All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[AnakinFlair]

I know MSNBC is biased, but some of the commentators on it are trying to be objective. Chris Hayes had a really good segment last night about how the media is making the same mistakes that they were in 2016 in regards to coverage, using the whole Bernie praising Castro 'scandal' as something that was blown totally out of proportion, while ignoring the fact that Trump is basically praising the violence against Muslims happening right now in India.

http://<iframe width="560" height="3...reen></iframe>

[Superbat]

Sanders surpasses Biden among African American voters: Reuters/Ipsos poll

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN20J2J9

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has widened his lead for the Democratic presidential nomination and overtaken Joe Biden in support among African Americans - a voting bloc that until now has largely favored the former vice president, according to a Reuters/Ipsos national poll released on Tuesday.

The result could spell trouble for Biden, the one-time frontrunner who has lagged behind the field after the first few Democratic nominating contests. To remain a viable contender, Biden has been banking on a strong showing in Saturday’s South Carolina primary, a state where black voters make up more than half of the Democratic electorate.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted Feb. 19-25, also showed that support for billionaire media mogul Michael Bloomberg slipped by 2 percentage points after the former New York City mayor faced intense scrutiny from other candidates last week in his first debate as a presidential candidate.

Among all registered Democrats and independents, 26% said they would vote for Sanders, while 15% said they were backing Bloomberg and another 15% supported Biden.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and former mayor Pete Buttigieg were each supported by 10% of respondents. Another 4% said they would vote for Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and 3% said they were supporting billionaire philanthropist Tom Steyer.

The poll showed Sanders’ lead over the rest of the field has grown in each of the last three weeks, hitting double digits for the first time in the latest survey.

He also has increased his share of support from African Americans in the latest poll. When asked which candidate they would support in their state’s nominating contest, 26% said they would vote for Sanders, up 7 points from a previous reading conducted Jan. 29-Feb. 19.

Another 23% said they would back Biden, down 10 points from the last survey, and 20% would support Bloomberg, a rise of 10 points.

Meanwhile, after Sanders’ definitive win in last week’s Nevada caucuses, 26% of registered Democrats and independents now see the senator from Vermont as the most electable of the party’s presidential candidates. Another 20% said it was Bloomberg and 17% said it was Biden.

[PaulBullion]

Context? Nobody in this thread thinks Warren is the front runner.

That was me.
She was only the front runner in between the recent two debates, though. It's now back to Biden.

Look at Biden's polling going through the roof in SC in light of Sanders being vetted:

[PaulBullion]

The audience was booing everyone except Bloomberg. Tickets cost $1700 so Bloomberg must have foot the bill to get as many of his supporters in there.

That has been proven to be fake news spread by Sanders.

Paying 1700 was one was to get a small percentage of the seats, by becoming a sponsor of the debate. The vast majority of tickets was given away for free: to the campaigns, to non-profits, to community local organizers etc.

[Kirby101]

So foreign asset as head of National Security? Sure.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...-entanglements

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

That was me.
She was only the front runner in between the recent two debates, though. It's now back to Biden.

Look at Biden's polling going through the roof in SC in light of Sanders being vetted:

I've never seen someone be so oblivious to how uninformed they sound about a topic they insist on continually bringing up.

[PaulBullion]

I've never seen someone be so oblivious to how uninformed they sound about a topic they insist on continually bringing up.

I envy you for living at least 14 years without ever reading a column by Chris Cilizza.

[PaulBullion]

Been saying this since 2016, but what do I know:

New research suggests Sanders would drive swing voters to Trump

We found that nominating Sanders would drive many Americans who would otherwise vote for a moderate Democrat to vote for Trump, especially otherwise Trump-skeptical Republicans.

Republicans are more likely to say they would vote for Trump if Sanders is nominated: Approximately 2 percent of Republicans choose Trump over Sanders but desert Trump when we pit him against a more moderate Democrat like Buttigieg, Biden, or Bloomberg.

Democrats and independents are also slightly more likely to say they would vote for Trump if Sanders is nominated. Swing voters may be rare — but their choices between candidates often determine elections, and many appear to favor Trump over Sanders but not over other Democrats.

[PaulBullion]

The DJI tried several times to do at least a small rebound today, but just turned into negative territory again. Under 27,000 for the first time in many weeks.

[jetengine]

For one thing, while all of these regimes are obviously atrocious, it's a bit delusional to pretend like THAT is the reason that America opposes them, when we have no problem propping up equally brutal regimes like Saudi Arabia or any number of Latin American tinpot dictatorships as long as they serve our economic interests. Indeed, resentment at being strip mined by American corporations and not seeing any of the gains from that supposed economic development flowing back to the public is the primary reason why most of these countries turned to socialism in the first place. For another, while they do of course have their own foreign policy objectives, by and large their ability to disrupt the geopolitical order outside of their own backyards is fairly limited, even China only has one overseas military base and they didn't get that until a few years ago.

It's interesting to see how people have absolutely lost their minds at the prospect of Russian interference in American politics, because for people outside of the US, foreign interference in domestic affairs is just a reality that everyone accepts and is forced to live with, and it's not hard to figure who the main culprit is in all of that. And the thing is, all of this geopolitical ratfucking really doesn't get us very far, because while it may secure us resources and the allegiance of corrupt local elites in the short term, it has built up an unbelievable amount of ill will that has become increasingly resistant to us trying to flex our military muscle to suppress. Nobody had any great love for Saddam Hussein or the Taliban, but even given how brutal they could be, the people knew better than to trust American promises of democracy and prosperity, which is why it has proven impossible to set up a stable pro-American government anywhere in that region.

Granted, Bernie won't bring all our troops home immediately and he isn't running on that particular plank. But what he is promising is a foreign policy outlook that is less exploitative and more cooperative, not trying to constantly scare our rivals into submission but rather trying to work together to tackle global challenges instead of wasting resources on unproductive arms races. Perhaps this is all kind of pie in the sky thinking, but the reality of the current situation is that our "peace through strength" posture has simply not worked, it hasn't bought us any kind of peace and we look increasingly weak as the dysfunction and corruption of our military industrial complex is revealed to the world.

The issue with Russian interference is that its so blatant, not that its happening. The great game has been happening since the 19th Century but there often tended to be some subtlety, now either Putin's a hideous bungler (Novochok, 2016, now) or he's trying to square up.

As for America, its a complex issue. Yeah you guys did some awful **** and still are, but its all at the behest of the corporate class who refuse to pay their way or allow any necessary restraints on theur money hoarding ways.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Now they're passing a 4 year old thing as news

Bernie and Bernie Bros go as far back as 30 years ago.


"Go to YouTube today. There's a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States"

[mathew101281]

Been saying this since 2016, but what do I know:

New research suggests Sanders would drive swing voters to Trump

To me The Sander’s campaign is built on a lot of handwaving and wishes.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Bernie and Bernie Bros go as far back as 30 years ago.


"Go to YouTube today. There's a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States"

That's so disengenous. Yeah if you are trying to make the claim that someone is something and there is past evidence they believed the exact opposite at a time it was less popular to beleive it.... that matters.

[Lord Falcon]

So, your argument is that an act is only wrong, or perhaps worthy of condemnation, for historical figures if the concept of an alternative existed at the time they were alive?

That is a frankly baffling way to look at the morality of actions throughout history.

Like, slavery is inherently wrong. It was wrong when the Egyptians did it to the Hebrews, it was wrong when the Vikings did it, it was wrong when the Romans did it, it was wrong when the British and the US did it, it is wrong.

To claim that "Oh, the concept of not having slaves didn't exist in the time of the Pharaohs therefore we cannot indict them for it in any way," You know who would have had a great idea of how morally terrible slavery was at the time? The slaves. I imagine they would have had a lot to say on the topic.

You seem to be looking for ways to try to lessen the moral impact of these terrible things that were done in history. Again, what do you gain from this frankly bewildering rationality?

Nothing is inherently wrong, because morality is a social construct. That doesnt mean fighting for what is right is any less important. Society can and should keep evolving to try to better itself. The concept simply helps the fighter to understand the appropriate height of horse from which to judge others. And it helps people to understand how moral perceptions change with time and context.

Good people do bad things all the time, and part of what leads to this is that their perception of what is good and bad may be different from our own. Doesn't mean they're not causing grievous and needless harm. We should by all means fight for a better world as we see it. But if we were born into their circumstances, we may well think much like them.

The idea that there's an inherent right and wrong is as ultimately empty a concept as the idea of natural rights. It's a step up from the divine right it replaced, certainly, but the idea of natural law is itself stuff people make up. The only natural laws are things like physics and chemistry.

Morality is a social construct, one that shall continue to evolve. If I am not somebody's equivalent of a racist grandpa a few generations from now, I'll be very worried for humanity.

[jetengine]

Nothing is inherently wrong, because morality is a social construct. That doesnt mean fighting for what is right is any less important. Society can and should keep evolving to try to better itself. The concept simply helps the fighter to understand the appropriate height of horse from which to judge others. And it helps people to understand how moral perceptions change with time and context.

Good people do bad things all the time, and part of what leads to this is that their perception of what is good and bad may be different from our own. Doesn't mean they're not causing grievous and needless harm. We should by all means fight for a better world as we see it. But if we were born into their circumstances, we may well think much like them.

The idea that there's an inherent right and wrong is as ultimately empty a concept as the idea of natural rights. It's a step up from the divine right it replaced, certainly, but the idea of natural law is itself stuff people make up. The only natural laws are things like physics and chemistry.

Morality is a social construct, one that shall continue to evolve. If I am not somebody's equivalent of a racist grandpa a few generations from now, I'll be very worried for humanity.

Pretty sure needless murder has always been inherently wrong. Like I cant think of an era where just stabbing someone for the fun of it was seen as ok