|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 20 2019 20:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2019 20:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 20 2019 20:07 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2019 19:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 20 2019 19:44 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2019 19:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 20 2019 19:29 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2019 19:27 GreenHorizons wrote:I hadn't, but I have one of the cable outlets on in the background most of the time and noticed this a while ago. Can't find the quote but pretty sure I called it that at some point it was going to become undeniably obvious corporate media wasn't trying to inform people about the election, they were deliberately and clumsily trying to manipulate them. Question is whether all the people who constantly make fun of Republicans are going to really reconcile what this, in combination with the blatant manipulation and distractions of the last few years means, or are they going to hunker down in "vote blue no matter who/Trump is working for the Russians" mode feigning obliviousness to the political realities around them. Or, and this is a real shocker, they disapprove of this and think the Media shouldn't be trying to manipulate the facts. But realise that not voting for a Democrat in a 2 party system is a worse choice then every other option. Here's the thing. It's the primary still. The whole doing nothing to call out what is clearly a corrupt media and playing along pretending the manipulation to push their Warren isn't a red flag for how compromised she must already be and then telling the people who did they have to suck it up and vote for the corrupt manipulators else they get worse corrupt manipulators is a huge part of why Democrats lost to Trump last time we did this dance. As Carlin put it "[Trump] might be full of shit, but he lets you know it" EDIT: Posts like aqua's below are the kind of "plausible deniability" arguments we're going to see A LOT of this cycle like we did in 2016. Yeah, the game is rigged. Welcome to life, shit aint fair. More Trump isn't going to make it better. This is just sad and the type of attitude that leads to the situation we're in now. Arguments like this will lead to Republicans just nominating a Nazi and the pundit class arguing Democrats have to court reasonable white supremacists like the KKK or risk another Holocaust. Correct, that's one of the problems of a 2 party system. Tho there is presumably a break point at which enough people say 'fuck that' that a 3e party becomes viable. America doesn't seem to have reached that break point tho. Or it's never viable through the political system because there's always someone making the arguments you are, even when Republicans already elected a budding fascist like Trump and the parties control 3rd party access to the ballot. To break it down a bit. Things getting worse means less viability for a 3rd party regardless of their support among the population. We're already at 90% support can't pass gun legislation because of the domination of corporate influences on our politicians. I'd also just point out if it's got to get worse to get better then "vote blue no matter who makes even less sense". It means it'll just always suck but slightly less than it could, but also never have any hope or even ambition to get good. Because people don't really care about gun legislation. Most of America apparently doesn't mind the mass shootings because when a school full of toddlers got shot up.... nothing happened. Its horrid but that's the reality. And 'vote blue no matter what' indeed can mean no hope of things getting better and everything sucking but a little less then it would under a Republican. But guess what? Most people prefer that over letting the country burn down and hoping that maybe on the other end there is a ray of sunshine and not just a bottomless pit of misery. I understand your frustration and anger, I would probably feel the same way if I lived in America but that's the way things are. Your better of looking for a different country to live in that closer aligns to your views then trying to get America to change what it is.
It doesn't seem you understand my frustration at all from my perspective, because if you'd did you wouldn't say:
And 'vote blue no matter what' indeed can mean no hope of things getting better and everything sucking but a little less then it would under a Republican. But guess what? Most people prefer that over letting the country burn down
This false choice is at the core of it. Voting blue doesn't stop the country/world from burning, it just lets the neoliberal brunch crowd go back to pretending it's not because they are mostly removed from the negative consequences.
Look I get you're comfortable under the status quo and will defend it to its death. But please just don't piss on me and try to tell me it's raining.
|
|
|
On September 20 2019 20:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2019 19:38 Aquanim wrote:The central argument in that CNN article with respect to Sanders appears to be that while he has had clearly top-2 to top-3 polling numbers for a long time... - Sanders' numbers haven't increased substantially in a long time either
- One cannot win the nomination without significantly more than 20%-30% of national support
- On the basis of current polling and trajectory, Biden and Warren look more likely to achieve and/or sustain significantly more than 20%-30% of national support than Sanders (or anybody else)
which on the face of it doesn't seem like an outrageously unreasonable argument. Essentially if Sanders is going to climb into the high 30s and beyond (which seems like the bare minimum to win the nomination) that either has to come from overwhelming preference from the supporters of candidates who drop out or by taking support directly from Biden/Warren/anybody else who remains relevant. As far as I know, Sanders' 2020 campaign to date has not performed in a way which makes it obvious either of those things is going to happen. I will emphasise that none of this excuses any degree of media bias that exists. This is the important bit. The non-Sanders/Warren/Biden share is 36.4%, larger than any of their current shares. All that matters if you're forced to pick two frontrunners is where the votes are going as people drop out and who the undecided people break for. This is why you should only really care about a) when poll numbers are poor enough candidates quit, b) whether the voters from candidates who are dropping out are likely to remain in the pool, and c) ranked preference polls (head to heads of the candidates vs each other are quite poor for this, I think). We have pretty scant information on all of those. The big question is whether Sanders' is a popular "second choice" right now. At least in one poll, Harris dropping out will be worse for him than the other candidates and Buttigieg dropping out will be worse for him than the other candidates. The main people he stands to gain from dropping out are Biden and Warren, which ain't happening. There are still plenty of little people he could stand to benefit from, but the fact that he'd lose ground in that 10% from Buttigieg/Harris means he has to make up more and more.
Good points. And relating to that point, I'd say the only support Biden has to gain from people dropping out is Buttigieg and maybe Klobuchar. But Klobuchar doesn't really have any appeal besides being a centrist female. I'd say people are more likely to hop from Klobuchar to Warren than to Biden.
One dynamic that I feel like not enough people are talking about is the fact that Warren+Bernie easily overpowers Biden. The only reason there isn't a clear progressive frontrunner is the fact that we have 2 of them. If Bernie or Warren were to drop out, I'd say at least 95% of their support transfers to the other rather than to Biden.
Interestingly, if Sanders was to drop out early, Warren would decimate Biden. Biden would be 100% toast if either Warren or Sanders dropped out early.
|
On September 21 2019 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2019 20:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 20 2019 19:38 Aquanim wrote:The central argument in that CNN article with respect to Sanders appears to be that while he has had clearly top-2 to top-3 polling numbers for a long time... - Sanders' numbers haven't increased substantially in a long time either
- One cannot win the nomination without significantly more than 20%-30% of national support
- On the basis of current polling and trajectory, Biden and Warren look more likely to achieve and/or sustain significantly more than 20%-30% of national support than Sanders (or anybody else)
which on the face of it doesn't seem like an outrageously unreasonable argument. Essentially if Sanders is going to climb into the high 30s and beyond (which seems like the bare minimum to win the nomination) that either has to come from overwhelming preference from the supporters of candidates who drop out or by taking support directly from Biden/Warren/anybody else who remains relevant. As far as I know, Sanders' 2020 campaign to date has not performed in a way which makes it obvious either of those things is going to happen. I will emphasise that none of this excuses any degree of media bias that exists. This is the important bit. The non-Sanders/Warren/Biden share is 36.4%, larger than any of their current shares. All that matters if you're forced to pick two frontrunners is where the votes are going as people drop out and who the undecided people break for. This is why you should only really care about a) when poll numbers are poor enough candidates quit, b) whether the voters from candidates who are dropping out are likely to remain in the pool, and c) ranked preference polls (head to heads of the candidates vs each other are quite poor for this, I think). We have pretty scant information on all of those. The big question is whether Sanders' is a popular "second choice" right now. At least in one poll, Harris dropping out will be worse for him than the other candidates and Buttigieg dropping out will be worse for him than the other candidates. The main people he stands to gain from dropping out are Biden and Warren, which ain't happening. There are still plenty of little people he could stand to benefit from, but the fact that he'd lose ground in that 10% from Buttigieg/Harris means he has to make up more and more. Good points. And relating to that point, I'd say the only support Biden has to gain from people dropping out is Buttigieg and maybe Klobuchar. But Klobuchar doesn't really have any appeal besides being a centrist female. I'd say people are more likely to hop from Klobuchar to Warren than to Biden. One dynamic that I feel like not enough people are talking about is the fact that Warren+Bernie easily overpowers Biden. The only reason there isn't a clear progressive frontrunner is the fact that we have 2 of them. If Bernie or Warren were to drop out, I'd say at least 95% of their support transfers to the other rather than to Biden.Interestingly, if Sanders was to drop out early, Warren would decimate Biden. Biden would be 100% toast if either Warren or Sanders dropped out early.
The bold part is interesting, seeing how Warren is a compromised Clinton surrogate. Would you say, given the damning evidence that Warren sided with the devils of industry rather than become political martyr, that the support she has now is only due to her being Hilary-lite? Meaning, if she dropped out, wouldn't her support more than likely go to Biden since he's establishment?
|
On September 21 2019 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2019 20:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 20 2019 19:38 Aquanim wrote:The central argument in that CNN article with respect to Sanders appears to be that while he has had clearly top-2 to top-3 polling numbers for a long time... - Sanders' numbers haven't increased substantially in a long time either
- One cannot win the nomination without significantly more than 20%-30% of national support
- On the basis of current polling and trajectory, Biden and Warren look more likely to achieve and/or sustain significantly more than 20%-30% of national support than Sanders (or anybody else)
which on the face of it doesn't seem like an outrageously unreasonable argument. Essentially if Sanders is going to climb into the high 30s and beyond (which seems like the bare minimum to win the nomination) that either has to come from overwhelming preference from the supporters of candidates who drop out or by taking support directly from Biden/Warren/anybody else who remains relevant. As far as I know, Sanders' 2020 campaign to date has not performed in a way which makes it obvious either of those things is going to happen. I will emphasise that none of this excuses any degree of media bias that exists. This is the important bit. The non-Sanders/Warren/Biden share is 36.4%, larger than any of their current shares. All that matters if you're forced to pick two frontrunners is where the votes are going as people drop out and who the undecided people break for. This is why you should only really care about a) when poll numbers are poor enough candidates quit, b) whether the voters from candidates who are dropping out are likely to remain in the pool, and c) ranked preference polls (head to heads of the candidates vs each other are quite poor for this, I think). We have pretty scant information on all of those. The big question is whether Sanders' is a popular "second choice" right now. At least in one poll, Harris dropping out will be worse for him than the other candidates and Buttigieg dropping out will be worse for him than the other candidates. The main people he stands to gain from dropping out are Biden and Warren, which ain't happening. There are still plenty of little people he could stand to benefit from, but the fact that he'd lose ground in that 10% from Buttigieg/Harris means he has to make up more and more. Good points. And relating to that point, I'd say the only support Biden has to gain from people dropping out is Buttigieg and maybe Klobuchar. But Klobuchar doesn't really have any appeal besides being a centrist female. I'd say people are more likely to hop from Klobuchar to Warren than to Biden. One dynamic that I feel like not enough people are talking about is the fact that Warren+Bernie easily overpowers Biden. The only reason there isn't a clear progressive frontrunner is the fact that we have 2 of them. If Bernie or Warren were to drop out, I'd say at least 95% of their support transfers to the other rather than to Biden. Interestingly, if Sanders was to drop out early, Warren would decimate Biden. Biden would be 100% toast if either Warren or Sanders dropped out early.
The polling doesn't support "95%" but I'd agree that outside setting tiers and recognizing trends it's far from conclusive. It's hard to say what people will do besides likely support who they think will win. That's one reason why the early states are historically so disproportionately important. I'd guess it's also one reason why people are still unsure about which candidate they (will say) they want to win the primary.
|
Warren’s support is overwhelingly more educated, wealthier and white. Sanders and Warren have a somewhat different base. Probably Biden and Sanders have overlap in their base despite having different policies. Who exactly votes for what why tends to be a bit weird.
Also, if anyone should drop out it should be Warren for Sanders. She is more likely to lose the general election than Sanders and she compromises his chance to win the primary, because the Dems being so dysfunctional they can’t even have a more sophisticated ranked choice voting system in place.
|
The wsj broke the story of the whistleblower, and it seems to me Trump might survive that one again. He was careful not to directly propose a quid pro quo with aid to ukraine. Though it might be heavily implied, it is not said so he has a way out. Still mob tactics... But this is not enough to break Republican support I guess, or to unite Democrats on impeachment.
It seems he asked 8 times over the phone call to the Ukrainian president for an investigation of Hunter Biden, but fell short of dangling in the same call the military aid.
Any other country? He would be busted. Let the French president do that, see the Elysee palace broken into by thousands the next day and the president booted out with no one to help him.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defends-conversation-with-ukraine-leader-11568993176
|
Why do you think the French public would care about what the French president implied in a phone call with a president of a country that's proportionally important to the French public as Ukraine is to the American public?
|
United States42959 Posts
On September 21 2019 05:56 Sent. wrote:
Why do you think the French public would care about what the French president implied in a phone call with a president of a country that's proportionally important to the French public as Ukraine is to the American public?
The French are considered quick to protest.
|
On September 21 2019 05:56 Sent. wrote:
Why do you think the French public would care about what the French president implied in a phone call with a president of a country that's proportionally important to the French public as Ukraine is to the American public? If he was trying to get a foreign government to investigate his political opponents?
Yes that could very well end his Presidency.
Its not about Trump calling with Ukraine, it's about Trump trying to get Ukraine to investigate Biden's son.
|
On September 21 2019 05:56 Sent. wrote:
Why do you think the French public would care about what the French president implied in a phone call with a president of a country that's proportionally important to the French public as Ukraine is to the American public?
I don't care about which country, I care about my president not using his position and leverage to get dirt on political opponents.
Could be Lichtenstein, it doesn't matter.
And yes, French are known to be quick to protest. Nobody tried anything this brazen yet here, but they are welcome to try.
|
On September 21 2019 06:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2019 05:56 Sent. wrote:
Why do you think the French public would care about what the French president implied in a phone call with a president of a country that's proportionally important to the French public as Ukraine is to the American public? The French are considered quick to protest.
They are definitely quick to protest about things that may affect them personally, like fuel prices. I don't think many of them would care about Macron asking whoever is in charge of Liechtenstein to investigate Sarkozy's cousin's shady business in that country. Brazen or not, I can't imagine something like that having a lasting effect on Macron's (or Trump's) popularity.
|
The fed made their repo funding permanent at a flat 75 bn. per day rate until the 10th of October, so its safe to say that distrust among banks has risen and still the public doesnt know why.
another thing i found noticeable is that after gold seemed to be stuck at 1.5 k for roughly two weeks, today it spiked upward again shortly after the news got in that a jp morgan trader got convicted for market manipulation in the bullion sector by spoofing prices. have they perhaps been making money with that method at the expense of central banks?
will provide source on request, but im pretty sure you could find it on bloomberg.
why is tesla valued higher than volkswagen when theyve been writing losses for years now? the price to earnings ratio should go into infinity (being mathematically accurate, it shouldnt be calculable)
and how does palladium reach an all time high while the automobile sector drives back production and cuts costs across the board? im not aware of other uses for that metal.
|
|
|
On September 21 2019 07:21 JimmiC wrote:
One of the strangest things about the market is because it is all based on speculation profits are not as impressive as growth. That is why having private hospitals and prisons makes no sense because they need to continually show growth and not just great steady return to up their stock prices which is how the CEO's tend to be compensated.
So Tesla has the huge potential because all those gas cars could become electric whereas people can fairly accurately estimate how many VW will sell and it likely won't go dramatically up. They don't have the potential.
i disagree with tesla being valued so high on a fair and rational basis. i rather think its a result of being showered with money in order to produce as many innovations as possible, of which in theory only the strongest will survive once the rates go back up (which increases the interest rates corporations have to pay back) .
so if it isnt profitable at low rates, it will default and need a bailout at high rates. ive seen vw officials praise teslas battery technology, but why make cars and not batteries then?
|
|
|
United States24701 Posts
Federal employees in DC are being warned to prepare for mass disruption in DC on Sunday with major intersections/bridges being blocked by climate-themed protestors. I'm going to be taking Monday off, although ironically it's entirely coincidental. I need to be home all day to receive a shipment so I won't have to worry about my commute getting all disrupted. Not that the climate is a bad cause or anything.
|
|
|
On September 21 2019 05:47 Nouar wrote:The wsj broke the story of the whistleblower, and it seems to me Trump might survive that one again. He was careful not to directly propose a quid pro quo with aid to ukraine. Though it might be heavily implied, it is not said so he has a way out. Still mob tactics... But this is not enough to break Republican support I guess, or to unite Democrats on impeachment. It seems he asked 8 times over the phone call to the Ukrainian president for an investigation of Hunter Biden, but fell short of dangling in the same call the military aid. Any other country? He would be busted. Let the French president do that, see the Elysee palace broken into by thousands the next day and the president booted out with no one to help him. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defends-conversation-with-ukraine-leader-11568993176
Trump will survive it, the only way Trump doesn't survive it is if the house actually impeaches and testimony of all his wrong doings are made public and blunt. As many people still don't even know the details of fail attempts at "collusion" the Trump campaign tried to commit that are part of the Muller report.
All you have to do is visit parts of the internet where Trump support is in the open. You'll see the complete lack of irony in the way they defend Trump regarding trying to coerce a foreign government into investigating someone for obvious US political reasons. They're proud Trump has the balls to go after them and ofc the investigation into Trump's campaign was a complete sham and should have never happened.
|
On September 21 2019 03:54 Grumbels wrote:
Warren’s support is overwhelingly more educated, wealthier and white. Sanders and Warren have a somewhat different base. Probably Biden and Sanders have overlap in their base despite having different policies. Who exactly votes for what why tends to be a bit weird.
Also, if anyone should drop out it should be Warren for Sanders. She is more likely to lose the general election than Sanders and she compromises his chance to win the primary, because the Dems being so dysfunctional they can’t even have a more sophisticated ranked choice voting system in place.
I don't think the class distinctions between their supporters are coincidental.
If one is generally comfortable with capitalism and the system but thinks it needs to be reigned in a bit, Warren is the candidate for you.
If one thinks that capitalism has placed us on the precipice of catastrophic climate collapse, leads to countless killed around the world to protect oil, exploits workers, corrupts democracy, etc... Sanders is the only viable option.
The millions of kids across the planet that walked out of school to protest climate inaction today seem to get it better than the Democratic party imo.
EDIT: Turns out Bernie ('s tweeter) pointed out the lack of a threat Warren poses to the people she's rhetorically against and the centrist shift months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/thU3LEm.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0LeQyWg.jpg)
