You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:You see all these things I’m doing here that could be embarrassing if they went public or maybe these things are illegal....
Here sign this NDA and you can’t tell anyone. Shhhhhhh
Lol, if any of those folks had a business like Bloomberg they too may have one. None of them have ever created a damn job so kind of unfair honestly.
If you create jobs you can use NDAs to sweep up your tracks?
How many NDAs have you made people sign in your life? I'm not so sure honest, decent people would ever have a use for these damn things.
Re: US Politics Thread
Mayor Pete destroyed Amy
I liked Bloomberg’s answer when asked if he made too much money
Mayor Pete is the best of the bunch but nobody on that stage is beating trump.
Did you even watch it?
Amy didn't have a great night, but outside a few good lines, Pete wasn't anything spectacular and she cleaned his clock. Bernie won because Warren attacked everyone but Bernie and sucked the air out of the room.
Re: US Politics Thread
A lot of companies (even Axl!) have NDA's specifically because they don't want their operations discussed, privacy exploited, practices duplicated, etc. It's not so nefarious.
I don't think that's what Trump uses them for...
The way Axl uses them seems to be more for what they were intended for.
Re: US Politics Thread
So rather than do work this afternoon, I fucked around in excel and calculated votes up to Super Tuesday based on the latest polls from each state, or in the absence of that, using the aggregate of current national polling. So full disclaimer, this isn't going to 100% accurate, but it should give a 90% solution:
https://i.ibb.co/M8mWhPn/2020-Dem-Primary.png
What we see is that Sanders should be well ahead of the other candidates 2 weeks from now, and the clear front runner. In order to get delegates, you have to get 15% of the vote in each state, which removes all but these 3 candidates in all but 1 or 2 states. Since these 3 won't get 100% of the vote, they'll receive the remaining delegates relative to their performance.
Although this won't happen for a myriad of reasons, I also made a projection based on performance up to Super Tuesday, and calculated how many delegates each nominee would have by the convention. None of them come close, though Bernie would be projected to be right around 1800, putting him 200 under the required amount. But as you see on the bottom, if Bloomberg or Biden drop out, and give their delegates to the other, it puts them above the 1991 needed to win at around 2150. I don't think any of them can get to 1991 outright, so either a brokered convention, or Biden or Bloomberg give their delegates to the other, putting them ahead.
Man this musta taken some time...
Is that really how it works? You can just give your delegates away?
Here are some related polls...there's no way the convention isn't a complete fiasco then is there? Someone has to see this coming and figure out an alternative that resolves this in a way that keeps the party together. You just simply cannot ignore Bernie again.
Re: US Politics Thread
Since the tone of the thread is much - more civil - than it has been historically, I think I'm ready to actively participate on a limited basis until that changes. First point - welcome back mitch...not convinced you were ever really gone, but if you were, it's good to have your point of view voiced again. It was a bit one sided in here without you.
One thing I will say is for the economy to be strong, the gov't jobs are as necessary as the private sector is. Wipe out either of them and we're all in trouble. This idea that downsizing the gov't is one that people need to be careful with even if it sounds good in theory. Some of this stuff whether I agree with it fundamentally or not is here to stay or at least until an actual replacement can be found in the private sector. You can't just wipe out SS, medicare/medicaid, food stamps, etc. Not without a backup plan. Not only do real people depend on these things, but the economy does too.
Re: US Politics Thread
I actually had somebody from Mayor Pete's team stop by my house last weekend ahead of super Tuesday. She was younger...I think a bit ideological in her thinking not understanding the practicality of it all. She seemed to support Pete not because of any specific thing he stands for, but because he was the youngest candidate and can't be any worse than the old people that have been elected. Even if there's no policy reason for her support, I respect the reasoning behind it.
I talked to her for about 20 minutes...she was polite, respectful, and had her talking points down. She asked right away if I was voting in the Democratic primary, to which I said no. She started to walk away while asking if I was voting for Trump, but she stopped when I said no to that as well. That's when the actual dialogue began. It would have been better if she could have articulated reasons beyond his age to support Pete, but other than that she represented him fine. There was no hate; she didn't look down on me for not supporting her guy.
One thing I've noticed over the years (and this is super-generalizing and painting with as broad of a brush as I can find): younger people seem to lean Democratic. They fall in love with the ideology of what they stand for with no regard for the practicality of it. As people get older, they start to realize the practical side of things and lean more Republican. It's not because they are older; it's because they see things with a different perspective. I don't think there are many Alex Keatons in the world. Most people are somewhere in the middle leaning one way or the other. For whatever reason (and I know I've been saying this for at least a decade now) the extremes are getting more and more power on both sides and the masses in the middle aren't being represented by anyone. This system doesn't work like that and it will implode sooner or later.
Re: US Politics Thread
Since the tone of the thread is much - more civil - than it has been historically, I think I'm ready to actively participate on a limited basis until that changes. First point - welcome back mitch...not convinced you were ever really gone, but if you were, it's good to have your point of view voiced again. It was a bit one sided in here without you.
One thing I will say is for the economy to be strong, the gov't jobs are as necessary as the private sector is. Wipe out either of them and we're all in trouble. This idea that downsizing the gov't is one that people need to be careful with even if it sounds good in theory. Some of this stuff whether I agree with it fundamentally or not is here to stay or at least until an actual replacement can be found in the private sector. You can't just wipe out SS, medicare/medicaid, food stamps, etc. Not without a backup plan. Not only do real people depend on these things, but the economy does too.
Thanks for the shout out...I did need to go get treatment for something that I now know is a real thing....Trump derangement syndrome....
While I still feel all the things that I've actively expressed, I've learned to deal with those not so great feelings in a somewhat more positive way. I have taken an active approach to this...and I truly admit that this is a real thing.
I feel like I see through him. I see no inspiration in him and I felt like (still do) I'm in a sea of people who do see something. I don't see it. He is the antithesis of who I am and who I want to be.
Re: US Politics Thread
Most people are somewhere in the middle leaning one way or the other. For whatever reason (and I know I've been saying this for at least a decade now) the extremes are getting more and more power on both sides and the masses in the middle aren't being represented by anyone. This system doesn't work like that and it will implode sooner or later.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS. A THOUSAND GODDAMN TIMES THIS.
We are a country of 330 million people. Finland is a country of five million. Finland has 11 political parties represented at the national level. We have two. Sure, there are three "independents" but one is a socialist who is running for president as a Democrat, one is a libertarian who is a pro-impeachment Republican, and one is pretty much a Democrat.
I consider myself fairly middle of the line. When I lived in states that required voters to register with a party, I was a Libertarian. My current state, thankfully, does not require this. In 2008 (Ron Paul) and 2012 (Ron Paul) I voted in the Republican primaries, and since Joe Walsh has seen the writing on the wall that his candidacy doesn't stand a chance, this year I'll vote in the Democratic one (currently waffling between Klobuchar and Buttigieg). I don't think I voted in the 2016 primary: it was clear Clinton was getting the Democratic nomination and I don't like Sanders, and none of the Republicans were worth a damn to me.
When someone asks where my views lie, it's with a party that no longer exists. I'm an Eisenhower-era Republican (basically, pre-Nixon and the Southern Strategy). I believe a New England Republican and a Midwestern Rural Democrat have far more in common with each other than they have with the unfortunately becoming-more-empowered fringes of their "own" parties. Mitt Romney's defection on the impeachment vote lends credence to this idea as he was Governor of Massachusetts while I lived there. I'm about to read a book called Recarving Rushmore that I'm really looking forward to-- it ranks the presidents from best to worst on a scale involving peace, prosperity, and liberty and how their policies contributed to (or took away from) all three.
I'm not opposed to voting for a Democrat or a Republican (at least I wasn't on the latter before their complicity against holding a trial that actually has crazy ideas like evidence and witnesses), but I'm not going to vote for whoever gets trotted out because they aren't Trump. You have an unpopular president and the Democrats are doing nothing to try to carry the middle that could/should lead them to victory. Trot Sanders out there and you've guaranteed I'm going third party.
If anyone was wondering about those rankings from the book, I don't have the full ones, but here's a few bits from the summary I read...
PEACE
Best: Tyler, Harding, Hoover
Worst: Madison, Polk, McKinley, Wilson, Truman, GWB, JFK, LBJ
PROSPERITY
Best: Tyler, Van Buren, Hayes
Worst: FDR, LBJ, McKinley, Wilson, Truman
LIBERTY
Best: Washington, Tyler, Cleveland
Worst: Wilson, Jefferson (!), Truman, Adams, Polk, McKinley, Reagan, GWB
OVERALL
Best: Tyler, Cleveland, Van Buren, Hayes
