All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Kieran_Frost]

I mean, I'm trying to talk to you about a lot of the history and details of communism and socialism that the vast majority of Americans overlook because all we can ever think about is the death tolls, but you obviously have no interest in this discussion and are just trying to trap me into saying something that sounds like I'm in favor of totalitarian dictators that just go around killing people for shits and giggles, and rather inartfully at that. But since you seem so insistent, yeah I AM in favor of cracking a few skulls every once in a while because without at least the threat of a violent uprising, there is no way that an entrenched elite class will ever willingly give up any of their wealth and power for the sake of benefiting the greater good. The billionaires not only control the means of production, they have pretty much also bought control of the media, the legislature, and the courts, and if we were to forsake any kind of political violence then we would really be throwing way what little leverage we had left.

Eeeeeek!

Some way, some how, the rich and powerful in this country need to be reminded that they are here to serve us, not the other way around, and if you want to continue asking them nicely and hoping that they will go along with our plans to reform the system to their detriment.

Point is, black voters aren't a monolith and Democrats don't win off southern black voters. It just doesn't happen. It's like a Republican in New York or Massachussetts, you are still far more to the right than the average Republican.

So just to be clear: when it comes to Buttigieg the black voters are a monolith, uniting as one to express a single thought that spells but one conclusion... when it comes to Sanders "they're not a monolith, South Carolina black voters picking Biden means nothing, etc, etc"

Frankly ? Its because he was the only one giving a sensible option and no one assumed the North would be so wacked out on Brexit Juice /Toryganda that they'd vote Tory (numerous polls have shown thats all the North cared about) which is now hurting them badly.

Now dont get me wrong, Corbyn fucked up by being on the fence and not being more agressive with the papers, but the amount of **** flung at him by the mefua was insabe. We're talking USA Style smear jobs up until the last second. Stuff that could literally get the Tories in massive legal trouble if it had beennpushed further.

I assume that was meant to be "media"?

As for Blair ? Cause he's not a labourite. Dude was a Tory in a red tie whom made deals with Murdoch to get the rabid right wing press on his side and a good chunk of our current problems are tied to him and his neo-liberal ideals or him not squashing Majors blunders. Even if his policy record was spotless though he'd still have Iraq hanging over him meaning anytime someone goes "Be like Blair" its going to be loaded.

I'll say the same thing to you I said to people who accused Thersa May of "not being a Tory"... I think the leader of a group, who has dedicated their whole life to that party, knows better what makes a "Labour/Conservative" than those who simply disliked their particular policies on a specific area. As with anything, there are shades of grey in political ideology. There are liberal conservative, there are conservative liberals, there are people on the left who sometimes align more with the right on certain issues, and vice-versa. There is more to being in Labour than a die hard Marxist grinding the rich into dust; the same way there is more to being a conservative than Brexit and taking away people's rights.

Corbyn wanted to change the system, he tried to like a gentleman wuth no dirty tricks. The poor bastard got savaged. Now we've git a cabinet in crisis, a country half underwater and a PM mucking around in a mansion instead of doing his job

I mean that's not true, let's stop this idea that he never resorted to lies, and wasn't aware of how Momentum was nudging out the moderates at every available opportunity to get in their own people. I WILL SAY he used far more dirty tricks on his own party than on the Conservatives, which was a mistake.

[Kieran_Frost]

So, there are no countries that would benefit from this sort of thing that you could think of?

Ohhhhh, the Russia thing. Well surely that's covered by the "secret Trump supporter"?

I was just making a joke by calling them what Trump calls them. The (failing) NYT is mostly fine, they tend to be one of the few credible and objective news sources though just given where they are based and who writes for them, they tend to have a bit of an elitist streak and, while not as bad as the Washington Post in this regard, tend to portray pro-establishment opinions that often go against the wishes of the public at large. For example, despite their supposed liberal bias, both papers tend to run a steady stream of articles pushing an aggressive and expansionist approach to international relations, because this goes along with the so-called "bipartisan foreign policy consensus" that has been in effect for about as long as anyone can remember. In this particular case, despite the fact that they had earlier and quite comically endorsed BOTH Warren and Klobuchar for president, you could definitely tell that they were in the tank for Biden and were keen to present this as an overwhelming victory for him even without any votes being counted. Sure you could say they had exit polling data to go off of or whatever, but can you imagine them calling any race for Bernie before a single vote was counted, whatever the exit polls said?

Ahhhhhh, I see. It was (on some level) sarcasm? Apologies. As I don't know about the papers, I don't know if it's good/bad, real/sarcasm.

[PwrdOn]

Ahhhhhh, I see. It was (on some level) sarcasm? Apologies. As I don't know about the papers, I don't know if it's good/bad, real/sarcasm.

The NYT is the de facto paper of record in the US, it's inconceivable that it would actually fail anytime soon. While its readership has probably been falling recently just because so many people would rather get their news from social media clickbait instead, the people who do read the Times tend to be fairly wealthy and well-connected, and so if it were ever in any kind of financial distress someone would step in to rescue it.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I'm always reminded of the quote by one of the greatest tennis player of all time, proud lesbian and multifaceted activist Martina Navratilova "Whenever people go into politics and they try to say that Communism was a good thing, I say, 'Go ahead and live in a Communist country then, if you think it's so great.' " She defected to America to escape communism.!

That's so true.

Good to know. Interesting. I did not know you were a Warren supporter. Good to know.

And he spends the majority of his time arguing with other Warren supporters.

Honestly, yes. Well I suppose "idiots" would be the third, people too stupid to realise how their hate and vile online behaviour is alienating possible support. But other than that, I just don't see what is achieved by being so hostile and nasty on Twitter? Those are literally the only two options I can think of a) secret Trump bot, b) hateful, nasty person who enjoys spreading bile regardless of consequence.

I know there's that myth of "no press is bad press" but it's patently not true, in specific circumstances (#MeToo proved that). So I can't image it's "getting their name out there regardless of how" (purely by reminding people how horrible Sanders supporters are, ergo Sanders gets his name out there). But hey... would love to hear the illusive fourth option...

They don't care about the consequences of their actions, all actions are permitted and if someone gets offended that's on them. They truly are the left mirror image of Trump supporters, which is telling since quite a few want Sanders to be left Trump once he gets into the White House. They think he'll inherit all the advantages Trump has, ignoring the context that Bernie Sanders will be a Democrat/supported by the Democrats and get all their baggage, and a party who don't believe the president should be followed unquestionably. As we've seen reality for the left failures don't affect them directly they'll shrug it off, like with Corbyn, and they'll fold like a an ironing board when things get dicey because they haven't understood how tough the general or presidency is like when it's one of theirs in the hot seat.

[numberthirty]

Ohhhhh, the Russia thing. Well surely that's covered by the "secret Trump supporter"?

Sorta...

I don't really buy into the idea that any of the countries I had in mind are an equivalent to, let's say, Jason Aaron being a legitimate supporter of The Alabama Crimson Tide.

While I guess you can put it that way, it sort of stops short of there in my mind.

Their picking out the one that will be the least likely to throw a wrench in their works doesn't mean they support them.

[jetengine]

I mean that's not true, let's stop this idea that he never resorted to lies, and wasn't aware of how Momentum was nudging out the moderates at every available opportunity to get in their own people. I WILL SAY he used far more dirty tricks on his own party than on the Conservatives, which was a mistake.

Thats not great, dont get me wrong. But when I say Dirty Tricks I mean the horrific **** the Tories pulled. Like using a terrorist attack (ONE HOUR AFTER IT HAPPENED) to smear Corbyn.

[Mister Mets]

Bernie leads with black voters nationally.

South Carolina is not representative of all black people.

Biden won almost every group in South Carolina. Very liberal voters went to him by 14 points and that's a group that goes to Bernie in every other state.

Given how well Biden did in South Carolina, it seems unlikely that those polls were accurate.

The very liberal voters would have gone to Warren if this was about Bernie but instead they went to Biden. Bernie still had more of those voters than Warren by 15 points.

44% of voters that said they supported Medicare For All went to Biden, 29% went to Bernie and 8%. Biden also got 55% of voters that didn't support Medicare For All.

That's because South Carolina was Joe Biden's firewall. It wasn't because of vetting Bernie because new polls show him leading in other states.



You remember wrong. He said he didn't want Bernie to die but wanted him to have another heart attack.

While Biden saw South Carolina as his firewall, depending on a win in a later state to revive a campaign's momentum is rarely an effective strategy.

Usually, one of the early state winners gets enough momentum to undercut that.

And that is all he has on her. With Sanders, he'd be calling him a Commie. Crazy Bernie, and then he'd get creative.

There are more potential attacks Trump can use against Warren, especially given how shameless he is.

He could say that she made up the story about getting fired as a teacher for being pregnant.

He could talk about taxes going up with Medicare For All, one of the things she hasn't really admit.

He could mock various culturally left signifiers. Does anyone really think that Warren identifying her preferred pronouns on her twitter profile is a strong general election strategy?

Is that why 'Operation Chaos' was trying to get Republicans to vote for Sanders in SC? Is that why Trump congratulates Sanders on his wins?



Trump, and everyone supporting him, believe that going against Sanders is an easy win for Trump.

It is Trump's best interests to make sure that if Sanders loses, his supporters are upset with Democrats.

I was just making a joke by calling them what Trump calls them. The (failing) NYT is mostly fine, they tend to be one of the few credible and objective news sources though just given where they are based and who writes for them, they tend to have a bit of an elitist streak and, while not as bad as the Washington Post in this regard, tend to portray pro-establishment opinions that often go against the wishes of the public at large. For example, despite their supposed liberal bias, both papers tend to run a steady stream of articles pushing an aggressive and expansionist approach to international relations, because this goes along with the so-called "bipartisan foreign policy consensus" that has been in effect for about as long as anyone can remember. In this particular case, despite the fact that they had earlier and quite comically endorsed BOTH Warren and Klobuchar for president, you could definitely tell that they were in the tank for Biden and were keen to present this as an overwhelming victory for him even without any votes being counted. Sure you could say they had exit polling data to go off of or whatever, but can you imagine them calling any race for Bernie before a single vote was counted, whatever the exit polls said?

If Sanders won a primary with 50% and the next person had 20%, the election would be called for Sanders immediately, because the exit polls would reflect a major win.

He hasn't yet shown those numbers in a primary.

The NYT is the de facto paper of record in the US, it's inconceivable that it would actually fail anytime soon. While its readership has probably been falling recently just because so many people would rather get their news from social media clickbait instead, the people who do read the Times tend to be fairly wealthy and well-connected, and so if it were ever in any kind of financial distress someone would step in to rescue it.

Readership has been increasing.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...l-subscribers/

One factor is the nationalization of news, which is great for institutions like the New York Times, but problematic for local papers.

[PwrdOn]

I'm always reminded of the quote by one of the greatest tennis player of all time, proud lesbian and multifaceted activist Martina Navratilova "Whenever people go into politics and they try to say that Communism was a good thing, I say, 'Go ahead and live in a Communist country then, if you think it's so great.' " She defected to America to escape communism.!

One of the biggest reasons that the conversation about communism is so skewed in the US, is that we have lots of people who moved here to escape communist regimes, but these people are in NO WAY representative of the general public in those places. Broadly speaking, defectors tended to come from privileged backgrounds and likely had their family property seized by the government, we almost NEVER hear the voices of the poor peasants and workers who benefited from these redistributive policies. For example, while the mainstream is largely clueless to this distinction, Cuban-Americans tend to be largely white, educated, and middle class in contrast both to other Latinos in America as well as to the general population of Cuba, both of whom tend to comprise racially mixed folks primarily of indigenous or African descent with a sprinkling of European DNA, and overwhelmingly working class at least in the first generation. Because most of the Cubans living in America fled precisely because Castro seized their assets, we tend to get this impression that communist governments are just these spiteful entities out to screw EVERYONE for no good reason, when of course this isn't the case at all. Cuba under Batista was a far more terrifying place to live than under Castro, because it had all of the repression and trampling of rights, but none of that revolutionary fervor, because all of the oppression was done for the benefit of foreign corporations and a small circle of local elites that monopolized nearly all the gains without giving any consideration to the needs of the common people.

[Kieran_Frost]

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.

Ahhhhhh... thinking about it, that makes a lot more sense that it was last year's numbers. I've edited the original post, thank-you. Though even if you times coronovirus by 12 it's still not in the seasonal flu ratio).

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.

Cause for concern? Yes. Outright crazy panic? No. I mean seeing reports of how ANY Asian person coughs in public in America or the UK and how it's met... ugh. People!

Okay, so where are we standing here in regard to who would be the best in a debate against Trump? I heard Styer is out, and I'm guessing Klobachar is probably next to leave, and is it true that some one is putting out rumors saying that Mayor Pete wants all high school student to enlist for three years before going to college? Lots of mud slinging going on recently from fans of candidates.

For what it's worth, Warren would be great. I think Buttigieg would be a good debater against Trump, as he's very calm and very eloquent. Then again eloquence against Trump doesn't necessarily garner much of a victory. Unlike that glorious President Bartlet vs Governor Richie in the West Wing, where owning him with eloquence and smarts got a victory, with Trump... actually it reminds me of what CJ said "I'm absolutely terrified we're going to lose the expectations game. You can't believe how many times I get asked what would be a win in the debates. At this point I feel like if and only if Ritchie accidentally lights his podium on fire does the President have a fighting chance."

[Kieran_Frost]

The NYT is the de facto paper of record in the US, it's inconceivable that it would actually fail anytime soon. While its readership has probably been falling recently just because so many people would rather get their news from social media clickbait instead, the people who do read the Times tend to be fairly wealthy and well-connected, and so if it were ever in any kind of financial distress someone would step in to rescue it.

Ah I see. Thank-you, that's very informative

And he spends the majority of his time arguing with other Warren supporters.

They don't care about the consequences of their actions, all actions are permitted and if someone gets offended that's on them. They truly are the left mirror image of Trump supporters, which is telling since quite a few want Sanders to be left Trump once he gets into the White House. They think he'll inherit all the advantages Trump has, ignoring the context that Bernie Sanders will be a Democrat/supported by the Democrats and get all their baggage, and a party who don't believe the president should be followed unquestionably. As we've seen reality for the left failures don't affect them directly they'll shrug it off, like with Corbyn, and they'll fold like a an ironing board when things get dicey because they haven't understood how tough the general or presidency is like when it's one of theirs in the hot seat.

Agreed.

While I guess you can put it that way, it sort of stops short of there in my mind.
Their picking out the one that will be the least likely to throw a wrench in their works doesn't mean they support them.

But it does mean that the vile hate and nastiness you're seeing in such prolific numbers from Sanders acolytes, resulting in pushing people away, is to help Trump (whether it's in the third parities personal interests rather than directly wanting Trump is immaterial, the result is the same). Which was covered in my first point.

So we agree, the only possible motive for the aggressive, and uncontrollable hate from Sanders supporters is:
- secret Trump-inclined fake
- watching the world burn
- (utter stupidity)
[and that last one isn't so much a motive, as an unintentional act]

Not to be "that guy" but did you really need to spend three posts going "REALLY? No other reason? REALLY? You can't see the third option? REALLY?" when... I actually covered that reason in my very first point.
#truthbombOFLOVE

Thats not great, dont get me wrong. But when I say Dirty Tricks I mean the horrific **** the Tories pulled. Like using a terrorist attack (ONE HOUR AFTER IT HAPPENED) to smear Corbyn.

I don't remember that? After the London Bridge attack?

One of the biggest reasons that the conversation about communism is so skewed in the US, is that we have lots of people who moved here to escape communist regimes, but these people are in NO WAY representative of the general public in those places. Broadly speaking, defectors tended to come from privileged backgrounds and likely had their family property seized by the government, we almost NEVER hear the voices of the poor peasants and workers who benefited from these redistributive policies. For example, while the mainstream is largely clueless to this distinction, Cuban-Americans tend to be largely white, educated, and middle class in contrast both to other Latinos in America as well as to the general population of Cuba, both of whom tend to comprised racially mixed folks primarily of indigenous or African descent with a sprinkling of European DNA, and overwhelmingly working class at least in the first generation. Because most of the Cubans living in America fled precisely because Castro seized their assets, we tend to get this impression that communist governments are just these spiteful entities out to screw EVERYONE for no good reason, when of course this isn't the case at all.

I mean... I see what you're saying in the "we don't hear from the poor" (which is case across history, as records are only kept of the movers and shakers) but I just... don't see any evidence that the poor in Russia and China are just doing so good. And loving life under their government (I will say, I know next to nothing about Cuba)

[Superbat]

So to be clear, when it comes to Buttigieg the black voters are a monolith, uniting as one to express a single thought that spells but one conclusion... when it comes to Sanders "they're not monolith, South Carolina black voters picking Biden means nothing, etc, etc"

Bernie got 28% of black voters in Nevada, and he's consistently the 2nd choice among black Americans. The most recent poll puts him at 1 nationally. Buttigieg got 2% of the black vote in Nevada and he polls in single digits nationally.

There's proof Bernie has the support of black voters even if he isn't their number 1 choice. Pete got 2% in Nevada and 3% in South Carolina, proof that he doesn't.

[shooshoomanjoe]

One of the biggest reasons that the conversation about communism is so skewed in the US, is that we have lots of people who moved here to escape communist regimes, but these people are in NO WAY representative of the general public in those places. Broadly speaking, defectors tended to come from privileged backgrounds and likely had their family property seized by the government, we almost NEVER hear the voices of the poor peasants and workers who benefited from these redistributive policies. For example, while the mainstream is largely clueless to this distinction, Cuban-Americans tend to be largely white, educated, and middle class in contrast both to other Latinos in America as well as to the general population of Cuba, both of whom tend to comprise racially mixed folks primarily of indigenous or African descent with a sprinkling of European DNA, and overwhelmingly working class at least in the first generation. Because most of the Cubans living in America fled precisely because Castro seized their assets, we tend to get this impression that communist governments are just these spiteful entities out to screw EVERYONE for no good reason, when of course this isn't the case at all. Cuba under Batista was a far more terrifying place to live than under Castro, because it had all of the repression and trampling of rights, but none of that revolutionary fervor, because all of the oppression was done for the benefit of foreign corporations and a small circle of local elites that monopolized nearly all the gains without giving any consideration to the needs of the common people.

What about Cubans that arrived to America by boat such as the Mariel boatlift or the Cubans Castro released from jail so they can immigrate to the US? I doubt they had money.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I agree, but that is so fraught with danger. The supporters of Sanders were angry four years ago, but they would be pitchforks and torches angry if the DNC gave away his nomination. I can't see that turning into a Dem win in November.

Like I said before, they can do that, they are also guaranteed to lose to Trump and they are also guaranteed to have the largest generation since the baby boomers very adverse to their party for many years because they told them their vote doesn't matter. That it includes young black and hispanic people and women as well. So by all means do that, but then realize that you might have damaged your party with what will end up being one of the most significant voting generations over the next 40 years.

If you don't want him, beat him. This election is really turning into the last gasps of the power struggle between boomers and millenials.

[numberthirty]

...

But it does mean that the vile hate and nastiness you're seeing in such prolific numbers from Sanders acolytes, resulting in pushing people away, is to help Trump (whether it's in the third parities personal interests rather than directly wanting Trump is immaterial, the result is the same). Which was covered in my first point.

So we agree, the only possible motive for the aggressive, and uncontrollable hate from Sanders supporters is:
- secret Trump-inclined fake
- watching the world burn
- (utter stupidity)
[and that last one isn't so much a motive, as an unintentional act]

Not to be "that guy" but did you really need to spend three posts going "REALLY? No other reason? REALLY? You can't see the third option? REALLY?" when... I actually covered that reason in my very first point.
#truthbombOFLOVE

In Blue...

Just... Negative.

We've just gone over that there is a very real chance that we are talking about a third party with no real affiliation, and you are saying "Sanders Acolytes..." If it's one, it can't be the other. Might look like it, but it's not.

In green...

No, we honestly do not agree there. The way it's laid out oversimplifies some obvious realities of American politics. There are other things in play that you aren't really bringing up. Knowing that, I'd say there's probably more to it than what you have laid out. Are there the three groups involved? Sure. Is that all there is to the animosity that is happening? No. Absolutely not.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

And he spends the majority of his time arguing with other Warren supporters.

And these so called Warren supporters

1. Never campaigned for her (I did)
2. Wasn't out on the streets for here (I was)
3. Never cast a vote for here (I cast more than one)
4. Never saw her debate (I did)
5. Never was at any of her rallies (I was)
6. Were barely aware of here at all before this election cycle.

The difference between me and them (and by them I mean people like Paul that spent two weeks being delusional calling her the front runner which is so counterproductive to those of us that were trying to help her win) is that I can take my emotions out of it and realize what the situation is. Trust me, I'm not happy that she's had dissapointing finishes in all her primaries and is on the verge of losing her state and any prospects to win this thing. I can just see what's going on and not lie to myself to feel better.

Warren unfortunately lost steam when she was attacked by a bunch of moderates like Biden and Buttigieg so she released a very complicated plan on M4A with a bunch of work arounds to avoid the insurance increase. That plan was still attacked by moderates and it upset progressives who jumped on board only after she came out for M4A in the first place. Once that happened she never recovered.

So really blame moderates for hammering her for why she isn't doing well. It can all be traced to that debate.

See some of us are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. I care more about accuracy than coddling my feelings even if I literally have far more investment and skin in the game on Warren than probably anyone else on this board