Politics, local-national-global-galactic

[Malcador]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/30/who-declares-china-cronavirus-a-global-health-emergency.html

Preppers should be happy

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, ComradeMaster said:

Or maybe make room for more political parties instead of the giant purple gangster party that dominates the spectrum in DC?

Can't be that. The poll was in Great Britain. They are already hip deep in political parties.  

[Guard Dog]

I didn't know service of a lawsuit was optional. Well... not for everyone I guess.  https://nypost.com/2020/01/29/hillary-clinton-refuses-to-be-served-tulsi-gabbards-defamation-lawsuit/

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/30/who-declares-china-cronavirus-a-global-health-emergency.html

Preppers should be happy

When did Noah build the Ark? Before the rain!

[Gromnir]

6 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I didn't know service of a lawsuit was optional. Well... not for everyone I guess.  https://nypost.com/2020/01/29/hillary-clinton-refuses-to-be-served-tulsi-gabbards-defamation-lawsuit/

you can refuse but is pointless. judge will, in every jurisdiction we know, allow alternative service once good faith efforts made for personal service fail. such alternatives include delivery to a responsible agent o' defendant who is over 18 or even mail.

am not gonna defend hillary, but for celebs service may be calculated for an embarrassing photo op. refusal is not an attempt to get outta a lawsuit, 'cause chances are you ain't gonna get out o' eventual being actual or constructive served, but such efforts is a way to force mail or other alternative delivery. such alternatives deny the plaintiff a chance to have paparazzi or reporters present for process moment. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

When did Noah build the Ark? Before the rain!

True, but with some of these people they seem overjoyed at any hint of The Stand coming to life

[213374U]

7 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

I guess they could try dictatorship for a while and see how that works out. God knows there are plenty of would-be dictators out there. 

False dichotomy.

edit: and, by the way, the study referenced in the (terrible) beeb piece includes the US. In fact, the US leads of the loss of confidence in democracy among the Anglo-Saxon democracies.

Edited January 31, 2020 by 213374U
muh references

[Malcador]

Feel sorry for Roberts in these hearings, having to endure these arguments and now having to read out these loaded questions. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Malcador

[Maedhros]

18 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Can't be that. The poll was in Great Britain. They are already hip deep in political parties.  

It spans 154 countries. Small countries in high-income democracies (Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg) are exceptions, but the general trend in the west seems to be a lack of trust to the possibility of good democratic governance. From the conclusion in the study:

Quote

it is not because citizens’ expectations are excessive or unrealistic, but because democratic institutions are falling short of the outcomes that matter most for their legitimacy, including probity in office, upholding the rule of law, responsiveness to public concerns, ensuring economic and financial security, and raising living standards for the larger majority of society.

[....]If confidence in democracy has been slipping, then the most likely explanation is that democratically elected governments have not been seen to succeed in addressing some of the major challenges of our era, including economic coordination in the eurozone, the management of refugee flows, and providing a credible response to the threat of global climate change. The best means of restoring democratic legitimacy would be for this to change.

Of course, the times of today are being compared with the 90s, where the west came out of the Cold War with renewed optimism. Too bad climate change is such a divisive foe! If everyone believed climate change it was real, that's actually something the world could unite behind. Instead, you're gonna have half of the population be mad at the government no matter which path they choose.

Conclusion: The world needs a new common foe to focus on. I nominate Sweden!

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Maedhros
Words

[Guard Dog]

13 hours ago, 213374U said:

False dichotomy.

 

Nah, just sarcasm

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, Maedhros said:

 

Conclusion: The world needs a new common foe to focus on. I nominate Sweden!

 

We blame Canada for everything here in North America. There is even a song for it

 

[Guard Dog]

Am I the only one worried about this?  https://www.crfb.org/papers/cbos-2019-long-term-budget-outlook?gclid=Cj0KCQiAvc_xBRCYARIsAC5QT9m7GXZcO2z212uMuldNF27QsYBXnS27UfVBlwrPuwil26NG9oxa-fAaAtJxEALw_wcB

The outcome of the election is not going to fix this. If Trump wins he will still blow money like a drunken sailor on a 96 hour shore leave. If a Democrat wins, especially one of the two crazy leftwingers spending will skyrocket over that. Bloomberg might be pragmatic enough to rein spending in but not if he is serious with his campaign commercials. The biggest step would be to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the two dozen or so other entanglements that seldom make the news. But only one candidate is promising to do that and she has no shot. 

It may be this avalanche cannot be stopped. Well, those of you who have investments in the US might want to consider your strategy. Speaking for myself I have gotten out of the stock market all together. 100% of my portfolio is real assets not tied to the US Dollar. And I would avoid bonds because a default is not impossible. Just my $.02

[Skazz]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

We blame Canada for everything here in North America.

Of course you do.

It's because Canada isn't a real place.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Skazz

[Volourn]

Most people don't have thugs to block paper servers reaching them either.

[ShadySands]

What happened to Rand Paul? I know we've joked that his neighbor hit him too hard but seriously, what happened to him?

[MedicineDan]

the impeachment was always ill-advised.  I was against Clinton's impeachment, and *that* contained criminal elements.  At the time, I thought that he deserved impeachment, but I thought it would be bad for the country and not do the Republicans much good either.  In retrospect, I think I take Rubio's view that, even with crimes attached, Clinton should not have been impeached.  If it hurts the country, and I believe the Clinton impeachment did, and there's another remedy, which was Clinton leaving office that year, impeachment is bad.  Literally, it should be reserved for only the most dire of circumstances.

The effort to impeach Trump was simply ill advised (I would say foolish) from the beginning.  I'm not saying it might not work out for Democrats in the long run.  Too much turmoil to know and people who make bold predictions this far out don't know what the hell they're talking about, even if they end up right.  I can claim I'll roll a D20 and get a crit.  Even if I do, it's still a random roll.  What I mean by foolish is that the upside wasn't worth the risk.  It was a reckless move, even if they somehow manage to get a win.  I'm telling you, don't let some of these polls fool you*, this is not a net gain for the Dems right now.  It shouldn't have been done.

The people who hate Trump and revile him might as well continue.  It sucks as a plan, but the Dems have put themselves on rails.  Their train only goes one direction now.  Best hope sheer hatred wins the day because they have no other options.  However, as I've said before, the hate mongering is, in my opinion, a net loser over time.  Sure, you have to do it to keep your base humming, and that's the only chance for victory now, but don't mistakenly think it was a good idea.  Like I said, it *can* carry the day, but I suspect it makes things harder for Democratic presidential candidates.  Not sure about congress at this point, although I think the Dems have a House advantage right now.  I think the Republicans can save the senate.  Too early to commit.

Of course, Trump could have shut his mouth (and twitter account) about 25% and he'd be winning running away with the House and Senate riding his coattails.  It takes Trump to make the Democrat candidates viable in this election.  We've got it better than in quite some time.  The only reason some people don't admit that is because Trump is... well... Trump.

 

*I'm not a poll denier.  Even in the 2016 election, the polls weren't entirely wrong.  They were a little wrong, usually in the margin of error nationally, all skewed the same direction.  However, that tiny smidge and that single direction nudge makes a huge difference in making predictions, which is why some of us claimed Trump was viable until the end.  At this point, there are people I know in real life who make better election predictions more reliably than most of the pundits I see on TV on either side.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

What happened to Rand Paul? I know we've joked that his neighbor hit him too hard but seriously, what happened to him?

Power matters more than principle or this was who he always was.

[Malcador]

Britain's officially out of the EU - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51333314

Still holding out hope the Union will shatter and Ireland will reunite.

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, ShadySands said:

What happened to Rand Paul? I know we've joked that his neighbor hit him too hard but seriously, what happened to him?

he is representing his constituency.  in the past republicans considered the alt-right to be a fringe element filled with "race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot(s)." however, the last three years has forced republicans, particular republicans who are looking to be re-elected, to face reality the alt-right and fringe is now the core.  republicans will win or lose their individual state races just so long as they keep the core satisfied. guys such as rand paul, in spite o' the generalized public loathing o' Congress, has never been as popular 'mongst his constituency as he is today. same is true for guys such as the one in the video we linked.

what happened? the terrible truth is rand paul started representing his constituency as they are rather than attempting to do what he believed were best for his constituency.

circles back to why so many question democracy. shoulda' always been more fear o' democracy, but with untenable income disparity folks is justifiable wondering why it don't matter if you are majority or minority 'cause everybody but the 1% is getting p00ped 'pon.  voters is justifiable angry.

trump's core is folks who feel marginalized. the trump core is, statistical, uneducated, which might partial explain why they support muslim bans and border walls and ignore warnings from mueller report and impeachment. doesn't matter in long run 'cause trump core is now the core o' pretty much 90% o' national office republicans. is folks who has been told they is part o' the privileged majority for decades but they don't feel particular privileged as they is losing their manufacturing jobs or needing take out another loan they cannot afford to keep their farm viable for one more year. democracy has failed these folks... and every other identifiable group save the 1% has a similar reason to be angry at democracy.

alternatives to democracy is worse, and democracy can be fixed in ways other systems cannot. doesn't matter if you feels like you have been taking a beating for decades with democracy as the dominant paradigm. 

regardless, the terrible truth is rand paul is now representing his constituency. is democracy at work.

god help us all.

HA! Good Fun!

ps 

Farm bankruptcies jumped 20% in 2019, even with billions in aid from U.S.

have made the observation previous how is not shocking the core wanted to believe trump in 2016. the genuine surprise is how Americans, who has always held Presidents more accountable than perhaps is deserved, has ignored trump impotence and incompetence. no other President could fail to deliver so dramatic and consistent and nevertheless maintain a stranglehold on their party.

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Gromnir

[MedicineDan]

It's really not as cut and dried as trump voter = ignorant and uneducated person.  I'll point out that, since we still have the secret ballot until the Democrats institute the Ministry of Truth, these are extrapolations from polls.  I imagine that Trump, being a coarse and crass braggart probably puts off a lot of people, particularly in states with a particularly high number of advanced degrees.  That sentiment undoubtedly colors both the reported and, more importantly, actual voting statistics.  Whatever.  I'll point out that Trump has always been a sort of out of margins candidate.

That aside, the only group that really matters to the Democrats is the black vote.  The only large monolithic group for either side is black voters and particularly black females.  That's simply statistically true.  If Republicans get 15% of the black vote, life is tougher for the Democrats.  If the Republicans get 20% of the black vote, Democrats are going to be rightfully frightened.  If Republicans get over 20% of the black vote, the Democratic party ceases to exist as a national party.  My point isn't to castigate black voters.  I'm just saying that fixated on education levels, which vary considerably between racial groups, is far less impactful than the racial groups themselves.  Trump has characteristics that are an affront to educated people everywhere, and I've been saying that since before he won the election.

More importantly, what matters is the vote, not the fun of pillorying the voters.  If you really want to win, you have to find out why people vote a certain way and then attack that particular mindset.  I know that folks will think that this is just a disgruntled response to what is ultimately a misguided statement.  That is to say, the statement could be factually true but still not help win a single vote and might, in fact, lose votes for a particular side.  :shrug:  Fair enough.  I'm not invested enough to stick around in order to fight these things.  I'm just saying that arguments that strike at the intelligence, motivation, and character of Trump voters is a double edged sword.  The Democrats can't stop doing it because it's their most potent weapon, but every time they employ it to their ends it cuts them a little.

https://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, MedicineDan said:

It's really not as cut and dried as trump voter = ignorant and uneducated person.  

That aside, the only group that really matters to the Democrats is the black vote. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11

at times, reduction is helpful. criticize a generalization o' core trump voters, then posit an extreme overgeneralization and finish with a linky from 2016 o' which complete fails to identify core/base-- those who more strongly agree with President as 'posed to those who simple voted for him... or as often as not, against the alternatives.

okie dokie.

we will note how even trump has identified his base as "poorly educated," no doubt in part as a rejection o' so-called eletists.

btw, an oft-cited (democrat and republican) alternative to the maligned exit polls from 2016 is the following:

An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters

secret ballot notwithstanding.

more recent.

Demographic Shift Poised to Test Trump’s 2020 Strategy

have pointed out previous how a considerable number o' folks who did vote for trump 2016, and will vote for him again, is transactional voters who do not have particular strong feelings 'bout the President. these folks don't factor into core and is not the target o' his endless campaign rallies. the folks for whom the economy is genuine good are enjoying considerable and continued financial success and thus have an understandable if myopic motivation for wanting to see another 4 years o' trump. 'course educated women who voted for trump in 2016 is ignoring transaction and appear to be leaving trump en masse. however, reality is that educated women were already a notorious small % o' trump voters so their absence will be an only minor loss. perhaps more significant to trump is growing realization working class women is also less likely to vote trump in 2020, and by a significant margin.

“If you have lost, in the space of a month, 11 points of support from non-college white women,” said Robert P. Jones, chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute, “that should give President Trump some pause. That’s a big big group, and they matter in the states where Trump has just got to win — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.” -nyt article from october 2019.

The Path to 270 in 2020

working class is, by definition, non college educated. "ignorance" is not a term we used, but is not actual a matter o serious debate as to who the core o' base o' trump voters is. elements o' the trump campaign, no doubt recognizing how the grim reaper alone will be to blame for a loss o' his margin o' victory in numerous battleground states he carried in 2016 is making desperate and illegal efforts to expand the core/base. even so, poorly educated (relative) is indeed synonymous with those identified as the trump base.

regardless, trump core/base loyalty is alien to post ww2 US voting history. political landscape in the US is taking on a more european look with greater polarization in spite o' a two-party system which tends to minimize extremism. more curious is how voters who is benefitting little if not at all from s'posed great economy is the bulk o' trump's base. accountability has become a secondary issue? is not a question as to who is trump's base/core. rural working class (i.e. uneducated) is the face o' the base. what is curious is how such folks demanded results from bush 41 and obama but appear satisfied with trump. is proliferation o' highly polarized cable news enough to explain the shift? dunno.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 1, 2020 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

13 hours ago, Gromnir said:

what happened? the terrible truth is rand paul started representing his constituency as they are rather than attempting to do what he believed were best for his constituency.

 

Ideally that is what a Representative should be doing. A Senator however is a different story. The 17 Amendment was a mistake I think. The US would be better served if the Senate were the representatives of the State governments. Plus that should invest voters more in the outcomes of their State legislature elections. 

As for Rand Paul I guess the apple fell farther from the tree than I thought. Or he just found integrity too expensive a trait to maintain.

[Guard Dog]

Government loves one thing above all else... money. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/480851-global-digital-tax-talks-to-move-forward

Businesses have to EARN your money. They receive what you pay them willingly. You know P... P.... Profit (you have to imagine a millennial sneer spitting that word out). Governments just take it. By force even. Yet somehow some people find that virtuous. 

[Guard Dog]

It amazes me to no end. Forget for a moment that Trump did some seriously wrong stuff. And is getting away with it. Just set that aside. It amazes me that the Vice President's son, who knows s--t-all about energy is paid (according to some) $50k a month. to be on the Board of Directors of a foreign energy company he had no prior dealings with. Sure, international business was his business but none of it was in Europe and none of it was energy. Now the Republicans assume automatically it was dirty. The Democrats all assume it smells like rosewater. Nothing is ever wrong when my tribe does it, etc. But the mainstream media, whose job it is to be curious and shine the light of truth just looks the other way. 

It is not at all a stretch of logic to think maybe something was wrong. That maybe Ukraine was buying favors from the Obama admin by hiring the Vice President's son as a well paid ringer. Especially when a Ukrainian prosecutor looking into it is fired and the Vice President publically brags about demanding it. Is it really such a leap to think something is not on the up and up here?

Of course none of that justifies soliciting an investigation for electoral benefit. Nothing could have come of it. It was over. They got away with it. It just amazes me how so few question whether something wrong was done. It doesn't matter. There are few honest people between the Potomac and the Anacostia. 

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Businesses have to EARN your money. They receive what you pay them willingly. You know P... P.... Profit (you have to imagine a millennial sneer spitting that word out). Governments just take it. By force even. Yet somehow some people find that virtuous. 

Neither Facebook nor Google earn their money in the traditional sense of business- their model is based on addicting people to theoretically 'free' services, then selling the people using those services to 3rd parties via adverts and the like. 'You' don't pay them, they get paid to sell you to others.

They also make massive profits and hide that- kind of, since it's so blatant- in tax havens via 100% bogus 'licensing' charges to subidiaries in Ireland and the like. If they were Euro or Chinese companies instead the US would whine about them cheating their obligations louder than an airfield of idling jumbo jets and slap whatever taxes they wanted on them.