All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Darkspellmaster]

Warren is the best debater, she'd have no trouble verbally smacking his hand with a ruler. However, short of winning nearly every race on Super Tuesday I don't see her wining the primary.

Biden has trouble speaking, something Trump is likely to take advantage of. then again, compared to Trump's rambling and incoherence, almost anyone can do better and Biden isn't easily intimidated.

Sanders, all I can say is him and Trump would be like two old men wagging fingers at each other. Sanders gets red-faced and Trump gets reddish-orange faced, they both try to talk or yell above each other and the whole thing might be a mess. At least that is how I predict a debate between them to go.

Everything you said was spot on. Warren would destroy Trump who is easily intimidated by strong, forceful women, but yeah, at this point, she has no chance to catching Biden or Sanders. Biden isn’t a master debater by any stretch of the imagination and watching Sanders in ranting old man mode would be a train wreck.

I was thinking something Similar about the debate between the two. My worry is that we would never get actual answers to questions. Hoping for Warren, but I'd not I'm gonna pray that she gets VP.
Honestly I have to wonder if Bernie was female would he have this much support?

Has he changed his Gun stance at all?

Saw this on Instagram and thought I'd post, as I find numbers interesting...

No# of deaths this year from Coronavirus - 2,765
No# of seasonal flu deaths LAST YEAR - 75,111
No# of people who died of hunger TODAY - 13,861

If this originated in France and not China (or any country with non-Caucasians as the predominant group) the panic wouldn't be half as big.

I think the panic would be as big but for different reasons. The bug issues is more that China's government has been bad in honest reporting and allowing the treatment earlier.

There are bad actors using this against Chinese American s.

There was a documentary on China a few years ago, and a lot of the lower class are dissatisfied by their government but they cant say it due to laws. Middle class is not happy now, but the upper class is still pleased and they continue to control the majority of the government.

Cuba is a mix if things. While people were glad for certain things they also were scared of Castro's regime because he would be a beneficiary with one hand and a murderer with the other.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...-jesse-jackson

Yeah, no Jesse, you do not get to pull this when your son and daughter in law were corrupt.

This year? Not likely. The CDC has 34,157 deaths from influenza during the 2018-2019 influenza season. The numbers aren't out yet for the 2019-2020 season since it isn't over yet. But the number should be around the same.

The thing about COVID-19 is that it is far more contagious than Influenza.

Note that the number for Influenza was for an entire year.

For just the last two months since the outbreak began, China has had at least 2838 deaths from COVID-19. In addition, there have been at least 86 deaths in other countries and the number keeps growing.

There is no clear idea how long this outbreak will last, but if it lasts even half of the year the estimate could go between 8 to 10 Thousand deaths. If each country hit by COVID-19 sees a spread rate like China, that number could go much higher. We're talking 8-10 thousand per country for just 6 months.

It's too soon to tell how bad it might get. But whenever something is highly contagious, there should always be room for concern.

I dont think this is like the spanish influenza outbreak, yet.

That doesn't faze her anymore. She'd have a response to it that would shut Trump down hard. And she doesn't get emotional like Sanders does.

Voters are missing out by voting for Sanders over Warren. It's like competing in an archery contest and shooting your arrow in your opponents target. Sanders winning the primary can only help Trump.

I still think it comes down to Sanders looking like your kind grandfather and Warren looking like your teacher. Too many people view with the what can you do for me?

I have a hypothical, unlikely as it may be.

If Sanders, for whatever reason (maybe health, who knows), suspends his campaign (drops out) before Super Tuesday, which of the remaining candidates would benefit from it the most? Biden? Warren? Buttegeig? Klobachar? Bloomberg?

Warren would get a good dose of his followers as shes the closest to him. Never Warren will go for Bloomberg.

[Kieran_Frost]

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.

That's asking two seperate things. I said I assume everyone is spending big money, and you told me "look at how it was funded." That is NOT the same thing.

But, to appease you, I entered "how much money has sanders spent on his campaign?" First thing it brought up was this, apologies if an evil website run by the evil and everything is a lie. Not my fault, blame google.

Behind Bernie’s rise: A $50 million spending surge — and more where that came from
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...pending-110157
Bernie Sanders hasn’t just been gaining in the polls for the past month. He has also assembled a campaign juggernaut built to last well beyond Iowa — and stocked it with twice as much money as his top rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sanders spent a whopping $50 million in the last three months of 2019 to set up his surge, at least $15 million more than any of Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg, the other main contenders in Iowa. And even while Sanders blew out his spending budget, his legion of small-dollar online donors pumped in enough money for him to finish the year with $18.2 million in the bank, more than twice as much as Biden, who had $8.9 million.

Interesting it also brought up an article from the previous election that said he spent $220 million on his campaign in 2016...

Bernie’s Fundraising Was Revolutionary. How He Spent His Money Was Not.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...lutionary.html
In April, the campaign had a burn rate of 143 percent, meaning it was spending nearly half as much again as it was bringing in. A great deal of that money bought a blast of commercials preceding caucuses and primaries across the country, one effect of which was to enrich a small group of Democratic consultants whose compensation is tied to media spending. Disclosure forms examined by Slate suggest the campaign contracted with a front company—possibly created to obscure who made what off the Sanders movement—and in one cozy arrangement, effectively shared a third-party vendor with a pro-Bernie dark money group.

Now I've never looked at how much they spend or how they spend it, so I have no idea if this is normal or not?

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?

Yes. Magnificent movie. Would be in my "Top 100" but Spike Lee is a TERRIBLE actor. Do they use that band in that?

[numberthirty]

That's asking two seperate things. I said I assume everyone is spending big money, and you told me "look at how it was funded." That is NOT the same thing.

Which, ultimately, misses the forest for the trees.

Focus keenly on that, and you'll miss where the divide actually is in the race.

[Mister Mets]

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.

One small distinction is that Gordon Brown was a non-Blair Labour PM for nearly three years. However, he did not lead Labour to successful parliamentary elections.

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?

Some people aren't fans of classic hip hop.

[Darkspellmaster]

Apparently their song Do the right thing was the theme song to the movie. So that's what number 30 is referring to, I think.

[numberthirty]

...


Yes. Magnificent movie. Would be in my "Top 100" but Spike Lee is a TERRIBLE actor. Do they use that band in that?

Run the opening of the film by in your memory, and see if the tune comes up. Should be the Public Enemy song "Fight The Power".

Come to think of it, it might be playing on the boombox almost every time it shows up. Not sure about that, though.

[numberthirty]

...

Some people aren't fans of classic hip hop.

Some people just might not be old...

[Darkspellmaster]

Curious if any candidates have talked about the lobbyist and if they would get rid of them or for that matter the Filibuster? Also what's the word about the Senate races? That's where my worry is right now.

[Darkspellmaster]

Some people just might not be old...

Public Enemy hasn't been as relevant as some of their junior groups have taken over their places in music. Less likely to play them as younger people go for hip hop that's less gangster now due to how people are perceiving, and rightly so, some of the homophobic and sexists aspects of the songs. Less of an issue then rap but still an issue.

[PwrdOn]

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).

Ah, now you're starting to sound like a Maoist. Mao predicted exactly this, that when the proletariat seized power it would go to their heads and they eventually would transform into a new bourgeois class, which is why he advocated this idea of a permanent revolution where those who have put themselves at the top of society must continuously be cast down and put in their place. Now of course this isn't to defend Mao's solution of killing everyone who got too big for their britches, but seeing how enthusiastically the Chinese communists have embraced markets and basically forsaken any claim of standing for the rights of the working class, you can't say that he didn't have some legitimate concerns. And interestingly enough, the way that people always bring up Tiananmen Square like it's some dramatic indictment of communism's cruelty and savagery, you would never realize that most of the protesters were hardly adherents of Western liberal democracy but rather committed Marxists, who thought that the party had pivoted too far from its ideals in the pursuit of foreign capital.

[Kieran_Frost]

Which, ultimately, misses the forest for the trees.
Focus keenly on that, and you'll miss where the divide actually is in the race.

No. If one person is spending $100 million from a million people and one person is spending $50 from 30 people... I really don't care. The advantage is still clear; the one with the most money will usually win. Not always, but usually. I want a cap on overall money they are allowed to spend. I have no problem where the money comes from. Sorry, but I don't. And I think it's a splitting hairs distinction, personally.

As fair's fair, I did the same google search for Mayor Pete...

Pete Buttigieg's 2020 campaign, by the numbers
https://www.mic.com/p/pete-buttigieg...mbers-19455802
Buttigieg is one of the top fundraisers in the Democratic race. Only Sanders and Warren have raised more money than him so far. Sanders has raked in $73 million, and Warren has collected $60 million. Biden has raised over $36 million.

Buttigieg has spent over $27.5 million of that nearly $51 million total, about 54% of the money he has raised. That puts him almost exactly on par with Biden, who has spent $27.7 million.

Meanwhile, Sanders has spent $40 million, and Warren has spent $34 million.

So... I return to my original CORRECT assumption. I said "I would assume... all the candidates have quite a bit of big money put into them too?" You said that's an incorrect assumption. So I must ask... $25 million no longer quite a bit of big money?

One small distinction is that Gordon Brown was a non-Blair Labour PM for nearly three years. However, he did not lead Labour to successful parliamentary elections.

True. Yes, that is a distinction about a Labour PM, but still goes with the whole "Blair is the only Labour MP to WIN an election since pre-Thatcher times".

Apparently their song Do the right thing was the theme song to the movie. So that's what number 30 is referring to, I think.

Took me a second to realise you meant numberthirty, I'm so used to seeing it like that, I was confused and looking back for post 30, wondering "how is their browser labelling this???" HA!

Run the opening of the film by in your memory, and see if the tune comes up. Should be the Public Enemy song "Fight The Power".
Come to think of it, it might be playing on the boombox almost every time it shows up. Not sure about that, though.

Been a while since I've seen it, might give it a second go (maybe I've softending to Lee's acting by now?)

Honestly I have to wonder if Bernie was female would he have this much support?

Short answer: nope.

There was a documentary on China a few years ago, and a lot of the lower class are dissatisfied by their government but they cant say it due to laws. Middle class is not happy now, but the upper class is still pleased and they continue to control the majority of the government.

Ohhhh, do you happen to remember what is was called (and more importantly, can I watch it on Netflix ).

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

No. If one person is spending $100 million from a million people and one person is spending $50 from 30 people... I really don't care. The advantage is still clear; the one with the most money will usually win. Not always, but usually. I want a cap on overall money they are allowed to spend. I have no problem where the money comes from. Sorry, but I don't. And I think it's a splitting hairs distinction, personally.

As fair's fair, I did the same google search for Mayor Pete...

Pete Buttigieg's 2020 campaign, by the numbers
https://www.mic.com/p/pete-buttigieg...mbers-19455802
Buttigieg is one of the top fundraisers in the Democratic race. Only Sanders and Warren have raised more money than him so far. Sanders has raked in $73 million, and Warren has collected $60 million. Biden has raised over $36 million.

Buttigieg has spent over $27.5 million of that nearly $51 million total, about 54% of the money he has raised. That puts him almost exactly on par with Biden, who has spent $27.7 million.

Meanwhile, Sanders has spent $40 million, and Warren has spent $34 million.

So... I return to my original CORRECT assumption. Everyone needs big big money to run a campaign. Or is $25 million no longer big money?


True. Yes, that is a distinction about a Labour PM, but still goes with the whole "Blair is the only Labour MP to WIN an election since pre-Thatcher times".


Took me a second to realise you meant numberthirty, I'm so used to seeing it like that, I was confused and looking back for post 30, wondering "how is their browser labelling this???" HA!


Been a while since I've seen it, might give it a second go (maybe I've softending to Lee's acting by now?)


Short answer: nope.


Ohhhh, do you happen to remember what is was called (and more importantly, can I watch it on Netflix ).

Here's the difference. Say everyone on his thread donates to the same candidate. You all donate the max donation. However I'm rich and I create a superpac and get that candidate 20 million dollars. Now that candidate is in office. My business needs tax breaks, you all don't want my business to have tax breaks because you feel it is unfair. Guess who they are going to listen to?

[numberthirty]

No. If one person is spending $100 million from a million people and one person is spending $50 from 30 people... I really don't care. The advantage is still clear; the one with the most money will usually win. Not always, but usually. I want a cap on overall money they are allowed to spend. I have no problem where the money comes from. Sorry, but I don't. And I think it's a splitting hairs distinction, personally.

and, there's the problem.

If the person with the most money got that money from small donations made by individual Americans but you don't see the difference?

There's a serious lack of insight into how Americans view United States politics there.

In addition?

Sanders would like to trump your cap on election spending. So, it feels kind of like you might be more of Sanders supporter than you might suspect.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-out-of-politics/

Enacting mandatory public financing laws for all federal elections.

[Kieran_Frost]

I could be wrong... BUT... I only recognize the "fight the power" part as ringing any bells. Is this the segment of song Robin Williams is singing with his son at the birthday party at the start of Mrs Doubtfire?

Ah, now you're starting to sound like a Maoist. Mao predicted exactly this, that when the proletariat seized power it would go to their heads and they eventually would transform into a new bourgeois class, which is why he advocated this idea of a permanent revolution where those who have put themselves at the top of society must continuously be cast down and put in their place. Now of course this isn't to defend Mao's solution of killing everyone who got too big for their britches, but seeing how enthusiastically the Chinese communists have embraced markets and basically forsaken any claim of standing for the rights of the working class, you can't say that he didn't have some legitimate concerns. And interestingly enough, the way that people always bring up Tiananmen Square like it's some dramatic indictment of communism's cruelty and savagery, you would never realize that most of the protesters were hardly adherents of Western liberal democracy but rather committed Marxists, who thought that the party had pivoted too far from its ideals in the pursuit of foreign capital.

I recognise that name, he did the Art of War. He's not a good man, but he's certainly a smart man. So I'll take the odd compliment

[SquirrelMan]

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

We'll see just how off those polls are.