US Politics: Veni, Vidi, Virus

[IheartIheartTesla]

ABC/WaPo also came out with a recent poll that is Biden +1 (their approval rating numbers dont reflect are pretty close to the top line)

At any rate, Texas is quite competitive this year and a narrow Biden win isnt indication of shenanigans (a +5 win maybe). As mentioned before, this is primarily driven by seniors and whatnot, and perhaps some modest inroads among Texas Latinos (a bigger effort here would increase his chances of winning). Beto has also been doing a lot of GOTV/phone banking etc, so I wouldn't discount that either (there is an effort to get a million people to vote when early voting begins next Tuesday)

Looking at comments from Cornyn and Cruz they also seem to be worried, so their internals must be telling a similar story. I still think it will go to Trump, but a Biden win is well within the realms of possibility.

Something for sure that will point to shenanigans is if Biden beats Trump among non -college educated whites. That would mean some weirdness (but also hard for someone to pull that off as a shenanigan)

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yep. 

This mindset is a very common problem.

How can I be  bigoted against x group of people if I don't hate hate literally all of x or can keep myself from trying to kill x is a dangerous idea.

Because yeah it does allow bigotry to be viewed through the lenses of the absolute worst lense.

I just don't want gays to be able to marry. I’m not homophobic Because I don't want  to literally kill/imprison/ castrate all gay people.

This mindset is also reinforced by the notion that "facts" can't be racist. A proper contextually complete understanding of facts can't be racist, or more broadly prejudiced, but a simplistic knowing (or parroting) of a fact can be racist. Case in point being average IQ difference between racial groups. And of course these simplistic repetitions of facts are deployed by committed racists to get the unaware racists to fall in line behind their way of seeing things. Education will overcome these manipulations, but it takes a lot of effort and outreach to those communities, which no one is doing.

You can't simply ignore large segments of the white population and expect not racist racism to just go away. And while it exists it influences people's voting and the sorts of policies they will support.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, Kalibear said:

Snitch tagging? Man, how weak. 

? 

FNR and I agree on very little, but we both like tennis, and our two favs are about to face each other in a Grand Slam final. And we can civilly yell at each other about it. I'm not sure there's any "snitch tagging" involved here, whatever that is. 

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

? 

FNR and I agree on very little, but we both like tennis, and our two favs are about to face each other in a Grand Slam final. And we can civilly yell at each other about it. I'm not sure there's any "snitch tagging" involved here, whatever that is. 

It's a Twitter thing, to encourage a pile on, like say-- I wrote something really scathing about Shapiro and someone else tags him into the conversation to sick him or his followers after me for doing so. It doesn't apply here.

 

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

This mindset is also reinforced by the notion that "facts" can't be racist. A proper contextually complete understanding of facts can't be racist, or more broadly prejudiced, but a simplistic knowing (or parroting) of a fact can be racist. Case in point being average IQ difference between racial groups. And of course these simplistic repetitions of facts are deployed by committed racists to get the unaware racists to fall in line behind their way of seeing things. Education will overcome these manipulations, but it takes a lot of effort and outreach to those communities, which no one is doing.

You can't simply ignore large segments of the white population and expect not racist racism to just go away. And while it exists it influences people's voting and the sorts of policies they will support.

I don't know how you get through to them though. To your point: I got into an all night discord conversation a couple years ago with a bunch of people I used to play SWTOR with. White privilege and affirmative action were brought up by someone and it turned into an absolute shitshow. For HOURS. One white guy from Texas [who generally was pretty chill and quite funny] went on an absolute rant about having grown up as a minority wherever he was there, how impoverished his upbringing was, and 'who the fuck is going to help people like me'... We really got into it and didn't talk for days, almost a week, afterward.

I figure there's certain kinds of experience that no amount of education will crack enough to see daylight through.  

[kairparavel]

So uh, this is the new 'But her emails..'?

But this is ok and very much not court packing...

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/02/886285772/trump-and-mcconnell-via-swath-of-judges-will-affect-u-s-law-for-decades

https://www.acslaw.org/judicial-nominations/on-the-bench/

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

So uh, this is the new 'But her emails..'?

But this is ok and very much not court packing...

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/02/886285772/trump-and-mcconnell-via-swath-of-judges-will-affect-u-s-law-for-decades

https://www.acslaw.org/judicial-nominations/on-the-bench/

Projection is the name of the game.

[Fragile Bird]

Speaking of courts, I understand that Judge Barrett is of the opinion that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional because it wasn’t properly approved. The 14th amendment grants citizenship to naturalized Americans, people born in the US, and gave American citizenship to freed slaves.

What is the purpose of opposing the 14th Amendment? Do other justices in the court hold the same opinion? I know that there is a movement in the US to take away citizenship from people born in the US to people who are not both citizens (Kamala Harris is not an American! Kamala Harris cannot ever be President!). 
 

Do you see mass citizenship stripping in the future, followed by mass deportations?

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Do you see mass citizenship stripping in the future, followed by mass deportations?

Make America white again 2032 Lol.

31 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

So uh, this is the new 'But her emails..'?

But this is ok and very much not court packing...

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/02/886285772/trump-and-mcconnell-via-swath-of-judges-will-affect-u-s-law-for-decades

https://www.acslaw.org/judicial-nominations/on-the-bench/

Apparently no. 

The fact Mconenel literally wouldn't have hearings for any justices nominated by Obama was par for the course.

[Fez]

I see the thread is back to pants-wetting levels of fear-mongering again.

In light of the complete Republican incompetence on display the past four year, and in particular the past month, what makes anyone think they are even operationally capable of fucking with the mechanics of the election? Especially in light of how decentralized our election system is? Even something as relatively simple as voter intimidation seems unlikely to happen on any organized scale. The Trump campaign touts their 50,000 "poll watchers", but the vast majority of that is simply yet another email list building exercise. And most of the ones who aren't are going to be legitimate poll watchers (Democrats have them too), not proud boys with guns. The rest may want to do something, but the idea that this campaign would be even capable of organizing them into anything resembling a threat is ludicrous.

And as for votes being changed and things of that nature; there continues to be zero evidence that this has ever happened or is even possible. If there are unexpected results, it can very easily be explained by the fact that we have no idea what turnout assumptions are accurate. And that's a legitimate worry. Although, the fact that no pollster is coming up with an overall Trump win gives me confidence. I'm not worried about the Trump approval discrepancy either. On the 538 averages, Trump vote share is underperforming is approval by 1.7 points, not nearly enough to swing things; and besides which, Biden vote share is underperforming Trump's disapproval by 1.0 points. The idea that there will be some people who approve of Trump's presidency but vote against him (likely due to distaste over his personal conduct) is not crazy; just like the idea that some who disapprove of Trump's presidency but will vote for him (likely disengaged folks who have been caught up in the Q stuff).

The threat of court interference is real, albeit I think significantly overblown, but if it happens it'll be after the election and out in the open. We'll know if the election was stolen very clearly. And even here, all we need to do is see the endless pre-election court cases to know the way the wind is blowing. Trump attorneys have lost almost all of them, and the few they have won are mostly meaningless (even the Texas drop box one, since very few people vote by mail in Texas because of how tough the restrictions are; early in-person voting starts this week, and it is extremely multi-site).

Also, look at how almost every Congressional Republican in a tough race or in leadership has been acting recently. They're running scared. You'd think if there was some grand plot in the works at least one of them would be in the loop.

None of this is to say that Biden's win is guaranteed. Trump could win due to any number of reasons; though the odds are small and going down. But the point is, sometimes we need to just accept the world as it is. Trump is a weak incompetent fool who got elected in a fluke and has coasted by for 4 years because Republicans refused to enforce norms against him; and he's likely to lose dramatically in 3 weeks because elections are governed by laws, not norms.

[Ran]

Jamie Harrison has raised $57 million in Q3 for his campaign against Lindsey Graham. Sounds like a big number? That's because it's the largest amount any US senator has ever raised in a quarter. That's how much Graham is despised by the left. It is, in all likelihood, a wasted effort, but who knows? Hopefully Harrison uses what's reasonable to use to make a fight of it, and sends the rest out to help other candidates.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

40 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Speaking of courts, I understand that Judge Barrett is of the opinion that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional because it wasn’t properly approved. The 14th amendment grants citizenship to naturalized Americans, people born in the US, and gave American citizenship to freed slaves.

What is the purpose of opposing the 14th Amendment? Do other justices in the court hold the same opinion? I know that there is a movement in the US to take away citizenship from people born in the US to people who are not both citizens (Kamala Harris is not an American! Kamala Harris cannot ever be President!). 
 

Do you see mass citizenship stripping in the future, followed by mass deportations?

Signaling. But a judge dog whistling can't be political.....

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Jamie Harrison has raised $57 million in Q3 for his campaign against Lindsey Graham. Sounds like a big number? That's because it's the largest amount any US senator has ever raised in a quarter. That's how much Graham is despised by the left. It is, in all likelihood, a wasted effort, but who knows? Hopefully Harrison uses what's reasonable to use to make a fight of it, and sends the rest out to help other candidates.

I brought this up recently. One metric showed him spending more on TV ads in a week than Trump's entire national campaign. 

Even if he loses, that could be one hell of a war chest for future elections, assuming he's not carrying a ton of debt. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

 

I see the thread is back to pants-wetting levels of fear-mongering again.

 

 

Is it pants wetting or merely smelling piss in your pants?

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

Jamie Harrison has raised $57 million in Q3 for his campaign against Lindsey Graham. Sounds like a big number? That's because it's the largest amount any US senator has ever raised in a quarter. That's how much Graham is despised by the left. It is, in all likelihood, a wasted effort, but who knows? Hopefully Harrison uses what's reasonable to use to make a fight of it, and sends the rest out to help other candidates.

I'm legitimately curious how close he'd come to flipping it.

I don't expect him to. But I'm curious how close.

[HoodedCrow]

Republicans do find people who are loyal for money. If that person is stained, as a lot of their appointees are, they will have to be loyal.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

This mindset is also reinforced by the notion that "facts" can't be racist. A proper contextually complete understanding of facts can't be racist, or more broadly prejudiced, but a simplistic knowing (or parroting) of a fact can be racist. Case in point being average IQ difference between racial groups. And of course these simplistic repetitions of facts are deployed by committed racists to get the unaware racists to fall in line behind their way of seeing things. Education will overcome these manipulations, but it takes a lot of effort and outreach to those communities, which no one is doing.

You can't simply ignore large segments of the white population and expect not racist racism to just go away. And while it exists it influences people's voting and the sorts of policies they will support.

IQ’s are “facts” but are “facts” based upon tests that have assumptions within them that could skew the results to be worse for people of color.  Therefore they are not “facts” in the same way that “a lack of oxygen will kill humans” is a “fact”.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, kairparavel said:

So uh, this is the new 'But her emails..'?

But this is ok and very much not court packing...

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/02/886285772/trump-and-mcconnell-via-swath-of-judges-will-affect-u-s-law-for-decades

https://www.acslaw.org/judicial-nominations/on-the-bench/

I’ve seen that too.  I had it thrown up by someone when I pointed out Trump’s inability to make a quick firm unambiguous repudiation of white supremacy at the debate.  

She said, “what about Biden refusing to comment on Court Packing”.  

My response, “^Yeah... that’s the same...^”

 

[JGP]

30 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

IQ’s are “facts” but are “facts” based upon tests that have assumptions within them that could skew the results to be worse for people of color.  Therefore they are not “facts” in the same way that “a lack of oxygen will kill humans” is a “fact”.

Yep, socioeconomic conditions factor highly in IQ testing on the mean, which you can't really argue aren't highly racialized without sounding like an obtuse dumbass-- no matter what your personal IQ may or may not be.

Not sure how I missed that on the first pass. That's a weird example to settle on.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, kairparavel said:

So uh, this is the new 'But her emails..'?

Heh.  If so, that is some weak sauce.  "Court packing" is still not on most voters' radar.  Although, first, let's stop calling it that.  Expanding the composition of the court is well within the realm of congressional power, has been done a half dozen times before, and is about a century past due anyway simply based on population growth and caseload.  However, it is wise for the Biden camp to continue to obfuscate on the subject.  It does not poll particularly well, and if Biden did come out for it it'd be immediately polarized.  Just continue hedging, and if you win, then do it.

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

What is the purpose of opposing the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment - specifically section 1 - is the second most important amendment (after the First), and subsequently one of the most important aspects of the Constitution.  Its importance has less to do with citizenship than the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of section 1.  These not only form the basis of the entire Civil Rights Movement, but also the "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights.  Without the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights is not applied to the states.  In other words, states could take away the liberties granted therein without it - the Bill of Rights only protects citizens from the federal government.

The insidious objection to the 14th amendment is nothing new.  John Birchers and consequently the Pauls have been harping on this since I can remember.  The effort is to abolish the entirety of the Warren Court and its incorporation, including of course the bases for the 64 CRA and 65 VRA.  This is true "federalism" in the respect that it's an attempt to return to the "states rights" that allowed for slavery and codified all sorts of subjugation of any racial, ethnic, religious, etc. minority.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

It is, in all likelihood, a wasted effort, but who knows?

I don't know, I feel like the likelihood increases every time Graham opens his mouth these days and talks about things like how minorities' rights are contingent on their political beliefs.  Anyway, Harrison's continued fundraising prowess is eye-popping, and I think he deserves a decent amount of credit for such a haul as well - I don't think it's just Graham opposition.

[Fragile Bird]

I don’t understand why more isn’t made of Barrett’s opinion of the 14th amendment. I guess the expectation she votes against the ACA and Rowe are enough to talk about.

[kairparavel]

It just feels like it's become (court expansion) a media focus. Like, balance it out with all the district court judge appointments? Just more picking and choosing of reporting the 11th ish hour.