Page 1010 of 1172 FirstFirst ... 105109109601000100610071008100910101011101210131014102010601110 ... LastLast
Results 15,136 to 15,150 of 17573
  1. #15136
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    That's because the real focus of the Republican party is to disenfranchise black voters before any recount can happen, including in Florida.

    I've posted this before as well if only to point out that you continue to support a party you know thrives on racism and homophobia.

    -----
    "Florida GOP Takes Voter Suppression to a Brazen New Extreme"

    Imagine this: a Republican governor in a crucial battleground state instructs his secretary of state to purge the voting rolls of hundreds of thousands of allegedly ineligible voters.

    The move disenfranchises thousands of legally registered voters, who happen to be overwhelmingly black and Hispanic Democrats. The number of voters prevented from casting a ballot exceeds the margin of victory in the razor-thin election, which ends up determining the next President of the United States.

    If this scenario sounds familiar, that’s because it happened in Florida in 2000. And twelve years later, just months before another presidential election, history is repeating itself.

    Back in 2000, 12,000 eligible voters – a number twenty-two times larger than George W. Bush’s 537 vote triumph over Al Gore – were wrongly identified as convicted felons and purged from the voting rolls in Florida, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. African Americans, who favored Gore over Bush by 86 points, accounted for 11 percent of the state’s electorate but 41 percent of those purged.

    Jeb Bush attempted a repeat performance in 2004 to help his brother win reelection but was forced to back off in the face of a public outcry. Yet with another close election looming, Florida Republicans have returned to their voter-scrubbing ways...


    https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...xtreme-184830/
    Looking at this board, there are multiple posters who are knowledgeable about politics, but wrong about a factual matter, whether Al Gore really have won the electoral college in 2000. He didn't. Numerous investigations show he didn't.

    When people are wrong about one thing, it suggests deep flaws in their sources of information.

    The Rolling Stone article doesn't address the question of what the vote in Florida showed in 2000, or how courts should have responded. The article was critical of then-Governor Rick Scott's efforts to remove from voter rolls people who legally cannot vote because they were not citizens. That itself raises some complex questions. Is the only objection that there was too many false negatives? If so, what is the appropriate number of false negatives? The Obama administration have helped increase accuracy by providing access to the Department of Homeland Security‘s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cNlV_blog.html

    Voters in Florida have had plenty of opportunities to show that they think Republicans went too far in cleaning registration rolls. They keep voting for Republican Governors, even in midterms that suck for national Republicans and feature open races where the GOP does not have the advantage of incumbency (2006, 2018).

    But this still doesn't address what the ballots showed in the 2000 Florida presidential race.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  2. #15137
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    Even leaving aside all the stuff with Anita Hill or the crime bill or his friendship with Strom Thurmond, Biden's primary function as a politician has always been to carry water for his real constituents - the banking sector in Delaware, and he's as responsible as anyone for turning it basically into the onshore tax haven it is today. It's funny that he keeps trying to cast himself as this sort of blue collar Midwestern good ole boy, because for one thing, there is no great love for Biden here and you're probably more likely to find a diehard Trump supporter than a Biden loyalist, and for another, we're not a Midwestern state! A rich coastal state like Delaware has nothing in common with middle America aside from a general reputation for being boring and uninspiring, and if Biden isn't able to connect with the people who know him best, what chance does he have with the rest of the country?
    Biden won Minnesota with 38.6% to Bernie's 29.9%.

    He won Michigan with 52.9% to Bernie's 36.4%.

    He won Missouri with 60.1% over Bernie's 34.6%.

    He won Illinois with 59% to Bernie's 36.1%.

    Midwestern Democrats like Biden.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  3. #15138
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    But this still doesn't address what the ballots showed in the 2000 Florida presidential race.
    Actually, none of what you said addresses the fact that Republicans routinely attempt to disenfranchise black voters and that doing so in 2000 was what likely swung Florida in their favor.

    I'm not addressing what others said -- I'm addressing the fact that Republicans illegally disenfranchised black voters in Florida in 2000 by design.

    There's no way of proving whether or not this helped them win the election, though the minimal margin of victory strongly suggests that it did.

    More relevant to the point, you know this and still support the party, even as they continue their efforts to disenfranchise minorities in general.

    "Voters in Florida have had plenty of opportunities to show that they think Republicans went too far in cleaning registration rolls."

    That statement in no way addresses my point -- namely that black and brown voters are being illegally disenfranchised from voting by Republicans.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-02-2020 at 09:02 PM.

  4. #15139
    Mighty Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    Even leaving aside all the stuff with Anita Hill or the crime bill or his friendship with Strom Thurmond, Biden's primary function as a politician has always been to carry water for his real constituents - the banking sector in Delaware, and he's as responsible as anyone for turning it basically into the onshore tax haven it is today.
    Can I get evidence of this? Especially on the part about it being his “primary function”? Biden is widely credited for delivering the Midwest to Obama in 2008 and 2012. Do you mean to tell me that none of his reputation as working for the middle class means anything at all?

    It's funny that he keeps trying to cast himself as this sort of blue collar Midwestern good ole boy, because for one thing, there is no great love for Biden here and you're probably more likely to find a diehard Trump supporter than a Biden loyalist, and for another, we're not a Midwestern state! A rich coastal state like Delaware has nothing in common with middle America aside from a general reputation for being boring and uninspiring, and if Biden isn't able to connect with the people who know him best, what chance does he have with the rest of the country?
    Sanders performed well in the Midwest during his primary with Hillary Clinton. This year, he is not performing well at all, even losing Michigan, a state that was used in 2016 to demonstrate that Sanders might have performed better than Clinton in the general. Biden is nearing him by double-digit margins in these same states. And his best counties? Biden’s best counties are the ones that swung the House for Democrats in 2018. Primaries may not be illustrative of the General overall, but I do think they offer a peak about where the support is coming from. The Democratic nominee NEEDS to show strength in the districts we won in 2018 in order to not only get elected but keep the governing coalition we have in the House and pick up seats in the Senate. If those districts don’t deliver for them, we have to count on support from elsewhere that is even less sure-fire. Biden is doing this.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  5. #15140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    Oh, I'm pretty sure WBE has profiled that piece of work. But to show everyone what Georgia could have had, here's this:

    INDEED.

    https://republicinsanity.tumblr.com/...373/brian-kemp
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  6. #15141
    Invincible Jersey Girl Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    23,996

    Default

    WTH?!

    JARED KUSHNER: "The notion of the federal stockpile was it's supposed to be our stockpile. It's not supposed to be states stockpiles that they then use."
    Twitter link with video
    Last edited by Tami; 04-02-2020 at 09:13 PM.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  7. #15142
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    This omits why this is so, when they're as progressive as we can get with with president and congress. Many countries began in conditions with less obstacles blocking those vis, like healthcare but America has to start from the ground up against a massive empire from the right blocking everything and getting more partisan by the day. Nobody is disagreeing wth that. America isn't the world, every country has its own problems and has its now obstacles - like abortion being banned in Ireland while it got its own NHS in 2005.
    I mean, we'd probably have some sort of universal health care if we'd left abortion banned and didn't pass the civil rights act. That's probably not a good trade off for a lot of people.

  8. #15143
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Ireland has universal health care. It did not have gay marriage or abortion rights until.. a few years ago and both required national referendums as I recall. I was referring to areas where Democrats are to the /left/ of other nations social democratic parties, on issues of racial and reproductive and trans rights. You can blab all you want about economics and neoliberal consensues, but it's a gross simplification, no matter how many words you can stuff in a post about it.
    We didn’t have nationalized gay marriage until a few years ago.....

    Ireland first off had a Civil Partnership Act in 2010 which gave same sex couples more rights than any of the states that didn’t have same sex marriage. Then in 2015 they added same sex marriage to their constitution, something we didn’t do and needed the courts to nationalize for us. Funny thing 2015 was also the same year the US nationalized same sex marriage.

    So honestly how the hell were we more progressive? We nationalized at the same time and they had an act protecting same sex citizens at a time when the Democratic President was still on record being against it, Prop 8 and DOMA were still in place AND we had multiple states that explicitly prohibited it in their constitution. And we still deal with shit like the bakery and other issues regarding equality around the the subject.

    So what was this you were saying about blabbering? Because your example doesn’t hold up as evidence that we were more progressive on this. IN FACT, Ireland passed they’d referendum in May of 2015 and the SCOTUS decided on Obergefell in June... so they beat us on nationalizing it. Oh and there’s was actually a national referendum to add it to a constitution so they actually got their population to vote on it clearing 60% of the vote.... while we needed the SCOTUS to save us a month later and most of the states needed their own courts to tell them they added homophobic bans against same sex marriage in their constitution.

    So you were just factually wrong on setting up a false argument that it was economics vs social issues and your one example relies on you not comparing it to us where we actually came up late to the party on that social issue compared to your example.

    Like at least be informed that we actually live up to the counterpoint you tried to use to prop us up as some bastion of social progressivism.

    Like I said most of Europe nationalized at the same time we did. There are a few that were a couple years after. There are a few that were significantly earlier and deserve much more credit in pioneering it. But by and large the best thing you can say is that we were essentially in line with the rest of our peers on this one social issue strictly concerning nationalizing. Now if you cared to go beyond surface level, you’d see that most of those countries were still far better on lgbtq rights before the western world nationalized on marriage equality, but that’s going deeper into it.

    But yeah you are way off the mark here.

  9. #15144
    Astonishing Member Darkspellmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    I mean, we'd probably have some sort of universal health care if we'd left abortion banned and didn't pass the civil rights act. That's probably not a good trade off for a lot of people.
    Not to mention that the only president who could have rammed it through died in his third term. And didn't our diplomats help craft a number of bulls in other countries that give people those rights?

    And yes, civil rights and womens rights and equal rights are not a good trade off when most if tour country is a mixed nation and not one homogeneous group.

  10. #15145
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    Most people would agree with those stances or have beliefs like them, however, they know that they are incredibly difficult to get into law so they have to settle for the most the Democrats can pass through the system. If we all became citizens of those countries we might even be on their left side!



    This omits why this is so, when they're as progressive as we can get with with president and congress. Many countries began in conditions with less obstacles blocking those vis, like healthcare but America has to start from the ground up against a massive empire from the right blocking everything and getting more partisan by the day. Nobody is disagreeing wth that. America isn't the world, every country has its own problems and has its now obstacles - like abortion being banned in Ireland while it got its own NHS in 2005.
    None of this changes the fact that you are starting from a position that by global standards America is a right wing party and their left leaning party is predominately center right. Yes I agree a lot of people on here are more sympathetic to some left wing positions.

    However let’s just take gun control. We still tolerate the fact that the most left person on the stage holds a position that we merely need stricter regulations on assault weapons and some closings of loopholes. We had at least one major candidate going off about wanting to make sure her uncles rights to keep guns were protected. So yeah we have a second Ammedment, but the left leaning party is still not attempting to make the argument for comprehensive ban or Australian style regulation. Oh and Australia had as big of a gun culture as us when there country got their shit together. The only difference is we tolerate kids getting shot more than they did.

    Again yes Democrats have been trying to accomplish universal healthcare. But in Europe where it’s almost unthinkable to campaign against there public options, we are trying to say the two candidates that have a European style plan (which multiple studies says saves money) are too fringe. Meanwhile the same major candidate going off about her uncle said she would never vote for it and the man most likely to be the nominee said there’s a strong possiblity he’d veto it if it miraculously got through Congess. So there’s one thing in saying “it’s a hard road, go slow”. It’s another when you have candidates in stark of opposition to it, even in a hypothetical scenario where the stars aligned. At that point you can’t say “oh they are progressive not center right”

    -stricter tax laws. We had stricter tax laws..... We didn’t start from a bad position there.

    So in one situation a country that was similar to us did show they could rally together and deal with the problem, in another issue two predominant Democratic conditions said they were likely to oppose the closest healthcare option to the rest the world in a best case scenario, and in another we regressed from a stronger taxation position.

    It’s not all “America has more obstacles”. A big part of it is a lack of will from politicians in the Democratic Party

    I mean fuck why were Democrats going along with deregulation’s and loving further away from the New Deal?

    You are correct in some aspects, but in a lot of others the Democratic Party has been moving right since at a minimum the 80’s and it’s been largely to their peril
    Last edited by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE; 04-03-2020 at 03:20 AM.

  11. #15146
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkspellmaster View Post
    Not to mention that the only president who could have rammed it through died in his third term. And didn't our diplomats help craft a number of bulls in other countries that give people those rights?

    And yes, civil rights and womens rights and equal rights are not a good trade off when most if tour country is a mixed nation and not one homogeneous group.
    In yet I haven’t heard anyone here argue for a trade off. I’ve seen people try to frame it that way. But even then there facts were actually wrong. I mean it’s kinda crazy that we have people who think America is more socially progressive than most western countries

  12. #15147
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Kushner says the federal stockpile is theirs, not for the states. WTF? Who is 'ours'?

    "The notion of the federal stockpile was it's supposed to be our stockpile. It's not supposed to be states stockpiles that they then use."

  13. #15148
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    In yet I haven’t heard anyone here argue for a trade off. I’ve seen people try to frame it that way. But even then there facts were actually wrong. I mean it’s kinda crazy that we have people who think America is more socially progressive than most western countries
    I didn't have any facts wrong, dude and no one is arguing that 'America' is that. IT has been suggested that the American Democratic party is to the left of numerous other countries on some social issues, and that the 'democrats are a center right party' is an over simplified take that denies actual political realities in both our nation and others.

  14. #15149
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shooshoomanjoe View Post
    Kushner says the federal stockpile is theirs, not for the states. WTF? Who is 'ours'?

    "The notion of the federal stockpile was it's supposed to be our stockpile. It's not supposed to be states stockpiles that they then use."
    Tried to say this in another post. MA had a shipment of masks that they independently secured. The feds found out and took them. They are now sitting in a stockpile not being used.

    Because of that, the governor of MA needed to secure a deal with China and then get their football team to coordinate a flight under the guise of a humanitarian effort to get them without the feds seizing them. Then they coordinated with Cuomo to get some in NY.

    It’s kinda weird how the state at the epicenter needs to rely on a neighbor states football team, but Desantis is apparently getting everything he wants

  15. #15150
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,658

    Default

    This research systematically mapped the relationship between political ideology and receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit—that is, obscure sentences constructed to impress others rather than convey truth. Among Swedish adults (N = 985), bullshit receptivity was (a) robustly positively associated with socially conservative (vs. liberal) self-placement, resistance to change, and particularly binding moral intuitions (loyalty, authority, purity); (b) associated with centrism on preference for equality and even leftism (when controlling for other aspects of ideology) on economic ideology self-placement; and (c) lowest among right-of-center social liberal voters and highest among left-wing green voters. Most of the results held up when we controlled for the perceived profundity of genuine aphorisms, cognitive reflection, numeracy, information processing bias, gender, age, education, religiosity, and spirituality. The results are supportive of theoretical accounts that posit ideological asymmetries in cognitive orientation, while also pointing to the existence of bullshit receptivity among both right- and left-wingers.
    This is pretty neat.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30879398

    Bullshit-sensitivity is the ability to distinguish pseudo-profound bullshit sentences (e.g. "Your movement transforms universal observations") from genuinely profound sentences (e.g. "The person who never made a mistake never tried something new"). Although bullshit-sensitivity has been linked to other individual difference measures, it has not yet been shown to predict any actual behavior. We therefore conducted a survey study with over a thousand participants from a general sample of the Swedish population and assessed participants' bullshit-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven bullshit sentences) and profoundness-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven genuinely profound sentences), and used these variables to predict two types of prosocial behavior (self-reported donations and a decision to volunteer for charity). Despite bullshit-receptivity and profoundness-receptivity being positively correlated with each other, logistic regression analyses showed that profoundness-receptivity had a positive association whereas bullshit-receptivity had a negative association with both types of prosocial behavior. These relations held up for the most part when controlling for potentially intermediating factors such as cognitive ability, time spent completing the survey, sex, age, level of education, and religiosity. The results suggest that people who are better at distinguishing the pseudo-profound from the actually profound are more prosocial.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30063739

    And this one is the *most* hilarious.

    Misperceiving Bullshit as Profound Is Associated with Favorable Views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Conservatism.
    he present research investigates the associations between holding favorable views of potential Democratic or Republican candidates for the US presidency 2016 and seeing profoundness in bullshit statements. In this contribution, bullshit is used as a technical term which is defined as communicative expression that lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science. We used the Bullshit Receptivity scale (BSR) to measure seeing profoundness in bullshit statements. The BSR scale contains statements that have a correct syntactic structure and seem to be sound and meaningful on first reading but are actually vacuous. Participants (N = 196; obtained via Amazon Mechanical Turk) rated the profoundness of bullshit statements (using the BSR) and provided favorability ratings of three Democratic (Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders) and three Republican candidates for US president (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump). Participants also completed a measure of political liberalism/conservatism. Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association between bullshit and support for the three Democrat candidates, this relationship is both substantively small and statistically insignificant. The general measure of political liberalism/conservatism was also related to judging bullshit statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a higher tendency to see profoundness in bullshit statements. Of note, these results were not due to a general tendency among conservatives to see profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were not significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. In contrast, this was the case for Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley. Overall, small-to-medium sized correlations were found, indicating that far from all conservatives see profoundness in bullshit statements.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27128318
    Last edited by Tendrin; 04-03-2020 at 03:34 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •