be added, the Court will not be packed, and Biden will govern mostly by executive order, Senate "control" notwithstanding. Am I wrong?

Finally, now that he's won, can't we just concede that Raphael Warnock is a terrible, racist, anti-American bozo?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 07:18:09 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 05:43:10 AM
I'm pretty dispirited, which should be a good sign for most of you. The problem is not the losses but that conservatives can't agree on the cause. Half the party blames Trump; the other half blames the GOP for "betraying" Trump. (How, exactly?) I suppose every party does this after every lost election, and of course the Democrats had their own too-progressive-not-progressive-enough argument after losing a few House seats. But the current Republican chaos is of a more lasting kind.

My only consolation is that the filibuster will not be nuked, new states will not be added, the Court will not be packed, and Biden will govern mostly by executive order, Senate "control" notwithstanding. Am I wrong?

Finally, now that he's won, can't we just concede that Raphael Warnock is a terrible, racist, anti-American bozo?

You know what is anti-American? Trying to overturn a free and fair election that you lost, which both Loeffler and Perdue endorse.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 06, 2021, 08:46:38 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 05:43:10 AM

Finally, now that he's won, can't we just concede that Raphael Warnock is a terrible, racist, anti-American bozo?

Well, someone's got to do something about the epidemic of whiteness. How about more funding for abortion, so there will be fewer black people?
How did the Irish get from 'no Irish may apply for this job' to becoming the stereotypical policeman, blue collar citizen, working stiff, city bureaucrat who hires all his cousins and nephews etc.? By reproducing in great numbers. One would hope Warnock, the eleventh child, could bring that message out. Like, be fruitful and multiply. Unless it's going to be 'white privilege, white privilege' chant (zero sum game economic theory).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on January 06, 2021, 09:34:52 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 05:43:10 AM
I'm pretty dispirited, which should be a good sign for most of you. The problem is not the losses but that conservatives can't agree on the cause. Half the party blames Trump; the other half blames the GOP for "betraying" Trump. (How, exactly?) I suppose every party does this after every lost election, and of course the Democrats had their own too-progressive-not-progressive-enough argument after losing a few House seats. But the current Republican chaos is of a more lasting kind.

My only consolation is that the filibuster will not be nuked, new states will not be added, the Court will not be packed, and Biden will govern mostly by executive order, Senate "control" notwithstanding. Am I wrong?

Finally, now that he's won, can't we just concede that Raphael Warnock is a terrible, racist, anti-American bozo?

A third reason - the GOP doesn't speak to the majority of the American people?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 06, 2021, 10:01:37 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 06, 2021, 09:34:52 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 05:43:10 AM
I'm pretty dispirited, which should be a good sign for most of you. The problem is not the losses but that conservatives can't agree on the cause. Half the party blames Trump; the other half blames the GOP for "betraying" Trump. (How, exactly?) I suppose every party does this after every lost election, and of course the Democrats had their own too-progressive-not-progressive-enough argument after losing a few House seats. But the current Republican chaos is of a more lasting kind.

My only consolation is that the filibuster will not be nuked, new states will not be added, the Court will not be packed, and Biden will govern mostly by executive order, Senate "control" notwithstanding. Am I wrong?

Finally, now that he's won, can't we just concede that Raphael Warnock is a terrible, racist, anti-American bozo?

A third reason - the GOP doesn't speak to the majority of the American people?

It speaks to all Americans approximately as successfully as the democratic party does. Take away the pandemic and Trump gets a second term.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 06, 2021, 10:05:12 AM
I'm glad, but fully expect them to squander this brief opportunity.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 06, 2021, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 06, 2021, 10:05:12 AM
I'm glad, but fully expect them to squander this brief opportunity.

What would they accomplish, in your view, if they were to not squander it? I'm interested.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 06, 2021, 10:35:54 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 06, 2021, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 06, 2021, 10:05:12 AM
I'm glad, but fully expect them to squander this brief opportunity.

What would they accomplish, in your view, if they were to not squander it? I'm interested.


It's hardly an exhaustive list, but:

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 06, 2021, 10:47:37 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 06, 2021, 10:35:54 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 06, 2021, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 06, 2021, 10:05:12 AM
I'm glad, but fully expect them to squander this brief opportunity.

What would they accomplish, in your view, if they were to not squander it? I'm interested.


It's hardly an exhaustive list, but:


  • Enact significant student loan debt forgiveness.
  • End the trade war with Canada.
  • End the trade war with China.

Just to address these:

Forgiving student debt without first making whatever changes would prevent it being generated in the first places sets a terrible precedent. Training people to make short-sighted decisions because the rules may change before they have to face the consequences makes society more unstable.

Trade "wars" are, to some extent, ongoing. Even under NAFTA, there were constant challenges (such as for softwood lumber). Just like court cases between businesses, it's often just a tactic to try and bog down an opponent, or bleed them dry by legal fees, etc. The conflict is more serious at some times than others, but it will never "end".
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 06, 2021, 11:07:43 AM
Forget the precedent. Allowing the state to torture people is a bad precedent; giving money to investment banks who collapsed the economy is a bad precedent; reneging on international agreements is a bad precedent. Nobody gives a shit about precedent.

Forgiving debt is good policy right now because it would be a huge economic stimulus, and at the income levels that matter. Besides which, there's widespread agreement among economists that it would be a good thing to do.

As for trade: the current trade wars involve the raising of illegal tariffs, followed by retaliatory tariffs in kind. It's different in kind and scale from the usual disputes, and that's what needs to end.

Incidentally, all three of those measures can be enacted by Biden alone, with nobody else's help. They're easy peasy.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 06, 2021, 11:21:39 AM
Both the Senate and House have suspended proceedings because protestors incited by Trump have entered the Capitol building.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 06, 2021, 11:23:38 AM
Capitol Police, DHS goons nowhere to be seen. Looks like zero security. Stupid stupid stupid.

From a Twitter feed:

"Police tear gassed peaceful Democratic protestors so that Trump could hold a Bible for the cameras. But pro-Trump protestors have successfully breached the US Capitol building without so much as a single pepper ball. Funny how that works out."
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 06, 2021, 12:10:23 PM
Quote from: spork on January 06, 2021, 11:23:38 AM
Capitol Police, DHS goons nowhere to be seen. Looks like zero security. Stupid stupid stupid.

From a Twitter feed:

"Police tear gassed peaceful Democratic protestors so that Trump could hold a Bible for the cameras. But pro-Trump protestors have successfully breached the US Capitol building without so much as a single pepper ball. Funny how that works out."

The Trump protestors are being met by riot police firing pepper spray. 

Or maybe a failure to meet Trump protestors with tanks and machine gun fire is another example of misguided moderates "squandering an opportunity?"



Up to now I've generally been of the opinion that it would be best not to be too zealous about prosecuting the President and his officials for various crimes and alleged crimes.  But inciting a riot and a march on Congress, even as they're preparing to certify the election of his opponent?  This can't be read as anything other than a (half-witted) coup attempt.  He needs to go to jail for this.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 12:23:30 PM
Terrorism, insurrection, sedition... quite a day for team MAGA
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 12:33:06 PM
It's a disgrace, and today's rioters should be imprisoned or shot.

(Also, this is happening in large part because of the way the George Floyd protests were treated by the Left, your media allies, and your elected representatives. If Fox News broke out a "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" chyron this afternoon, it would only be poetic justice.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 12:33:06 PM
It's a disgrace, and today's rioters should be imprisoned or shot.

(Also, this is happening in large part because of the way the George Floyd protests were treated by the Left, your media allies, and your elected representatives. If Fox News broke out a "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" chyron this afternoon, it would only be poetic justice.)

Does the whataboutism never stop?

Don't try to blame the left or BLM for this anti-democratic insurrection based on made up fraud, egged on by the President, his family, and his authoritarian allies in the Congress. Right wingers own this. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 12:49:15 PM
Prayers for everyone's safety. At least one person has been shot.

   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/we-will-never-concede-trump-baselessly-asserts-voter-fraud-speech-n1253011

When you don't set limits on a seriously ill person, they take it as permission to enlarge the scope of their activities.

M.

   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 06, 2021, 01:14:12 PM
Biden's speech just now was pretty shit.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on January 06, 2021, 01:15:42 PM
Photos from the NYTimes

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-protests?name=styln-transition-live&region=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=LegacyCollection&impression_id=05543b10-5064-11eb-a848-1908253b3d55&variant=1_Show
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 06, 2021, 01:23:35 PM
Quote from: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 12:49:15 PM
Prayers for everyone's safety. At least one person has been shot.

   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/we-will-never-concede-trump-baselessly-asserts-voter-fraud-speech-n1253011

When you don't set limits on a seriously ill person, they take it as permission to enlarge the scope of their activities.

M.



Yes.  This is NOT going to result in anything like a successful coup attempt, but a lot of people could get hurt in the meantime.  I pray that the bloodshed will at least be very limited, as in last year's riots.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 06, 2021, 01:37:55 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 12:33:06 PM
It's a disgrace, and today's rioters should be imprisoned or shot.

(Also, this is happening in large part because of the way the George Floyd protests were treated by the Left, your media allies, and your elected representatives. If Fox News broke out a "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" chyron this afternoon, it would only be poetic justice.)

Does the whataboutism never stop?

Don't try to blame the left or BLM for this anti-democratic insurrection based on made up fraud, egged on by the President, his family, and his authoritarian allies in the Congress. Right wingers own this.

No, writingprof is correct. If rioting is condoned if it is for a supposedly "good cause", then every angry person is going to claim that their cause is right. If the rule of law is upheld consistently, then no-one gets to think they ought to be justified.

(The whole point about Trump contesting the election is that he won't accept the law when he doesn't like the result. If you claim the BLM protesters, ANITFA, etc. are justified in breaking the law, then you strengthen Trump's claim that is is OK when he does it.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 06, 2021, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 06, 2021, 01:37:55 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 12:33:06 PM
It's a disgrace, and today's rioters should be imprisoned or shot.

(Also, this is happening in large part because of the way the George Floyd protests were treated by the Left, your media allies, and your elected representatives. If Fox News broke out a "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" chyron this afternoon, it would only be poetic justice.)

Does the whataboutism never stop?

Don't try to blame the left or BLM for this anti-democratic insurrection based on made up fraud, egged on by the President, his family, and his authoritarian allies in the Congress. Right wingers own this.

No, writingprof is correct. If rioting is condoned if it is for a supposedly "good cause", then every angry person is going to claim that their cause is right. If the rule of law is upheld consistently, then no-one gets to think they ought to be justified.

(The whole point about Trump contesting the election is that he won't accept the law when he doesn't like the result. If you claim the BLM protesters, ANITFA, etc. are justified in breaking the law, then you strengthen Trump's claim that is is OK when he does it.)

My comments are in reference To today, not last night.

writingprof is correct except for:

No police in riot gear
No pepper spray
No gas
No arrests
No batons

And marshwiggle, I did not condone the violence at protests. I've lamented it. But to suggest an equivalency on the part of BLM with THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT is ludicrous.

And Parasaurolphus? Biden sounded like Cicero or MLK when contrasted with what the President posted on Twitter.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: alto_stratus on January 06, 2021, 02:07:59 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 06, 2021, 01:59:13 PM

And Parasaurolphus? Biden sounded like Cicero or MLK when contrasted with what the President posted on Twitter.

Yes, a breath of fresh air amidst the flatulence of the last 4 years.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 06, 2021, 02:16:55 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 06, 2021, 12:10:23 PM
Quote from: spork on January 06, 2021, 11:23:38 AM
Capitol Police, DHS goons nowhere to be seen. Looks like zero security. Stupid stupid stupid.

From a Twitter feed:

"Police tear gassed peaceful Democratic protestors so that Trump could hold a Bible for the cameras. But pro-Trump protestors have successfully breached the US Capitol building without so much as a single pepper ball. Funny how that works out."

The Trump protestors are being met by riot police firing pepper spray. 

Or maybe a failure to meet Trump protestors with tanks and machine gun fire is another example of misguided moderates "squandering an opportunity?"



Up to now I've generally been of the opinion that it would be best not to be too zealous about prosecuting the President and his officials for various crimes and alleged crimes.  But inciting a riot and a march on Congress, even as they're preparing to certify the election of his opponent?  This can't be read as anything other than a (half-witted) coup attempt.  He needs to go to jail for this.

He will claim he incited them only to demonstrate peacefully. How do you prove otherwise? He doesn't control everyone in the group. The gathering was intended to be peaceful, he will say. But he could, should be impeached.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 06, 2021, 02:21:17 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 06, 2021, 01:59:13 PM
And Parasaurolphus? Biden sounded like Cicero or MLK when contrasted with what the President posted on Twitter.

Oh, sure, and in contrast with Trump's "we love you, you're very special". It just was nowhere near forceful enough for me. And ending it with the repetition of "there's nothing we can't do together" and "god bless the military" didn't help.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 06, 2021, 02:25:04 PM


The Trump protestors are being met by riot police firing pepper spray. 


[/quote]

They were last night. Today, no riot gear, no gas or spray until they were inside the Capitol Building. And they had to know this was a real possibility.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 02:36:09 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 06, 2021, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 06, 2021, 01:37:55 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 12:33:06 PM
It's a disgrace, and today's rioters should be imprisoned or shot.

(Also, this is happening in large part because of the way the George Floyd protests were treated by the Left, your media allies, and your elected representatives. If Fox News broke out a "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" chyron this afternoon, it would only be poetic justice.)

Does the whataboutism never stop?

Don't try to blame the left or BLM for this anti-democratic insurrection based on made up fraud, egged on by the President, his family, and his authoritarian allies in the Congress. Right wingers own this.

No, writingprof is correct. If rioting is condoned if it is for a supposedly "good cause", then every angry person is going to claim that their cause is right. If the rule of law is upheld consistently, then no-one gets to think they ought to be justified.

(The whole point about Trump contesting the election is that he won't accept the law when he doesn't like the result. If you claim the BLM protesters, ANITFA, etc. are justified in breaking the law, then you strengthen Trump's claim that is is OK when he does it.)

My comments are in reference to today, not last night.

writingprof is correct except for:

No police in riot gear
No pepper spray
No gas
No arrests
No batons

I'm calling for police in riot gear. I'm calling for pepper spray. I'm calling for gas. I'm calling for arrests. I'm calling for batons. This is not whataboutism.

One can condemn today's mobs unequivocally while also explaining the cultural trends that have given rise to them. Or, anyway, a smart person can. You'll get there one day.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 02:57:51 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 02:36:09 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 06, 2021, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 06, 2021, 01:37:55 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 12:33:06 PM
It's a disgrace, and today's rioters should be imprisoned or shot.

(Also, this is happening in large part because of the way the George Floyd protests were treated by the Left, your media allies, and your elected representatives. If Fox News broke out a "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" chyron this afternoon, it would only be poetic justice.)

Does the whataboutism never stop?

Don't try to blame the left or BLM for this anti-democratic insurrection based on made up fraud, egged on by the President, his family, and his authoritarian allies in the Congress. Right wingers own this.

No, writingprof is correct. If rioting is condoned if it is for a supposedly "good cause", then every angry person is going to claim that their cause is right. If the rule of law is upheld consistently, then no-one gets to think they ought to be justified.

(The whole point about Trump contesting the election is that he won't accept the law when he doesn't like the result. If you claim the BLM protesters, ANITFA, etc. are justified in breaking the law, then you strengthen Trump's claim that is is OK when he does it.)

My comments are in reference to today, not last night.

writingprof is correct except for:

No police in riot gear
No pepper spray
No gas
No arrests
No batons

I'm calling for police in riot gear. I'm calling for pepper spray. I'm calling for gas. I'm calling for arrests. I'm calling for batons. This is not whataboutism.

One can condemn today's mobs unequivocally while also explaining the cultural trends that have given rise to them. Or, anyway, a smart person can. You'll get there one day.

And yet you are not smart enough to engage in a discussion without resorting to insults. Based on our conversations on this forum, I don't think much of you as a political analyst, so maybe don't go patting yourself on the back for being such a smart person.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 06, 2021, 03:02:35 PM
Cultural trend:

Crowds of predominantly white men fly into DC yesterday.  Today, after Trump gives a speech encouraging them, they storm the Capitol while wearing MAGA hats and carrying Trump flags, as certain members of Congress are repeating Trump's lies.

Curfew starts momentarily. I doubt many, if any, will be arrested.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 03:03:25 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 06, 2021, 01:37:55 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 12:33:06 PM
It's a disgrace, and today's rioters should be imprisoned or shot.

(Also, this is happening in large part because of the way the George Floyd protests were treated by the Left, your media allies, and your elected representatives. If Fox News broke out a "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" chyron this afternoon, it would only be poetic justice.)

Does the whataboutism never stop?

Don't try to blame the left or BLM for this anti-democratic insurrection based on made up fraud, egged on by the President, his family, and his authoritarian allies in the Congress. Right wingers own this.

No, writingprof is correct. If rioting is condoned if it is for a supposedly "good cause", then every angry person is going to claim that their cause is right. If the rule of law is upheld consistently, then no-one gets to think they ought to be justified.

(The whole point about Trump contesting the election is that he won't accept the law when he doesn't like the result. If you claim the BLM protesters, ANITFA, etc. are justified in breaking the law, then you strengthen Trump's claim that is is OK when he does it.)

Do you really think Trump and his supporters would have done things differently if BLM had never happened? Trump has been promising not to respect the electoral process since before he was even elected.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on January 06, 2021, 03:05:46 PM
Odd, Trump fights what can at best be called a rear guard action; the Democrats control the Senate https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2021-01-06/democrats-win-u-s-senate-as-ossoff-tops-perdue-in-georgia-sweep (https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2021-01-06/democrats-win-u-s-senate-as-ossoff-tops-perdue-in-georgia-sweep); and we continue shadow boxing with reality as though nothing has changed.

Maybe Trump is indeed all the Democrats have.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 06, 2021, 03:08:33 PM
He's all the Republicans elected to national office have.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 03:11:35 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 06, 2021, 03:05:46 PM
Odd, Trump fights what can at best be called a rear guard action; the Democrats control the Senate https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2021-01-06/democrats-win-u-s-senate-as-ossoff-tops-perdue-in-georgia-sweep (https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2021-01-06/democrats-win-u-s-senate-as-ossoff-tops-perdue-in-georgia-sweep); and we continue shadow boxing with reality as though nothing has changed.

Maybe Trump is indeed all the Democrats have.

Democrats have an ambitious legislative agenda. How silly of them to get distracted by Trump's riot in the capital.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 06, 2021, 03:15:17 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 03:03:25 PM

Do you really think Trump and his supporters would have done things differently if BLM had never happened? Trump has been promising not to respect the electoral process since before he was even elected.

You didn't ask me, but I'll take a stab at it: Trump isn't doing what he's doing because he was provoked. He's more of a grotesque anomaly who just goes his own enigmatic way (one hopes). But the liberal pastime of calling everything and anyone racist whenever the whim strikes won a lot of votes for Trump in 2016. They still don't realize how incendiary it is. And BLM is part of it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 03:20:02 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 06, 2021, 03:15:17 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 03:03:25 PM

Do you really think Trump and his supporters would have done things differently if BLM had never happened? Trump has been promising not to respect the electoral process since before he was even elected.

You didn't ask me, but I'll take a stab at it: Trump isn't doing what he's doing because he was provoked. He's more of a grotesque anomaly who just goes his own enigmatic way (one hopes). But the liberal pastime of calling everything and anyone racist whenever the whim strikes won a lot of votes for Trump in 2016. They still don't realize how incendiary it is. And BLM is part of it.

So in other words, yes Trump would have done all of this anyway and the stuff about BLM is totally irrelevant.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 06, 2021, 03:20:56 PM
No, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to do it, because he wouldn't have been elected. He's a man whose success was created by the times.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 06, 2021, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 02:36:09 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 06, 2021, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 06, 2021, 01:37:55 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 12:33:06 PM
It's a disgrace, and today's rioters should be imprisoned or shot.

(Also, this is happening in large part because of the way the George Floyd protests were treated by the Left, your media allies, and your elected representatives. If Fox News broke out a "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" chyron this afternoon, it would only be poetic justice.)

Does the whataboutism never stop?

Don't try to blame the left or BLM for this anti-democratic insurrection based on made up fraud, egged on by the President, his family, and his authoritarian allies in the Congress. Right wingers own this.

No, writingprof is correct. If rioting is condoned if it is for a supposedly "good cause", then every angry person is going to claim that their cause is right. If the rule of law is upheld consistently, then no-one gets to think they ought to be justified.

(The whole point about Trump contesting the election is that he won't accept the law when he doesn't like the result. If you claim the BLM protesters, ANITFA, etc. are justified in breaking the law, then you strengthen Trump's claim that is is OK when he does it.)

My comments are in reference to today, not last night.

writingprof is correct except for:

No police in riot gear
No pepper spray
No gas
No arrests
No batons

I'm calling for police in riot gear. I'm calling for pepper spray. I'm calling for gas. I'm calling for arrests. I'm calling for batons. This is not whataboutism.

One can condemn today's mobs unequivocally while also explaining the cultural trends that have given rise to them. Or, anyway, a smart person can. You'll get there one day.

I know you called for those things (an more). I was more responding to what marshwiggle wrote, and again quoted badly.

I don't disagree with your reference to cultural trends. I just wis you would acknowledge that BLM (for example) was formed in response to years of cultural trends, and years of unjustified shootings and beatings.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 03:29:21 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 06, 2021, 03:20:56 PM
No, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to do it, because he wouldn't have been elected. He's a man whose success was created by the times.

Everyone is created by their times, but it is a bold claim to say that Trump's election is attributable to BLM (feel free to link to a study demonstrating this to be the case).  Beyond that, to say that Trump's riot is somehow attributable to BLM because BLM existed in 2016 is quite a reach.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 06, 2021, 03:36:13 PM
The claim that BLM drives support for Trump and caused today's events is whataboutism.

Statements by top officials in various parts of the U.S. government suggest that Trump is no longer involved in any decision making -- in other words, that he's been deemed incompetent and has been isolated. One can only hope.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 03:38:26 PM
Quote from: spork on January 06, 2021, 03:36:13 PM
The claim that BLM drives support for Trump and caused today's events is whataboutism.

Statements by top officials in various parts of the U.S. government suggest that Trump is no longer involved in any decision making -- in other words, that he's been deemed incompetent and and isolated.

Yes Pence appears to have deployed national guard.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 04:11:00 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 06, 2021, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 02:36:09 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 06, 2021, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 06, 2021, 01:37:55 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 12:33:06 PM
It's a disgrace, and today's rioters should be imprisoned or shot.

(Also, this is happening in large part because of the way the George Floyd protests were treated by the Left, your media allies, and your elected representatives. If Fox News broke out a "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" chyron this afternoon, it would only be poetic justice.)

Does the whataboutism never stop?

Don't try to blame the left or BLM for this anti-democratic insurrection based on made up fraud, egged on by the President, his family, and his authoritarian allies in the Congress. Right wingers own this.

No, writingprof is correct. If rioting is condoned if it is for a supposedly "good cause", then every angry person is going to claim that their cause is right. If the rule of law is upheld consistently, then no-one gets to think they ought to be justified.

(The whole point about Trump contesting the election is that he won't accept the law when he doesn't like the result. If you claim the BLM protesters, ANITFA, etc. are justified in breaking the law, then you strengthen Trump's claim that is is OK when he does it.)

My comments are in reference to today, not last night.

writingprof is correct except for:

No police in riot gear
No pepper spray
No gas
No arrests
No batons

I'm calling for police in riot gear. I'm calling for pepper spray. I'm calling for gas. I'm calling for arrests. I'm calling for batons. This is not whataboutism.

One can condemn today's mobs unequivocally while also explaining the cultural trends that have given rise to them. Or, anyway, a smart person can. You'll get there one day.

I know you called for those things (an more). I was more responding to what marshwiggle wrote, and again quoted badly.

I don't disagree with your reference to cultural trends. I just wis you would acknowledge that BLM (for example) was formed in response to years of cultural trends, and years of unjustified shootings and beatings.

I acknowledge that BLM arose in response to cultural trends.

I also acknowledge (someone else made this point) that the failure of Trump and his supporters to acknowledge defeat has nothing to do with BLM.

What I do not acknowledge is that today's riots are unconnected to the BLM riots.  Rioting was normalized and defended in the media and elsewhere this summer.  Today is (partly) the fruit of that.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 06, 2021, 04:24:25 PM
Yes, it's BLM's fault that bombs were planted in the nation's capital today, and that the President encouraged his supporters to riot.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on January 06, 2021, 04:46:51 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 03:38:26 PM
Quote from: spork on January 06, 2021, 03:36:13 PM
The claim that BLM drives support for Trump and caused today's events is whataboutism.

Statements by top officials in various parts of the U.S. government suggest that Trump is no longer involved in any decision making -- in other words, that he's been deemed incompetent and and isolated.

Yes Pence appears to have deployed national guard.

1. DC statehood needs to happen for lots of reasons, but add now to the list that they need to be able to call out their own national guard without permission from the president.

2. It won't happen, but if ever there was a time for the 25th amendment it is now.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 06, 2021, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 06, 2021, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 06, 2021, 01:37:55 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 06, 2021, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 06, 2021, 12:33:06 PM
It's a disgrace, and today's rioters should be imprisoned or shot.

(Also, this is happening in large part because of the way the George Floyd protests were treated by the Left, your media allies, and your elected representatives. If Fox News broke out a "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" chyron this afternoon, it would only be poetic justice.)

Does the whataboutism never stop?

Don't try to blame the left or BLM for this anti-democratic insurrection based on made up fraud, egged on by the President, his family, and his authoritarian allies in the Congress. Right wingers own this.

No, writingprof is correct. If rioting is condoned if it is for a supposedly "good cause", then every angry person is going to claim that their cause is right. If the rule of law is upheld consistently, then no-one gets to think they ought to be justified.

(The whole point about Trump contesting the election is that he won't accept the law when he doesn't like the result. If you claim the BLM protesters, ANITFA, etc. are justified in breaking the law, then you strengthen Trump's claim that is is OK when he does it.)

My comments are in reference To today, not last night.

writingprof is correct except for:

No police in riot gear
No pepper spray
No gas
No arrests
No batons

And marshwiggle, I did not condone the violence at protests. I've lamented it. But to suggest an equivalency on the part of BLM with THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT is ludicrous.


I'm not comparing the actions of the President (which have been very undemocratic and dangerous) with BLM. What I am saying is that activists FOR ALL KINDS OF CAUSES are emboldened any time governments refuse to act swiftly and decisively on lawlessness. (And not just activists, but all kinds of just plain criminals who will use the cover of any sort of "accepted" violence to do their own thing.)
When governments basically tell police, etc. to not arrest protesters who are breaking the law, it suggests that anytime enough people break the law together there is a good chance that they will be able to get away with it.


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 05:08:22 PM
If he won't concede, this little shindig may finish the job of removing him anyway:

1) House Democrats Omar, Pressley and Moulton, among others, have called for Trump's immediate impeachment and removal by Congress when it can reconvene.

   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-impeachment-ilhan-omar-us-capitol-b1783535.html

   https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/06/954125266/rep-omar-says-she-is-drafting-new-articles-of-impeachment-against-trump

   Maryland Lt. Gov. Boyd Rutherford has also described Trump's conduct as impeachable:

  - Byrne, Deirdre (January 6, 2021). "Lt. Gov. Boyd Rutherford: 'Impeachable Offense to Incite Violence'". Montgomery Community Media.

2) Representatives Lieu and Crist and Governors Pritzker (D-Ill) and Scott (R-Vt) have asked Pence to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment:

- "'Donald Trump has incited a violent coup attempt' Illinois Gov. Pritzker on DC demonstrations".

- "Governor Scott: "President Trump should resign or be removed from office", other Vermont officials react to U.S. Capitol riots".

- Ting, Eric (January 6, 2021). "After Trump supporters storm Capitol, Rep. Ted Lieu calls for Trump's immediate removal from office". SFGATE.

- Contorno, Steve (January 6, 2021). "Charlie Crist: Remove Donald Trump from office by invoking 25th Amendment". Tampa Bay Times.

I'm also most impressed by the courage of the folks going back in to finish the count and make the declaration.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/06/954164654/congress-reconvenes-after-violent-rioters-breach-u-s-capitol

Tested and found able, I think.

But it started out as such a nice day today. I was just glad Georgia's two Democratic Senatorial candidates were doing well....

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 06, 2021, 05:10:50 PM
Pence seems pissed off. First time I've heard him sound like he has a spine.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 05:12:30 PM
Quote from: spork on January 06, 2021, 05:10:50 PM
Pence seems pissed off. First time I've heard him sound like he has a spine.

So, something good might come of it after all.

Hmm....

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on January 06, 2021, 06:42:22 PM
I'm just fondly remembering this time just over 4 years ago. 700,000 women marched on Washington and it was perfectly civilized.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 06:52:54 PM
Indeed.

I haven't had a chance to check, but has there been any confirmation that a plan of similar range to that for kidnapping and possibly executing Michigan's governor was in play?

One friend reported it but I haven't seen a source yet.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on January 06, 2021, 07:08:27 PM
Yeah, I've been arguing with someone on Facebook who said if Trump had won, every city would have been a smoldering ruin. I said yeah, just like 2016. My son commented, "Nobody is going to break anything for Joe Biden."
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on January 06, 2021, 07:19:03 PM
Earlier today, we got a staff e-mail that we were closing early and Mayor Bowser had a 6 pm curfew for DC. It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: research_prof on January 06, 2021, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on January 06, 2021, 07:19:03 PM
Earlier today, we got a staff e-mail that we were closing early and Mayor Bowser had a 6 pm curfew for DC. It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city.

Serious trolling?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 07:58:11 PM
Quote from: research_prof on January 06, 2021, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on January 06, 2021, 07:19:03 PM
Earlier today, we got a staff e-mail that we were closing early and Mayor Bowser had a 6 pm curfew for DC. It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city.

Serious trolling?

Why would that be trolling? I just texted two friends who work in DC to be sure they got home OK tonight. With the Metro shut down along with everything else, it could have been difficult.

Hmaria, stay safe.

I've also just seen a BBC article saying some of the Capitol police let the protesters in, and let them take selfies with them.

Any corroboration?

M.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on January 06, 2021, 08:19:30 PM
Quote from: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 07:58:11 PM
Quote from: research_prof on January 06, 2021, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on January 06, 2021, 07:19:03 PM
Earlier today, we got a staff e-mail that we were closing early and Mayor Bowser had a 6 pm curfew for DC. It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city.

Serious trolling?

Why would that be trolling? I just texted two friends who work in DC to be sure they got home OK tonight. With the Metro shut down along with everything else, it could have been difficult.

Hmaria, stay safe.

I've also just seen a BBC article saying some of the Capitol police let the protesters in, and let them take selfies with them.

Any corroboration?

M.

I saw a tweeted video of them doing so. This only could have happened through incompetence, malice, or complicity on the part of law enforcement.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on January 06, 2021, 08:42:52 PM
Quote from: research_prof on January 06, 2021, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on January 06, 2021, 07:19:03 PM
Earlier today, we got a staff e-mail that we were closing early and Mayor Bowser had a 6 pm curfew for DC. It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city.

Serious trolling?

From The Washington Post: By midafternoon Wednesday, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) announced a citywide curfew starting at 6 p.m. But when the notification hit the phones of protesters, they scoffed at it. "Guess who's going home? None of us," someone in the Capitol yelled. "Time to take back what's ours," someone else screamed. "A new 1776 has just begun."

Arlington and Alexandria also imposed a 6 PM to 6 AM curfew.

Here is the link to the timeline of events: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/06/dc-protests-trump-rally-live-updates/

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on January 06, 2021, 08:52:08 PM
Quote from: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 05:08:22 PM
If he won't concede, this little shindig may finish the job of removing him anyway:

1) House Democrats Omar, Pressley and Moulton, among others, have called for Trump's immediate impeachment and removal by Congress when it can reconvene.

   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-impeachment-ilhan-omar-us-capitol-b1783535.html

   https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/06/954125266/rep-omar-says-she-is-drafting-new-articles-of-impeachment-against-trump

   Maryland Lt. Gov. Boyd Rutherford has also described Trump's conduct as impeachable:

  - Byrne, Deirdre (January 6, 2021). "Lt. Gov. Boyd Rutherford: 'Impeachable Offense to Incite Violence'". Montgomery Community Media.

2) Representatives Lieu and Crist and Governors Pritzker (D-Ill) and Scott (R-Vt) have asked Pence to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment:

- "'Donald Trump has incited a violent coup attempt' Illinois Gov. Pritzker on DC demonstrations".

- "Governor Scott: "President Trump should resign or be removed from office", other Vermont officials react to U.S. Capitol riots".

- Ting, Eric (January 6, 2021). "After Trump supporters storm Capitol, Rep. Ted Lieu calls for Trump's immediate removal from office". SFGATE.

- Contorno, Steve (January 6, 2021). "Charlie Crist: Remove Donald Trump from office by invoking 25th Amendment". Tampa Bay Times.

I'm also most impressed by the courage of the folks going back in to finish the count and make the declaration.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/06/954164654/congress-reconvenes-after-violent-rioters-breach-u-s-capitol

Tested and found able, I think.

But it started out as such a nice day today. I was just glad Georgia's two Democratic Senatorial candidates were doing well....

M.

Impeachment and conviction might make many of us feel good, but no, I would not want that.

It would mean Pence could pardon Trump and anyone connected to his lunacy.

It would mean Pence is our president, even for a very short time. He doesn't deserve it. He may have showed a spine today, but he has not shown a spine for four years.

It would also mean that the Republicans could sort of save face.

The Republicans own this. They got in bed with it, and I don't want them to have any opportunity to put distance between themselves and the monster of their own making.

I have said this over and over again, and I'll say it again: the Republicans are the fringe.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 06, 2021, 09:17:18 PM
Quote from: spork on January 06, 2021, 04:24:25 PM
Yes, it's BLM's fault that bombs were planted in the nation's capital today, and that the President encouraged his supporters to riot.

No, of course not, but it's the liberal higher education community's fault if just about no one among them who makes a fancy paycheck publishing and pontificating about social justice causes and studies and gets the admiring ear of the media insists that BLM, Warren, Harris and other movers and shakers get their facts straight over basic things, such as relevant details of what actually happened in the Michael Brown and George Floyd incidents. If you're letting them fan your flame, you're in business together. So have some integrity, please. (you know who you are, readers) And all of that is one piece of what we saw today.

writing prof, how can Raphael be a bigot? isn't he a minister?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 07, 2021, 05:21:16 AM
Quote from: pgher on January 06, 2021, 08:19:30 PM
Quote from: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 07:58:11 PM

I've also just seen a BBC article saying some of the Capitol police let the protesters in, and let them take selfies with them.

Any corroboration?

M.

I saw a tweeted video of them doing so. This only could have happened through incompetence, malice, or complicity on the part of law enforcement.

It could also be a tactic, like police taking the knee during the George Floyd protests, of trying to reduce the temperature to prevent violence.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 05:28:38 AM
Well, yes, and some police departments have a better track record with relating more personally to all the people for whose safety they are responsible.

But I think the answer to the BLM charge here is in the optics themselves.

As Doc Rivers and others are pointing out, there is a vast difference with the way the protesters were met and dealt with.

His summation was: "Can you imagine today, if those had all been black people?"

    https://sports.yahoo.com/doc-rivers-storming-us-capitol-trump-supporters-black-people-nba-233432973.html

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 07, 2021, 06:26:48 AM
Mick Mulvaney and Matt Pottinger have resigned. Mulvaney was nothing but a Trump stooge and apologist, but Pottinger was competent.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: research_prof on January 07, 2021, 06:51:19 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 06, 2021, 08:42:52 PM
Quote from: research_prof on January 06, 2021, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on January 06, 2021, 07:19:03 PM
Earlier today, we got a staff e-mail that we were closing early and Mayor Bowser had a 6 pm curfew for DC. It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city.

Serious trolling?

From The Washington Post: By midafternoon Wednesday, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) announced a citywide curfew starting at 6 p.m. But when the notification hit the phones of protesters, they scoffed at it. "Guess who's going home? None of us," someone in the Capitol yelled. "Time to take back what's ours," someone else screamed. "A new 1776 has just begun."

Arlington and Alexandria also imposed a 6 PM to 6 AM curfew.

Here is the link to the timeline of events: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/06/dc-protests-trump-rally-live-updates/

I am aware of all that. I do not live in a parallel universe. However, the following sentence sounded quite odd given what happened yesterday: "It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city."

So, we had people dying, but someone cared about not having to deal with traffic?! Like seriously people? Let's be a bit more human and not just care about ourselves. What happened yesterday is also related (among many other things) to having people that think like that on both sides of the aisle (i.e., just care about themselves and nothing other than that). So, the world is falling apart next to you and you care about traffic? Really!? Let's be humans, not robots.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 06:53:03 AM
Is there any danger of those positions being filled by our departing 'leader' with people who could be difficult to deal with overall?

I.e., as noted with Pence, do the resignations leave open slots that might be move volatile/pivotal in other ways?

Talk about a mess.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 06:55:52 AM
Quote from: research_prof on January 07, 2021, 06:51:19 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 06, 2021, 08:42:52 PM
Quote from: research_prof on January 06, 2021, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on January 06, 2021, 07:19:03 PM
Earlier today, we got a staff e-mail that we were closing early and Mayor Bowser had a 6 pm curfew for DC. It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city.

Serious trolling?

From The Washington Post: By midafternoon Wednesday, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) announced a citywide curfew starting at 6 p.m. But when the notification hit the phones of protesters, they scoffed at it. "Guess who's going home? None of us," someone in the Capitol yelled. "Time to take back what's ours," someone else screamed. "A new 1776 has just begun."

Arlington and Alexandria also imposed a 6 PM to 6 AM curfew.

Here is the link to the timeline of events: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/06/dc-protests-trump-rally-live-updates/

I am aware of all that. I do not live in a parallel universe. However, the following sentence sounded quite odd given what happened yesterday: "It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city."

So, we had people dying, but someone cared about not having to deal with traffic?! Like seriously people? Let's be a bit more human and not just care about ourselves. What happened yesterday is also related (among many other things) to having people that think like that on both sides of the aisle (i.e., just care about themselves and nothing other than that). So, the world is falling apart next to you and you care about traffic? Really!? Let's be humans, not robots.

If that's your concern you need to read more of hmaria's posts first.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: research_prof on January 07, 2021, 07:06:38 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 06:55:52 AM
Quote from: research_prof on January 07, 2021, 06:51:19 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 06, 2021, 08:42:52 PM
Quote from: research_prof on January 06, 2021, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on January 06, 2021, 07:19:03 PM
Earlier today, we got a staff e-mail that we were closing early and Mayor Bowser had a 6 pm curfew for DC. It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city.

Serious trolling?

From The Washington Post: By midafternoon Wednesday, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) announced a citywide curfew starting at 6 p.m. But when the notification hit the phones of protesters, they scoffed at it. "Guess who's going home? None of us," someone in the Capitol yelled. "Time to take back what's ours," someone else screamed. "A new 1776 has just begun."

Arlington and Alexandria also imposed a 6 PM to 6 AM curfew.

Here is the link to the timeline of events: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/06/dc-protests-trump-rally-live-updates/

I am aware of all that. I do not live in a parallel universe. However, the following sentence sounded quite odd given what happened yesterday: "It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city."

So, we had people dying, but someone cared about not having to deal with traffic?! Like seriously people? Let's be a bit more human and not just care about ourselves. What happened yesterday is also related (among many other things) to having people that think like that on both sides of the aisle (i.e., just care about themselves and nothing other than that). So, the world is falling apart next to you and you care about traffic? Really!? Let's be humans, not robots.

If that's your concern you need to read more of hmaria's posts first.

M.

Well... Again, yesterday we witnessed an insurrection. But we just had someone that said "it was nice because there was no traffic". No need to read any further. I learned all I need about this individual. Have a nice day everyone.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 07:26:06 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 06, 2021, 06:42:22 PM
I'm just fondly remembering this time just over 4 years ago. 700,000 women marched on Washington and it was perfectly civilized.

A "million" men marched on Washington some years ago and it turned out well also.  We've had lots and lots of perfectly civilized demonstrations over the years.  The fact that such things can happen here has long been one of our great strengths.  Unfortunately the "civilized" part has largely ceased to be the case with demonstrations over the past year, and it isn't the fault of any one faction or group of factions.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 07:37:13 AM
Quote from: research_prof on January 06, 2021, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on January 06, 2021, 07:19:03 PM
Earlier today, we got a staff e-mail that we were closing early and Mayor Bowser had a 6 pm curfew for DC. It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city.

Serious trolling?

Sounds more like an effort to look on the bright side in a situation where that's not easy to do right now. 

Glad that the worst was averted, and the Electoral College vote has been certified by Congress.  Still...four people are now dead.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 07:41:23 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 05:12:30 PM
Quote from: spork on January 06, 2021, 05:10:50 PM
Pence seems pissed off. First time I've heard him sound like he has a spine.

So, something good might come of it after all.

Hmm....

M.

It's too close to the next inauguration to have time for a formal impeachment process.  I would like to see the Vice President remove the President from office and hold it until then.  Then at some point, after more urgent business relating to the pandemic has been dealt with, I'd like to see the former President placed on trial for treason.  In a federal court, not by Congress.  They've got other business to take care of.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 07:49:42 AM
Quote from: research_prof on January 07, 2021, 07:06:38 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 06:55:52 AM
Quote from: research_prof on January 07, 2021, 06:51:19 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 06, 2021, 08:42:52 PM
Quote from: research_prof on January 06, 2021, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on January 06, 2021, 07:19:03 PM
Earlier today, we got a staff e-mail that we were closing early and Mayor Bowser had a 6 pm curfew for DC. It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city.

Serious trolling?

From The Washington Post: By midafternoon Wednesday, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) announced a citywide curfew starting at 6 p.m. But when the notification hit the phones of protesters, they scoffed at it. "Guess who's going home? None of us," someone in the Capitol yelled. "Time to take back what's ours," someone else screamed. "A new 1776 has just begun."

Arlington and Alexandria also imposed a 6 PM to 6 AM curfew.

Here is the link to the timeline of events: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/06/dc-protests-trump-rally-live-updates/

I am aware of all that. I do not live in a parallel universe. However, the following sentence sounded quite odd given what happened yesterday: "It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city."

So, we had people dying, but someone cared about not having to deal with traffic?! Like seriously people? Let's be a bit more human and not just care about ourselves. What happened yesterday is also related (among many other things) to having people that think like that on both sides of the aisle (i.e., just care about themselves and nothing other than that). So, the world is falling apart next to you and you care about traffic? Really!? Let's be humans, not robots.

If that's your concern you need to read more of hmaria's posts first.

M.

Well... Again, yesterday we witnessed an insurrection. But we just had someone that said "it was nice because there was no traffic". No need to read any further. I learned all I need about this individual. Have a nice day everyone.

No, you really don't. But it might be to their advantage not to have to deal with someone who sees things that way, so win-win.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 07, 2021, 07:54:40 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 07:41:23 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 05:12:30 PM
Quote from: spork on January 06, 2021, 05:10:50 PM
Pence seems pissed off. First time I've heard him sound like he has a spine.

So, something good might come of it after all.

Hmm....

M.

It's too close to the next inauguration to have time for a formal impeachment process.  I would like to see the Vice President remove the President from office and hold it until then.  Then at some point, after more urgent business relating to the pandemic has been dealt with, I'd like to see the former President placed on trial for treason.  In a federal court, not by Congress.  They've got other business to take care of.

Theoretically impeachment could be carried out very quickly; 25th amendment would be fine as well. It seems unfathomable that this man is going to be in office for another 14 days after directing an attack on the US government. But it also seems like there has been a decision to informally sideline Trump instead. I'd love to know what prompted him to call for a peaceful transition of power today - I'm sure it wasn't his conscience.

As I said in another thread, prior to this I would have been opposed to charging a former president. But now I agree with you that Trump must be charged. If leading an insurgency against the US government doesn't merit criminal charges then I don't know what does.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 07:56:24 AM
QuoteI'd love to know what prompted him to call for a peaceful transition of power today - I'm sure it wasn't his conscience.

He wants his Twitter feed back.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 07, 2021, 08:00:19 AM
Looks like the Senate is adjourned until Jan. 19, and the House until an unspecified date after Jan. 20. So: no impeachment, no 25th amendment*, and no $2000 cheques.



*I think?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: research_prof on January 07, 2021, 08:20:01 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 07:49:42 AM
Quote from: research_prof on January 07, 2021, 07:06:38 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 06:55:52 AM
Quote from: research_prof on January 07, 2021, 06:51:19 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 06, 2021, 08:42:52 PM
Quote from: research_prof on January 06, 2021, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on January 06, 2021, 07:19:03 PM
Earlier today, we got a staff e-mail that we were closing early and Mayor Bowser had a 6 pm curfew for DC. It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city.

Serious trolling?

From The Washington Post: By midafternoon Wednesday, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) announced a citywide curfew starting at 6 p.m. But when the notification hit the phones of protesters, they scoffed at it. "Guess who's going home? None of us," someone in the Capitol yelled. "Time to take back what's ours," someone else screamed. "A new 1776 has just begun."

Arlington and Alexandria also imposed a 6 PM to 6 AM curfew.

Here is the link to the timeline of events: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/06/dc-protests-trump-rally-live-updates/

I am aware of all that. I do not live in a parallel universe. However, the following sentence sounded quite odd given what happened yesterday: "It was nice to go home and get ahead of rush hour traffic leaving the city."

So, we had people dying, but someone cared about not having to deal with traffic?! Like seriously people? Let's be a bit more human and not just care about ourselves. What happened yesterday is also related (among many other things) to having people that think like that on both sides of the aisle (i.e., just care about themselves and nothing other than that). So, the world is falling apart next to you and you care about traffic? Really!? Let's be humans, not robots.

If that's your concern you need to read more of hmaria's posts first.

M.

Well... Again, yesterday we witnessed an insurrection. But we just had someone that said "it was nice because there was no traffic". No need to read any further. I learned all I need about this individual. Have a nice day everyone.

No, you really don't. But it might be to their advantage not to have to deal with someone who sees things that way, so win-win.

M.

M. you could just have acknowledged that the way your friend (or whatever this person is) expressed themselves was a bit off and end this thing there. But if you share their view too, well, too bad.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 08:26:34 AM
No, I'm saying you're too quick to write someone off so self-righteously without knowing them.

i took it as not unlike the urbane quips I may make when--despite the strong, deep, sincere awareness of many regrettable kinds of human cost, and even one death was too many, now we hear there were four--one has to see some kind of bright side or go mad.  Survivor cynicism, maybe?

Context is thick and deep these days. We need to cut each other a certain level of slack, while still holding to the fire those clay feet that clearly belong to half-baked individuals. Maybe I was too quick, too, in which case, apologies.

Back to the editing...and a meeting and three private lessons to teach before I end the day at 8 PM.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on January 07, 2021, 08:31:54 AM
I watched the speeches when they first came back last night. I now at least understand how McConnell has held power for this long. He really is good at speeches. His statement that "This country has faced down much greater dangers and an unhinged mob" was absolutely drenched in distain. He has clearly gotten everything he can from Trump and is ready to kick him to the curb.
  In contrast, Linsey Graham was likely drunk when he gave his speech. But he's done with it all as well.

I can't decide if having President Pence for 2 weeks would be worth it. It would render Trump ineligible for reelection, which would do us all good. But he would be pardoned by Pence, when I think he should be tried for many high crimes at the Federal level.

It was leaked yesterday afternoon that Biden has picked Merrick Garland for AG. This was clearly released once the Georgia seats were locked up. I'd love someone to get his thoughts on all of this.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 07, 2021, 09:23:30 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on January 07, 2021, 08:31:54 AM
I watched the speeches when they first came back last night. I now at least understand how McConnell has held power for this long. He really is good at speeches. His statement that "This country has faced down much greater dangers and an unhinged mob" was absolutely drenched in distain. He has clearly gotten everything he can from Trump and is ready to kick him to the curb.

McConnell's wife will be collecting her last federal paycheck. So no need to keep that gravy train rolling. Same for the husband of Elaine Chao's sister.

Quote

  In contrast, Linsey Graham was likely drunk when he gave his speech.

[. . .]

Sorry I missed this. Makes sense -- conniving quisling who is also a drunk.

If this were the good old days of the mid-19th century, when America was great, the 147 Congressional Republicans who voted against the electoral college vote would be convicted of sedition and hanged.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on January 07, 2021, 09:34:50 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 07, 2021, 08:00:19 AM
Looks like the Senate is adjourned until Jan. 19, and the House until an unspecified date after Jan. 20. So: no impeachment, no 25th amendment*, and no $2000 cheques.



*I think?

A 25th amendment removal is not initiated by congress -- it stipulates that the president can be removed if found to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office by the vice president and majority of the cabinet. Congress only becomes involved if the president contests the finding (which would certainly be the case here, but not in most cases it was imagined for, e.g., the president has stroke or is otherwise incapacitated). At that point 2/3 vote in both chambers would be needed.

So no, this isn't going to happen realistically, but not because congress is in recess (and remember they can be called back into session at any time-- this happens frequently for emergencies real and imagined).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 09:47:38 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 08:26:34 AM
No, I'm saying you're too quick to write someone off so self-righteously without knowing them.

i took it as not unlike the urbane quips I may make when--despite the strong, deep, sincere awareness of many regrettable kinds of human cost, and even one death was too many, now we hear there were four--one has to see some kind of bright side or go mad.  Survivor cynicism, maybe?

That's how I saw it too.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 07, 2021, 07:54:40 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 07:41:23 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 06, 2021, 05:12:30 PM
Quote from: spork on January 06, 2021, 05:10:50 PM
Pence seems pissed off. First time I've heard him sound like he has a spine.

So, something good might come of it after all.

Hmm....

M.

It's too close to the next inauguration to have time for a formal impeachment process.  I would like to see the Vice President remove the President from office and hold it until then.  Then at some point, after more urgent business relating to the pandemic has been dealt with, I'd like to see the former President placed on trial for treason.  In a federal court, not by Congress.  They've got other business to take care of.

Theoretically impeachment could be carried out very quickly; 25th amendment would be fine as well. It seems unfathomable that this man is going to be in office for another 14 days after directing an attack on the US government. But it also seems like there has been a decision to informally sideline Trump instead. I'd love to know what prompted him to call for a peaceful transition of power today - I'm sure it wasn't his conscience.

As I said in another thread, prior to this I would have been opposed to charging a former president. But now I agree with you that Trump must be charged. If leading an insurgency against the US government doesn't merit criminal charges then I don't know what does.

Right.  For once it would be a matter of absolutely unambiguous "high crimes and misdemeanors," and not a president's political opponents trying to trump up (to to speak) charges, as has been the case in the past.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 07, 2021, 09:55:35 AM
Quote from: Puget on January 07, 2021, 09:34:50 AM

A 25th amendment removal is not initiated by congress -- it stipulates that the president can be removed if found to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office by the vice president and majority of the cabinet. Congress only becomes involved if the president contests the finding (which would certainly be the case here, but not in most cases it was imagined for, e.g., the president has stroke or is otherwise incapacitated). At that point 2/3 vote in both chambers would be needed.

So no, this isn't going to happen realistically, but not because congress is in recess (and remember they can be called back into session at any time-- this happens frequently for emergencies real and imagined).


Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 07, 2021, 10:21:04 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 06:53:03 AM
Is there any danger of those positions being filled by our departing 'leader' with people who could be difficult to deal with overall?

I.e., as noted with Pence, do the resignations leave open slots that might be move volatile/pivotal in other ways?

Talk about a mess.

M.

The person who is difficult to deal with/volatile/pivotal is Trump. For his entire adult life, he's destroyed everything and everyone he's come in contact with. In the White House, he's surrounded himself with sycophants and enablers who delude themselves into believing that proximity to him will help them achieve their own ambitions. He will continue trying to burn down the country for as long as he's in a position to do so. The parallel here are people like David Koresh or Jim Jones. Or the Wisconsin pharmacist who deliberately left the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine out of the refrigerator -- if he hadn't been discovered and arrested, either his soon-to-be ex-wife and daughters, or some of his former co-workers, would be dead now.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 07, 2021, 10:50:30 AM
Chao resigned. Like I said, her last paycheck is already being processed.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on January 07, 2021, 11:20:23 AM
Quote from: Puget on January 07, 2021, 09:34:50 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 07, 2021, 08:00:19 AM
Looks like the Senate is adjourned until Jan. 19, and the House until an unspecified date after Jan. 20. So: no impeachment, no 25th amendment*, and no $2000 cheques.



*I think?

A 25th amendment removal is not initiated by congress -- it stipulates that the president can be removed if found to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office by the vice president and majority of the cabinet. Congress only becomes involved if the president contests the finding (which would certainly be the case here, but not in most cases it was imagined for, e.g., the president has stroke or is otherwise incapacitated). At that point 2/3 vote in both chambers would be needed.

So no, this isn't going to happen realistically, but not because congress is in recess (and remember they can be called back into session at any time-- this happens frequently for emergencies real and imagined).

Sure it is possible, but would it be wise.  I was listening to someone on the radio who mentioned the fact that this would require the entire cabinet to meet.  The issue with this, is that Trump would know, and would be more inclined to do something really crazy before they could do it.  I think they had a point, imagine how angry he would get knowing that this was happening, and I dont believe they could hide it from him.

That's the problem with giving the nuclear codes to someone with the temperament of a toddler...
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 11:32:22 AM
There are still two weeks for the toddler to create all kinds of mayhem, too.

It's like people keep thinking if they take this tool our of his hands, he just can't unscrew the door's hinges, meanwhile, he's built a rope walk out the window and gotten away.

Setting appropriate limits with teeth in them at this point might mean arresting him, first, and naming Pence in charge, afterwards.

I agree, if he has direct access to any of the seriously potent attributes of the position they may be very badly used.

But just sitting around hoping he won't try to stoke up other kinds of nonsense is delusional in its own right.

I'm hoping Biden and Harris are fully and safely now being accorded Secret Service protection, and/or whatever other kinds of security they need; he (or his benighted idolaters) could go for them next.

M.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 11:54:05 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 07, 2021, 11:20:23 AM
Quote from: Puget on January 07, 2021, 09:34:50 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 07, 2021, 08:00:19 AM
Looks like the Senate is adjourned until Jan. 19, and the House until an unspecified date after Jan. 20. So: no impeachment, no 25th amendment*, and no $2000 cheques.



*I think?

A 25th amendment removal is not initiated by congress -- it stipulates that the president can be removed if found to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office by the vice president and majority of the cabinet. Congress only becomes involved if the president contests the finding (which would certainly be the case here, but not in most cases it was imagined for, e.g., the president has stroke or is otherwise incapacitated). At that point 2/3 vote in both chambers would be needed.

So no, this isn't going to happen realistically, but not because congress is in recess (and remember they can be called back into session at any time-- this happens frequently for emergencies real and imagined).

Sure it is possible, but would it be wise.  I was listening to someone on the radio who mentioned the fact that this would require the entire cabinet to meet.  The issue with this, is that Trump would know, and would be more inclined to do something really crazy before they could do it.  I think they had a point, imagine how angry he would get knowing that this was happening, and I dont believe they could hide it from him.

That's the problem with giving the nuclear codes to someone with the temperament of a toddler...

At this point I'm pretty sure everybody who answers to the President knows that carrying out any instructions he gives in the next days is likely to require civil disobedience, to keep themselves out of hot water.  His levers of power have for practical purposes been disconnected.  A Cabinet meeting to depose him might provoke him, all right, but it's hard to see what he could do about it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on January 07, 2021, 12:39:37 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 11:54:05 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 07, 2021, 11:20:23 AM
Quote from: Puget on January 07, 2021, 09:34:50 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 07, 2021, 08:00:19 AM
Looks like the Senate is adjourned until Jan. 19, and the House until an unspecified date after Jan. 20. So: no impeachment, no 25th amendment*, and no $2000 cheques.



*I think?

A 25th amendment removal is not initiated by congress -- it stipulates that the president can be removed if found to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office by the vice president and majority of the cabinet. Congress only becomes involved if the president contests the finding (which would certainly be the case here, but not in most cases it was imagined for, e.g., the president has stroke or is otherwise incapacitated). At that point 2/3 vote in both chambers would be needed.

So no, this isn't going to happen realistically, but not because congress is in recess (and remember they can be called back into session at any time-- this happens frequently for emergencies real and imagined).

Sure it is possible, but would it be wise.  I was listening to someone on the radio who mentioned the fact that this would require the entire cabinet to meet.  The issue with this, is that Trump would know, and would be more inclined to do something really crazy before they could do it.  I think they had a point, imagine how angry he would get knowing that this was happening, and I dont believe they could hide it from him.

That's the problem with giving the nuclear codes to someone with the temperament of a toddler...

At this point I'm pretty sure everybody who answers to the President knows that carrying out any instructions he gives in the next days is likely to require civil disobedience, to keep themselves out of hot water.  His levers of power have for practical purposes been disconnected.  A Cabinet meeting to depose him might provoke him, all right, but it's hard to see what he could do about it.

Except nuke Iran or something and cause WWIII...

I doubt he would, but as far as I know, he could.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Langue_doc on January 07, 2021, 01:23:26 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 07, 2021, 12:39:37 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 07, 2021, 11:54:05 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 07, 2021, 11:20:23 AM
Quote from: Puget on January 07, 2021, 09:34:50 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 07, 2021, 08:00:19 AM
Looks like the Senate is adjourned until Jan. 19, and the House until an unspecified date after Jan. 20. So: no impeachment, no 25th amendment*, and no $2000 cheques.



*I think?

A 25th amendment removal is not initiated by congress -- it stipulates that the president can be removed if found to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office by the vice president and majority of the cabinet. Congress only becomes involved if the president contests the finding (which would certainly be the case here, but not in most cases it was imagined for, e.g., the president has stroke or is otherwise incapacitated). At that point 2/3 vote in both chambers would be needed.

So no, this isn't going to happen realistically, but not because congress is in recess (and remember they can be called back into session at any time-- this happens frequently for emergencies real and imagined).

Sure it is possible, but would it be wise.  I was listening to someone on the radio who mentioned the fact that this would require the entire cabinet to meet.  The issue with this, is that Trump would know, and would be more inclined to do something really crazy before they could do it.  I think they had a point, imagine how angry he would get knowing that this was happening, and I dont believe they could hide it from him.

That's the problem with giving the nuclear codes to someone with the temperament of a toddler...

At this point I'm pretty sure everybody who answers to the President knows that carrying out any instructions he gives in the next days is likely to require civil disobedience, to keep themselves out of hot water.  His levers of power have for practical purposes been disconnected.  A Cabinet meeting to depose him might provoke him, all right, but it's hard to see what he could do about it.

Except nuke Iran or something and cause WWIII...

I doubt he would, but as far as I know, he could.

He probably would, just to show the world and delude himself that he is making America great again.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 07, 2021, 02:51:02 PM
That's what I mean.

He needs to be accosted and secluded first, before anything else happens.

A year ago I said "keep him away from sharps." I still think that, too.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 07, 2021, 05:00:28 PM
It is being reported that a Capitol police officer has now died.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on January 07, 2021, 06:12:55 PM
Here are my minimal thoughts on using the 25th amendment.  Suppose that it is attempted.  What is to keep  The Great Pumpkin from firing all cabinet members in mass??  (Which is what Bolton had noted). 

Next.  Lets say that the VP and the Cabinet ARE able to pull it off?  Then what?  If his supporters were upset about the 'stolen election' what would they do if  their President were removed from office (even if just 2 weeks early)? While some are calling the rioting/insurrection on Wednesday at the Capital an attempted coup, What would the Trumpians say if their president Actually WERE to be Removed?  Could we not see that THEY would consider that a true coup?

They already think that the election was 'stolen', what would they DO (and would even MORE (who may be on the fence)  be prompted to join in and act!!!) IF he actually WERE removed, even with only 2 weeks to go?


Now, personally, I would like to see that he be removed, IF only to take him away from his role as Commander in Chief AND to remove his Pardon Pen.


In summary....Just sayin.... IF this THEN WHAT?  What would THEY do once Trump Was removed? 


On another note, as Graham noted in the Senate on Thursday morning... Those who think that the election was stolen are not going to believe anything that Nancy or Chuck come out with telling them the opposite.  Removing Their Guy wont be anything less than a coup, and this is NOT going to help Biden's administration.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 07, 2021, 06:29:23 PM
The best argument in favour of impeachment and removal--especially after the Beerbelly Putsch!--is that it would bar him from running again in four years.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on January 07, 2021, 06:40:54 PM
Quotee best argument in favour of impeachment and removal--especially after the Beerbelly Putsch!--is that it would bar him from running again in four years.

Do you think he could WIN???? 

Let him RUN!!

Otherwise, you give him EVERYTHING!  He wont run, but he wont lose!!  "They were SOOOO afraid of me, the made sure I could not run!  Not only did they steal the LAST Election, they wont even take the chance that they will have to steal the next one too!"

Not allowing him to be elected wont keep him from fomenting insurrection and discussing The Good People- On BOTH sides!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on January 07, 2021, 06:49:14 PM
I found this after posting:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/some-of-fox-newss-trump-supporters-now-declare-his-political-career-is-done/ar-BB1czkY7?li=BBnb7Kz

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on January 07, 2021, 06:55:17 PM
As the Cabinet members make a rush for the door, I wonder if there is a quorum issue for the 25th Amendment. Or, of course, the ones who haven't quit are the ones who would not remove him anyway.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on January 07, 2021, 06:56:37 PM
I think there is a non-trivial (but still small) chance he will resign with the promise of a pardon from Pence (if he starts to doubt he can make a self-pardon stick). I would put that chance a lot higher than removal (either through the 25th or senate trial)-- impeachment seems pretty likely at this point but not removal (2/3 of the Senate couldn't agree on where to order take-out, let alone that).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 07, 2021, 06:59:06 PM
There will not be 25th amendment: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/mnuchin-pompeo-discussed-trump-removal-after-dc-riots.html

Plan from within the administration is to run out the clock.* Removal by impeachment is possible, I guess, but I'm thinking resignation is the most likely of the three unlikely possibilities.

*"The general plan now is to let the clock run out," said one former senior administration official aware of the discussions. "There will be a reckoning for this president, but it doesn't need to happen in the next 13 days."

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 07, 2021, 07:01:07 PM
Quote from: Puget on January 07, 2021, 06:56:37 PM
I think there is a non-trivial (but still small) chance he will resign with the promise of a pardon from Pence (if he starts to doubt he can make a self-pardon stick). I would put that chance a lot higher than removal (either through the 25th or senate trial)-- impeachment seems pretty likely at this point but not removal (2/3 of the Senate couldn't agree on where to order take-out, let alone that).

I agree with this. Possible that 2/3 of Senate would support it in theory, but I don't think we'll even get to a vote before the 20th if impeachment happens.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on January 07, 2021, 07:06:21 PM
To give a nod to Star Wars....

"You cant win 'Chuck (Schumer)'.  If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." 


the dangers of Striking Him Down through the 25th amendment or impeachment. 

Rather Let him follow the lead of McArthur... let him just 'fade away'.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on January 07, 2021, 07:21:22 PM
Update: I didn't have to go to work today as part of our staff rotation. I'm back in next week.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 07, 2021, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: clean on January 07, 2021, 07:06:21 PM
To give a nod to Star Wars....

"You cant win 'Chuck (Schumer)'.  If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." 


the dangers of Striking Him Down through the 25th amendment or impeachment. 

Rather Let him follow the lead of McArthur... let him just 'fade away'.

I don't know about him becoming more powerful than we can imagine, but yes he might provoke more violent chaos if removed from office. On the other hand, he might provoke more violent chaos as President.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 07, 2021, 09:31:06 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 07, 2021, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: clean on January 07, 2021, 07:06:21 PM
To give a nod to Star Wars....

"You cant win 'Chuck (Schumer)'.  If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." 


the dangers of Striking Him Down through the 25th amendment or impeachment. 

Rather Let him follow the lead of McArthur... let him just 'fade away'.

I don't know about him becoming more powerful than we can imagine, but yes he might provoke more violent chaos if removed from office. On the other hand, he might provoke more violent chaos as President.

Maybe he will be able to campaign in 2024 as the 'peace & prosperity' candidate. "You see, not only did I not get the USA involved in any new wars, but while I could have started one right here at home, I chose not to." Someone was asking which cartoon character Trump reminds them of and most said Yertle The Turtle (though I think Dr. Seuss had Hitler in mind). I would say the Cat in The Hat. He creates chaos, and just when you think total destruction is coming, he backs off and restores the appearance of order -- for now.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 07, 2021, 09:47:13 PM
Quote from: clean on January 07, 2021, 06:40:54 PM

Do you think he could WIN???? 




He absolutely can. He came within 40 000 votes of winning this time. And the Dems are not exactly going to be running charisma magnets.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on January 07, 2021, 10:01:00 PM
Quote
Do you think he could WIN????




He absolutely can. He came within 40 000 votes of winning this time. And the Dems are not exactly going to be running charisma magnets.

That was THEN.  Since then, he has certainly lost SOME support.

But I reiterate, KEEPING him from running, would just give him more power to do harm. 

Hopefully, the New York courts will continue the investigations and he will find another place of government funded residence. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ergative on January 08, 2021, 01:10:48 AM
Quote from: Puget on January 07, 2021, 06:56:37 PM
I think there is a non-trivial (but still small) chance he will resign with the promise of a pardon from Pence (if he starts to doubt he can make a self-pardon stick). I would put that chance a lot higher than removal (either through the 25th or senate trial)-- impeachment seems pretty likely at this point but not removal (2/3 of the Senate couldn't agree on where to order take-out, let alone that).

I have trouble imagining him accepting that he lacks power as president to do anything (like a self-pardon), or willingly trusting that someone else will hold up their side of a bargain when he's at a disadvantage. Resignation + pardon from prez Pence would probably be the smartest way to extricate himself from this mess, but he's not smart.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 08, 2021, 02:46:35 AM
Quote from: clean on January 07, 2021, 10:01:00 PM

[. . . ]

But I reiterate, KEEPING him from running, would just give him more power to do harm. 

[. . .]

No it wouldn't. It would speed his descent into irrelevance and death.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 08, 2021, 03:39:06 AM
There are now too few Cabinet members to support a 25th amendment invocation, per one article (CNN, NBC?) I just saw, will get the URL shortly.

Omar and another rep are each drafting impeachment articles and Pelosi is also talking impeachment.

The jus8sprudential shilly-shallying is just a form of denial and procrastination.

Consequences must be enacted immediately to have the limiting effect that is needed.

When did he back down over at least saying he'd conceded? After all his social media trumpets were stoppered.

He only "gets" clear, strong messages of limitation and consequential results to his behaviors.

If you've ever dealt with a seriously abusive individual, you'd realize all the theoreticals don't affect them, because their self-image lies to them, telling them they're above "all that" and can transcend it with their charm and the power of their personality.

The toddler keeps hitting his cousin to get the red block in the playpen until someone takes the block, or him,, or both,, out out the playpen.

"Running out the clock" is a really bad idea. Like a badly trained racehorse, Trump will just see it as license to create mayhem all the way into the final stretch, and he'll call the race "won" if he gets away with it.

So will his followers. And you know what THEY'RE like, now...we all do.

M.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 04:19:10 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 07, 2021, 09:47:13 PM
Quote from: clean on January 07, 2021, 06:40:54 PM

Do you think he could WIN???? 




He absolutely can. He came within 40 000 votes of winning this time. And the Dems are not exactly going to be running charisma magnets.

The thing to remember is how much of the Republican party didn't want him as a candidate in the first place. It was one thing to "support" him as long as he was elected under their banner, but I think the odds of him getting the nonmination again are slim; it would only be becuase of a serious dearth of reasonable alternatives. He caught them by surprise last time; he can't be "the outsider" anymore.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 08, 2021, 05:30:57 AM
I still think that, like Hoover in the FBI, he keeps a file on each one and threatens blackmail anytime he's crossed.

Only a few, like Romney, have clean enough slates that they can affront him with impunity.

That's the underside of his power--and the fact that he actualizes the inner infant in his followers.

After all, EVERYONE wants to be able to eat Cheetos in bed, don't they?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 05:36:59 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 04:19:10 AM
The thing to remember is how much of the Republican party didn't want him as a candidate in the first place. It was one thing to "support" him as long as he was elected under their banner, but I think the odds of him getting the nomination again are slim; it would only be because of a serious dearth of reasonable alternatives. He caught them by surprise last time; he can't be "the outsider" anymore.

How I wish this were true.  However, I'm concerned that he will get the nomination again because of a surfeit of reasonable alternatives.  If the 2024 nomination fight is between Trump and Cruz, Trump and Hawley, or Trump and Rubio, then Trump loses.  If it's between Trump, Cruz, Hawley, Rubio, and ten other retired generals, inflated businessmen, and mediocre senators, then Trump wins.  That is what happened in 2016.

And that, friends, is why Democrats will not remove Trump from office in the next two weeks.  They want him to run again, as well they should, strategically.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 05:59:48 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 05:36:59 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 04:19:10 AM
The thing to remember is how much of the Republican party didn't want him as a candidate in the first place. It was one thing to "support" him as long as he was elected under their banner, but I think the odds of him getting the nomination again are slim; it would only be because of a serious dearth of reasonable alternatives. He caught them by surprise last time; he can't be "the outsider" anymore.

How I wish this were true.  However, I'm concerned that he will get the nomination again because of a surfeit of reasonable alternatives.  If the 2024 nomination fight is between Trump and Cruz, Trump and Hawley, or Trump and Rubio, then Trump loses.  If it's between Trump, Cruz, Hawley, Rubio, and ten other retired generals, inflated businessmen, and mediocre senators, then Trump wins.  That is what happened in 2016.


Didn't his "outsider" status kind of keep people from taking him seriously early on, so they didn't see him as a real threat until it was too late? That certainly can't happen this time around.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 08, 2021, 06:37:22 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 05:36:59 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 04:19:10 AM
The thing to remember is how much of the Republican party didn't want him as a candidate in the first place. It was one thing to "support" him as long as he was elected under their banner, but I think the odds of him getting the nomination again are slim; it would only be because of a serious dearth of reasonable alternatives. He caught them by surprise last time; he can't be "the outsider" anymore.

How I wish this were true.  However, I'm concerned that he will get the nomination again because of a surfeit of reasonable alternatives.  If the 2024 nomination fight is between Trump and Cruz, Trump and Hawley, or Trump and Rubio, then Trump loses.  If it's between Trump, Cruz, Hawley, Rubio, and ten other retired generals, inflated businessmen, and mediocre senators, then Trump wins.  That is what happened in 2016.

And that, friends, is why Democrats will not remove Trump from office in the next two weeks.  They want him to run again, as well they should, strategically.

I completely agree that he might get the nomination that way. That's in large part why he did last time. I also do not think he can win the general election after what happened this week. He (along with Rudy and Don Jr.) clearly incited the rioting. While the rioting this summer was bad, I think many posters are failing to realize the symbolic effect that it was the Capitol that was attacked. While he's still wildly popular with his base, he is no longer going To get much of any kind of support from other R's.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on January 08, 2021, 07:19:39 AM
Quote from: ergative on January 08, 2021, 01:10:48 AM
Quote from: Puget on January 07, 2021, 06:56:37 PM
I think there is a non-trivial (but still small) chance he will resign with the promise of a pardon from Pence (if he starts to doubt he can make a self-pardon stick). I would put that chance a lot higher than removal (either through the 25th or senate trial)-- impeachment seems pretty likely at this point but not removal (2/3 of the Senate couldn't agree on where to order take-out, let alone that).

I have trouble imagining him accepting that he lacks power as president to do anything (like a self-pardon), or willingly trusting that someone else will hold up their side of a bargain when he's at a disadvantage. Resignation + pardon from prez Pence would probably be the smartest way to extricate himself from this mess, but he's not smart.

I agree it isn't terribly likely, just more likely than removal.

I don't think he's dumb, he just cares only about himself-- if he thinks it is the only way to avoid federal prosecution he'd do it, with a lot of face-saving bluster.

At any rate, he can't do a thing about state charges. State's rights turn out to not be such a bad things sometimes.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 08, 2021, 07:40:17 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 07, 2021, 06:59:06 PM
There will not be 25th amendment: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/mnuchin-pompeo-discussed-trump-removal-after-dc-riots.html

Plan from within the administration is to run out the clock.* Removal by impeachment is possible, I guess, but I'm thinking resignation is the most likely of the three unlikely possibilities.

*"The general plan now is to let the clock run out," said one former senior administration official aware of the discussions. "There will be a reckoning for this president, but it doesn't need to happen in the next 13 days."

I'd rather they had gone ahead with it, but in their situation I guess I can't blame them too much for playing it safe.

I really don't see how the President could do all that much more harm in office at this point.  If he were to try to launch a war or coup or something nobody in either the military or in civilian government would obey his orders.  At worst he could incite another riot.  Hopefully his riot-minded supporters won't have the stomach for more of it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 08, 2021, 07:46:20 AM
I doubt Trump will even run in 2024. If he does run I do not think he'll get the nomination. If he does get the nomination I don't think he'll win. But just the possibility that he could run again should be enough to prompt Republicans in the Senate to move forward with removal. According to Maggie Haberman (NYTimes) there may be enough votes in the Senate, but time is not on their side.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 08, 2021, 08:22:28 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 07, 2021, 09:31:06 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 07, 2021, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: clean on January 07, 2021, 07:06:21 PM
To give a nod to Star Wars....

"You cant win 'Chuck (Schumer)'.  If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." 


the dangers of Striking Him Down through the 25th amendment or impeachment. 

Rather Let him follow the lead of McArthur... let him just 'fade away'.

I don't know about him becoming more powerful than we can imagine, but yes he might provoke more violent chaos if removed from office. On the other hand, he might provoke more violent chaos as President.

Maybe he will be able to campaign in 2024 as the 'peace & prosperity' candidate. "You see, not only did I not get the USA involved in any new wars, but while I could have started one right here at home, I chose not to." Someone was asking which cartoon character Trump reminds them of and most said Yertle The Turtle (though I think Dr. Seuss had Hitler in mind). I would say the Cat in The Hat. He creates chaos, and just when you think total destruction is coming, he backs off and restores the appearance of order -- for now.

That wouldn't make any sense since he did encourage civil conflict here at home.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 08:40:32 AM
He will run again, provided he's capable of doing so (which he may well not be--he's not exactly in peak physical and mental condition). But even if he doesn't, it's his party until it isn't. And for the time being, it's still his party.

As for Cruz, Hawley, and Rubio: I wouldn't put any money on them. Cruz and Hawley are charisma vacuums, Cruz is hated and derided by the Trumpeters, and Rubio is mostly just an object of their derision. I also don't see the Trumpeters accepting anyone who tried to ride Trump's coattails; they'll take someone in his mold (blustery, doesn't give a fuck, loudmouthed, etc.--so, not Rubio) but who isn't one of the "weakling" brownnosers (so, not the other two). I don't know who that is, but I don't think it's any of those three. More likely it's some random Q shithead nobody's ever heard of before.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 08, 2021, 08:53:52 AM
A "run out the clock" strategy will on its own do nothing to remove Trump from the public landscape after January 20. He will continue to spread lies to willing believers -- which, as of early November 2020, consisted of 74 million American voters -- for as long as it keeps netting him millions of dollars in gifts from the stupid and keeps bolstering his pathological ego.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on January 08, 2021, 09:08:27 AM
AOC said it best on 2/24/2019 on twitter, about the challenges ahead.

"But removing Trump will not remove the infrastructure of an entire party that embraced him; the dark money that funded him; the online radicalization that drummed his army; nor the racism he amplified+reanimated."

"As horrific as this president is, he is a symptom of much deeper problems."


Trump or no Trump, now or later. It doesn't matter. There are many, many voting Americans in and from the USA, who agree with, are in support of, and are aligned with his ideas. Well, they are really not Trump's ideas. Trump just leveraged what they already believed, validated it, made it OK to believe it in public, and put the name MAGA on it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on January 08, 2021, 09:29:12 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 08, 2021, 09:08:27 AM
AOC said it best on 2/24/2019 on twitter, about the challenges ahead.

"But removing Trump will not remove the infrastructure of an entire party that embraced him; the dark money that funded him; the online radicalization that drummed his army; nor the racism he amplified+reanimated."

"As horrific as this president is, he is a symptom of much deeper problems."


Trump or no Trump, now or later. It doesn't matter. There are many, many voting Americans in and from the USA, who agree with, are in support of, and are aligned with his ideas. Well, they are really not Trump's ideas. Trump just leveraged what they already believed, validated it, made it OK to believe it in public, and put the name MAGA on it.

Yeah, I dont even think he cares about some of the issues he has been pushing but knows that this is what will sell.  He was historically for gun control, but that would not have served him.  I find it hard to believe that he has a strong stance on abortion, and has probably paid for several, but that would not be good for business.   


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 09:39:21 AM
Remember that after the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, Hitler was arrested and sent to prison. The NYT even ran the headline "Hitler Virtually Eliminated" (https://www.nytimes.com/1923/09/28/archives/hitler-virtually-eliminated.html). Everyone thought that was the end of things. They were wrong, of course, and they were wrong partly because they were wrong about Hitler, but mostly because they were wrong about fascism and the national socialist movement.

Trump should absolutely be impeached and removed. He should also be convicted of his many crimes. But getting rid of him (if we even can! It's not a given...) is not enough, on its own, to stuff everything back in the box.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mythbuster on January 08, 2021, 10:02:52 AM
The Trumps- plural- will all run for office in the future. It's just a question of if it's Big Don, Donnie Jr., or Ivanka. Rumor here is that Ivanka has her sights set on Rubio's senate seat, which is up for a vote in 2022.  Eliminating Big Don from being able to run in some ways would increase his power, because he will be free to just campaign, call into radio talk shows etc. I think it's the job he would like best.

Convicting him on crimes that send him to prison (and the rest of family is possible), is the only way to eliminate dealing with this group for years to come. It still doesn't eliminate the ideas that drove the mob.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on January 08, 2021, 10:09:21 AM
Based on the comments some of my conservative associates (I wouldn't call them friends) have posted on Facebook, I think a large fraction of the Republican base still thinks Trump was screwed, that the attack on the Capitol was no worse than the BLM protests, that the Democrats are evil baby-killers who will steal their guns, so Trump is justified in rejecting the election, etc. Trump won't go away, Trumpism won't, the demonization of the Democrats won't.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 10:19:00 AM
So what's the solution here, guys? Or do you really intend to put seventy million people in literal reeducation camps? It doesn't seem wise to move toward a future in which forty percent of the country is silenced online, has no voice in the political process, and is vilified by the elite.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: apl68 on January 08, 2021, 10:40:39 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 10:19:00 AM
So what's the solution here, guys? Or do you really intend to put seventy million people in literal reeducation camps? It doesn't seem wise to move toward a future in which forty percent of the country is silenced online, has no voice in the political process, and is vilified by the elite.

Or to put writingprof's question in a less confrontational fashion, do other posters here really believe that all Republicans and all 70 million people who voted Trump are really violent racists and fascists?  It's not only the Democrats or the BLM supporters whom I've seen demonized and "othered" by some of the rhetoric here.  EVERYBODY needs to de-escalate their rhetoric if we're to have any hope of peace going forward.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on January 08, 2021, 10:50:33 AM
Returning to "could Trump win?"

Frankly, I think that it depends a lot on what the democrats do NOW.  The more extreme wing needs to be corralled, or yes, Trump Could Win!  The more the pendulum swings in one direction, the more it can swing back in the other.  IF the Democrats go too extreme (and I dont know what that means... forgive student debt, rent forgiveness/abatement, $20 minimum wage, monthly income guarantees, medicare for all, change tax rates on investment income, free college education, 'green new deal', carbon taxes, ...) the response will be dramatic.  IF Trump is the embodiment of the 'solution to AOC/Sanders' like policies,  then, yes, he stands a chance.

I dont know that even moderate policies would not be viewed by many as 'extreme', but the more progressive the move, the more there will be a push back, and the more the extremes will be seen as necessary to push things back to neutral.

It is for the Democrats to lose. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 08, 2021, 10:55:09 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 08, 2021, 10:40:39 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 10:19:00 AM
So what's the solution here, guys? Or do you really intend to put seventy million people in literal reeducation camps? It doesn't seem wise to move toward a future in which forty percent of the country is silenced online, has no voice in the political process, and is vilified by the elite.

Or to put writingprof's question in a less confrontational fashion, do other posters here really believe that all Republicans and all 70 million people who voted Trump are really violent racists and fascists?  It's not only the Democrats or the BLM supporters whom I've seen demonized and "othered" by some of the rhetoric here.  EVERYBODY needs to de-escalate their rhetoric if we're to have any hope of peace going forward.

You are right, but we also have to confront the reality that Republican party has embraced untruth, conspiracy, and authoritarianism. This is true of much of the party elite and too many voters for comfort. De-escalation is necessary, but there is a challenge to meeting people in the middle when they are not even operating in the same reality.


Quote from: clean on January 08, 2021, 10:50:33 AM
Returning to "could Trump win?"

Frankly, I think that it depends a lot on what the democrats do NOW.  The more extreme wing needs to be corralled, or yes, Trump Could Win!  The more the pendulum swings in one direction, the more it can swing back in the other.  IF the Democrats go too extreme (and I dont know what that means... forgive student debt, rent forgiveness/abatement, $20 minimum wage, monthly income guarantees, medicare for all, change tax rates on investment income, free college education, 'green new deal', carbon taxes, ...) the response will be dramatic.  IF Trump is the embodiment of the 'solution to AOC/Sanders' like policies,  then, yes, he stands a chance.

I dont know that even moderate policies would not be viewed by many as 'extreme', but the more progressive the move, the more there will be a push back, and the more the extremes will be seen as necessary to push things back to neutral.

It is for the Democrats to lose. 

Trump is an enormously unpopular figure, who just lost the election and cost the Republicans the House and Senate. His popularity will surely be shown to have dropped significantly in polls to come based on his post-election behavior. I would bet quite a lot that his political career is over.

Putting that aside, Democrats with Biden and the current slim majorities they have will not be passing legislation of the sorts that are highlighted in this post.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: clean on January 08, 2021, 11:16:39 AM
Quote
Trump is an enormously unpopular figure, who just lost the election

You know, I wish that this were true, and I hope that his popularity has dropped given his post election actions.  However, as much as people tout the number of votes that Biden got, people seem to forget that Trump got the second most votes in presidential election history.  Biden won by 7 million votes, if I recall the numbers. However, he wont more states than Biden, and many of those 7 million excess votes are from California alone. 

Quotewould bet quite a lot that his political career is over.
Frankly, Im on the same side of that bet.  I believe that his political career is over as well. I would go further to say that I dont think that he will even be able to resume his TV career, but given the quality of TV lately, I am not as confident on that one!!

QuotePutting that aside, Democrats with Biden and the current slim majorities they have will not be passing legislation of the sorts that are highlighted in this post.
Again, I agree that the probability of passing these (or anything without some bipartisan support) is slimmer, but the more the more often that the VP is used/needed to pass legislation, the more that will fall into the more this benefits the Republicans return to power. 

(BY THE WAY, BIDEN is on TV now and just advocated a $15 minimum wage).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 08, 2021, 02:25:42 PM
Several states just passed that, so why is that surprising?

It is indeed difficult to balance things out; the basic pay for a decent staff assistant here is double that to start at, but that's because of CoL.

My sibs in Michigan and cousins in Ohio may not make as much, but they are not wealthy and could not exist on 9 an hour, either.

So, different states, different rates, maybe, yes, but 15 an hour is almost nothing anymore.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on January 08, 2021, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 08, 2021, 10:40:39 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 10:19:00 AM
So what's the solution here, guys? Or do you really intend to put seventy million people in literal reeducation camps? It doesn't seem wise to move toward a future in which forty percent of the country is silenced online, has no voice in the political process, and is vilified by the elite.

Or to put writingprof's question in a less confrontational fashion, do other posters here really believe that all Republicans and all 70 million people who voted Trump are really violent racists and fascists?  It's not only the Democrats or the BLM supporters whom I've seen demonized and "othered" by some of the rhetoric here.  EVERYBODY needs to de-escalate their rhetoric if we're to have any hope of peace going forward.

No. Not all Republicans are violent racists and fascists, but you don't have to be a card-carrying member of the KKK to vote for Trump and empower him to carry out the wants of the KKK, neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, etc. For many that voted for Trump, and for the Republican politicians that unwaveringly supported Trump for four years, his racist platform, divisive rhetoric, and overall idiocy wasn't a dealbreaker. Consequently, their vote & support, respectively, put and kept the man in office who STOKED division as a matter of routine rhetoric and INCITED the insurrection at the Capitol.

A president, elected by liberals, DID NOT incite 2020 civil unrest. Liberals did not vote anyone into office that incited the 2020 "riots."

That's one of the differences, among many others, between the 2020 "riots" and the June 6, 2021 "riots." The "riot" of January 6, 2021 was incited by the president.

And that's why any time someone draws equivalencies between June 6 and 2020 #BLM, I get really agitated.


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 08, 2021, 04:12:37 PM
An instructive video with explanation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/).

And an image of one of the many "protestors" who were armed and appeared intent on taking members of Congress hostage (https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1347011413101998080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347011413101998080%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emptywheel.net%2F2021%2F01%2F08%2Ftiming-matters-impeach-convict-remove-now%2F).

In addition to the explosive devices found at the DNC and RNC headquarters, there was Lonnie Coffman's pick-up truck filled with firearms, ammunition, napalm, and Molotov cocktails (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/several-arrested-after-capitol-riot-including-man-accused-of-having-11-molotov-cocktails-in-truck/2535100/).

Meanwhile Trump was calling senators trying to get them to overturn the election (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/mike-lee-tommy-tuberville-trump-misdialed-capitol-riot/index.html).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 04:33:21 PM
Quote from: lightning on January 08, 2021, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 08, 2021, 10:40:39 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 10:19:00 AM
So what's the solution here, guys? Or do you really intend to put seventy million people in literal reeducation camps? It doesn't seem wise to move toward a future in which forty percent of the country is silenced online, has no voice in the political process, and is vilified by the elite.

Or to put writingprof's question in a less confrontational fashion, do other posters here really believe that all Republicans and all 70 million people who voted Trump are really violent racists and fascists?  It's not only the Democrats or the BLM supporters whom I've seen demonized and "othered" by some of the rhetoric here.  EVERYBODY needs to de-escalate their rhetoric if we're to have any hope of peace going forward.

No. Not all Republicans are violent racists and fascists, but you don't have to be a card-carrying member of the KKK to vote for Trump and empower him to carry out the wants of the KKK, neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, etc. For many that voted for Trump, and for the Republican politicians that unwaveringly supported Trump for four years, his racist platform, divisive rhetoric, and overall idiocy wasn't a dealbreaker. Consequently, their vote & support, respectively, put and kept the man in office who STOKED division as a matter of routine rhetoric and INCITED the insurrection at the Capitol.

A president, elected by liberals, DID NOT incite 2020 civil unrest. Liberals did not vote anyone into office that incited the 2020 "riots."

That's one of the differences, among many others, between the 2020 "riots" and the June 6, 2021 "riots." The "riot" of January 6, 2021 was incited by the president.

And that's why any time someone draws equivalencies between June 6 and 2020 #BLM, I get really agitated.

Just curious...are you also angry at the black Americans who voted for Trump? He did better with them than any republican candidate has for decades, including the genteel Mitt Romney. Do you think they know he's racist and vote for him anyway, or do you think they don't believe he's racist? Or do you actually think they don't know he's a racist? Is that your estimation of blacks?
And please, let's not bring up his dealings with tenants in 1980 or whenever. People change.
It amazes me that certain left leaners routinely routinely throw out that Trump is a flaming racist (even mentioning his ties to the KKK, which is now so small in membership it would hardly be worth any politician's time to even keep their phone number on file) When so many Americans do not believe that. You can certainly believe it, but it's not necessarily the word on Main Street. At all.
Know what I hope? That Tim Scott, Candace Owens, Kimberly Klacik, Coleman Hughes and their crowd whip the democrats' asses in the next ten years. We're so stuck in the USA. We need new faces, new optimism. Ideas.
Just saying.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 04:50:00 PM
con't

I can't find the article now, but there was a recent piece that attempted to explain why more black men have been voting for Trump. The theory (though stated more as a plain fact) was that Trump's chauvinistic domination of females appeals to black men who are trying to reach a new station in life by achieving parity with the classic white American male, who dominates women contempt fully. There are actually people writing this unbelievable stupid shit. And they are not considered fringe people. There are considered legitimate journalists, academics. By the elite Left...who else?
Just...wow. Insulting to blacks, much?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on January 08, 2021, 05:50:24 PM
Here's an interesting new piece of information (at least to me)-- it seems that if impeachment begins while someone is still in office it can continue even if they leave office, to prevent them from ever serving again. So conceivably the Senate trial could be held after the 20th, with Ds in control of the chamber. You still need 2/3 to convict though-- have enough Senate Rs finally had enough? Doubtful, but we'll see.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/impeachment-president-trump-capitol.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

In other news, Murkowski is openly threatening to leave the R party. Given that she won *as a write-in* after being primaried before, and Alaska just adopted an open top-4 primary with ranked-choice voting in the general system, there doesn't seem to be much downside for her to become an independent and caucusing with the Ds. She can probably get some good committee spots in exchange for preventing Harris from having to spend quite so much time breaking ties. Collins may also be tempted I imagine.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on January 08, 2021, 05:58:54 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 04:33:21 PM
Quote from: lightning on January 08, 2021, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 08, 2021, 10:40:39 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 10:19:00 AM
So what's the solution here, guys? Or do you really intend to put seventy million people in literal reeducation camps? It doesn't seem wise to move toward a future in which forty percent of the country is silenced online, has no voice in the political process, and is vilified by the elite.

Or to put writingprof's question in a less confrontational fashion, do other posters here really believe that all Republicans and all 70 million people who voted Trump are really violent racists and fascists?  It's not only the Democrats or the BLM supporters whom I've seen demonized and "othered" by some of the rhetoric here.  EVERYBODY needs to de-escalate their rhetoric if we're to have any hope of peace going forward.

No. Not all Republicans are violent racists and fascists, but you don't have to be a card-carrying member of the KKK to vote for Trump and empower him to carry out the wants of the KKK, neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, etc. For many that voted for Trump, and for the Republican politicians that unwaveringly supported Trump for four years, his racist platform, divisive rhetoric, and overall idiocy wasn't a dealbreaker. Consequently, their vote & support, respectively, put and kept the man in office who STOKED division as a matter of routine rhetoric and INCITED the insurrection at the Capitol.

A president, elected by liberals, DID NOT incite 2020 civil unrest. Liberals did not vote anyone into office that incited the 2020 "riots."

That's one of the differences, among many others, between the 2020 "riots" and the June 6, 2021 "riots." The "riot" of January 6, 2021 was incited by the president.

And that's why any time someone draws equivalencies between June 6 and 2020 #BLM, I get really agitated.

Just curious...are you also angry at the black Americans who voted for Trump? He did better with them than any republican candidate has for decades, including the genteel Mitt Romney. Do you think they know he's racist and vote for him anyway, or do you think they don't believe he's racist? Or do you actually think they don't know he's a racist? Is that your estimation of blacks?
And please, let's not bring up his dealings with tenants in 1980 or whenever. People change.
It amazes me that certain left leaners routinely routinely throw out that Trump is a flaming racist (even mentioning his ties to the KKK, which is now so small in membership it would hardly be worth any politician's time to even keep their phone number on file) When so many Americans do not believe that. You can certainly believe it, but it's not necessarily the word on Main Street. At all.
Know what I hope? That Tim Scott, Candace Owens, Kimberly Klacik, Coleman Hughes and their crowd whip the democrats' asses in the next ten years. We're so stuck in the USA. We need new faces, new optimism. Ideas.
Just saying.

It doesn't matter who voted for Trump. More African-Americans than expected, voting for Trump, does not negate the racism of Trump/MAGA (in whole or in part) nor does it confer absolution (in whole or in part) on Trump and MAGA. That would be the same as saying that Ashanti complicity in the West African slave trade, mitigates the atrocities committed by the Dutch and the English slave traders and the American slave owners.

We can certainly examine the nuances of the relatively few African American voters who voted for Trump (believe me, MAGA/Trump supporters like to remind everyone of the African Americans who voted for Trump, so I'm completely aware of that), and you bring up some very interesting and startling points. But using this outlier to make the leap to buttressing your ambiguous red herring counterpoint and your assertion that my argument demonstrates a lower estimation of the African-American voting block? Puuhhhllllleeeeaazzzz . . . you have much better things to do than that.

You know what I sincerely hope? (although I'm not getting my hopes up) I hope that we, as higher education professionals, can finally get support and leadership from DC that can help get higher ed get back on track. It's not that our jobs are better under Democrats, because it isn't. It's simply much worse under Republicans. And maybe, just maybe, we can finally re-prioritize the education & research mission of universities, and open up more full-time tenure-track positions, so you don't have to be in adjunct hell anymore.

There. How's that for an off-topic non-sequitur?! (just taking the shortcut to the inevitable pivot--that's all).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 06:24:18 PM
Quote from: lightning on January 08, 2021, 05:58:54 PM
It doesn't matter who voted for Trump. More African-Americans than expected, voting for Trump, does not negate the racism of Trump/MAGA (in whole or in part) nor does it confer absolution (in whole or in part) on Trump and MAGA. That would be the same as saying that Ashanti complicity in the West African slave trade, mitigates the atrocities committed by the Dutch and the English slave traders and the American slave owners.

We can certainly examine the nuances of the relatively few African American voters who voted for Trump (believe me, MAGA/Trump supporters like to remind everyone of the African Americans who voted for Trump, so I'm completely aware of that), and you bring up some very interesting and startling points. But using this outlier to make the leap to buttressing your ambiguous red herring counterpoint and your assertion that my argument demonstrates a lower estimation of the African-American voting block? Puuhhhllllleeeeaazzzz . . . you have much better things to do than that.

You know what I sincerely hope? (although I'm not getting my hopes up) I hope that we, as higher education professionals, can finally get support and leadership from DC that can help get higher ed get back on track. It's not that our jobs are better under Democrats, because it isn't. It's simply much worse under Republicans. And maybe, just maybe, we can finally re-prioritize the education & research mission of universities, and open up more full-time tenure-track positions, so you don't have to be in adjunct hell anymore.

There. How's that for an off-topic non-sequitur?! (just taking the shortcut to the inevitable pivot--that's all).

Long as you're going there, i am not qualified for the tenure track and never will be. I'll be qualified for medicare soon.  I am content with my lot in my fashion, but there is no reason higher education hiring practices are above criticism just because intelligent accomplished people like their privileges. Higher ed under democrats in government will not improve things for adjunct faculty and you don't believe they will either. Stop pretending I'm that stupid. It will save both of us time. The best thing that would happen could be more national health care, which would also be another windfall for the tenure track as they will stop giving us CLA raises.
Difference between libertarians and liberals: libertarians love the dead end academic job market and work hard to maintain it. Liberals hate the dead academic job market. They work hard to maintain it too.
Re: Trump and his racism -- have you listened to John McWhorter's video where he explains that the anti-racism/white fragility mantra amounts to a view of black people as temperamentally unable to cope with the outside world, inferior? You might find it interesting. He's no fan of Trump, but he quietly blows the lid off of the left's sense of supreme entitlement to the black vote.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 11, 2021, 03:55:43 AM
NYT article on failures at all levels to protect the U.S. Capitol:

"There was a failure among law enforcement to imagine that people who 'look like me' would do this. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/politics/capitol-siege-security.html)" (some of the rioters were reportedly police officers from jurisdictions in various states)

And guess what? It's not over. Georgia's run-off elections for Senate are not yet certified, and there's chatter about events in state capitals across the country being planned for January 17.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 07:57:23 AM
We should expect right wing terrorism targeting both policymakers to become increasingly common in the next few years. Thanks to Trump for ginning up his supporters with lies and Republicans for either actively or passively supporting his efforts.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 08:20:07 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 07:57:23 AM
We should expect right wing terrorism targeting both policymakers to become increasingly common in the next few years. Thanks to Trump for ginning up his supporters with lies and Republicans for either actively or passively supporting his efforts.

So if the Republican party evaporated, so the Democratic party was the only major party, do you think that the country would be on the road to Utopia?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on January 11, 2021, 08:23:31 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 08:20:07 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 07:57:23 AM
We should expect right wing terrorism targeting both policymakers to become increasingly common in the next few years. Thanks to Trump for ginning up his supporters with lies and Republicans for either actively or passively supporting his efforts.

So if the Republican party evaporated, so the Democratic party was the only major party, do you think that the country would be on the road to Utopia?

I think we need a two-party system in which both parties subscribe to the same set of facts, just different interpretations, and that both act in good faith. The Republican party these days has a substantial faction (probably a majority) that denies factual evidence and acts in bad faith.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 11, 2021, 08:28:54 AM
All the jurisprudential dithering is imprudent.

Limit-setting is needed.

Consequential limits are the only way to do that.

People who dither about this or that side effect are trying to side-step effective action.

If you've ever dealt directly with abusive, dangerous people, you learn this.

Pelosi has it right: keep the pressure up and don't let Trump pull any shenanigans, now or later.

Stop the pussyfoot dance of "what-about-this-or-that." Start the impeachment, get the nuke codes away from him, and let the NY Attorney General arrest him on Jan.21.

Spoiled children are dangerous.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 08:29:14 AM
Assuming current Republicans didn't migrate en masse to the Democrats, yes, the country would be in a better place. But, as pgher observes, the more desirable situation is a multi-party state in which the other party(ies) isn't (aren't) dominated by terribad actors.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 08:20:07 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 07:57:23 AM
We should expect right wing terrorism targeting both policymakers to become increasingly common in the next few years. Thanks to Trump for ginning up his supporters with lies and Republicans for either actively or passively supporting his efforts.

So if the Republican party evaporated, so the Democratic party was the only major party, do you think that the country would be on the road to Utopia?

What an absurd and pointlessly provocative response to my comment. As Joe Biden said, we need a strong and principled Republican party. Currently party leadership has failed to provide a legitimate opposition and instead resorted to authoritarianism, conspiracy theories, and falsehoods in an effort to appeal to the worst instincts of the American people. If you actually care about democracy or about the Republican party you should want a deep reorientation of its approach to politics.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 08:35:13 AM
Quote from: pgher on January 11, 2021, 08:23:31 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 08:20:07 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 07:57:23 AM
We should expect right wing terrorism targeting both policymakers to become increasingly common in the next few years. Thanks to Trump for ginning up his supporters with lies and Republicans for either actively or passively supporting his efforts.

So if the Republican party evaporated, so the Democratic party was the only major party, do you think that the country would be on the road to Utopia?

I think we need a two-party system in which both parties subscribe to the same set of facts, just different interpretations, and that both act in good faith. The Republican party these days has a substantial faction (probably a majority) that denies factual evidence and acts in bad faith.

Well said.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 08:39:15 AM
Quote from: pgher on January 11, 2021, 08:23:31 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 08:20:07 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 07:57:23 AM
We should expect right wing terrorism targeting both policymakers to become increasingly common in the next few years. Thanks to Trump for ginning up his supporters with lies and Republicans for either actively or passively supporting his efforts.

So if the Republican party evaporated, so the Democratic party was the only major party, do you think that the country would be on the road to Utopia?

I think we need a two-party system in which both parties subscribe to the same set of facts, just different interpretations, and that both act in good faith. The Republican party these days has a substantial faction (probably a majority) that denies factual evidence and acts in bad faith.

The progressives on the left don't subscribe to a lot of facts about things like biology; both sides have their serious blind spots.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 08:29:14 AM
Assuming current Republicans didn't migrate en masse to the Democrats, yes, the country would be in a better place. But, as pgher observes, the more desirable situation is a multi-party state in which the other party(ies) isn't (aren't) dominated by terribad actors.

It boggles my mind that anyone would think this. History has shown that any person or group with no serious opposition will eventually go way off the rails. (And if there were only one party, it wouldn't matter how many people "migrated" to it since a tiny number of votes would be all that was necessary to elect them with no opposition. And that's without them legislating themselves as "government for life".)


"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 11, 2021, 08:43:11 AM
QuoteThe progressives on the left don't subscribe to a lot of facts about things like biology; both sides have their serious blind spots

Um...you do know that at least one progressive, AOC, has a degree in microbiology, yes?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Cheerful on January 11, 2021, 08:44:11 AM
There should be term limits for members of Congress.  Incumbents have too much power.  Give more Americans an opportunity to serve.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 08:44:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 08:39:15 AM
Quote from: pgher on January 11, 2021, 08:23:31 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 08:20:07 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 07:57:23 AM
We should expect right wing terrorism targeting both policymakers to become increasingly common in the next few years. Thanks to Trump for ginning up his supporters with lies and Republicans for either actively or passively supporting his efforts.

So if the Republican party evaporated, so the Democratic party was the only major party, do you think that the country would be on the road to Utopia?

I think we need a two-party system in which both parties subscribe to the same set of facts, just different interpretations, and that both act in good faith. The Republican party these days has a substantial faction (probably a majority) that denies factual evidence and acts in bad faith.

The progressives on the left don't subscribe to a lot of facts about things like biology; both sides have their serious blind spots.

Republican "blindspot," by which I mean purposeful lies by party leadership, led to an insurrection on the Capital. Stop your pointless whataboutism for five minutes to see how destructive this nonsense has become. 
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 08:47:05 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 11, 2021, 08:43:11 AM
QuoteThe progressives on the left don't subscribe to a lot of facts about things like biology; both sides have their serious blind spots

Um...you do know that at least one progressive, AOC, has a degree in microbiology, yes?

M.

Amusing indeed to hear Republicans stand up for biology after decades of attacking evolution.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 08:48:35 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 08:39:15 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 08:29:14 AM
Assuming current Republicans didn't migrate en masse to the Democrats, yes, the country would be in a better place. But, as pgher observes, the more desirable situation is a multi-party state in which the other party(ies) isn't (aren't) dominated by terribad actors.

It boggles my mind that anyone would think this. History has shown that any person or group with no serious opposition will eventually go way off the rails. (And if there were only one party, it wouldn't matter how many people "migrated" to it since a tiny number of votes would be all that was necessary to elect them with no opposition. And that's without them legislating themselves as "government for life".)


"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It boggles my mind that you would thusly mischaracterize what I wrote. To help with your reading comprehension, I've added bold tags to my original post.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 08:51:37 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 11, 2021, 08:43:11 AM
QuoteThe progressives on the left don't subscribe to a lot of facts about things like biology; both sides have their serious blind spots

Um...you do know that at least one progressive, AOC, has a degree in microbiology, yes?

M.

FWIW, her degree is in IR and economics. But she did come second for microbiology at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in her last year of high school.

(Even so, your point stands: the claim was ludicrous on the face of it.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on January 11, 2021, 08:53:28 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on January 11, 2021, 08:44:11 AM
There should be term limits for members of Congress.  Incumbents have too much power.  Give more Americans an opportunity to serve.

We have term limits at the State level in California and it's a hot mess. The only people who have any clue about what is going on are the lobbyists and staffers.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on January 11, 2021, 09:00:21 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 08:20:07 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 07:57:23 AM
We should expect right wing terrorism targeting both policymakers to become increasingly common in the next few years. Thanks to Trump for ginning up his supporters with lies and Republicans for either actively or passively supporting his efforts.

So if the Republican party evaporated, so the Democratic party was the only major party, do you think that the country would be on the road to Utopia?

Again, using California as an example, which is dominated by Democrats - all that has happened is that the Democrats have sorted themselves into their own factions.

People naturally disagree with one another on issues, and they organize into coalitions based on their priorities.

What I don't like is that we have two parties which makes it too easy to split the electorate on fine-grained issues and is the reason we always have such close elections. Then people pick a team and are fiercely loyal. Yankees vs Red Sox, Dodgers vs Giants...

Other countries that have 3, 4, 5 parties and a Prime Minister appointed by the majority of Congress (as opposed to a separately elected President) seem to be forced to create coalition governments which makes the center more appealing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 09:04:16 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 11, 2021, 09:00:21 AM

Other countries that have 3, 4, 5 parties and a Prime Minister appointed by the majority of Congress (as opposed to a separately elected President) seem to be forced to create coalition governments which makes the center more appealing.


Well... that mostly only happens when you have proportional representation (or, rarely, minority governments). Otherwise, what ends up happening is that one party forms a majority government with around 30% of the vote, and then they govern entirely unhindered by the Opposition.

And the PM is just the head of the party with the most seats. They're not selected after the fact by the entire Parliament (or its equivalent).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 09:17:56 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 08:51:37 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 11, 2021, 08:43:11 AM
QuoteThe progressives on the left don't subscribe to a lot of facts about things like biology; both sides have their serious blind spots

Um...you do know that at least one progressive, AOC, has a degree in microbiology, yes?

M.

FWIW, her degree is in IR and economics. But she did come second for microbiology at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in her last year of high school.

(Even so, your point stands: the claim was ludicrous on the face of it.)

So the idea that "biological sex is a social construct" would be universally rejected by people on the left?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Cheerful on January 11, 2021, 09:34:39 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 08:51:37 AM
But she did come second for microbiology at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in her last year of high school.

LOL.  Akin to the tv commercial about staying at "a Holiday Inn Express last night"?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 11, 2021, 10:41:31 AM
The USA's electoral system needs to replace plurality voting with ranked choice/single transferable vote so that the interests of the electorate are better represented.

Meanwhile, Trump still has control of the executive branch.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 10:51:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 09:17:56 AM

So the idea that "biological sex is a social construct" would be universally rejected by people on the left?

Since when is universal acceptance the standard for anything? I doubt you could come up with a single fact that's universally accepted without so narrowing the class of people involved as to render it useless.

This particular question, at any rate, is meaningless. It's meaningless because we've established, elsewhere on The Fora that you do not understand social construction and its claims, and have no interest in doing so. We've also established that you are not interested in the nuances that are actually involved in understanding the scientific account of biological sex, which is nothing like as clear-cut as people often believe it is. So, absent further precisification of what you mean by those terms in that question, it's meaningless. The issue is not helped by the fact that the term "the left" is massively overgeneral, and almost certainly means something different to you than it does to me and others.


Quote from: Cheerful on January 11, 2021, 09:34:39 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 08:51:37 AM
But she did come second for microbiology at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in her last year of high school.

LOL.  Akin to the tv commercial about staying at "a Holiday Inn Express last night"?

I was offering an explanation for the confusion, not a defence of her credentials. That said, I'm willing to bet AOC has a better understanding of microbiology than most people (myself included).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on January 11, 2021, 10:58:33 AM
Quote from: spork on January 11, 2021, 10:41:31 AM
The USA's electoral system needs to replace plurality voting with ranked choice/single transferable vote so that the interests of the electorate are better represented.


Works well here in SF. In fact, candidates often join up with each other and ask supporters to put the other candidate as their second choice to build coalitions.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 11:09:52 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 10:51:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 09:17:56 AM

So the idea that "biological sex is a social construct" would be universally rejected by people on the left?


This particular question, at any rate, is meaningless. It's meaningless because we've established, elsewhere on The Fora that you do not understand social construction and its claims, and have no interest in doing so. We've also established that you are not interested in the nuances that are actually involved in understanding the scientific account of biological sex, which is nothing like as clear-cut as people often believe it is.


The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Cheerful on January 11, 2021, 11:31:24 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 10:51:54 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on January 11, 2021, 09:34:39 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 08:51:37 AM
But she did come second for microbiology at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in her last year of high school.
LOL.  Akin to the tv commercial about staying at "a Holiday Inn Express last night"?
I was offering an explanation for the confusion, not a defence of her credentials. That said, I'm willing to bet AOC has a better understanding of microbiology than most people (myself included).

I thought your finding was humorous, nothing more, nothing less.  I didn't think you were defending or critiquing her credentials.  I know nothing about AOC's understanding of microbio and don't much care.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on January 11, 2021, 11:43:09 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 10:51:54 AM
We've also established that you are not interested in the nuances that are actually involved in understanding the scientific account of biological sex, which is nothing like as clear-cut as people often believe it is.

For anyone who is interested, I'd recommend the Radiolab mini-series Gonads as a great introduction to the biological complexity: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/projects/radiolab-presents-gonads

I promise listing to it will be both more productive and more fun than yelling at each other here.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 12:25:34 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 11:09:52 AM

The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.


Again, this only serves to demonstrates your ignorance. That's not what anybody has said, or would say. Even those who would argue that there's an element of social construction at work in biological sex.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 12:47:47 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 12:25:34 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 11:09:52 AM

The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.


Again, this only serves to demonstrates your ignorance. That's not what anybody has said, or would say. Even those who would argue that there's an element of social construction at work in biological sex.

Is Sex Socially Constructed? (https://arcdigital.media/is-sex-socially-constructed-81cf3ef79f07)

Biological Sex As A Social Construct (https://medium.com/@ES_4P/biological-sex-as-a-social-construct-b2583c222737)

Nicholas Matte, Lecturer, Transgender Studies at the University of Toronto simply denies that biological sex exists. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10fDRERJh4w)

Biological Sex is a social construct (https://growinguptransgender.com/2018/11/01/biological-sex-is-a-social-construct/)

etc.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ergative on January 11, 2021, 12:54:53 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 11:09:52 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 10:51:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 09:17:56 AM

So the idea that "biological sex is a social construct" would be universally rejected by people on the left?


This particular question, at any rate, is meaningless. It's meaningless because we've established, elsewhere on The Fora that you do not understand social construction and its claims, and have no interest in doing so. We've also established that you are not interested in the nuances that are actually involved in understanding the scientific account of biological sex, which is nothing like as clear-cut as people often believe it is.


The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.

If you want to make issues of biological sex entirely dependent on accurate, precise, medical descriptions, then you either need to stop talking about it entirely, because medical descriptions of strangers' private parts are none of your business, or else declare that you are a pervert who can't stop wondering about strangers' private parts. Or you can acknowledge that the surrounding culture and ideology is exactly why it's a general topic of conversation in the first place.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 01:00:52 PM
Quote from: ergative on January 11, 2021, 12:54:53 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 11:09:52 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 10:51:54 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 09:17:56 AM

So the idea that "biological sex is a social construct" would be universally rejected by people on the left?


This particular question, at any rate, is meaningless. It's meaningless because we've established, elsewhere on The Fora that you do not understand social construction and its claims, and have no interest in doing so. We've also established that you are not interested in the nuances that are actually involved in understanding the scientific account of biological sex, which is nothing like as clear-cut as people often believe it is.


The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.

If you want to make issues of biological sex entirely dependent on accurate, precise, medical descriptions, then you either need to stop talking about it entirely, because medical descriptions of strangers' private parts are none of your business, or else declare that you are a pervert who can't stop wondering about strangers' private parts. Or you can acknowledge that the surrounding culture and ideology is exactly why it's a general topic of conversation in the first place.

Medical descriptions of strangers' cancer diagnoses are their own business as well, but it doesn't make them "socially constructed".
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 11, 2021, 01:08:27 PM
I see no connection between this topic and the subject of the thread. Start another thread.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 03:06:47 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 12:47:47 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 12:25:34 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 11:09:52 AM

The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.


Again, this only serves to demonstrates your ignorance. That's not what anybody has said, or would say. Even those who would argue that there's an element of social construction at work in biological sex.

Quote

Is Sex Socially Constructed? (https://arcdigital.media/is-sex-socially-constructed-81cf3ef79f07)

Byrne argues that biological sex is not socially constructed, so if that was meant to be some sort of counterexample to what I said... it's not. He, at least, is well-informed on the issue, and understands the relevant nuances.

Quote
Biological Sex As A Social Construct (https://medium.com/@ES_4P/biological-sex-as-a-social-construct-b2583c222737)

This one also argues that biological sex is not socially constructed. It reflects some basic misunderstandings of what social construction is, however, and what it would mean to argue that biological sex is socially constructed in some way. Seriously, buddy, did you not read your sources before posting them?

Quote
Nicholas Matte, Lecturer, Transgender Studies at the University of Toronto simply denies that biological sex exists. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10fDRERJh4w)

You didn't notice that this 35 second clip is edited to make it look like Matte is denying the existence of biological sex? Sigh. 12 seconds in he says "that's a very popular misconception."

Quote
Biological Sex is a social construct (https://growinguptransgender.com/2018/11/01/biological-sex-is-a-social-construct/)


This one does not evince a very sophisticated understanding of social construction at all (in fact, I'd argue it gets it mostly wrong). But it's also just a blog post, which isn't written for the same audience as an academic treatise--nor does or should it marshal the same standards of evidence. I'll grant you that it comes closest to the claim you made earlier, although even then it manages to be somewhat more sophisticated about it. But again, when I say 'nobody' says that I'm referring to suitably informed people, not 'absolutely anyone and everyone in the universe'.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 04:17:21 PM
You guys have been feeding the troll all day I see, letting this person distract from the treasonous and seditious behavior at the Capital with an irrelevant (and misinformed) series of posts about biology.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 11, 2021, 04:18:53 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 04:17:21 PM
You guys have been feeding the troll all day I see, letting this person distract from the treasonous and seditious behavior at the Capital with an irrelevant (and misinformed) series of posts about biology.

Yes, you're right. I'll stop.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: downer on January 11, 2021, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: spork on January 11, 2021, 01:08:27 PM
I see no connection between this topic and the subject of the thread. Start another thread.

The connection is about the debate over which side perverted science more.

Some Republicans have been climate-change deniers, and pandemic skeptics. These are largely debates outside of the academy, between left and right. The right takes mostly ludicrous positions, defending policies that have and will cost thousands of lives.

Some Democrats have taken positions on gender and trans identity which some argue denies biological truth. As far as I know Biden took no particular position on gender and biology, but did promise to defend transgender rights. Other Dem pres candidates did take some strong positions on gender identity. These are very much debates mostly within the academy, among liberals. I can hardly imagine anyone on the left voted for Trump as a result of this debate. So in that sense, it is completely irrelevant to this thread. It is not even as if the right is a consistent defender of free speech on campus, though I get the impression that they do love to highlight a lot of cases of cancel culture when those on the right get shut down.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 11, 2021, 04:52:13 PM
Quote from: downer on January 11, 2021, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: spork on January 11, 2021, 01:08:27 PM
I see no connection between this topic and the subject of the thread. Start another thread.

The connection is about the debate over which side perverted science more.

Some Republicans have been climate-change deniers, and pandemic skeptics. These are largely debates outside of the academy, between left and right. The right takes mostly ludicrous positions, defending policies that have and will cost thousands of lives.

Some Democrats have taken positions on gender and trans identity which some argue denies biological truth. As far as I know Biden took no particular position on gender and biology, but did promise to defend transgender rights. Other Dem pres candidates did take some strong positions on gender identity. These are very much debates mostly within the academy, among liberals. I can hardly imagine anyone on the left voted for Trump as a result of this debate. So in that sense, it is completely irrelevant to this thread. It is not even as if the right is a consistent defender of free speech on campus, though I get the impression that they do love to highlight a lot of cases of cancel culture when those on the right get shut down.

My college has never in thirty years invited a conservative speaker. It's not that they 'shut down' diversity of thought. They just drown it out and ignore it intentionally.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 11, 2021, 07:28:02 PM
The degree to which security systems were compromised is just now being discussed:

   https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/capitol-attacks-cybersecurity-fallout-stolen-laptops-lost-data-and-possible-espionage/

Apparently a very simple method is to leave a spare USB thumb drive lying about on a desk, which will download malware and/or spyware once inserted.

To say nothing of stolen laptops and XHDD's, printed materials with sensitive information on them, etc.

Donny, we hardly knew ye....

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on January 11, 2021, 07:30:13 PM
Leaders in the DC region are asking people not to travel to the area:
https://wtop.com/dc/2021/01/capitol-attack-scarier-than-iraq-combat-for-some-dc-police-at-least-56-officers-hurt/ (https://wtop.com/dc/2021/01/capitol-attack-scarier-than-iraq-combat-for-some-dc-police-at-least-56-officers-hurt/)
Posted on WTOP Radio online (1/11/21)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 12, 2021, 02:18:51 AM
The FBI is trying to identify the person who planted bombs in DC.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 12, 2021, 05:51:27 AM
Quote from: downer on January 11, 2021, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: spork on January 11, 2021, 01:08:27 PM
I see no connection between this topic and the subject of the thread. Start another thread.

The connection is about the debate over which side perverted science more.

Some Republicans have been climate-change deniers, and pandemic skeptics.

Some Democrats have taken positions on gender and trans identity which some argue denies biological truth.

There is an old joke. Here is the inclusive version:
Person A: "Would you sleep with me for $1000000?"
Person B: "OK."
Person A: "Would you sleep with me for $10?"
Person B: "What kind of person do you take me for???"
Person A: "We've already established that; now we're just haggling over the price."

When a government* accepts a certain amount of (science denial, lawless behaviour) under certain circumstances, then it has lost much of the moral high ground to criticize another government for (science denial, lawless behaviour), even if it is more egregious and for different reasons.

So, governments that during the summer riots actually instructed law enforcement to not intervene, and even chose not to try and identify lawbreakers to be charged later, then they can only "haggle" over how much lawlessness should be allowed and for what reason.

If tearing down a statue of George Washington is OK, why not a statue of Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks?

Note that I mentioned the possibility of identifying lawbreakers to be charged later as an action which may be deemed appropriate under certain circumstances, but which is fundamentally different from just leaving them unopposed with no future repercussions. So while it makes perfect sense to have different levels of response based on certain objective criteria, that is not at all the same as condoning the actions by showing that there will be no consequences.

*By a government allowing lawlessness, it undermines people's faith in the system, since the government should, in principle, believe that the system may be flawed but still fundamentally sound. Where the government perceives problems in the system, they should proceed within the rules of the system to try to make changes. A government which lacks faith in the system it represents is hypocritical and its very existence undermines public confidence due to its own actions (or inactions).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2021, 07:02:40 AM
We haven't heard a word from Trump, Pence, or any other senior leader in the Administration, even as the country experiences multiple historically severe crises (insurrection, more political violence maybe to come, 3000 people dying per day from Coronavirus). I'm also not aware of press conferences from Republican leaders in Congress or leaders at the FBI, Justice Department, or HHS. Do these people not have a word to share with the American people about what happened in the Capital, how they are shoring up America's defenses against further insurrection, the vaccine rollout, etc?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 12, 2021, 07:37:57 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2021, 07:02:40 AM
We haven't heard a word from Trump, Pence, or any other senior leader in the Administration, even as the country experiences multiple historically severe crises (insurrection, more political violence maybe to come, 3000 people dying per day from Coronavirus). I'm also not aware of press conferences from Republican leaders in Congress or leaders at the FBI, Justice Department, or HHS. Do these people not have a word to share with the American people about what happened in the Capital, how they are shoring up America's defenses against further insurrection, the vaccine rollout, etc?

Par for the course for Trump. No pun intended. For his entire adult life he has destroyed anything and anyone he has come into contact with. This is why there was never a coherent federal response to the pandemic.

The FBI has sent out a bulletin to local/state agencies warning of armed protests being planned for state capitals over the coming week.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2021, 07:52:32 AM
Quote from: spork on January 12, 2021, 07:37:57 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2021, 07:02:40 AM
We haven't heard a word from Trump, Pence, or any other senior leader in the Administration, even as the country experiences multiple historically severe crises (insurrection, more political violence maybe to come, 3000 people dying per day from Coronavirus). I'm also not aware of press conferences from Republican leaders in Congress or leaders at the FBI, Justice Department, or HHS. Do these people not have a word to share with the American people about what happened in the Capital, how they are shoring up America's defenses against further insurrection, the vaccine rollout, etc?

Par for the course for Trump. No pun intended. For his entire adult life he has destroyed anything and anyone he has come into contact with. This is why there was never a coherent federal response to the pandemic.

The FBI has sent out a bulletin to local/state agencies warning of armed protests being planned for state capitals over the coming week.

Agreed. Among the worst things about Trump is his disinterest in the actual job of being President.

I've seen articles in the news about the bolded. It would be good to hear more about it (e.g. how likely is this, how is the federal government going to prevent violence, etc.) from somebody in a position of authority.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: AmLitHist on January 12, 2021, 10:29:31 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2021, 07:02:40 AM
We haven't heard a word from Trump, Pence, or any other senior leader in the Administration,

The Orange One has spoken (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/donald-trump-riot-impeachment/index.html). It's good to see he's learned his lesson (per Susan Collins? or was it Murkowski?) by touching the hot stove (per Roy Blunt).
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 12, 2021, 12:29:34 PM
"Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-riot-fbi-intelligence/2021/01/12/30d12748-546b-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 15, 2021, 09:07:41 AM
Charges are being considered for at least three Republican congressfolks who on Jan 5 gave tours to "visitors" (the next day, insurrection participants) of the Capitol's corridors. Some representatives and senators are also concerned about the presence of guns in the hands of their colleagues, and upon whom they might turn them.

   https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics/capitol-insurrection-insider-help/index.html

and

   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/some-democrats-congress-are-worried-their-colleagues-might-kill-them-n1254319

and

   https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-impeached-democrats-turn-focus-gop-accomplices-capitol/story?id=75259158

And at least three of those sheltering in the seclusion area with those who refused to wear masks are now Covid-positive, as well.

   https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-infected-covid-19-siege-capitol-furious-maskless/story?id=75206950

A fine has now been levied for refusal to wear masks in the building.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on January 15, 2021, 09:00:47 PM
The vehemence of the reaction of the left against Trump from his election I have always found puzzling. Perhaps an answer is that Trump is a modern day Huey Long, threatening the establishment from its left, though it is denounced as right. That would certainly explain the hostility.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 10:01:44 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 15, 2021, 09:00:47 PM
The vehemence of the reaction of the left against Trump from his election I have always found puzzling. Perhaps an answer is that Trump is a modern day Huey Long, threatening the establishment from its left, though it is denounced as right. That would certainly explain the hostility.

Really? I usually agree with what you post. Trump is spiteful, endlessly egotistical, menacing, uncouth, humorless, and oddly successful....not enough?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 16, 2021, 03:16:14 AM
From The New York Times:

"New court documents released this week made clear that some of the people who led the crowd into the Capitol had traveled to Washington intent not on peacefully protesting but to try to overturn the election results by kidnapping, threatening or even assassinating lawmakers. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/us/politics/capitol-riot-national-guard-request.html)"
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 16, 2021, 05:40:43 AM
I woke up angry that Biden's inaugural celebration must be so curtailed and constrained, not only now by Covid--that was a given, accepted and planned-for--but by Trump's selfish, egotistical insistence on his own place in the limelight, unwilling as he remains to give it up.

There are creatures, Sori, in one of L'Engle's books, maybe "The Wind in the Door"? They are making Charles Wallace sick by their refusal to deepen, to take root and mature, in his mitochondrion. They race around and around, heedless of the mortal danger their silly, selfish wiliness is causing.

L'Engle always wrote at several levels, and whether she got her biology exactly right, the metaphor seems apt to me. We now have this dangerously unrooted gaggle of willfull insurgents among us, wreaking havoc. One of the even got himself elected President, and keeps bringing his cronies to town.

The thing I'm angriest and saddest about is the cruel, mean way he's stolen a celebration from a man who deserves to be glad and share his gladness with his friends and supporters, at least as much as any other President has shared that with theirs.

From a dance under the glitterball for the Obamas, we've descended to troops sleeping in the Capitol's hallways. From a safe, albeit Covid-inflected protocol, we have to install metal detectors in LaTrobe's doorways.

The election was clearly not stolen. But there has indeed been theft, and it's mean-spirited, unnecessary, and frightful. I find that nearly unforgivable, and I don't say that lightly.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 16, 2021, 07:38:17 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 10:01:44 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 15, 2021, 09:00:47 PM
The vehemence of the reaction of the left against Trump from his election I have always found puzzling. Perhaps an answer is that Trump is a modern day Huey Long, threatening the establishment from its left, though it is denounced as right. That would certainly explain the hostility.

Really? I usually agree with what you post. Trump is spiteful, endlessly egotistical, menacing, uncouth, humorless, and oddly successful....not enough?

For all of the things we disagree on, I think your list pretty much expresses my feelings on this one. (I'd add short-sighted to the list as well.)  Honestly, the only thing that I think seriously worked in Trump's favour was his anti-wokeness.

Bill Maher said it best. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgrZAPUvKyA)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 16, 2021, 11:24:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 16, 2021, 07:38:17 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 10:01:44 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 15, 2021, 09:00:47 PM
The vehemence of the reaction of the left against Trump from his election I have always found puzzling. Perhaps an answer is that Trump is a modern day Huey Long, threatening the establishment from its left, though it is denounced as right. That would certainly explain the hostility.

Really? I usually agree with what you post. Trump is spiteful, endlessly egotistical, menacing, uncouth, humorless, and oddly successful....not enough?

For all of the things we disagree on, I think your list pretty much expresses my feelings on this one. (I'd add short-sighted to the list as well.)  Honestly, the only thing that I think seriously worked in Trump's favour was his anti-wokeness.

Bill Maher said it best. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgrZAPUvKyA)

Trump was one of the first to hit the politically correct language and attitude police right between the eyes and bluntly. Whether his refusal to be brought on board speaks of courage of conviction or just natural hubris, it worked for me. One could almost say 'even a child of ten could see you've gone around the bend on that one' and then point to Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 16, 2021, 06:06:05 PM
She wants a pardon. For storming the Capitol. "I just don't think I deserve a prison sentence for this..." or words to that effect ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/16/us-capitol-rioters-donald-trump-pardons

Shades of, "I really don't deserve a failing grade on the final" it seems to me.

So, a get-out-of-jail-free card for all? Insurrection with impunity? Sure, why not?

If the POTUS gives them to his family and friends like trading stamps, why not the rest of the folks?

Is there a way to stop this? Any brakes left on the truck?

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 06:50:07 AM
Quote from: mamselle on January 16, 2021, 06:06:05 PM
She wants a pardon. For storming the Capitol. "I just don't think I deserve a prison sentence for this..." or words to that effect ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/16/us-capitol-rioters-donald-trump-pardons

Shades of, "I really don't deserve a failing grade on the final" it seems to me.

So, a get-out-of-jail-free card for all? Insurrection with impunity? Sure, why not?

If the POTUS gives them to his family and friends like trading stamps, why not the rest of the folks?

Is there a way to stop this? Any brakes left on the truck?

M.

For perspective (https://www.todayville.com/calgary/behind-the-violence-looting-vandalism-during-the-black-lives-matter-riots/):

Quote
[J]ournalist Michael Tracey presents an investigative report featuring first-hand stories from shop owners and locals in small US cities that have received minimal coverage throughout the riots. In something of a post-apocalyptic Purge-esque collection, Michael Tracey's interviews showcase the current quality of life in places like Atlantic City, Fort Wayne, Green Bay, Olympia and more.  The impact of the riots in these areas has been the significant destruction of small businesses and housing projects, burnt buildings and cars, shattered glass and windows barricaded with plywood, oftentimes featuring bullet holes.

According to Tracey, who spent six weeks travelling the US collecting testimonies and documenting the unfolding implications of the ongoing riots, "...The primary victims – meaning those who feared for their safety, suffered severe material losses, and whose lives were upended – are themselves minorities, and were targeted by activist whites."



As long as there is no universal consensus on what kind of behaviour is unacceptable, it will just always be an argument about who was "justified".
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: spork on January 17, 2021, 08:33:12 AM
The evolution of all-American terrorism. (https://revealnews.org/episodes/the-evolution-of-all-american-terrorism-2/)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 17, 2021, 08:55:53 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 06:50:07 AM

According to Tracey, who spent six weeks travelling the US collecting testimonies and documenting the unfolding implications of the ongoing riots, "...The primary victims – meaning those who feared for their safety, suffered severe material losses, and whose lives were upended – are themselves minorities, and were targeted by activist whites." [/i]


Hey man, if you want social justice, you've got to be ready to sacrifice.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 09:14:55 AM
Quote from: spork on January 17, 2021, 08:33:12 AM
The evolution of all-American terrorism. (https://revealnews.org/episodes/the-evolution-of-all-american-terrorism-2/)

Quote
Reveal teams up with Type Investigations to track every domestic terror incident from 2016 through 2019. We unpack the ideologies and tactics of American white supremacists and assess government attempts to combat them.

So, by definition, "domestic terrorists" only exist on the far right.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 09:22:26 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 17, 2021, 08:55:53 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 06:50:07 AM

According to Tracey, who spent six weeks travelling the US collecting testimonies and documenting the unfolding implications of the ongoing riots, "...The primary victims – meaning those who feared for their safety, suffered severe material losses, and whose lives were upended – are themselves minorities, and were targeted by activist whites." [/i]


Hey man, if you want social justice, you've got to be ready to sacrifice.

With regard to one of the mentioned cities Tracy's "reporting" is a complete fiction. I f***ing lived five blocks from the courthouse where the demonstrations took place. I watched them on live feed Friday (first day). Everything was peaceful for hours. Demonstrators then sat down in a major thoroughfare at the courthouse, and the police diverted traffic to another street. After a couple of hours what heavily armed police went in with gas and batons, using that herding technique to send protestors down one street. ALL OF THE DAMAGE WAS ALONG THAT STREET AND TWO OTHERS AT 90 DEGREES FROM THE FIRST. The only damage was broken windows-nothing was burned, mostly by skateboarders. And no, they weren't sent in by Antifa. I passed them on the street regularly.

The same thing happened Saturday (I was there for several hours but had to leave). I watched the ensuing "riot" live For several hours. There was SWAT with gas and batons everywhere. protestors would sit in a street until tear gas, flash bangs and batons were deployed. That was the evening a student journalist who was backing away with his hands up was shot directly in the eye with a tear gas canister and lost his eye. Police said it bounced, but alas there is video (it was prominently featured in the WaPo story on such incidents) directly refuting the police assertion. There were no broken windows that day (acknowledged by police)

I was at the courthouse all day Sunday, and several hours Monday. The police did nothing but stand around on buildings with binoculars and send drones overhead. No violence either day, and none again since.

The businesses with broken windows boarded up the windows Saturday. A bunch (such as a really busy Jimmy John's, a pizza by the slice shop, several popular bars and the Hilton Hotel) maintained their regular business hours.

Local citizens helped clean up Saturday morning after the Friday fiasco, and again Sunday morning.

NO BUSINESSES OR BUILDINGS BURNED, NO MINORITY OWNED BUSINESSES OR HOMES DAMAGED. AT ALL.

All the boarded up window were replaced within three weeks; no businesses closed due to the "riots".
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 11:03:03 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 09:22:26 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 17, 2021, 08:55:53 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 06:50:07 AM

According to Tracey, who spent six weeks travelling the US collecting testimonies and documenting the unfolding implications of the ongoing riots, "...The primary victims – meaning those who feared for their safety, suffered severe material losses, and whose lives were upended – are themselves minorities, and were targeted by activist whites." [/i]


Hey man, if you want social justice, you've got to be ready to sacrifice.

With regard to one of the mentioned cities Tracy's "reporting" is a complete fiction.

How about this? (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53224445)
Quote
A teenager has been killed and another critically wounded in a shooting in Seattle's autonomous zone.

One teenager, 16, was fatally shot and died after being taken to hospital. The other victim, 14, is in intensive care.

The zone, initially known as Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (Chaz) and now called Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (Chop), was set up amid protests over the killing of George Floyd.

As it is part of a protest against police brutality, it is self-policing.

And the swift, decisive response from the mayor:
Quote
The Mayor met four days ago with many of the demonstrators to discuss her continued safety concerns and asked individuals to depart for their safety and the safety of the community.

It's hard to find, because new outlets are desperately trying to avoid mentioning that the youths who were shot were black, and the people patrolling the area with weapons seemd to be mostly white. It seems as long as the people committing the violence are "allies" for whatever cause, it doesn't really matter if the shooters are white and the victims are black.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 11:56:58 AM
How about you respond to what I wrote? I clearly said I was writing about MY city.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 11:56:58 AM
How about you respond to what I wrote? I clearly said I was writing about MY city.

If the information about your city was wrong, there are still other places (such as Seattle) where there is a lot of documentation of ongoing violence.

To be clear: I don't care whether rioters are from left or right, whether they are environmental activists or climate-change deniers, pro-life or pro-choice, etc. If they are destroying property and breaking the law, and especially if they are engaging in violence, they should be arrested, jailed, and charged. The alternative is easy to see in Venezuela or Syria.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 12:23:30 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 11:56:58 AM
How about you respond to what I wrote? I clearly said I was writing about MY city.

If the information about your city was wrong, there are still other places (such as Seattle) where there is a lot of documentation of ongoing violence.

To be clear: I don't care whether rioters are from left or right, whether they are environmental activists or climate-change deniers, pro-life or pro-choice, etc. If they are destroying property and breaking the law, and especially if they are engaging in violence, they should be arrested, jailed, and charged. The alternative is easy to see in Venezuela or Syria.

May I be clear? Of course there is ongoing violence. You are willfully obtuse about the extent overreaction by the police caused a bunch of the problem. That was my city (Fort Wayne, fwiw), Indianapolis and please don't pretend you've forgotten DC when the President had his infamous Bible photo op.

The other complete falsehood is the statement that the damage was primarily due to white activists. We watched in real time what happened in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit and LA. Please STOP generalizing the Portland and Seattle situations to the entire United States. Unlike you this is my country, and I have to live with all this.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 01:11:34 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 12:23:30 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 11:56:58 AM
How about you respond to what I wrote? I clearly said I was writing about MY city.

If the information about your city was wrong, there are still other places (such as Seattle) where there is a lot of documentation of ongoing violence.

To be clear: I don't care whether rioters are from left or right, whether they are environmental activists or climate-change deniers, pro-life or pro-choice, etc. If they are destroying property and breaking the law, and especially if they are engaging in violence, they should be arrested, jailed, and charged. The alternative is easy to see in Venezuela or Syria.

May I be clear? Of course there is ongoing violence. You are willfully obtuse about the extent overreaction by the police caused a bunch of the problem. That was my city (Fort Wayne, fwiw), Indianapolis and please don't pretend you've forgotten DC when the President had his infamous Bible photo op.

The other complete falsehood is the statement that the damage was primarily due to white activists. We watched in real time what happened in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit and LA. Please STOP generalizing the Portland and Seattle situations to the entire United States. Unlike you this is my country, and I have to live with all this.

From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)

Nevertheless, voters don't really care whether their house or business is torched or looted by a right wing mob or a left wing mob. They don't care whether the thug shooting at their kids is from the left or right; they want their families and properties to be safe. An easy way to get lots of support from middle-of-the road voters who aren't terribly partisan is to show them that their safety is of paramount importance, regardless of whether they accept all of your ideology. (This goes for both parties.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 02:40:10 PM
I'll just say this and be done. We have serious problems in the USA, and you don't live them or know crap about them. You are a troll, plain and simple. Screw you.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Puget on January 17, 2021, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 02:40:10 PM
I'll just say this and be done. We have serious problems in the USA, and you don't live them or know crap about them. You are a troll, plain and simple. Screw you.

Instructions for adding posters to your ignore list:
Click Profile (the word itself, not anything in the menu that opens when you hover over it-- a bit confusing that), then from the Modify Profile menu, select Buddies/Ignore list, then Edit Ignore List

Block five or six people and the forum becomes a much nicer place.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 17, 2021, 07:36:48 PM
Or just scroll past those names and don't read.

Every now and again one of them may say something worthwhile.

Usually you can just tell by the re-re-re-nested quotes and arguments, though, when they haven't.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on January 17, 2021, 08:01:14 PM
QuoteBlock five or six people and the forum becomes a much nicer place.

Which five or six? :-)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 18, 2021, 02:45:28 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 01:11:34 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 12:23:30 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 11:56:58 AM
How about you respond to what I wrote? I clearly said I was writing about MY city.

If the information about your city was wrong, there are still other places (such as Seattle) where there is a lot of documentation of ongoing violence.

To be clear: I don't care whether rioters are from left or right, whether they are environmental activists or climate-change deniers, pro-life or pro-choice, etc. If they are destroying property and breaking the law, and especially if they are engaging in violence, they should be arrested, jailed, and charged. The alternative is easy to see in Venezuela or Syria.

May I be clear? Of course there is ongoing violence. You are willfully obtuse about the extent overreaction by the police caused a bunch of the problem. That was my city (Fort Wayne, fwiw), Indianapolis and please don't pretend you've forgotten DC when the President had his infamous Bible photo op.

The other complete falsehood is the statement that the damage was primarily due to white activists. We watched in real time what happened in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit and LA. Please STOP generalizing the Portland and Seattle situations to the entire United States. Unlike you this is my country, and I have to live with all this.

From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)


Hmmm....are democratic mayors more responsible for maintaining order than republican ones? Whereas, it's just a difficult job. The risks don't care much who you are,

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 18, 2021, 05:49:53 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 18, 2021, 02:45:28 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 01:11:34 PM
From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)


Hmmm....are democratic mayors more responsible for maintaining order than republican ones? Whereas, it's just a difficult job. The risks don't care much who you are,

It's more that, if Republicans are more racist than Democrats, and if Republicans are more forgiving of excessive force by police, then it stands to reason that the most unrest and the most extreme responses to police use of force would be expected in places with Republican leadership. That appears to not be the case, which raises the question of why not.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 18, 2021, 08:07:48 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 18, 2021, 05:49:53 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 18, 2021, 02:45:28 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 01:11:34 PM
From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)


Hmmm....are democratic mayors more responsible for maintaining order than republican ones? Whereas, it's just a difficult job. The risks don't care much who you are,

It's more that, if Republicans are more racist than Democrats, and if Republicans are more forgiving of excessive force by police, then it stands to reason that the most unrest and the most extreme responses to police use of force would be expected in places with Republican leadership. That appears to not be the case, which raises the question of why not.

I have no idea.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 18, 2021, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: Puget on January 17, 2021, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 17, 2021, 02:40:10 PM
I'll just say this and be done. We have serious problems in the USA, and you don't live them or know crap about them. You are a troll, plain and simple. Screw you.

Instructions for adding posters to your ignore list:
Click Profile (the word itself, not anything in the menu that opens when you hover over it-- a bit confusing that), then from the Modify Profile menu, select Buddies/Ignore list, then Edit Ignore List

Block five or six people and the forum becomes a much nicer place.


I haven't blocked anybody, and I don't think I would do that, but I'm mostly ignoring certain people. I'm all for a spirited debate, but some folks are allergic to logic and evidence, and it is pointless to argue with them.


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 18, 2021, 08:59:42 AM
Agreed.

And some just missed the "brighten the corner where you are" memo.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on January 18, 2021, 03:29:58 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 18, 2021, 08:07:48 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 18, 2021, 05:49:53 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 18, 2021, 02:45:28 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 01:11:34 PM
From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)


Hmmm....are democratic mayors more responsible for maintaining order than republican ones? Whereas, it's just a difficult job. The risks don't care much who you are,

It's more that, if Republicans are more racist than Democrats, and if Republicans are more forgiving of excessive force by police, then it stands to reason that the most unrest and the most extreme responses to police use of force would be expected in places with Republican leadership. That appears to not be the case, which raises the question of why not.

I have no idea.

Except that minorities are not evenly dispersed around the country.  Regions with larger proportions of minorities tend to be more Democrat.  Larger urban centres, with very different policing challenges are also more likely to be Democrat.  You make several assumptions that are flawed.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on January 18, 2021, 06:13:57 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 18, 2021, 03:29:58 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 18, 2021, 08:07:48 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 18, 2021, 05:49:53 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 18, 2021, 02:45:28 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2021, 01:11:34 PM
From what I can tell online, all of the mayors of the cities you mention seem to be Democrats. That seems odd given that presumably with that leadership those cities ought to be more racially harmonious, and thus less prone to any sort of rioting. (For the same reason, those cities would presumably have the most oversight of police to prevent excessive and especially discriminatory use of force.)


Hmmm....are democratic mayors more responsible for maintaining order than republican ones? Whereas, it's just a difficult job. The risks don't care much who you are,

It's more that, if Republicans are more racist than Democrats, and if Republicans are more forgiving of excessive force by police, then it stands to reason that the most unrest and the most extreme responses to police use of force would be expected in places with Republican leadership. That appears to not be the case, which raises the question of why not.

I have no idea.

Except that minorities are not evenly dispersed around the country.  Regions with larger proportions of minorities tend to be more Democrat.  Larger urban centres, with very different policing challenges are also more likely to be Democrat.  You make several assumptions that are flawed.

Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education, religious tolerance and so forth. Once your neighbors turn out to be nice people, it's hard to support closed borders, school choice for-profit charter schools, and Islamophobia.

If the liberal party tends to be Democratic, then it makes sense.

People who want to live only around people like themselves would have to live in a rural area just to reduce the chance that someone would be different from them.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 18, 2021, 06:29:55 PM
QuoteStudies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education, religious tolerance and so forth. Once your neighbors turn out to be nice people, it's hard to support closed borders, school choice for-profit charter schools, and Islamophobia.

Can you define 'closed border' please?

Can there be a debate about immigration policy, or should we just dispense with laws altogether?

Nobody has open arms for everybody. It sounds nice, but it doesn't work.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on January 18, 2021, 06:39:40 PM
Quoteschool choice for-profit charter schools

Yup, choice is bad. Profits are bad. Charter schools are bad.

Competition is bad!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Hegemony on January 18, 2021, 10:02:57 PM
It sounds as if Dismalist thinks for-profit schools offer beneficial competition.  That hasn't worked out so well in higher education, has it? The most financially successful for-profit university being Phoenix — if there are others, perhaps that actually offer a solid education, they've been beaten out by Phoenix, so I guess that shows the results of competition. I see they have a graduation rate of 16.65% in 150% of normal completion time (6 years). But the graduation rate is not really the goal of a for-profit, is it? The profit rate is the goal. So I would imagine the profit rate of Phoenix is quite high.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on January 18, 2021, 10:22:29 PM
Profit, non-profit, whatever. There is no difference except that the cash can be taken home by a profit company but not by a non-profit company. It has to stay in the building for a non-profit. This explains why the administration has thick carpets on its floors and faculty have linoleum.

Anyway, I said profits are bad, just like choice and competition. :-)


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: kaysixteen on January 19, 2021, 01:22:44 AM
This is America, land of laissez-faire capitalism.   You want to run a for-profit private school, have at it.   Just do not ask the taxpayers to pay for it.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 19, 2021, 05:50:30 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 18, 2021, 06:13:57 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 18, 2021, 03:29:58 PM
Except that minorities are not evenly dispersed around the country. 
Regions with larger proportions of minorities tend to be more Democrat.  Larger urban centres, with very different policing challenges are also more likely to be Democrat.  You make several assumptions that are flawed.

Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education, religious tolerance and so forth. Once your neighbors turn out to be nice people, it's hard to support closed borders, school choice for-profit charter schools, and Islamophobia.

If the liberal party tends to be Democratic, then it makes sense.

This is the kind of thing a person who has been a lifelong urban dweller would say. The fact that urban people tend to be more liberal and rural people tend to be more conservative isn't because one group is more morally bankrupt or stupid than the other. It's because the realities of the two situations lead to different priorities.

A lot if it comes down to consequences in different population density.


Quote
People who want to live only around people like themselves would have to live in a rural area just to reduce the chance that someone would be different from them.

That's exactly right. Rural dwellers never have disagreements with neighbours, debates about politics or anything of the sort. (If they never leave their houses....)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 19, 2021, 06:03:54 AM
I am thinking now of a State University President who used to be a state legislator. With his combined salary benefits and pension, housing allowance, etc. he's all set up for  a $10,000/week income for life. Yeah those, for-profits surely are fleecing us.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: ciao_yall on January 19, 2021, 07:53:05 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 19, 2021, 05:50:30 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 18, 2021, 06:13:57 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 18, 2021, 03:29:58 PM
Except that minorities are not evenly dispersed around the country. 
Regions with larger proportions of minorities tend to be more Democrat.  Larger urban centres, with very different policing challenges are also more likely to be Democrat.  You make several assumptions that are flawed.

Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education, religious tolerance and so forth. Once your neighbors turn out to be nice people, it's hard to support closed borders, school choice for-profit charter schools, and Islamophobia.

If the liberal party tends to be Democratic, then it makes sense.

This is the kind of thing a person who has been a lifelong urban dweller would say. The fact that urban people tend to be more liberal and rural people tend to be more conservative isn't because one group is more morally bankrupt or stupid than the other. It's because the realities of the two situations lead to different priorities.

A lot if it comes down to consequences in different population density.

  • Big money spent on education, healthcare, etc. is going to be concentrated where the population density is highest, since that means more tax money and more people to serve. It's not going to happen in rural areas, and they won't get much benefit, so it's not a priority for them.

Rural people don't have schools? Healthcare? Roads?

Quote
  • Programs like minimum wage are entirely irrelevant in resource based industries, such as agriculture. Farmers have to work as much as it takes, and if bad weather ruins crops, tough noogies; their big concern is not going bankrupt and losing their livlihood and their home. The "effective wage" they get is almost entirely beyond their control.

Hence all the government programs like farm subsidies designed to maintain the supply and prices of food by protecting farmers' livelihoods.

Quote
  • Rural areas have less pollution, noise, crime, etc. That's why lots of city people have vacation properties in rural areas.

Nice places to visit, and all of that...

Quote
Quote
People who want to live only around people like themselves would have to live in a rural area just to reduce the chance that someone would be different from them.

That's exactly right. Rural dwellers never have disagreements with neighbours, debates about politics or anything of the sort. (If they never leave their houses....)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on January 19, 2021, 09:32:21 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 19, 2021, 05:50:30 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 18, 2021, 06:13:57 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 18, 2021, 03:29:58 PM
Except that minorities are not evenly dispersed around the country. 
Regions with larger proportions of minorities tend to be more Democrat.  Larger urban centres, with very different policing challenges are also more likely to be Democrat.  You make several assumptions that are flawed.

Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education, religious tolerance and so forth. Once your neighbors turn out to be nice people, it's hard to support closed borders, school choice for-profit charter schools, and Islamophobia.

If the liberal party tends to be Democratic, then it makes sense.

This is the kind of thing a person who has been a lifelong urban dweller would say. The fact that urban people tend to be more liberal and rural people tend to be more conservative isn't because one group is more morally bankrupt or stupid than the other. It's because the realities of the two situations lead to different priorities.

A lot if it comes down to consequences in different population density.

  • Big money spent on education, healthcare, etc. is going to be concentrated where the population density is highest, since that means more tax money and more people to serve. It's not going to happen in rural areas, and they won't get much benefit, so it's not a priority for them.
  • Programs like minimum wage are entirely irrelevant in resource based industries, such as agriculture. Farmers have to work as much as it takes, and if bad weather ruins crops, tough noogies; their big concern is not going bankrupt and losing their livlihood and their home. The "effective wage" they get is almost entirely beyond their control.
  • Rural areas have less pollution, noise, crime, etc. That's why lots of city people have vacation properties in rural areas.


Quote
People who want to live only around people like themselves would have to live in a rural area just to reduce the chance that someone would be different from them.

That's exactly right. Rural dwellers never have disagreements with neighbours, debates about politics or anything of the sort. (If they never leave their houses....)

I don't think you actually know what you are talking about. 

Farmers in N. America generally have crop insurance, so they are not as vulnerable to a bad year as you may think.  Further, most farmers are not the romanticized family farm you seem to have in your head where they are doing all their own work and self reliant.  Most of them are actually employers and savey business operators.  While agriculture is often exempt from some labor laws, these things are important to them as much as anyone else.

Not everyone in small towns work in Agriculture.  In fact, where I grew up and live, there are a lot of minimum wage jobs.  Minimum wage and worker regulations matter just as much to them as people working similar jobs in the city.

When people in rural areas get sick, they still go to the hospital.  When people in rural areas get really sick and need a heart transplant, they go to urban centers for the surgery.  So, they benefit just as much from most of these things.

I dont know why this divide exists, but both urban and rural populations are effected by these policies in a similar manner. 
   
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 19, 2021, 10:05:27 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 19, 2021, 09:32:21 AM

Farmers in N. America generally have crop insurance, so they are not as vulnerable to a bad year as you may think.  Further, most farmers are not the romanticized family farm you seem to have in your head where they are doing all their own work and self reliant.  Most of them are actually employers and savey business operators.  While agriculture is often exempt from some labor laws, these things are important to them as much as anyone else.

Not everyone in small towns work in Agriculture.  In fact, where I grew up and live, there are a lot of minimum wage jobs.  Minimum wage and worker regulations matter just as much to them as people working similar jobs in the city.

When people in rural areas get sick, they still go to the hospital.  When people in rural areas get really sick and need a heart transplant, they go to urban centers for the surgery.  So, they benefit just as much from most of these things.

I dont know why this divide exists, but both urban and rural populations are effected by these policies in a similar manner. 


If I change the weightings of the different elements of a course that I reach, the grade distribution will change, even if I don't change how I grade individual items. Some peoples' grades will go up, and some will go down.

Unless you believe that the only issue determining how someone voted in November was whether they loved or hated Trump, (and that everyone fit exactly into one category or the other), then you have to consider a scenario like this:

Voter A; on issue 1, likes D position, on issue 2 likes R position
Voter B; on issue 1, likes R position, on issue 2 likes D position

Which way each one votes will potentially come down to which issue they think is most important.

If Voter A thinks issue 1 is most important, vote D. If Voter A thinks issue 2 is most important, vote R.
If Voter B thinks issue 1 is most important, vote R. If Voter B thinks issue 2 is most important, vote D.

The point is that all that is required for different outcomes is the relative importance different voters place on issues. So it doesn't require urban and rural voters to have drastically different views on issues; simply prioritizing the issues differently can lead to different voting outcomes.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 19, 2021, 10:12:47 AM
 
Quote
Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education,

Some of the liberals I know hate diversity. For example, they may like the company of people of different colors and from different parts of the world or the USA but only or primarily when those companions also hold liberal views.

For example, too, you apparently think liberals are notably are in favor of equity (fairness) in education, whereas conservatives are in favor of inequity (unfairness) in education. But conservatives believe the opposite and will give you reasons.

Being in favor of immigration, also, is something you think liberals deserve credit for whereas, conservatives believe the opposite, as they believe legal, regulated immigration is what works despite liberals having little interest in it.

Your characterization is diversity-cratic, not what I'd called plain old observing.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on January 19, 2021, 11:29:30 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 19, 2021, 10:05:27 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 19, 2021, 09:32:21 AM

Farmers in N. America generally have crop insurance, so they are not as vulnerable to a bad year as you may think.  Further, most farmers are not the romanticized family farm you seem to have in your head where they are doing all their own work and self reliant.  Most of them are actually employers and savey business operators.  While agriculture is often exempt from some labor laws, these things are important to them as much as anyone else.

Not everyone in small towns work in Agriculture.  In fact, where I grew up and live, there are a lot of minimum wage jobs.  Minimum wage and worker regulations matter just as much to them as people working similar jobs in the city.

When people in rural areas get sick, they still go to the hospital.  When people in rural areas get really sick and need a heart transplant, they go to urban centers for the surgery.  So, they benefit just as much from most of these things.

I dont know why this divide exists, but both urban and rural populations are effected by these policies in a similar manner. 


If I change the weightings of the different elements of a course that I reach, the grade distribution will change, even if I don't change how I grade individual items. Some peoples' grades will go up, and some will go down.

Unless you believe that the only issue determining how someone voted in November was whether they loved or hated Trump, (and that everyone fit exactly into one category or the other), then you have to consider a scenario like this:

Voter A; on issue 1, likes D position, on issue 2 likes R position
Voter B; on issue 1, likes R position, on issue 2 likes D position

Which way each one votes will potentially come down to which issue they think is most important.

If Voter A thinks issue 1 is most important, vote D. If Voter A thinks issue 2 is most important, vote R.
If Voter B thinks issue 1 is most important, vote R. If Voter B thinks issue 2 is most important, vote D.

The point is that all that is required for different outcomes is the relative importance different voters place on issues. So it doesn't require urban and rural voters to have drastically different views on issues; simply prioritizing the issues differently can lead to different voting outcomes.

True, and I think that a major driving force behind this comes down to social issues and religion, but this has also bled into fiscal issues. 
I have met many farmers in the US that disliked trump, but still voted for him because they bought into some of his rhetoric (especially related to China). 


Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Kron3007 on January 19, 2021, 11:42:09 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 19, 2021, 10:12:47 AM
Quote
Studies show that people who live in areas with a lot of diversity (ethnic, religious, etc) tend to be more liberal. And exposure to diversity tends to increase support for liberal policies such as immigration, equity in education,

Some of the liberals I know hate diversity. For example, they may like the company of people of different colors and from different parts of the world or the USA but only or primarily when those companions also hold liberal views.

For example, too, you apparently think liberals are notably are in favor of equity (fairness) in education, whereas conservatives are in favor of inequity (unfairness) in education. But conservatives believe the opposite and will give you reasons.

Being in favor of immigration, also, is something you think liberals deserve credit for whereas, conservatives believe the opposite, as they believe legal, regulated immigration is what works despite liberals having little interest in it.

Your characterization is diversity-cratic, not what I'd called plain old observing.

I think that people from the left and the right often want similar outcomes, but disagree on how to get there.

A good example is sex education.  Both sides want to avoid the spread of STDs and rate of unwanted teenage pregnancy.  The right often thinks abstinence is the right approach, while the left believes in education.  In the end, they both want the same thing.  Obviously I have my opinion on which approach is better but I think it is valuable to acknowledge that we all want to see the same outcome.   

However, there are areas where the desired outcome is also different. 

In the case of immigration, many on the right literally want less immigration, legal or not.  I'm sure this is not universal, but there is a segment of the right that simply dosnt want this many immigrants and conservative parties often end up embracing these views to bring them in, as long as it will not push too many other voters away.  It is also false that the left wants to encourage illegal immigration and many on the left would also like to see lower levels of immigration.  How you deal with it is obviously a point of contention.  It is also important to note that asylum seekers are not actually illegal immigrants since seeking asylum is not illegal.

Anyway, I think it is important to recognize that for many subjects both sides have the same desire.  It is not helpful to say the left wants open borders as most don't, or that the right hates immigrants since that is also not true across the board.       
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 19, 2021, 12:00:37 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 19, 2021, 11:42:09 AM

In the case of immigration, many on the right literally want less immigration, legal or not.  I'm sure this is not universal, but there is a segment of the right that simply dosnt want this many immigrants and conservative parties often end up embracing these views to bring them in, as long as it will not push too many other voters away.  It is also false that the left wants to encourage illegal immigration and many on the left would also like to see lower levels of immigration.  How you deal with it is obviously a point of contention.  It is also important to note that asylum seekers are not actually illegal immigrants since seeking asylum is not illegal.

Anyway, I think it is important to recognize that for many subjects both sides have the same desire.  It is not helpful to say the left wants open borders as most don't, or that the right hates immigrants since that is also not true across the board.     

I think this is an important point. Regarding immigration specifically, in Canada most people are pretty content with immigration, since the points system means that immigrants can integrate fairly smoothly into society and the economy. (Refugees don't come in under the points system, and so need a lot more support, training, etc.)
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 19, 2021, 12:48:36 PM
Quote
I think that people from the left and the right often want similar outcomes, but disagree on how to get there.

A good example is sex education.  Both sides want to avoid the spread of STDs and rate of unwanted teenage pregnancy.  The right often thinks abstinence is the right approach, while the left believes in education.  In the end, they both want the same thing.  Obviously I have my opinion on which approach is better but I think it is valuable to acknowledge that we all want to see the same outcome.   

Well, for those who still haven't grasped how pregnancy occurs, the word 'abstinence' is education.

Is anyone actually using the word 'abstinence' lately? I thought the last one was Ronald Reagan.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 20, 2021, 11:55:58 AM
Whew. He's sworn in.

I hadn't realized how tightly I was holding my breath.

Now may he please remain alive amidst all the threats and turmoil, so we can get this ship righted and underway again.

Four years of listing, dipping, and being steered in circles may have bewildered the gyrocompass a bit, but I hope we can pull out of the doldrums, get past the Bermuda Triangle of filibusters, and get some positive energy moving.

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: evil_physics_witchcraft on January 20, 2021, 03:52:10 PM
Quote from: mamselle on January 20, 2021, 11:55:58 AM
Whew. He's sworn in.

I hadn't realized how tightly I was holding my breath.

Now may he please remain alive amidst all the threats and turmoil, so we can get this ship righted and underway again.

Four years of listing, dipping, and being steered in circles may have bewildered the gyrocompass a bit, but I hope we can pull out of the doldrums, get past the Bermuda Triangle of filibusters, and get some positive energy moving.

M.

I wasn't sure if it would happen. In a way, I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mamselle on January 20, 2021, 04:10:47 PM
Yes. In a sense, awful as last week was, it served as a wake-up call to the need to set things up carefully and not allow for anything seriously wrong to happen.

We're not through the swamp yet, by a long shot, but at least we're not in that leaky boat anymore (don't know why the water analogies, but there we are).

M.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 20, 2021, 05:59:19 PM
Very good piece in the Washington Post about the reaction of QAnon folks to the end of the Trump presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/20/qanon-trump-era-ends/
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: pgher on January 20, 2021, 07:13:18 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on January 20, 2021, 03:52:10 PM
I wasn't sure if it would happen. In a way, I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I said the same to a friend. Her response? "PTSD." Maybe not quite that, but living with constant stress and fear takes a toll.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 20, 2021, 09:06:03 PM
My blood pressure mysteriously feels way down today
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: sprout on January 22, 2021, 01:02:39 PM
I'm gradually getting used to the idea that I can listen to the news now without having to throttle back rage and despair.  It's weird.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: marshwiggle on January 22, 2021, 02:08:51 PM
Quote from: sprout on January 22, 2021, 01:02:39 PM
I'm gradually getting used to the idea that I can listen to the news now without having to throttle back rage and despair.  It's weird.

This terrifies the news media. Their ad revenues are going to crash after the windfall of the last 4 years.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: writingprof on January 22, 2021, 04:09:31 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 22, 2021, 02:08:51 PM
Quote from: sprout on January 22, 2021, 01:02:39 PM
I'm gradually getting used to the idea that I can listen to the news now without having to throttle back rage and despair.  It's weird.

This terrifies the news media. Their ad revenues are going to crash after the windfall of the last 4 years.

No, they're just going to keep talking about Trump. If he dies, it will be like Black Tuesday. News directors will be jumping from high windows.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on January 22, 2021, 04:16:07 PM
I have long said that the Democrats have an interest in continuing to talk about Trump, for he is the best they have.

[If Trump were to die, that could be kept secret. :-)]

This can't be all wrong, for this thread is still going!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on January 22, 2021, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 22, 2021, 04:16:07 PM
I have long said that the Democrats have an interest in continuing to talk about Trump, for he is the best they have.

[If Trump were to die, that could be kept secret. :-)]

This can't be all wrong, for this thread is still going!

With Trump gone what will Stephen Colbert talk about, and how will we understand what he's talking about?
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: lightning on January 23, 2021, 09:07:56 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 22, 2021, 02:08:51 PM
Quote from: sprout on January 22, 2021, 01:02:39 PM
I'm gradually getting used to the idea that I can listen to the news now without having to throttle back rage and despair.  It's weird.

This terrifies the news media. Their ad revenues are going to crash after the windfall of the last 4 years.

Hardly. Trump and his entourage of idiots have left a treasure trove of material to discuss and analyze for years to come.


Quote from: writingprof on January 22, 2021, 04:09:31 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 22, 2021, 02:08:51 PM
Quote from: sprout on January 22, 2021, 01:02:39 PM
I'm gradually getting used to the idea that I can listen to the news now without having to throttle back rage and despair.  It's weird.

This terrifies the news media. Their ad revenues are going to crash after the windfall of the last 4 years.

No, they're just going to keep talking about Trump. If he dies, it will be like Black Tuesday. News directors will be jumping from high windows.

Almost. They're not going to talk about Trump. They're going to laugh about Trump, along with members of his idiot entourage. And when Trump dies, they'll cover his idiot entourage in a never-ending comedy. It will be the lighter entertainment section that goes along with the normal news coverage. Schadenfreude sells.

Quote from: dismalist on January 22, 2021, 04:16:07 PM
I have long said that the Democrats have an interest in continuing to talk about Trump, for he is the best they have.

[If Trump were to die, that could be kept secret. :-)]

This can't be all wrong, for this thread is still going!

Yes. And I noticed that the last four posts before mine were the same group that were not really sanguine about Biden. The thread was two days dead, before you four brought it back with vigor and vinegar. So, it's not just the Democrats that are keeping this thread going. Those that were not thrilled about the outcome of the election will also be continuing the 2020/2021 election coverage into the future, as well.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 22, 2021, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 22, 2021, 04:16:07 PM
I have long said that the Democrats have an interest in continuing to talk about Trump, for he is the best they have.

[If Trump were to die, that could be kept secret. :-)]

This can't be all wrong, for this thread is still going!

With Trump gone what will Stephen Colbert talk about, and how will we understand what he's talking about?

That's easy. Colbert will talk about the morons that supported Trump. He was doing that before 2016.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on January 23, 2021, 09:16:14 PM
Sits deep.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on February 14, 2021, 05:16:55 AM
DJT outs himself for lying, latest communication:

'This has been yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country. No president has ever gone through anything like it, and it continues because our opponents cannot forget the almost 75 million people, the largest number ever for a sitting president, who voted for us just a few short months ago.'

Whereas, his version of events has been 'we won by a landslide.' And that the votes are counted incorrectly.
But now he believes it.

Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 10, 2021, 09:12:48 AM
Quote from: spork on January 06, 2021, 11:23:38 AM
Capitol Police, DHS goons nowhere to be seen. Looks like zero security. Stupid stupid stupid.

From a Twitter feed:

"Police tear gassed peaceful Democratic protestors so that Trump could hold a Bible for the cameras. But pro-Trump protestors have successfully breached the US Capitol building without so much as a single pepper ball. Funny how that works out."

It turns out we were lied to about that by CNN, NPR and most of the media. That's now what happened.

Inspector General's Report:

https://doioig.opengov.ibmcloud.com/sites/doioig.gov/files/Final%20Statement_0.pdf

So I take back some of what I thought of DJT.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Ruralguy on June 10, 2021, 09:29:35 AM
I don't, though I do accept that some reporting on him was probably inaccurate.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on June 10, 2021, 09:46:20 AM
That's not quite what this summary of the report says. It says:

QuoteThe evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow a contractor to safely install antiscale fencing in response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers that occurred on May 30 and May 31. Moreover, the evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day. As such, we determined that the evidence did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park.

We also found weaknesses with the operation to clear the park, including the U.S. Secret Service's deployment before the USPP had begun its dispersal warnings and the USPP's failure to provide dispersal warnings that were loud enough for everyone to hear and that told protesters where to exit before the clearing operation began.

I would want to see the actual report--with the actual details--to better understand how they understand the causal chain and just how exculpatory it is (e.g. what consitutes "begun implementing the operational plan", vs. when did they get serious about it?).

But regardless, the fact remains that peaceful protestors were gassed days before terrorist gang attempted a coup, and were met with virtually no resistance. The bad optics of the photo op--and whether the intentions behind it all really were as malicious as it looked--are an irrelevant distraction.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 10, 2021, 10:02:48 AM
The phrase 'peaceful protesters' piques my interest. One or two of them could have been not so peaceful, more like lazy protesters, leaving the destruction of property and mayhem to their more energetic friends.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: Parasaurolophus on June 10, 2021, 01:08:58 PM
Not unlike the phrase 'good cop', then.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 10, 2021, 02:26:55 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 10, 2021, 01:08:58 PM
Not unlike the phrase 'good cop', then.

I suppose not, just in terms of language. But looking at the current climate, if I were to put a banner on my office door saying 'support your local police' I will be isolating myself; whereas if I have a 'Black Lives Matter' banner I will be 'showing up to fight injustice' and winning friends. At least among those who dare to express themselves. This is the current lay of the land of my (not so little) piece of academia, who appear to trust compromised news outlets such as the ones I referenced.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: hmaria1609 on June 10, 2021, 07:30:41 PM
The gubernatorial race is in full swing in VA now. The Commonwealth of VA has its governor's race in off election years.
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: dismalist on June 10, 2021, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on June 10, 2021, 07:30:41 PM
The gubernatorial race is in full swing in VA now. The Commonwealth of VA has its governor's race in off election years.

When I found myself in Virginia some 25 years ago, the ballots were not marked with political parties, only names. Being new, I knew no names, except the candidates for Governor. So, I then voted for Governor, and then voted randomly for all the other positions!
Title: Re: 2020 Elections
Post by: mahagonny on June 11, 2021, 05:15:06 AM
Quote from: dismalist on June 10, 2021, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: hmaria1609 on June 10, 2021, 07:30:41 PM
The gubernatorial race is in full swing in VA now. The Commonwealth of VA has its governor's race in off election years.

When I found myself in Virginia some 25 years ago, the ballots were not marked with political parties, only names. Being new, I knew no names, except the candidates for Governor. So, I then voted for Governor, and then voted randomly for all the other positions!

Glad to hear there was no voter suppression!

QuoteBut regardless, the fact remains that peaceful protestors were gassed days before terrorist gang attempted a coup, and were met with virtually no resistance. The bad optics of the photo op--and whether the intentions behind it all really were as malicious as it looked--are an irrelevant distraction.

Apparently smoke canisters were used, not tear gas, which is much more caustic. The press got that wrong too. And there were warnings to clear the area (the press claimed there weren't) although the report says they might not have been loud enough to be heard by everyone. Of course, when you're having a mostly peaceful protest, you have the right to as many decibels as you might need to convey your peaceful message.
Call me weird, but I think holding up a Bible in front of a church may be a silly bit of melodrama, but it's no kind of aggression, and the bad optics are on the press, if anyone's paying attention. President Trump got more bad press for the photo than the BLM thugs got for setting fire to the church.
These are the people our diversity, inclusion and equity staff want us to honor. Screw them.
Dom Lemon was even going off on Trump for not being a regular church attender. It was a media party of Trump negativity built on claims they had no business making.
Are the media biased?