All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Kieran_Frost]

It's a common mistake that people make because the Washington Times picked that name to sound more credible, probably hoping that people would confuse it with the New York Times or the Washington Post which are considered the papers of record over here. But in terms of content they are more on the level of Breitbart or Drudge Report and are not to be trusted.

Ahhhhh! Yes, I was thinking Washington Post when I saw the name. I knew there was a familiarity with it in my brain somewhere. Thank-you.

As for the actual results, it doesn't really matter who "wins" Iowa because it's not a winner take all system anyway, and the delegates are distributed according to some weird system nobody understands. The contest is mostly important as an early barometer to weed out the contenders from the pretenders, and while Sanders and Buttigieg polled about evenly it's misleading to take this as an indication they have equally viable pathways to nomination, because Bernie has a broad and diverse base of support nation wide, whereas Pete appeals to a very narrow segment of the country and only did as well as he did in Iowa because he focused almost all of his campaigning there. And there's a good reason why most voters are wary of supporting him, Buttigieg simply doesn't have much of a track record to run on and even what little there is is still controversial, such as his handling of the local police force. He's not selling much of a coherent policy vision either, so all that he has going for him is this notion that he's some young charismatic figure like JFK or Obama whose sheer magnetism and force of personality can carry him to victory, and I'm sorry, but he just isn't that.

It "doesn't really matter who wins" because your guy didn't win Let's call a spade a spade here. If you want to distant yourself from Trump supporters, maybe acknowledge fact and stop trying to discredit or dilute fact with side distractions and subterfuge.

Never heard of any of those. Try NYT or WaPo if you want credible sources. The Wall Street Journal also works if you want a mainstream paper with a more conservative bent. You should generally avoid getting your information from any website that originated as a TV station or, God forbid, from social media, because all of those are fundamentally entertainment rather than news, and thus will always lean toward clickbait articles to pump up those engagement metrics rather than providing sound, objective analysis.

You keep saying credible sources, but... help me out here: what those articles are saying is true, correct? The official results came in and Mayor Pete won. Are you saying that's not true?

[PwrdOn]

Ahhhhh! Yes, I was thinking Washington Post when I saw the name. I knew there was a familiarity with it in my brain somewhere. Thank-you.


It "doesn't really matter who wins" because your guy didn't win Let's call a spade a spade here. If you want to distant yourself from Trump supporters, maybe acknowledge fact and stop trying to discredit or dilute fact with side distractions and subterfuge.



You keep saying credible sources, but... help me out here: what those articles are saying is true, correct? The official results came in and Mayor Pete won. Are you saying that's not true?

I mean, Bernie got the most votes from actual people in Iowa, that much is indisputable. The odd process combined with the election day clusterfuck ended up giving Pete more delegates, but honestly that doesn't matter at all because there's basically no chance he'll still be in the race by the convention which means that those delegates will end up going to someone else anyway. If you want to claim some title of "first gay candidate to win a state caucus" then whatever, go ahead and do that, but the reality is he has no shot of winning and he's honestly only helping Bernie by staying in the race because he draws votes away from people who may actually have a chance to beat him.

[Kieran_Frost]

I mean, Bernie got the most votes from actual people in Iowa, that much is indisputable. The odd process combined with the election day clusterfuck ended up giving Pete more delegates,

Sanders did get the most votes, true. Final count was 43,209 (P) vs 45,652 (S). See how easy that is, being able to acknowledge facts, and not resort to side stepping?

but honestly that doesn't matter at all because

It does matter. It does matter. First, because it's a fact. Facts matter. Let's just at-least agree on that. Sadly it seems to be something Bernie Bros (and Trump supporters) are averse to, for some reason. It's the first gay person to ever win a state in a primary. That matters, it's historic. It also matters because it mattered enough to Sanders supporters when they thought he made history by being the only Democrate to win the first time. It it matters that he won, it also matters that he didn't. If that makes sense?

there's basically no chance he'll still be in the race by the convention which means that those delegates will end up going to someone else anyway.

If Mayor Pete was genuinely no threat, Bernie Bros wouldn't be hounding his twitter page. They are. Funnily enough (or tragically, as the depper truth maybe) if you look at any random post by Mayor Pete/his team, and look at the comments on Twitter. And you look at any of the negative ones that don't already have a red rose next to the poster's name, and click on said poster... 95% of the time you'll find a Trump supporter or a Bernie Bro. That's not good company to be associated with.

The fact is no-one wastes energy on the guy or girl who truly doesn't threaten them; unless they are just overtly malicious and like to hate for no real reason. That's just how humans work. The energy being expended on hating him comes to one of two conclusions: a) he's a threat b) he's no threat, so attacking the "little guy" is just the act of a bully.

So which is it? Bully or threat?

If you want to claim some title of "first gay candidate to win a state caucus" then whatever, go ahead and do that,

WOW! Telling.

[PwrdOn]

Sanders did get the most votes, true. Final count was 43,209 (P) vs 45,652 (S). See how easy that is, being able to acknowledge facts, and not resort to side stepping?


It does matter. It does matter. First, because it's a fact. Facts matter. Let's just at-least agree on that. Sadly it seems to be something Bernie Bros (and Trump supporters) are averse to, for some reason. It's the first gay person to ever win a state in a primary. That matters, it's historic. It also matters because it mattered enough to Sanders supporters when they thought he made history by being the only Democrate to win the first time. It it matters that he won, it also matters that he didn't. If that makes sense?


If Mayor Pete was genuinely no threat, Bernie Bros wouldn't be hounding his twitter page. They are. Funnily enough (or tragically, as the depper truth maybe) if you look at any random post by Mayor Pete/his team, and look at the comments on Twitter. And you look at any of the negative ones that don't already have a red rose next to the poster's name, and click on said poster... 95% of the time you'll find a Trump supporter or a Bernie Bro. That's not good company to be associated with.

The fact is no-one wastes energy on the guy or girl who truly doesn't threaten them; unless they are just overtly malicious and like to hate for no real reason. That's just how humans work. The energy being expended on hating him comes to one of two conclusions: a) he's a threat b) he's no threat, so attacking the "little guy" is just the act of a bully.

So which is it? Bully or threat?


WOW! Telling.

Honestly, if you think Buttigieg actually has a chance to win, then nothing I say will change your mind. He doesn't though.

As to why I don't like him, honestly he just gives me all sorts of bad vibes. Maybe it's because he's pretty much the exact sort of gay person that conservatives claim they'd be willing to accept, the type that doesn't wear his sexuality on his sleeve and doesn't try to "ram some agenda down your throat" and is therefore inoffensive to everyone. And honestly, even leaving all the stuff about his sexual orientation aside, he just seems like the kind of guy who goes out his way to not have any weird personality tics or quirks because he wants to be loved by everyone, and to me that makes him the weirdest sort of person of them all.

I say this as someone who is in no way some connoisieur of the more outlandish elements of queer culture, but I do at least admire those people for having the courage to express themselves in the face of unimaginable hostility. Pete doesn't, he's a coward.

[numberthirty]

...

I really don't understand Sanders supporters. Who goes out of their way to be this... ughhh, I don't know the word? Intentionally uncompromising? Openly hostile? Not a team player, in any sense of the word, with other Democrates.

The only logically conclusion I can come to regarding how unlikeable and hateful Sanders supporters are, is they are actually Trump supporters; intentionally making Sanders super unlikeable, so moderates won't vote for him. I cannot think of a Democrate who has inspired this much mass open hostility in my memory.

There is a perfectly reasonable base to be made for that Bloomberg is off the table.

A couple of folks have already said it, and I think no less of them because they did.

[numberthirty]

...

If Mayor Pete was genuinely no threat, Bernie Bros wouldn't be hounding his twitter page. They are. Funnily enough (or tragically, as the depper truth maybe) if you look at any random post by Mayor Pete/his team, and look at the comments on Twitter. And you look at any of the negative ones that don't already have a red rose next to the poster's name, and click on said poster... 95% of the time you'll find a Trump supporter or a Bernie Bro. That's not good company to be associated with.

The fact is no-one wastes energy on the guy or girl who truly doesn't threaten them; unless they are just overtly malicious and like to hate for no real reason. That's just how humans work. The energy being expended on hating him comes to one of two conclusions: a) he's a threat b) he's no threat, so attacking the "little guy" is just the act of a bully.

So which is it? Bully or threat?

Here's the problem with seeing that there are only two possible reasons in this scenario...

There is a perfectly logical third option for what you are talking about.

Mayor Pete is in second place when it comes to taking campaign donations from big money.

If you have lived for years and years where this has been an issue, do you just ignore it when it is obviously the case? If not, how much animosity is acceptable as far as directing it towards something that absolutely is a huge part of the problem?

[numberthirty]

On other element that is clearly the elephant in the room...

Taking it on faith that everything happening on Twitter is legitimate and not a fast one being pulled.

While I don't doubt that some of it must be real, folks should be able to ask themselves just how much of it actually is.

[Theleviathan]

On other element that is clearly the elephant in the room...

Taking it on faith that everything happening on Twitter is legitimate and not a fast one being pulled.

While I don't doubt that some of it must be real, folks should be able to ask themselves just how much of it actually is.

So now it's Russia not Bernie Bros? FFS.....

[Superbat]

If Mayor Pete was genuinely no threat, Bernie Bros wouldn't be hounding his twitter page. They are. Funnily enough (or tragically, as the depper truth maybe) if you look at any random post by Mayor Pete/his team, and look at the comments on Twitter. And you look at any of the negative ones that don't already have a red rose next to the poster's name, and click on said poster... 95% of the time you'll find a Trump supporter or a Bernie Bro. That's not good company to be associated with.

The fact is no-one wastes energy on the guy or girl who truly doesn't threaten them; unless they are just overtly malicious and like to hate for no real reason. That's just how humans work. The energy being expended on hating him comes to one of two conclusions: a) he's a threat b) he's no threat, so attacking the "little guy" is just the act of a bully.

So which is it? Bully or threat?

Pete is an opportunist who sold out the black residents of South Bend. That's why people go after him, because he's a racist that pretended to be a progressive early in the race and now is an empty suit that does a bad Obama impression.

[Tami]

[Tami]

What you need to know about coronavirus

What began with a handful of mysterious illnesses in a vast central China city has now traveled the world, jumping from animals to humans and from obscurity to international headlines. First detected on the last day of 2019, the novel coronavirus has infected tens of thousands of people — within China’s borders and beyond them — and has killed more than 2,500. It has triggered unprecedented quarantines, stock market upheaval and dangerous conspiracy theories.

Most cases are mild, but health officials say the virus’s spread through the United States appears inevitable. As the country and its health-care system prepares, much is still unknown about the virus that causes the disease now named covid-19.

The Washington Post has spoken to scores of doctors, officials and experts to answer as many of your questions as we can about the newest global health emergency. Here’s what we know so far.

[Tami]

Trump wants prime-time climate science challenge — Happer

President Trump wants a climate science review where he might take center stage as host in front of a prime-time television audience, a former adviser said yesterday.

Trump is also interested in bringing back a hostile review of climate science if he wins reelection, but he's concerned that it would affect him in the general election, according to William Happer, a former senior director in the National Security Council. The emeritus Princeton University professor worked for months to promote a hostile review of climate science.

Happer told E&E News he's interested in a purely academic challenge to the National Climate Assessment, while Trump wants a televised event.

"The biggest audience, which is the average American public, has to be informed, and he thinks he's better at doing that than I am. I'm sure he's right," Happer said. "He would prefer it be on prime time, maybe with he himself participating, who knows, but it's impossible to make much of an impact on the scientific community that way."

Happer said Trump was already familiar with his view of climate science, which holds that the world needs more carbon dioxide, before they met in the Oval Office with former national security adviser John Bolton and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. In those early days of his White House tenure, in the fall of 2018, the climate science review seemed a certainty. Happer said Trump was receptive to his scientific claims but that the president already had his own ideas about climate.

President Trump wants a climate science review where he might take center stage as host in front of a prime-time television audience, a former adviser said yesterday.

Trump is also interested in bringing back a hostile review of climate science if he wins reelection, but he's concerned that it would affect him in the general election, according to William Happer, a former senior director in the National Security Council. The emeritus Princeton University professor worked for months to promote a hostile review of climate science.

Happer told E&E News he's interested in a purely academic challenge to the National Climate Assessment, while Trump wants a televised event.

"The biggest audience, which is the average American public, has to be informed, and he thinks he's better at doing that than I am. I'm sure he's right," Happer said. "He would prefer it be on prime time, maybe with he himself participating, who knows, but it's impossible to make much of an impact on the scientific community that way."

Happer said Trump was already familiar with his view of climate science, which holds that the world needs more carbon dioxide, before they met in the Oval Office with former national security adviser John Bolton and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. In those early days of his White House tenure, in the fall of 2018, the climate science review seemed a certainty. Happer said Trump was receptive to his scientific claims but that the president already had his own ideas about climate.

[jetengine]

Trump wants prime-time climate science challenge — Happer

What the actual ****. This very much is the Cliche Dystopian Timeline

[Tami]

Billionaire Trump supporter seeking to oust Twitter’s CEO and take over control of the company: report

One of Donald Trump’s wealthiest supports is reportedly interested in becoming the next CEO of the president’s favorite social media platform.

In May of 2019, CNBC wondered how billionaire investor Paul Singer would get involved to support Trump in the 2020 election.

“Republican megadonor and hedge fund executive Paul Singer went into attack mode at a dinner honoring Education Secretary Betsy DeVos this week, targeting what he described as a rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party,” CNBC reported. “The comments offered a glimpse into the mentality of a powerful GOP donor as he decides how he’s going to contribute to the 2020 election.”

[Kieran_Frost]

Honestly, if you think Buttigieg actually has a chance to win, then nothing I say will change your mind. He doesn't though.

I think he has a chance, yes. A good chance? Probably not. He's just too unknown. But stranger things have happened (need I remind you who your President is right now? ). And considering he currently has more delegates than Warren and Biden combine. Considering he's won a state and Warren and Biden and Bloomberg and Klobuchar and all the others haven't, I just don't understand the logic that he's the one who should drop out first. Maybe the other moderates doing worse should drop out, and his chances increase? Who knows?

But ultimately yes, I think Sanders will also get the nomination. And yes, I think Trump will win against him. A scenario I am not a fan of. Sanders (RE: his supporters) are not building good will. He went into this already with a mark against him for how his supporters behaved last time. I love me some Susan Sarandon, but I remember how she (and others) were vehemently outspoken when he didn't get the nomination last time. Clinton supporters will remember that. So already that's one group against Sanders. And all the attacks and unkindness from his acolytes this time round is NOT winning over moderates. Does no-one see that? This thread alone is proof of that. Sander won't win if the centralists don't come to him, because (as sad as it is) Trump's base is STRONG. And unwavering. And someone not garnering the middle ground won't beat him.

Two weeks ago I wasn't fussed if he won the nomination, and now, because I see how his supporters behave, I don't want to see him win. No-one cultivates that kind of hateful followers with a) being utterly unaware, and that's a terrible quality in a leader, or b) more insidiously, is aware and is allowing it to happen.

As to why I don't like him, honestly he just gives me all sorts of bad vibes. Maybe it's because he's pretty much the exact sort of gay person that conservatives claim they'd be willing to accept, the type that doesn't wear his sexuality on his sleeve and doesn't try to "ram some agenda down your throat" and is therefore inoffensive to everyone. And honestly, even leaving all the stuff about his sexual orientation aside

Mate, just stop.

On other element that is clearly the elephant in the room...

Taking it on faith that everything happening on Twitter is legitimate and not a fast one being pulled.

While I don't doubt that some of it must be real, folks should be able to ask themselves just how much of it actually is.

I'm confused... so are you saying the online attacks by Sanders supporters ARE actually Trump supporters, because (as I deduced) that seems to the only person who gains from festering such negativity in his camps?

There is a perfectly reasonable base to be made for that Bloomberg is off the table.
A couple of folks have already said it, and I think no less of them because they did.

Sadly he's the one person who won't stop. Honestly, regardless of how much money he has, I just don't get why he keeps going??? Throwing good money after bad...