|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 24 2016 08:09 Soularion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:06 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Man can Sanders lose a single state with out the bernie bots insisting it has to be because of voter fruad? This is only going to get worse as it becomes more obvious hes not going to win. It's stupid to say Sanders lost Arizona because of voter fraud, but Arizona is the only state so far where 'voter fraud' can be a legitimate concern. They're half-right, this once 
Clinton almost certainly won AZ, but as GH said and many others here have said - it's pretty clear that some sketchy shit went down with AZ voting, regardless of which candidate it affected more (to be sure, they were all affected).
On March 24 2016 08:10 Soularion wrote:
I think if Sanders wants to be favored, he needs to come out huge in Washington. He should win it - if he doesn't he's out instantly - but if he comes out and wins it by thirty, forty, fifty points like Idaho/Utah.. whew boy.
There's probably never a scenario where he's "favored".
On March 24 2016 08:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:10 Soularion wrote:
I think if Sanders wants to be favored, he needs to come out huge in Washington. He should win it - if he doesn't he's out instantly - but if he comes out and wins it by thirty, forty, fifty points like Idaho/Utah.. whew boy. There is no chance in hell Clinton takes either Oregon or Washington. I will bet my own mother on it. I'll even pay for shipping. I think I've met like 3 people who intend to vote for Clinton.
Dude, you can't just pawn off your mom on us like that.
|
On March 24 2016 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:21 On_Slaught wrote:
Better chance of Hillary winning in the NW than Sanders winning in NY. Have you been to the NW? I don't think there is any percentage lower than the percentage of Clinton winning in the NW, even counting 0.
It was 50-46 for Obama's win here in 08, her losing by large margins means lot's of people who used to support her don't anymore.
|
On March 24 2016 08:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:
GGS is the biggest example anyone can point at when talking about eurocentric history writing. Germs Guns Steel and large numbers of local allies was too long to fit in the title I guess.
Nah, its only popularly brought up by people because it reinforces thier belief that Western domination of most of the world is illegitimate, and in things like multiculturalism, the noble savage (aka Avatar) trope and various other beliefs of various people.
You could write a book called "Bibles, Bigots, and Cheese" arguing that Christianity, racism, and delicious milk products caused the world to be as it is, and your book would be just as accurate (probably more so), but would still be fundamentally wrong.
|
Canada2764 Posts
On March 24 2016 08:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:10 Soularion wrote:
I think if Sanders wants to be favored, he needs to come out huge in Washington. He should win it - if he doesn't he's out instantly - but if he comes out and wins it by thirty, forty, fifty points like Idaho/Utah.. whew boy. There is no chance in hell Clinton takes either Oregon or Washington. I will bet my own mother on it. I'll even pay for shipping. I think I've met like 3 people who intend to vote for Clinton.
Oh, I think Sanders is massively favored, but the difference between 55-45 (good, but maybe not good enough) and 80-20 in a state like Washington is absolutely massive. Gonna be a big state, with many big states to come.
|
On March 24 2016 08:23 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:08 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 24 2016 07:57 Slaughter wrote:On March 24 2016 06:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:Ah, GGS. The most popular and thoroughly reviled (amongst academia) piece of pop-science of the past fifty years at least. Diamond gets to champion geographic determinism, the century-old discredited theory and basis of European imperialism to explain European superiority without trying to sound racist. Lovely. I'll just link you this and this, because I come across people who aren't aware just how much he's reviled in the fields he's writing in. EDIT: Specifically regarding the Spanish Conquest of Mexico and the Andes, it should be noted that Guns, Germs, and Steel really had little to no impact on the actual conquest. Native allies in both instances were significantly more vital to the success thereof, and the manner of the local political and social structures involved. For instance, the Aztecs ran a large, decentralized tributary empire based on militarism; there were enough powerful tributaries and rivals in the region that hated the Aztecs, with the Spanish merely the catalyst for the overthrow of the system. If you read first-hand accounts of the Conquest like Bernal Diaz, you'll note that the Spanish THREW AWAY their steel armors and weapons for native ones. Neither was gunpowder a significant factor outside a few early engagements: early arquebuses are equivalent, or worse, than bows when faced with non-heavily armored targets, and the shock and awe factor of firearms wore out quickly. Disease was much more impactful on the outlook of native demographics AFTER the Conquest, and was not the decisive factor. In the Andes in particular, demographic decline due to disease was slow and gradual over the decades to the relative isolation of different communities of different and even the same altitude. And it should be noted that native societies like the Mapuche resisted encroachment despite consistent attempts by the Spanish and later Chileans and Argentines over the centuries until the late 19th century and the advent of machine guns. Thus, the complete ignorance and rejection of the decisive political and social factors in favor of JUST technology, coupled with bad/terrible research and generalizations and support for a LONG DEAD theory of imperialism, is why the book is hated amongst anthropological and other social science circles. Yea the Andes was basically the Spanish coming in at the right time and taking advantage of unrest already going on. The Aztecs also had to consistently deal with uprisings because they never fully "put down" any of the conquered territories because it would mean less tribute plus long term military campaigns were a logistical nightmare and very costly. The Spanish also got their asses kicked in some of the initial fights and relied heavily on indigenous allies + they manufactured a "riot" during some kind of party that was attended by a good chunk of the Aztec capital political and military elite that they massacred. Germs did play a part there but mostly in the form of making the speed of conquest much faster, as the basin of Mexico endured several epidemics in a row that killed off a lot of the Aztec population, making clean up of the other major cities and kings much easier since their armies were decimated. Hell even when Cortez and his indigenous allies assaulted the Aztec capital they were in the middle of I think a small pox outbreak, which greatly helped them out. But yea all of his books get a lot of criticism and every one he seems to go farther off the deep end is the impression I get from some of the anthropologists and archaeologists I have talked to. He has an idea and just sells it hard and ignores everything else basically. I remember in particular his book on collapse ruffled the feathers of many archaeologists I know. Yet at the same time, disease also afflicted the conquistador's native allies, which meant the net outcome in terms of military degradation was somewhat of a wash. But in any event, the main decisive advantage that facilitated the conquest of Mexico was native allies, not this ridiculous notion that (early) guns and steel made you an invincible superman able to take on many times your number of brown natives, or that germs made the Aztecs so weak that it was possible. That's just thinly-veiled racism right there. And yes, the fact the Inca had just finished a round of expansion (and many of their new territories hadn't been integrated for more than a generation) and was in the midst of a civil war/succession crisis would certainly help explain how Pizarro achieved his conquest of the Inca. Not some ludicrous idea that because the Inca were all illiterate savages that they'd never heard of a surprise attack (which is literally what Diamond argues in GGS, even though the Inca had their own form of non-written language and knot-based communication system [which the Spanish subsequently destroyed entirely]). Had first contact been made at any different time, Pizarro would never have achieved what he did. Essentially, the importance of socio-political factors, and the importance of luck and the small individual events and butterflies that history hinges upon. In both cases too, the post-Conquest management was equally important: in neither case did the native allies seek Spanish domination and colonization in the manner they did: they had different plans for the aftermath of the conquests. That too cannot be explained away with just geography and environment. The disease affecting their allies as well also helped them cement themselves as the dominant power by the time the dust settled :\ Europeans played the natives off each other for many many years. Disease probably did play a bigger role in North America though, killed off so many people before they started to colonize (and even then they struggled a lot and even had desertion problems as people were likely to abandon a lot of the early colonies for indigenous groups). Hell even most of the initial settlements were built on the remains of where old villages that were abandoned due to disease were. They were surprised as hell at how "convenient" the land was set up for them lol. Its been a while since I have read GGS but your criticisms of it are pretty much what academia has to say about Diamond and his work.
Indeed, it played a much larger role in regards to North America, and in regards to the consolidation of the Spanish conquests (one factor of many). For instance, the disappearance of the Mississippian societies and cultures is largely linked to contact with the Europeans and disease. In the areas of Anglo-Dutch settlement, it's slightly harder to say as the natives there tended towards a semi-nomadic lifestyle, but it almost certainly had an impact.
However, even so, my main goal was to dispel the notion that GGS, and geography and environment, were what facilitated the European conquests in and of themselves. And Jared largely shows just how empty and misinformed he is when discussing the two major Spanish conquests so...
|
On March 24 2016 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 24 2016 08:21 On_Slaught wrote:
Better chance of Hillary winning in the NW than Sanders winning in NY. Have you been to the NW? I don't think there is any percentage lower than the percentage of Clinton winning in the NW, even counting 0. It was 50-46 for Obama's win here in 08, her losing by large margins means lot's of people who used to support her don't anymore.
Just from a totally meaningless, empirical perspective:
I would say about 90% of my liberal friends plan on voting for Bernie. Of those people, maybe 10% are in the revolutionary mindset where "IF IT AINT BERNIE, BURN THIS PLACE TO THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and the other 90% will absolutely vote for Clinton in a general if she wins. That being said, there's no fucking way they will vote for her in the primary. At the end of the day, this is Portland, Oregon. We make Norway look like Ted Cruz. We are downright fucking liberal. That being said, when the symbolic vote is made, everyone is ready to be militantly opposed to Trump/Cruz however they can.
So that's why I think it is a somewhat misleading statistic. I know 2 people voting for Clinton...2. However, many people I know see Bernie as a delicious treat whereas Clinton is a salad. The salad is good for you, but damn does everyone want some fucking Bernie candy. But once the candy blows up, everyone is ready to order the salad for the sake of not eating a giant bag of feces.
|
On March 24 2016 08:32 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:
GGS is the biggest example anyone can point at when talking about eurocentric history writing. Germs Guns Steel and large numbers of local allies was too long to fit in the title I guess. Nah, its only popularly brought up by people because it reinforces thier belief that Western domination of most of the world is illegitimate, and in things like multiculturalism, the noble savage (aka Avatar) trope and various other beliefs of various people. You could write a book called "Bibles, Bigots, and Cheese" arguing that Christianity, racism, and delicious milk products caused the world to be as it is, and your book would be just as accurate (probably more so), but would still be fundamentally wrong.
I'm not saying that its popularity has anything to do with eurocentrism or politics, I'm saying its a terribly researched terribly written steaming pile of eurocentric turd.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
we need more sandernista fearmongering about the corrupt establishment. will surely drive out the votes.
pure sabotage and self serving tactics from the rabid left
|
Logistics are decided by the state, so if you have a beef its with the county recorder and the Secretary of State... who are both Republicans. Both parties use the polling sites as well. All this stuff was decided waaaay in advance. As I said earlier, they most likely did it as a cost-savings measure, and justified it by saying "well we have mostly early voters anyways so it's okay to knock down the number of polling locations the day of".
They made a mistake and it sucks but it's not voter fraud, voter suppression. You want to know what real voter suppression is? Try the literacy tests that African Americans were subject to in the South. Throwing that term around is pretty ludicrous.
Having problems with voter registrations is a real issue. In this case, I would say never assume bad intentions when assuming stupidity is enough. It's happened before, and while it sucks and should be unacceptable maybe people should have actually tried to get things sorted out ahead of time knowing there was the chance for the adminstraors to epically screw up again. However, there's the actual problem like when Jeb purged the voter registries in Florida 15 years back. Registration problems are very real problems, albeit one most of these people didn't give a shit about until it affected them.
Also some Bernie supporters were straight up lying about being registered Democrats. That's voter fraud right there.
|
Uh oh...
Disney film studios and its subsidiary Marvel have said they will boycott Georgia if the state governor signs a recently passed “religious liberty” bill into law.
Georgia’s First Amendment Defense Act has been the subject of considerable protest for some time, and was voted through the state legislature on 16 March. With the bill on the desk of the governor, Nathan Deal, Disney has joined other companies stating their opposition to what it describes as “discriminatory practices”.
According to Variety, Disney said: “Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law.”
Disney’s announcement follows Monday’s statement from the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents the Hollywood studios, saying: “We are confident that Governor Deal will not allow a discriminatory bill to become law in Georgia.”
The bill would allow officials to refuse to conduct same-sex marriages on the grounds of religious belief and permit religious organisations to fire employees on the same grounds. Similar controversies occurred in 2015, when Arkansas and Indiana passed “religious freedom” bills.
Source
|
On March 24 2016 08:40 oneofthem wrote:
we need more sandernista fearmongering about the corrupt establishment. will surely drive out the votes.
pure sabotage and self serving tactics from the rabid left
Can you please cut your rhetorical crap? It's painful to read at times.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2016 08:21 On_Slaught wrote:
Better chance of Hillary winning in the NW than Sanders winning in NY.
the nw is more monoculture than ny. sanders might win a bigger % there than hillary does in ny, but ny has double the delegates.
this is a long term problem for the democrat party though. the center position is not well understood and easily mischaracterized. people respond easily to flashy angry left messaging. in the long term the sanders crowd may simply win out over more reasonable people and either they gain power over a governing dem party or the party will split and the governing coalition is more rightwing than the obama coalition ended up being.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2016 08:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:40 oneofthem wrote:
we need more sandernista fearmongering about the corrupt establishment. will surely drive out the votes.
pure sabotage and self serving tactics from the rabid left Can you please cut your rhetorical crap? It's painful to read at times.
what part of it is not true? the bernie group is valuing their own vision over the general success of the party by sabotaging the leading candidate in a way that would seriously depress enthusiasm.
|
On March 24 2016 08:45 ticklishmusic wrote:Logistics are decided by the state, so if you have a beef its with the county recorder and the Secretary of State... who are both Republicans. Both parties use the polling sites as well. All this stuff was decided waaaay in advance. As I said earlier, they most likely did it as a cost-savings measure, and justified it by saying "well we have mostly early voters anyways so it's okay to knock down the number of polling locations the day of". They made a mistake and it sucks but it's not voter fraud, voter suppression. You want to know what real voter suppression is? Try the literacy tests that African Americans were subject to in the South. Throwing that term around is pretty ludicrous. Having problems with voter registrations is a real issue. In this case, I would say never assume bad intentions when assuming stupidity is enough. It's happened before, and while it sucks and should be unacceptable maybe people should have actually tried to get things sorted out ahead of time knowing there was the chance for the adminstraors to epically screw up again. However, there's the actual problem like when Jeb purged the voter registries in Florida 15 years back. Registration problems are very real problems, albeit one most of these people didn't give a shit about until it affected them. Also some Bernie supporters were straight up lying about being registered Democrats. That's voter fraud right there.
Yeah no one's not blaming the state or more specifically the county responsible.
You know what's similar? Not having Spanish speaking people in predominately Hispanic polling places.
I honestly can't believe you actually posted that story as an attack on people lying. You realize people are saying their registrations were changed from Democrat to Independent and I already posted a video showing that the proof from the county showed an identical signature on two documents.
they're were probably some independents that thought they were registered democrat but what people were describing is being democrats for extended periods of time and then being told they were registered independent.
|
On March 24 2016 08:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 24 2016 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 24 2016 08:21 On_Slaught wrote:
Better chance of Hillary winning in the NW than Sanders winning in NY. Have you been to the NW? I don't think there is any percentage lower than the percentage of Clinton winning in the NW, even counting 0. It was 50-46 for Obama's win here in 08, her losing by large margins means lot's of people who used to support her don't anymore. Just from a totally meaningless, empirical perspective: I would say about 90% of my liberal friends plan on voting for Bernie. Of those people, maybe 10% are in the revolutionary mindset where "IF IT AINT BERNIE, BURN THIS PLACE TO THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and the other 90% will absolutely vote for Clinton in a general if she wins. That being said, there's no fucking way they will vote for her in the primary. At the end of the day, this is Portland, Oregon. We make Norway look like Ted Cruz. We are downright fucking liberal. That being said, when the symbolic vote is made, everyone is ready to be militantly opposed to Trump/Cruz however they can. So that's why I think it is a somewhat misleading statistic. I know 2 people voting for Clinton...2. However, many people I know see Bernie as a delicious treat whereas Clinton is a salad. The salad is good for you, but damn does everyone want some fucking Bernie candy. But once the candy blows up, everyone is ready to order the salad for the sake of not eating a giant bag of feces.
Relevant link: http://gizmodo.com/oregon-was-founded-as-a-racist-utopia-1539567040
|
I have yet to find a single, reputable news source that has stories of actual registration problems in Arizona. And seriously, if your reason for that is "because the MSM is a bunch of shills" that's not good enough.
|
On March 24 2016 08:56 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 24 2016 08:40 oneofthem wrote:
we need more sandernista fearmongering about the corrupt establishment. will surely drive out the votes.
pure sabotage and self serving tactics from the rabid left Can you please cut your rhetorical crap? It's painful to read at times. what part of it is not true? the bernie group is valuing their own vision over the general success of the party by sabotaging the leading candidate in a way that would seriously depress enthusiasm.
You've been saying it like twenty times and I guess that is what rubs people the wrong way, but it's essentially true. What I think is the worst thing about this whole election is what kind of celebrity fest it is. There is basically not a single discussion on actual issues. It's all shit throwing and personality cults. I mean people are supposed to hold political opinions. How does going from Bernie to Trump or not-voting make any sense
|
Dr. Adolf Reed came to my campus today. He's on Bernie's board of labor and a lifelong labor party advocate. Really interesting stuff. He's pretty cynical but recognizes Bernie has a once in a long time/lifetime prospect. Also doesn't like the "bernie or bust" mantra some supporters are taking.
Anyways I had fun and got two free buttons out of it, so win win gg bernie free stuff w00t
|
|
|
Republican elders, desperate to stop Donald Trump, are increasingly convinced they would rather forfeit the White House than hand their party to the divisive Manhattan billionaire.
That’s why the party’s establishment is suddenly rallying behind Ted Cruz, a man they’ve long despised and who has little chance, in the view of many GOP veterans, of defeating Hillary Clinton on Election Day.
“People think we’re not going to win in November anymore. All the candidates that had a shot at winning don’t appear to have a shot at winning the nomination. Everyone is resigned to that,” said a high-ranking GOP operative about the thinking among Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio alums as well as Republican party officials and big-money donors.
“People think we lose with Cruz, but we don’t lose everything,” said the operative, who opposes Trump and asked to speak anonymously. “He’s still a real Republican. We don’t lose the House and Senate with Cruz. We don’t lose our soul as a party and we can recover in four years and I’m not sure people think we can recover from Donald Trump.”
Said one high-level operative inside the Koch network: “He’s the devil you know.”
www.politico.com
We've seen it happening for a while. I just like that the establishment GOP has to no choice but to go with someone they hate. Serves them right.
And they cleary aren't buying Trump's "I'm going to expand the party" line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
