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.
On August 29 2018 03:18 micronesia wrote: Even my high school classmates made that distinction: “I support our troops but not this war” was commonly repeated.
Since war makes troops stop breathing, the distinction shouldn't need to be made. Supporting a war means dead troops. When I typically think of "supporting" someone, I don't normally advocate for situations where that someone dies.
This comes from Vietnam where the soldiers, who were forced to fight in the war whether they wanted to or not (most didn't) go spit on and treated like garbage by the people who were against the war.
It's a way of saying I hate the war, I don't think we should do it, but I blame the decision makers not the soldiers and I will support programs to help the injured, both physically and psychologically when they return home.
It is interesting that this perspective eventually died out. War is a very interesting thing from a psychological/societal perspective. If no one ever agreed to be a solider, wars would no longer be fought. Granted, there is always going to be someone willing to be a solider. "well the other side has soldiers, so we need some" is hard to dispute. But from more of a thought experiment perspective, if the young were never willing to go to war, the wars would not happen.
The press has been on Trump for not releasing a more strong statement in McCains passing. I agree that he should have done something better. His character flaws are in full display here.
CNN conducted an interview with a friend of McCain, former New Hampshire governor John Sununu. He came on to fondly remember his friend. The interview soon turned to the left’s unipolar focus on the press vs pres in a rather embarassing way. Let’s remember Trump, but please please please can you focus your remarks onto what the President did and how that made you feel.
It’s a good reminder of how the political disagreements look like from the right. I recommend the five minutes for people interested in why Trump gets away with so much criticism of media establishments.
CNN is by no stretch of the imagination "the left" and when the President himself releases "press v. prez" statements on the daily, characterizing resistance as "unipolar" is both silly and wrong.
Every outlet I follow covered Trumps updated statement involving McCain with breathless anticipation. An alternative theory to the one above is that folks on the Right don’t to read the news and are told what is being reported by the ‘left leaning” media by third parties.
Edit: Also, Farv is correct. CNN is the dull center of the political spectrum. The term “the left” is not relative to the poster’s political opinions. That isn’t’ how the spectrum works.
If no young people are willing, then all it takes are the old to be willing. All you need for a war is for the other side to go to war to you. At this point the big question is what did we go to war in Iraq for? I remember a fair few years ago we had to constantly debunk that Iraq as hiding al-qaeda; I wonder if that is still the case today in American consciousness.
It is tough to say. It seems the farther we get away from the war, the more people seem to realize that it was based on a lot of bullshit. It is really a matter of attrition.
Hurricane Maria Caused 2,975 Deaths In Puerto Rico, Independent Study Estimates
Independent researchers from the George Washington University have estimated that Hurricane Maria caused 2,975 deaths in Puerto Rico in the six months following the storm.
The researchers' findings had been long-awaited. Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello commissioned the independent study in February, after months of public pressure over his administration's failure to adequately count the number of hurricane dead. At the time, he said the research team would have the Puerto Rican government's full cooperation, including access to all mortality data.
The new number represents a 22 percent increase over the number of deaths Puerto Rico would have expected during that six-month period had a hurricane not struck, researchers found. They also said those most at risk for death were poor people, and the elderly.
"The results of our epidemiological study suggest that, tragically, Hurricane Maria led to a large number of excess deaths throughout the island," Carlos Santos-Burgoa, the study's lead researcher, said in a statement. "We hope this report and its recommendations will help build the island's resilience and pave the way toward a plan that will protect all sectors of society in times of natural disasters."
Since December, the government's official hurricane death toll has been stuck at 64, though the government has acknowledged that number was likely far too low and would be adjusted once the researchers had completed their study.
It was unclear whether the island's government would adopt the researchers' estimate as its official toll. A spokesman for Gov. Rossello said the governor would speak at a Tuesday afternoon press conference.
In addition to their new death count estimate, the researchers found that the Puerto Rican government did a poor job communicating with the public about the death count, and more broadly did not have an adequate disaster communications plan in place, which the researchers said contributed to public confusion.
According to interviews that researchers said they conducted with health and forensics officials on the island, many were also uninformed about how to document hurricane-related deaths.
In the absence of a rigorous effort by Puerto Rico's government to count its dead, several media outlets and outside researchers worked to arrive at their own figures. Most recently, Harvard University researchers published a study that estimated the number of hurricane-related deaths likely ranged from about 800 to 8,000.
That study had a wide margin of error because it was based on household surveys. The George Washington researchers said their findings are more accurate because they are based on access to government mortality data and death certificates, and account for variables including the number of people believed to have left Puerto Rico after the hurricane.
The long and short of the studies surrounding the hurricane that hit Puerto Rico is that we may never know how many people died in that storm and the weeks after, but it was likely in the thousands. As we bail out small groups of farmers in the president’s trade war, Puerto Rico is left to fend for itself without much aid from the government. A section of America we, as a nation, ignore because they have no political power and we can’t be bothered to spend the nominal amount of money to help them. And we are dumping all that money into running private child abuse camps.
Just going to tack on a reminder here: it took 11 months for all of Puerto Rico to get power restored.
On August 29 2018 03:18 micronesia wrote: Even my high school classmates made that distinction: “I support our troops but not this war” was commonly repeated.
Since war makes troops stop breathing, the distinction shouldn't need to be made. Supporting a war means dead troops. When I typically think of "supporting" someone, I don't normally advocate for situations where that someone dies.
This comes from Vietnam where the soldiers, who were forced to fight in the war whether they wanted to or not (most didn't) go spit on and treated like garbage by the people who were against the war.
It's a way of saying I hate the war, I don't think we should do it, but I blame the decision makers not the soldiers and I will support programs to help the injured, both physically and psychologically when they return home.
It is interesting that this perspective eventually died out. War is a very interesting thing from a psychological/societal perspective. If no one ever agreed to be a solider, wars would no longer be fought. Granted, there is always going to be someone willing to be a solider. "well the other side has soldiers, so we need some" is hard to dispute. But from more of a thought experiment perspective, if the young were never willing to go to war, the wars would not happen.
"If no one ever agreed to be a soldier" is simply not going to ever happen. It's pure human nature.
Not to mention the fact that pretty much every country on earth is ready and willing to implement/re-implement conscription if necessary.
We’re under 70 days until midterm elections. What’s everybody’s predictions about the state of the House and Senate? I think Dems pick up a single-digit house majority and lose a couple seats in the Senate.
Looks like Gillum is taking Florida on the democratic side (governor), that's nice. Another opportunity to see how a strong progressive message runs again a message of "Trump is a human being that exists"
On August 29 2018 09:46 Danglars wrote: We’re under 70 days until midterm elections. What’s everybody’s predictions about the state of the House and Senate? I think Dems pick up a single-digit house majority and lose a couple seats in the Senate.
Agreed. House looks impossible to hold on to for Republicans but Senate also impossible for dems
On August 29 2018 09:46 Danglars wrote: We’re under 70 days until midterm elections. What’s everybody’s predictions about the state of the House and Senate? I think Dems pick up a single-digit house majority and lose a couple seats in the Senate.
I dunno where you're getting that single digit House majority unless its based off a hunch. Majority of poll nerds from 538 to G. Elliott Morris (The Economist) suggest a double digit seat Dem majority in the House is the likely outcome. From memory, Nate Silver is also suggesting that the Dems are either going to get that double digit majority or get wiped.
The Senate is harder to predict mostly because there's just not a whole lot of quality polling despite the high media exposure a lot of them get. Reps are probably going to lose Arizona (Flake retiring, the Rep replacements are all awful) and Nevada (Heller trying to torpedo his seat with the ACA vote). Tennessee (popular Dem candidate, Corker retiring) and Texas (Cruz has some disgustingly bad disapproval ratings, Beto is swimming in cash and seems to be energizing younger non-voters) are the only other seats they could lose.
Seats that at risk for Dems are ND, MO, IN and FL. Heitkamp and McCaskill are tied with their opponents but could probably scrape through. Dunno about Donnelly. Nelson is probably toast, he hasn't got the cash or exposure Scott has. I think the safest bet is that the Dems will get a 1-3 seat loss in the Senate come November,
On August 29 2018 10:11 Nebuchad wrote: Looks like Gillum is taking Florida on the democratic side (governor), that's nice. Another opportunity to see how a strong progressive message runs again a message of "Trump is a human being that exists"
FL Dems are typically awful. Gillium is absolutely the right choice, Graham seems to be toxic in South Florida. They might as well sit this fight out if she manages to win.
On August 29 2018 09:46 Danglars wrote: We’re under 70 days until midterm elections. What’s everybody’s predictions about the state of the House and Senate? I think Dems pick up a single-digit house majority and lose a couple seats in the Senate.
I dunno where you're getting that single digit House majority unless its based off a hunch. Majority of poll nerds from 538 to G. Elliott Morris (The Economist) suggest a double digit seat Dem majority in the House is the likely outcome. From memory, Nate Silver is also suggesting that the Dems are either going to get that double digit majority or get wiped.
The Senate is harder to predict mostly because there's just not a whole lot of quality polling despite the high media exposure a lot of them get. Reps are probably going to lose Arizona (Flake retiring, the Rep replacements are all awful) and Nevada (Heller trying to torpedo his seat with the ACA vote). Tennessee (popular Dem candidate, Corker retiring) and Texas (Cruz has some disgustingly bad disapproval ratings, Beto is swimming in cash and seems to be energizing younger non-voters) are the only other seats they could lose.
Seats that at risk for Dems are ND, MO, IN and FL. Heitkamp and McCaskill are tied with their opponents but could probably scrape through. Dunno about Donnelly. Nelson is probably toast, he hasn't got the cash or exposure Scott has. I think the safest bet is that the Dems will get a 1-3 seat loss in the Senate come November,
On August 29 2018 10:11 Nebuchad wrote: Looks like Gillum is taking Florida on the democratic side (governor), that's nice. Another opportunity to see how a strong progressive message runs again a message of "Trump is a human being that exists"
FL Dems are typically awful. Gillium is absolutely the right choice, Graham seems to be toxic in South Florida. They might as well sit this fight out if she manages to win.
Yes, my predictions are contrary to most polling organizations. The majority of poll nerds and my personal prediction for the 2016 was dead wrong and I’m prepared to be wrong again.
There are a large number of new voters too. I think it was just reporters that voter 35 and under out number 65 and older in PA. That scary stat considering 35 and under is normally an inactive demographic. That seems to have changed.
On August 29 2018 11:28 Plansix wrote: There are a large number of new voters too. I think it was just reporters that voter 35 and under out number 65 and older in PA. That scary stat considering 35 and under is normally an inactive demographic. That seems to have changed.
Fun fact: 35 and under also coincides with the Millennial and post Millennial generations. I don't have any hard numbers, but it sure feels like one party targets that demographic negatively more than the other.
EPT
