All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[numberthirty]

How does everyone think ST is going to go?

My predictions:

Alabama - Biden
Arkansas - Biden
Colorado - Bernie
Massachusetts - Bernie or Warren
Minnesota - Klobuchar
Tennessee - Biden
Texas - Bernie
Vermont - Bernie
California - Bernie
North Carolina - Biden
Maine - Bernie
Oklahoma - Biden
Utah - Bernie
Virginia - Bernie

I'd switch Oklahoma and Texas to Biden. Those states won't vote for a socialist, not now that Bernie has been vetted more.

There a reason why "Oklahoma"/"Biden" would need to be switched to "Oklahoma"/"Biden"?

[numberthirty]

Actress Jane Lynch, who was first a vocal Klobuchar supporter before Warren won her over big time, just switched her endorsement to Joe Biden.

I think even though Sanders and Warren are quite close ideologically, the toxicity of the Bernie Bros make Warren supporters more likely to switch to Joe than to Sanders.

Or...

Somebody who was supporting a pretty "Business As Usual..." Democrat initially settled on another "Business As Usual..." Democrat in what was a pretty predictable move that doesn't point to anything past that.

[SquirrelMan]

A federal judge on Sunday ruled that Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, was unlawfully appointed.

[SquirrelMan]

There a reason why "Oklahoma"/"Biden" would need to be switched to "Oklahoma"/"Biden"?

Oh, I meant Utah.

[Billy Batson]

Oh, I meant Utah.

The state where Bernie is at ~28 and Biden isn't viable atm?

[Kieran_Frost]

Every single one of those music references went right over my head. Literally no idea, are those even bands?

True, but you'll find that in every country (political groups hating each other) only the degree (or amount of passion expressed) varies.

Sorry that I misquoted you but in my defense "though" made little sense given both the sentence the paragraphical context. lol

I'd love to know about other countries politics (well, the ones that actually genuinely allow political debate); to know if this is a trend (the increase in hate). Maybe it's not increased, I've just noticed it over the last ten years because I've become more politically interested??? I don't know.

I feel Labour can make a comeback now that they are (slowly) moving beyond Corbyn's disastrous platform. These working-class voters are by nature Labour supporters they just need to be thrown a few bones (as the saying goes). Corbyn's (perhaps perceived, to a degree) harsh treatment of the working-class was stupid and self-defeating.

If Rebecca Long gets in... oh dear. I read an article yesterday about numerous Labour MPs behind closed doors saying if she gets it, they'll leave. Who knows, this might finally be the time for the Whigs to re-emerge as the second major party (along with the conservatives).

What I'm most interested in moving forward is the possibility of Scottish Independence. I feel it has a better than 50% chance of happening this time around. As with the Shia-Sunni split in Islam (which is rooted firmly in the stormy history of Persian-Arab relations), Scottish Independence has a far deeper historic and cultural context than most realize. The Scotts have never been truly happy with the union and have felt the English call the shots. Johnson's accession and leaving the EU have only magnified feelings that have long been there.

Oh, I hope not. I love Scotland and that whole thing would be such a terrible, terrible choice for them.

Modern polling methods are dubious at best. Do you know many polling companies (in North American and Europe) still use landlines as their primary method of data gathering or crude Internet surveys in which people can easily take part multiple times? Also, many people will outright lie to throw off the polls especially conservatives because they hate "fake news" companies.

I suppose how else do you do it? I absolutely see major flaws in those situations (esp. in the fact many modern day households don't have a landline, I know I don't, nor do any of my friends). But how else do you do it? Door to door? I seem to recall polling people as they left the polling station was giving much better numbers than all previous polls? Am I right in that?

Let me guess...

It's everyone except him?

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/2...voters-matter/

a) why did you pick PinkNews? Hmmmmmm? Please stop seeing me as just my sexuality. It's a little insulting. And if you think I like Mayor Pete just because I'm gay and he's gay, you really know nothing about me. And that makes me sad, because while we are clearly ideologically opposite on politics, I have always considered you as very good on these boards in defending LGBT+ issues. So this was a little upsetting. When the chips are down, do true colours come out?
b) did you read that article? It actually gives him an out for the protest, pointing out AS MAYOR he actually can't trump state law; and that he raised it to $10. It's not hypocritical to say "as Mayor I couldn't trump state law, as your president I support this". Or am I wrong in that assessment?
c) and that's all immaterial, because none of this was a response to me last question. It was actually a rather bizarre reply.

P.S. as a side note to everyone, am I the only one who groans a little every time I use the word "trump" as it was intended?

There's also much to indicate that Labour just isn't a naturally strong party.
There will be a fifty year period in which it has only won parliamanentary elections under one leader: Tony Blair.

This is a very good point. The last non-Blair Labour PM was pre-Thatcher. I think one of the over-riding issues is the UK is very heavy middle class, and Labour have often found it difficult being a party for the working class without alienating the largest group. I assume that's why Blair made a concerted effort to move his party to a more centralist ground. An act Cameron and May also copied, and one Corbyn actively tried to dismantle. Combine with the rise in SNP (as Scotland used to be one of Labour's power base)... they have a tough road ahead.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I think Biden essentially won South Carolina when he got the endorsement from Rep. Clyburn. Someone on CNN last night said that for Black people in SC, the Clyburn family is as beloved as the Kennedy family is for white people in Massachusetts. So as soon as Clyburn announced his endorsement for Biden, it was game over.

That's what I suspected as well. I think Biden won anyways, but alot of people said they decided that week and Clyburn endorsed that week. I'd argue Clyburn is bigger in SC for black voters than the Kennedy name is nowadays in MA

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Actress Jane Lynch, who was first a vocal Klobuchar supporter before Warren won her over big time, just switched her endorsement to Joe Biden.

I think even though Sanders and Warren are quite close ideologically, the toxicity of the Bernie Bros make Warren supporters more likely to switch to Joe than to Sanders.

This is a flawed mentality when you start with "first a vocal Klobuchar supporter". It meant she started as a moderate, went to a bridge candidate who impressed her, then went back to a moderate who actually has a chance when that candidate started struggling. It's the affluent white female Democratic vote that has been hovering around Klobuchar/Buttigieg/Warren for awhile now.

[numberthirty]

...

a) why did you pick PinkNews? Hmmmmmm? Please stop seeing me as just my sexuality. It's a little insulting. And if you think I like Mayor Pete just because I'm gay and he's gay, you really know nothing about me. And that makes me sad, because while we are clearly ideologically opposite on politics, I have always considered you as very good on these boards in defending LGBT+ issues. So this was a little upsetting. When the chips are down, do true colours come out?
b) did you read that article? It actually gives him an out for the protest, pointing out AS MAYOR he actually can't trump state law; and that he raised it to $10. It's not hypocritical to say "as Mayor I couldn't trump state law, as your president I support this". Or am I wrong in that assessment?
c) and that's all immaterial, because none of this was a response to me last question. It was actually a rather bizarre reply.

P.S. as a side note to everyone, am I the only one who groans a little every time I use the word "trump" as it was intended?

Had nothing to do with anything past that they had the clearest headline accompanying the piece if someone didn't want to read all the way through a given article.

As for what's in green, I wouldn't really assume it any more than I would assume someone was backing Biden because he happened to be straight to straight as well.

As for b.)? It doesn't really change that he is a guy whose campaign has quite a bit of big money being put into it. If it looks like you have picked a side, should folks trying to get a reasonable wage ignore that?

As for c.)? It's like the one about the guy who leaves the house and someone nearly hits his car. That happens once? Maybe the other person was the issue. If he nearly gets run over all the time? Maybe he's the issue.

While I can get that someone might have a notion coming in, lots of folks coming to the same conclusion probably says more about who the guy is as a politician than it does about the view of one of them going in.

[numberthirty]

As for the P.S. -

No one should toss a perfectly good word because dude happens to be a bonehead. There's also not a really solid substitute for it if you do.

[Billy Batson]

BIDEN: "I can hardly wait to debate [Trump] on stage. I want people to see me standing next to him and him standing next to me. Heh heh heh. We'll see who's sleepy."

WALLACE: "Mr. Vice President, thank you. Thanks for your time. Please come back in less than 13 years, sir."

BIDEN: "All right, Chuck. Thank you very much."

WALLACE: "Uh. All right. Uh, it's Chris. But anyway."

BIDEN: "I just did Chris. No, no, I just did Chuck. I tell you what, man. These were back to back. Anyway.

WALLACE: No, it's okay.

BIDEN: I don't know how you do it, early in the morning, too. Thank you, Chris.

[Kieran_Frost]

They're comparing the numbers of an entire flu season with the numbers from the early stages of a pandemic. What is that supposed to show?

We don't know it's a pandemic, and that's my point. Calling it that when the numbers aren't there yet (to me) is the over-reaching issue.

Even though in the West we tend to think of socialism as some dead and discredited ideology, the evidence just doesn't really bear that out. The first question you really have to ask is, if socialism is really so bad, then why did so many people turn to it in the first place? And make no mistake, the communists in the USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and just about everywhere else all had overwhelming public support when they took power, it was hardly the case that collectivism was forcibly imposed on an unwilling populace who really just wanted free markets and property rights, or whatever nonsense you might have heard spewed by American think tanks.

I'm not sure people the fact people turn to it, is therefore justification that people are happy with it once they have it. They might realise too late it was not a good choice. I think the concept is sound, but only in small groups. Only in tiny communities where everyone agrees to it; it could work beautifully. Whenever it gets to broader, larger groups it falls apart. It's too large for everyone to agree to it, and to maintain it you have to start forcing people to agree to it. Money stops being the commodity, but instead power becomes the commodity. Favours and who you know, the right family, etc becomes the commodity. And you still create a "ruler/underling" state as a result, but worse, because it is now the same as before but now also grounded in hypocrisy.

My friend works in China a lot, and some of his conversations about how it is, and the things the other staff just will not discuss... it's fascinating. Now admittedly he's socializing with middle class Chinese citizens, who (as you say) might have a different view than the poor. But surely any society that's truly great, shouldn't be oppressing any of its citizens (law abiding, of course). So the middle class disgruntling is still relevant (if not THE MOST important part).

Maybe you need to lay out your ideas in a clearer manner, as few of us seem to be able to follow your runaway train of thoughts. I had also been wondering how Warren's supposed front runner status was gonna give anyone but Michael Tracy a heart attack.

Ding ding ding ding.

[Kieran_Frost]

Had nothing to do with anything past that they had the clearest headline accompanying the piece if someone didn't want to read all the way through a given article.

I'm going to be honest, I don't believe you. Sorry.

As for what's in green, I wouldn't really assume it any more than I would assume someone was backing Biden because he happened to be straight to straight as well.

That's a straw man, people's minds don't work like that. No-one ever accuses a str8 person of only liking someone because they are str8. Gay people get accused of that plenty. You only like that character because they are gay, you only like that film because it's about a gay guy. It even comes in from a positive-discrimination way. It's amazing how many times str8 people, when they find out I've never been to Brighton, tell me how I'll lovvvvvvvvvvve it. Where as a white person is never told "you're only supporting him/her because they are white" (which is something black people do get accused of). Women supporting women, etc.

And the fact you don't get that, throws doubt (in my opinion) on your assessment "I wouldn't really assume it". You don't understand what you're assuming, so you can't say you don't assume it.

As for b.)? It doesn't really change that he is a guy whose campaign has quite a bit of big money being put into it. If it looks like you have picked a side, should folks trying to get a reasonable wage ignore that?

I would assume... all the candidates have quite a bit of big money put into them too? The sad fact is, these days, you can't run for president without butt loads of cash available to you. Now I'm all for a cap, very much so. A SMALL cap, to really make it become about policies and what someone says, rather than who's war chest has the most coin. But as no-one else is working on that principle... I don't really understand the problem?

As for the P.S. -
No one should toss a perfectly good word because dude happens to be a bonehead. There's also not a really solid substitute for it if you do.

True. Very true. And I'm sure that's why I'm not NOT using. Still isn't fun though.

[numberthirty]

...

I would assume... all the candidates have quite a bit of big money put into them too? The sad fact is, these days, you can't run for president without butt loads of cash available to you. Now I'm all for a cap, very much so. A SMALL cap, to really make it become about policies and what someone says, rather than who's war chest has the most coin. But as no-one else is working on that principle... I don't really understand the problem?

What is in blue is an incorrect assumption that kind of explains what is in green.

Seriously, take some time to look into how Sanders has funded his nomination run. Look at how it is different from the way Pete or Joe Biden have.

It will, at least in part, explain where some of the friction is coming from.

[numberthirty]

Every single one of those music references went right over my head. Literally no idea, are those even bands?

Hold up a second...

Like... "Is Public Enemy A Band?"

Did I read that correctly?

Quick question, have you seen the film Do The Right Thing?