Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

That's pretty good, but I don't know if it makes the top 20.  The list of contenders here is strong and deep.  But I'll still go with his whole rant about John McCain because he got caught.  It shows so many levels of utter thoughtlessness.  

 

Posting this example again may seem unfair because it is edited, but it's still all Trump, and IMHO it so perfectly encapsulates both the depth of the man's ignorance, and his thoughtlessness.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I feel this needs to be shared.  

You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to

Posted Images

On 10/15/2020 at 10:23 PM, archer said:

 

I don't mind that part.

 

I did mind that he knowingly sent his surrogates out to lie about Gingrich's record (that Gingrich was one of Reagan's greatest obstacles when in reality he was known as one of Reagan's greatest supporters) while Romney was pretending to be a clean, upright Christian man and asking people to vote for him on the basis of being a clean, upright, Christian man.

 

I suppose it's easier to pull off that pretense if you have a cadre of people who are willing to lie for you. But it doesn't make you any more honest than a person who does his lying for himself.

I ended voting for Romney, because he wasn't Obama, in hindsight.

 

The mistake of voting against instead of for, is why I didn't cast a vote in 2016, and probably here (assuming Trump either/or Biden doesn't prove to marginally more palatable than a vacant lawn chair to me).

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Badger said:

I ended voting for Romney, because he wasn't Obama, in hindsight.

 

The mistake of voting against instead of for, is why I didn't cast a vote in 2016, and probably here (assuming Trump either/or Biden doesn't prove to marginally more palatable than a vacant lawn chair to me).

 

A book I read about political theory offered an analogy which went something like this...

 

What the voters want in a candidate is a Golden Retriever. The parties can't read millions of voters minds and accurately synthesize their collective desire so they do the best they can.

 

What one party offers is a garbage pail. What the other party offers is a worm.

 

The voters have to decide.

 

Well, the garbage pail is useful in some situations. But the worm is closer to a Golden Retriever because it is both alive and an animal.

 

The theorist said in that situation the best option is to pick the worm because it is at least moving in the right direction. In the next election, the party which offered the garbage pail might get the idea that the voters want something that is both alive and an animal. Or it might get the idea that the voters want something that's round and long.

 

So the next election, the options might be to re-elect the worm or to choose the other party's offer of a garden hose.

 

The worm gets re-elected and the other party gets the idea that "ok, the voters want a live animal of some sort".

 

You'll get movements forward and the occasional setback each election. But if everyone keeps voting, eventually the parties will start to hone in on the ever-elusive Golden Retriever.

 

====

 

In this election, if I understand your perspective, you're faced with the garbage pail of Trump or the worm of Biden while wanting a Golden Retriever. If you give the parties no indication by not voting, they get no signal.

 

If you allow the garbage pail to be elected, both parties get the idea that the voters want something that stinks and is close to garbage and will serve up selections which are closer to those things in future elections. 

 

If you allow, or help, the worm to be elected, next time around both parties might at least offer competing life forms to choose between.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An Ideological Asymmetry in Conspiratorial Thinking

 

Quote

we investigated the relationship between political ideology, measured in both symbolic and operational terms, and conspiratorial thinking in general. Results reveal that conservatives in the United States were not only more likely than liberals to endorse specific conspiracy theories, but they were also more likely to espouse conspiratorial worldviews in general (r = .27, 95% CI: .24, .30). Importantly, extreme conservatives were significantly more likely to engage in conspiratorial thinking than extreme liberals (Hedges' g = .77, SE = .07, p < .001).

 

But does this match our personal observations, however anecdotal?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Man said:

An Ideological Asymmetry in Conspiratorial Thinking

 

 

But does this match our personal observations, however anecdotal?

 

 

I consider these kinds of studies to be worse than useless because no one can agree on the meanings of conservative and liberal.

 

In the 2016 Republican primaries, the definition Trump gave for a "conservative" would classify Hillary as a conservative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

That's pretty good, but I don't know if it makes the top 20.  The list of contenders here is strong and deep.  But I'll still go with his whole rant about John McCain because he got caught.  It shows so many levels of utter thoughtlessness.  

 

I was going for something recent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, archer said:

 

I consider these kinds of studies to be worse than useless because no one can agree on the meanings of conservative and liberal.

 

Psychologist Johathan Haidt finds that people who self-identify as conservative or liberal pretty consistently show different profiles in his "Moral Foundations" psychological test. See his book, The Righteous Mind. So these do seem to be real, distinct points of view, and people are fairly reliable in how they describe themselves. Though the authors do mention the distinction between the sort of far-right thinking they study and formal, classical conservative political theory.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, archer said:

 

I consider these kinds of studies to be worse than useless because no one can agree on the meanings of conservative and liberal.

 

In the 2016 Republican primaries, the definition Trump gave for a "conservative" would classify Hillary as a conservative.

 

There is reason to be skeptical but disregarding them completely is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If nothing else:  you don't hear CNN or the NY Times talk about the deep state, and that whole....situation.  Conspiracy elements have been part of the conservative media for quite some time;  Rush, IIRC, was a pretty big proponent.  And fearmongering certainly has been;  the two are a natural fit.  Heck, look at Fox's talking heads on the coronavirus and climate control..."it's all a big lie."  What is that if not a conspiracy theory?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some numbers from early voting in Clark County, NV after 2 days of early voting, via Jon Ralston's site: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-early-voting-blog-3

 

In the first two days of early voting, 127,000 people have voted. That's about 12% of the active voters. Based upon registration data, about 53% of those are Democrats*. Republicans represent about 24% of those who voted so far by mail or in-person.

 

Washoe County (Reno) is skewing in a similar way, but the rest of the counties can usually be counted on to be Republican/non-partisan, and generally vote Republican. That said, there's 1.2 million active registered voters in Clark County, and just shy of 300,000 in Washoe, out of a total active registration for Nevada of about 1.7 million. (Sources: https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/2020-statistics )

 

 

*I'm registered non-partisan, which means that I fall into a third category, of about 23% of voters so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Whoa!!

 

Trump can speak truth!!

 

From the story Tom posted above...the adjective picked is spot on.

 

"We have unbelievable vaccines coming out real soon. And the therapeutics are unbelievable."

 

 

 

I've been saying for a while that his vaccines and therapeutics are in-credible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, didn't expect to see this, but 50 Cent just directed his 26.2 million followers to vote Trump after seeing the Biden plan's new top tax rates.

 

I'll quote vs. using a screen clip because it's pretty profanity laden.

 

"WHAT THE !@#$! (VOTE

For TRUMP) IM OUT, !@#$ NEW

YORK The KNICKS never win anyway.

I don't care Trump doesn't like

black people 62% are you out of ya

!@#$ing mind. <steamy face>.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Supreme-Court-denies-GOP-request-to-stop-extended-15659622.php

1 minute ago, ScottishFox said:

Well, didn't expect to see this, but 50 Cent just directed his 26.2 million followers to vote Trump after seeing the Biden plan's new top tax rates.

 

I'll quote vs. using a screen clip because it's pretty profanity laden.

 

"WHAT THE !@#$! (VOTE

For TRUMP) IM OUT, !@#$ NEW

YORK The KNICKS never win anyway.

I don't care Trump doesn't like

black people 62% are you out of ya

!@#$ing mind. <steamy face>.

 

 

 

Curious timing since Biden's proposed top tax rate has been out there for the public to see for most of the past year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of course they did:

 

Senate Republicans offer constitutional amendment to block Supreme Court packing

 

From the article:

 

"Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system," [Senator Ted] Cruz said in a statement.

 

"We must take action before election day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance," he added.

 

The hypocrisy is absolutely...not surprising to me at all, as it turns out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court denies GOP request to stop extended period for returning mail ballots in Pennsylvania

 

Since the mail has been deliberately slowed, the state decided to accept ballots which had been received up to three days after election day (postmarked by election day but received up to three days later).

 

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Supreme-Court-denies-GOP-request-to-stop-extended-

15659622.php

4 minutes ago, Pariah said:

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 80% of people who tested positive for coronavirus had antibodies to the virus, according to a report published Monday by the Central Bureau of Statistics, the Health Ministry and the Gertner Institute. The results mean that a percentage of people who develop asymptomatic or even mild cases of the virus could contract it again.

 

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/2-percent-3-percent-of-people-who-develop-covid-19-antibodies-lose-them-sheba-646228

 

(I'm posting this here rather than the coronavirus thread due to the source.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

The part that is somewhat surprising is it's so...pick your word.  Blatant?  Egregious?  Flagrant?

 

Quick, Robin!  To the Thesaurus!!!

 

Is 'bastardly' a word?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Commission on Presidential Debates has adopted new rules muting the microphones of President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden to give them two minutes of uninterrupted time at the beginning of each debate segment.

 

Both campaigns have agreed to the "two minutes of uninterrupted time" rule but the Trump campaign is complaining about the commission taking steps to enforce it.

 

The Trump campaign has also objected to the range of topics announced for the debate and had wanted the debate to be only about foreign policy. That's despite having agreed months ago that the moderator would pick the topics.

 

The topics are fighting the coronavirus pandemic, American families, race in America, climate change, national security, and leadership

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521791-commission-approves-rules-to-mute-mics-at-final-trump-biden-debate

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

The part that is somewhat surprising is it's so...pick your word.  Blatant?  Egregious?  Flagrant?

 

Quick, Robin!  To the Thesaurus!!!

 

At this point I believe that rhetoric is aimed solely at the depressingly-sizeable number of Americans who already believe those hyperbolic warnings. It used to be mostly Trump who indulged in it, but it seems more Republican legislators are taking up the crazy talk. And that scares me more than anything I've heard so far, because those are the kind of claims dictators or their rivals use when they know they can't take or hold power through democratic means, and their only recourse is to inflame their supporting factions into a violent mob to force concessions from their opponents.

 

I'm growing more pessimistic for a peaceful transition of power, however the elections turn out. :(

 

2 hours ago, archer said:

The Commission on Presidential Debates has adopted new rules muting the microphones of President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden to give them two minutes of uninterrupted time at the beginning of each debate segment.

 

Both campaigns have agreed to the "two minutes of uninterrupted time" rule but the Trump campaign is complaining about the commission taking steps to enforce it.

 

The Trump campaign has also objected to the range of topics announced for the debate and had wanted the debate to be only about foreign policy. That's despite having agreed months ago that the moderator would pick the topics.

 

The topics are fighting the coronavirus pandemic, American families, race in America, climate change, national security, and leadership

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521791-commission-approves-rules-to-mute-mics-at-final-trump-biden-debate

 

Funny how the candidate who claims his opponent is senile, is the only one who apparently can't answer questions on more than one topic at a time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...