EPTYou looked him in the eye and got a good sense of Sanders' soul.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3492
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
You looked him in the eye and got a good sense of Sanders' soul. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On March 30 2016 03:48 Acrofales wrote: Insofar as I understand the democratic primaries, the one who gets a majority of the delegates, including superdelegates, wins. Clinton is currently on track to get both the popular majority and the majority of delegates. You seem to be ignoring the fact that while Sanders definitely could win plenty more states, the likes of Wyoming, the Dakotas and Rhode Island are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. What he needs to do is win big in NY, CA, PA and NJ (or at least in 3 out of 4). That just seems really unlikely. His candidacy was never one of probabilistic fortune  I was under the impression that superdelegates were "officially" designated at the convention, so they only get factored in if a candidate doesn't accumulate a majority of pledged delegates alone. I'm not sure if that assumption was bound at all in fact or if it was just a logical leap I made. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are not going to overturn that with hipsters and new school kids. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 30 2016 03:58 LegalLord wrote: You looked him in the eye and got a good sense of Sanders' soul. to be sure sanders has a long record upon which to base the observation. with respect to hillary ive said she is adjusting on tpp but not generally. you obviously cant run a pro free trade platform on its face | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On March 30 2016 04:02 Ghanburighan wrote: I like how instead of having interesting substantial discussions, you're once again feeding GH's empty fantasies of how he'd like the race to be. My point is that many talking points around inevitability have a genesis in the order states vote in. I don't think anyone is helped by having basically the entirety of southern black voters all at the same time. Also then Bernie's "Minority problem" wouldn't be reinforced by conveniently having no exit polling data for the states where he did the best with minorities. I mean the networks immediately went into how white Hawaii is (less than 25% white) to feed the narrative even when the reality didn't match. Though admittedly I'm realizing remotely accurate reportage is a fantasy this election. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On March 30 2016 04:02 Ghanburighan wrote: I like how instead of having interesting substantial discussions, you're once again feeding GH's empty fantasies of how he'd like the race to be. Didn't seem to bother you back then when you made that lenghty post on why Sanders supporters in this thread were wrong to say Clinton rigged Arizona. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On March 30 2016 04:12 Nebuchad wrote: Didn't seem to bother you back then when you made that lenghty post on why Sanders supporters in this thread were wrong to say Clinton rigged Arizona. I never even said Clinton rigged Arizona, just that there was obviously something sketchy going on which was solidified at the hearing yesterday which I'm guessing practically no one watched but will happily and proudly use said ignorance to refute the obvious foul play in AZ. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On March 30 2016 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote: I never even said Clinton rigged Arizona, just that there was obviously something sketchy going on which was solidified at the hearing yesterday which I'm guessing practically no one watched but will happily and proudly use said ignorance to refute the obvious foul play in AZ. I watched some of it, saw the floor hearing starting and then stopping cuz of protesters. I know a couple people were arrested, but not sure what went down. I also know they voted to keep SB 1516 on the calendar for a vote...today? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17852 Posts
On March 30 2016 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote: I never even said Clinton rigged Arizona, just that there was obviously something sketchy going on which was solidified at the hearing yesterday which I'm guessing practically no one watched but will happily and proudly use said ignorance to refute the obvious foul play in AZ. Didn't watch the hearing. Did read the NYT article about it ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/us/arizona-election-official-apologizes-for-long-wait-at-polls.html?_r=0 ) I see problems, mistakes and negligence. I don't see foul play. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 30 2016 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote: I'll bet her lead has peaked without hesitation. One month from now (so April 29) we'll see how the numbers have changed. If Bernie has closed the gap in pledged delegate count from what it is today, I will donate $27 to his campaign (or your favorite charity/ whoever else I have no moral objection to giving to) and provide proof of the transaction. If not, I will provide you with a short list of questions about Hillary's record I want you to read up on and have you post your findings here. Does that sound fair? We will use The Green Papers for the results. As of right now, the total stands at 1266 - 1038 (Clinton +228). This is the "soft" total and estimates the outcome of the most recent contests, while the "hard" one does not take those into account. If Clinton leads by more than 228 delegates, I am considered the winner. If her lead is smaller then 228 delegates, you are. To account for potential adjustments as the numbers shake out, if the lead has changed by less than 10 delegates we will call it a wash. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17852 Posts
On March 30 2016 04:29 mahrgell wrote: Just make a banbet. TL-Ban until presidential election is over. If possible make it so, that you both lose. nyehehehe both are banned if it's a wash. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On March 30 2016 04:23 jcarlsoniv wrote: I watched some of it, saw the floor hearing starting and then stopping cuz of protesters. I know a couple people were arrested, but not sure what went down. I also know they voted to keep SB 1516 on the calendar for a vote...today? The public testimony was mostly good. Purcell got laced into pretty thoroughly after lying a LOT about how we got there. The (R) chair, who at least had the decency/sense to set it up in the first place, said they had to end the hearing to go to a house session. She repeatedly said it was out of her hands, which several folks pointed out rightly, they could keep it going if they wanted. She extended it a half hour and a fiery 70 yo who waited ~4hrs to try to vote gave a pretty good testimony after some procedural fireworks. Right before the end of the meeting a rep. informed the audience that the meeting was being ended to go vote on SB1516 which is a dark money in politics bill. He invited the constituents to join them upstairs for the floor session. Naturally armed with that information folks went upstairs and expressed their discontent with the legislators contempt with what their constituents found to be emblematic of the problem. Literally cutting off public testimony of the worst case of voter suppression in recent history to go vote on getting more dark money into politics the legislators where awestruck by the outrage (particularly the ones that weren't at the hearing). The Republican party there looks foolish still claiming that they couldn't have seen this coming or outright lying about why it happened. But they aren't alone. There's a fair amount of electoral manipulation put on display by both parties in Arizona. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
France is a country where maths has a huge role as a selection subject, even bigger than elsewhere, for historical reasons -interesting but a bit too far from the subject. The main result of that is the number of Fields Medal, quite nice but not something I'd consider a national priority. I have a pretty deep formation in maths and physics, and I currently teached to pretty tough kids in a failing middle school inside Paris, but I also had a short experience to very wealthy and brilliant kid in the center. Personnally, I have no doubt that the status of maths in France is detrimental to maths education. We teach derivatives to kids who will do a/b+c/d=(a+b)/(c+d) if we don't remind them every two second they can't do that. I'm explaining Pythagore's theorem to kids who have trouble doing 18+17 without a machine. The idea of teaching less but better is met with disdain from the wealthy (whose interest is pretty clear), the academia (some of whom seem to discover every year that Lagrange's theorem on groups is not taught in high school, so I take their advice with a huge grain of salt). I'm sorry to say that even bright kid certainly would benefit a bit more focus, as you can be really good at applying the fraction sum rule but being unable to understand that a number as more than one writing. Paradoxical I know. What I think would be sensible : less maths, mainly everything that is around proportionnality. That's the basic stuff everyone should need, but actually people even suck at that. We also need to push pupils a bit more, to show them some stuff that is not useful, I agree. I think what's important is that they get an idea of maths criteria of truth (that's after all each subject's specificity) and enough to get their imagination working. Here there are plenty of possibility, basic geometry and maybe a bit of algebra with a ton of context seem like pretty good stuff. But not a hundred of tools like they currently have to learn in middle school and they have forgotten one and a half week later. When it comes to high school, propose more than currently to the most motivated people. Also what is needed is easier ways to get back basic education for adults than currently. Many kids I teach have just bigger problem than school at the moment. They're wrong in a way (not completely), but it's pretty clear school is a lost cause for many (you just don't know exactly which ones). But later, with more maturity, I'm pretty sure many of them could learn a lot in very little time, they can be pretty bright. Finally, there are things outside maths, and the fantasies about STEM jobs for everyone or logical thinking coming only from one subject are a disservice to our subject. That's for France, but I'd willingly drop one hour of maths for one hour more of French, history or simply cooking and basic do it yourself courses. All this is a bit disjointed because I came late to the debate, and all of it might not be true for the US, but I think it's a subject worth discussing. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On March 30 2016 04:27 ticklishmusic wrote: One month from now (so April 29) we'll see how the numbers have changed. If Bernie has closed the gap in pledged delegate count from what it is today, I will donate $27 to his campaign (or your favorite charity/ whoever else I have no moral objection to giving to) and provide proof of the transaction. If not, I will provide you with a short list of questions about Hillary's record I want you to read up on and have you post your findings here. Does that sound fair? We will use The Green Papers for the results. As of right now, the total stands at 1266 - 1038 (Clinton +228). This is the "soft" total and estimates the outcome of the most recent contests, while the "hard" one does not take those into account. If Clinton leads by more than 228 delegates, I am considered the winner. If her lead is smaller then 228 delegates, you are. To account for potential adjustments as the numbers shake out, if the lead has changed by less than 10 delegates we will call it a wash. Sounds reasonable. One issue though. PA is already saying it will likely take weeks to count their votes. As with happened in AZ, this will likely favor HRC in projections and estimates. I'd either want PA to wait to be fully counted or not included. On March 30 2016 04:26 Acrofales wrote: Didn't watch the hearing. Did read the NYT article about it ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/us/arizona-election-official-apologizes-for-long-wait-at-polls.html?_r=0 ) I see problems, mistakes and negligence. I don't see foul play. You should probably actually watch the hearing, the version you read is missing some pretty important parts. The one that glares out at me is they didn't even bother to mention that Purcell's funding excuse is flat propaganda as she's got the same funding for 60 polls as she had for 200. Here's one that at least mentions some of the glaring omissions from the NYT's version of events. That’s when things went from bad to uggggly. Purcell said she didn’t know how the 60 locations for polling places were selected. “A team” within her office chose the spots. Purcell conceded that no one in her office took into account whether the polling places would have been approved by the Department of Justice — in other words, whether the placement of the polling places might disenfranchise voters. Purcell said polling places were large. Yet one pollworker testified that it was smallest room she’d ever worked in during her 20 years working elections. Purcell said “to her knowledge” no polling places ran out of ballots. This, despite widespread reports that polling places ran out of ballots. And Purcell blamed a lack of funding for what clearly, undeniably, unavoidably was a total foul up. 'We were trying to downsize' “There was not sufficient money to pay us for a full-blown election, so we were trying to downsize,” she explained to the panel. Never mind that Purcell got the same $1.25 per voter that she’s gotten for every other election. Never mind that every other county got $1.25 per voter and managed to actually hold an election in which voters could vote. Never mind that that $1.25 per voter included funding for independents who couldn’t even vote in this election. Source | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 30 2016 04:41 corumjhaelen wrote: A pity I missed the discussion about maths teaching, but as a foreign maths teacher I think I could say something mildly interesting, just not sure I've reflected enough on my meager experience though. France is a country where maths has a huge role as a selection subject, even bigger than elsewhere, for historical reasons -interesting but a bit too far from the subject. The main result of that is the number of Fields Medal, quite nice but not something I'd consider a national priority. I have a pretty deep formation in maths and physics, and I currently teached to pretty tough kids in a failing middle school inside Paris, but I also had a short experience to very wealthy and brilliant kid in the center. Personnally, I have no doubt that the status of maths in France is detrimental to maths education. We teach derivatives to kids who will do a/b+c/d=(a+b)/(c+d) if we don't remind them every two second they can't do that. I'm explaining Pythagore's theorem to kids who have trouble doing 18+17 without a machine. The idea of teaching less but better is met with disdain from the wealthy (whose interest is pretty clear), the academia (some of whom seem to discover every year that Lagrange's theorem on groups is not taught in high school, so I take their advice with a huge grain of salt). I'm sorry to say that even bright kid certainly would benefit a bit more focus, as you can be really good at applying the fraction sum rule but being unable to understand that a number as more than one writing. Paradoxical I know. What I think would be sensible : less maths, mainly everything that is around proportionnality. That's the basic stuff everyone should need, but actually people even suck at that. We also need to push pupils a bit more, to show them some stuff that is not useful, I agree. I think what's important is that they get an idea of maths criteria of truth (that's after all each subject's specificity) and enough to get their imagination working. Here there are plenty of possibility, basic geometry and maybe a bit of algebra with a ton of context seem like pretty good stuff. But not a hundred of tools like they currently have to learn in middle school and they have forgotten one and a half week later. When it comes to high school, propose more than currently to the most motivated people. Also what is needed is easier ways to get back basic education for adults than currently. Many kids I teach have just bigger problem than school at the moment. They're wrong in a way (not completely), but it's pretty clear school is a lost cause for many (you just don't know exactly which ones). But later, with more maturity, I'm pretty sure many of them could learn a lot in very little time, they can be pretty bright. Finally, there are things outside maths, and the fantasies about STEM jobs for everyone or logical thinking coming only from one subject are a disservice to our subject. That's for France, but I'd willingly drop one hour of maths for one hour more of French, history or simply cooking and basic do it yourself courses. All this is a bit disjointed because I came late to the debate, and all of it might not be true for the US, but I think it's a subject worth discussing. I agree with your general idea, but the solution is the wrong one in my opinion. The status of math is detrimental to math (note that this status has changed, for specific school or "prepa" in my discipline for exemple we now ask kids to do economy and not math as a speciality because the mathematic speciality is judged to be too easy to be selective), that is certainly true, but changing math while not changing the entire system is the worst possible thing to do. In fact, it is what we have done for the last ten years with bad result on inequalities, because we indeed changed our pretentions on math for kids with difficulties, while in private school and in the best public schools (in specialty or secondary class) they still do what we historically did. The problem is building an egalitarian system that value certain goals (individual emancipation through education, autonomy in reflexion and thinking) and not trying to create an "efficient system" (that would transfer specific skills, measurable, to kids). Math is just one way to train kids in using their brain, french is another, but doing nothing is certainly not. That's for France, but I'd willingly drop one hour of maths for one hour more of French, history or simply cooking and basic do it yourself courses. I totally agree with you, but you know that's not what is happening : we dropped hours of math for secondary topic, or transversal topics (outside of the autoritarian constraint of "disciplines"...). The result is that kids with solid background do wonders in those inter disciplinary courses, while kids in difficulties just do nothing, and the inequalities just increased since then. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
But in any case, we need to get back to selecting pupil on latin theme. Just for my personnal convenience as a maths teacher though | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 30 2016 05:09 corumjhaelen wrote: Well yes, we need to rework our whole system, I won't argue against that, not sure my revolutionnary point of view would interest anyone aside maybe you and Igne though, plus it was a bit too general for the conversation at the beginning. Btw, I also think fixing education alone is pretty useless, as it can't reduce inequalities alone. But in any case, we need to get back to selecting pupil on latin theme. Just for my personnal convenience as a maths teacher though It's still the case in some parisian school I've heard... lol | ||
| ||
