Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Some Of Us Did Warn You, But It Can't Happen Here...


Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Fez said:

ETA: And that excludes DC since they don't get senators currently. If you throw in DC, it changes to

Pearson's R 0.1522; P-Value 0.286331

Didn't see this but heh, well of course DC is gonna skew the data based on party affiliation.  Even using 2016 vote margin, Hillary won it by almost 87 points.  That margin is 40 points larger than Wyoming's.  Obviously, it's an outlier.  That's why if you wanna include DC, which would be interesting - and of course it would help which is why I emphasized its importance a month ago - I'd prefer a population/seat metric.  Dropping those with one Senator each, that is the simplest metric to capture which party enjoys a disproportionate advantage - as ideally each party should have the same.  Now, whether that difference is strong to be considered an inherent institutional advantage?  Well, that's really up to the reader.  Also, I'd emphasize using percentages for the variables like population (and even party affiliation) because when you start putting in data points in the millions that can lead to lots of noise.  Learned that the hard way.

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Jesus fucking Christ. Just suck each other off already!!! I thought I was going to get 15 posts about God's Not Dead 4: God Hard With A Vengeance, not squabbling over decimal points in a well settled argument.

Sorry, but I'd rather read about quibbling over decimal points than whether the US victimizes Christians or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Jesus fucking Christ. Just suck each other off already!!! I thought I was going to get 15 posts about God's Not Dead 4: God Hard With A Vengeance, not squabbling over decimal points in a well settled argument.

I dunno I think of these two very different, parallel, subthreads as functioning as a gorgeous counterpoint in the Rhapsody of GenChat Politics threads.  The beautiful and the sublime for the 2020 consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

I dunno I think of these two very different, parallel, subthreads as functioning as a gorgeous counterpoint in the Rhapsody of GenChat Politics threads.  The beautiful and the sublime for the 2020 consumer.

Yeah, I don't get this kind of policing. Fez and DMC aren't even off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Why should I listen to some random on the internet?

Same reason why I am trusting @Fury Resurrected to explain to me why having geese isn't that atypical? Reward people who normally are good faith actors and you'll get the same in return, most of the time.

(You're wrong here, by the way. DMC's bedside manner hasn't been great, but he is right).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Jesus fucking Christ. Just suck each other off already!!! I thought I was going to get 15 posts about God's Not Dead 4: God Hard With A Vengeance, not squabbling over decimal points in a well settled argument.

Throw a Christian to the lions one time and they never let us forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Jesus fucking Christ. Just suck each other off already!!! I thought I was going to get 15 posts about God's Not Dead 4: God Hard With A Vengeance, not squabbling over decimal points in a well settled argument.

0.1 vs. 0.05 is one of the great debates of our age. Careers have been made and lost in fights over findings that have fallen between the two; great and terrible policies enacted or ignored. It is epic battle in the vein of Gilgamesh.

Consider a finding that a weekly crucification of a Christian in the town square led to an improvement in a community happiness index with 0.07 significance; would that imply that we should or should not continue with the crucifications?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

In some fairness, this isn't a problem with Christians specifically because of their religion. Groups in power who have to let go of some of it always howl. To do otherwise would, well to also be fair, Christ like, and many Christians fail terribly at that.

It is a problem with the religion in this context as many of the most powerful in the religion have used religion as leverage to put them in positions of political power. They run on issues like pro-life, and a significant percentage of Christians have shifted their beliefs to support obviously anti-Christian (traditionally speaking) views. Our Supreme Court, for example, is becoming more and more dominated by specifically modern Christian belief (pro-life again). What Christianity is in the U.S. means a lot of different things, and those representing it from positions of power are about as antithetical to "Christ like" as can be conceived. It's a problem with Christians, specifically, because the religion has been hijacked. May moderate, well-meaning Christians vote for people like Trump because Democrats won't support things that have become primary to Christian belief (abortion, fatalism, etc.). It's unique to this religion.

Either way, because the most powerful gesture as "Christians," the notion that Christians are being canceled in the US is mind boggling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

It is a problem with the religion in this context as many of the most powerful in the religion have used religion as leverage to put them in positions of political power. They run on issues like pro-life, and a significant percentage of Christians have shifted their beliefs to support obviously anti-Christian (traditionally speaking) views. Our Supreme Court, for example, is becoming more and more dominated by specifically modern Christian belief (pro-life again). What Christianity is in the U.S. means a lot of different things, and those representing it from positions of power are about as antithetical to "Christ like" as can be conceived. It's a problem with Christians, specifically, because the religion has been hijacked. May moderate, well-meaning Christians vote for people like Trump because Democrats won't support things that have become primary to Christian belief (abortion, fatalism, etc.). It's unique to this religion.

Either way, because the most powerful gesture as "Christians," the notion that Christians are being canceled in the US is mind boggling. 

Your critique here is about religious fundamentalism, not necessarily religion itself. The above can be said about any religion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelosi seems to be trying to drive a wedge between Birx and Trump, and it seems to be working.

Is it just to put more pressure on Trump? Birx seems to be the only one on the task force that Trump still (kind of) listens to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On SCOTUS's future, Dems send a shot across Republicans' bow
If Senate Republicans were to try to fill a Supreme Court vacancy this year, Democrats would become far more interested in court-packing.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/scotus-s-future-dems-send-shot-across-republicans-bow-n1235636

Quote

 

It's led some Senate Democrats to open doors that were previously closed. Take Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), for example.

Democrats are warning Republicans not to fill a possible Supreme Court vacancy this year after denying President Barack Obama the chance in 2016, saying it would embolden a push on the left to add seats to the court whenever they regain power.... Kaine, the party's last vice presidential nominee and a lawmaker with a reputation as an institutionalist, said confirming a nominee of President Donald Trump this year could compel Democrats to consider adding seats to the high court.

"If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can't feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that's fully constitutional in our availability," Kaine told NBC News. "I don't want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that."

The same report added that Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, acknowledged that she's been "talking with people who have different ideas about what we can do." Among those ideas are "adding to the court."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Your critique here is about religious fundamentalism, not necessarily religion itself. The above can be said about any religion. 

It could be said about any religion, but it is the reality in this country. Which is what we're talking about. This isn't a thought experiment, or some bullshit like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

It could be said about any religion, but it is the reality in this country. Which is what we're talking about. This isn't a thought experiment, or some bullshit like that.

@A Horse Named Stranger,

I hope this translates right.

So funktionieren die Dinge nicht.

You cannot be so selective in how you want to apply the greater question at hand.

Dasvidaniya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bizarre thing that Trump said today and that I forgot to mention, but a NYT story popped up on my Facebook page.

As I’m sure you know, he has threatened to ban Tik Tok in the US (I have no idea how that would work), but it turns out that Microsoft is interested in buying the US operations. I heard a lot of people being rather mistrustful of that idea, but if they buy it they’ll probably get a fire sale price. Might be worth buying some Microsoft shares, even 10 of them, because owning Tik Tok will make money for them.

Anyhow, Trump actually said money should flow to the US Treasury should the deal occur, like 30% of the sale price. WTF? He now wants 30% of the cost of an acquisition to go to the US government? Sure sounds like a tax to me.

”Because this deal wouldn’t happen without me!” 
 

eta: he’s given until September 15th for a deal to happen, or the app will be shut down

ps Apple shares are splitting 4 for 1. Again, you might think about picking some up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

ps Apple shares are splitting 4 for 1. Again, you might think about picking some up.

What happens when Apple products start showing people where to sign up for mail-in voting and Trump realizes it?.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Martell Spy said:


On SCOTUS's future, Dems send a shot across Republicans' bow
If Senate Republicans were to try to fill a Supreme Court vacancy this year, Democrats would become far more interested in court-packing.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/scotus-s-future-dems-send-shot-across-republicans-bow-n1235636

 

With good cause.  It seems the only rational response to Republican's actions regarding Judge Garland and his nomination.  If they reversed themselves and pushed through RBG's replacement before Trump left office "court packing" is the only way for a newly Democratic majority to counter that action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...