yeah, robin killed himself, seems convenient - all he knew!

Who edited this? D+ job.

So basically the same as NYT, MSNBC, NPR, CNN, etc. Except for the other side.

Nope. 

Not even close. Try again.

Sounds exactly the same to me: partisan propaganda masquerading as journalism. How is it not that?

RTFA

I did read the article. Hence my point.

If you think "NYT, MSNBC, NPR, CNN, etc." engage in pay-for-play partisan propaganda & plant ideological stories in exchange for money, by all means post your evidence.

Of course they do. Most of what they do is reprinting PR statements. You obviously don't know any journos if you think otherwise.

My sister-in-law is a journalist.

Again, I say, feel free to post evidence. Otherwise move along.

L M A O

I remember what actually happened. https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/index.html

"A nationwide operation of 1,300 local sites publishes coverage that is ordered up by Republican groups and corporate P.R. firms." 

Why is this ok with you, gwharton?

Because the appropriate response to a perceived imbalance is total, complete annihilation. Conan had it right about what is best in life.

There's been whole fucking think pieces on the collective power of the right wing infrastructure that exists to manipulate media and facts, all you have to do is look at any of the money going into the Federalist Society, and other shit-stirring neo-cons.

Sinclair Broadcasting. Full stop.

Hi gwharton, it’s been a bit since we talked! If you read tduds’ article it states that yes there is tons of influence, from both sides, on what gets reported as news, for both sides, on various mainstream-ish outlets. This is different. It’s papers masquerading as locals that only print pro-right-wing dictation. Also shocking: it does this by contracting writers for payments of $20-ish dollars to “write an article”. It’s gross from a labor standpoint and also it’s lying under a “True American” banner.

seriously though, engaging in gwharton is becoming the same as engaging with jla. it's just what the right has become.

I don't think a network of media sites pretending to be serious journalism but actually just promoting partisan agitprop is okay at all. Not when the right does it, and not when the left does it either. But lots of folks here seem to think it's completely fine when it's partisans on their side, but not the other. I'm just calling out your hypocrisy, since it completely undermines any point you're trying to make about it.

why is everything either/or with you right wingers? of course all media outlets have SOME level of bias (and you should always keep that in mind when reading anything, by anyone), but that SOME is not always EQUIVALENT. are you really claiming that NPR is doing the same thing as breitbart? that just because they both identify to be news that they are automatically equivalent "partisans?" there are shades of gray here, not everything is equally bullshit. stop eating the conservative propaganda you're being spoon fed and think with a little bit of nuance and intelligent criticism.

i see you, pizzagate

"Media is left biased on a scale that is equal to or greater than right biased media." 

Actually, the bias of prominent media on the left is fairly well distributed from center-left to left, but the bias of the prominent media on the right is much more polarized to the right (source). But you know ... fine journalists on both sides right?

In order for there to be hypocrisy, there would need to be an equivalent operation with pro-Democratic Party propaganda. "A nationwide operation of 1,300 local sites publishes coverage that is ordered up by [Democratic] groups and corporate P.R. firms." 

There isn't. Stop pretending there is. 

"media is left biased on a scale that is equal to or greater than right biased media." Citation Needed

" I'm just calling out your hypocrisy..." while conveniently ignoring your own.

Quote tweeting myself here.

cites article from supposedly biased right wing media condemning supposedly biased left wing media... others wonder where he even reads news.. didn't he claim it was all fake?.. approaching event horizon.. implosion..

^ works both ways. You can start by not reading the National Review *or* watching CNN.

It's extremely weird to me that, in response to literally hundreds of examples of pay-for-play Republican propaganda, the counterpoint is just perpetually bitching about CNN. Not exclusive to this conversation either... it's the go-to response to every accusation of Republican bias. The right-wing hatred for CNN is hilarious, since any serious person, right or left leaning, would not rely on CNN for journalism, certainly not *solely* on CNN. CNN is low-information entertainment. And, most importantly, CNN is not pretending to be anything beyond that. Not something you can say for the originally linked conglomerate. 

think critically* but yes thank you for repeating my previous post.

minus the "squinting truth" part. i'm not sure what that is- i prefer rational truth.

anything spoken or written by any human is bias to a degree. who said otherwise?

I honestly can't tell if you're asking mis-guided leading questions on purpose out of bad faith, or because you actually misunderstand the point so much that you think we're saying the things you're questioning.

There's bias, and there's ethical standards. I'm not saying the 1,300 publications referenced in the original story are *biased* (although they are, that's not the problem). I'm saying they're engaging in ethical malpractice. Pointing out left-leaning editorial bias is not even close to a counterpoint. You got close with the Donna Brazile affair, except that she acted outside of the accepted bounds of ethics for CNN and when CNN found out about it they fired her, so it's an individual breach, not an ongoing practice endemic to the network.

The difference, for me, I think is that mistakes will always be made. It's less important to point out the mistakes and more important to look at what the organizational leadership does in response. 

I'm honestly not sure what conspiracy theory you're talking about since the narrative around Russia is so convoluted and the various scandals & relationships are so manifold that simply saying "a conspiracy theory for 2 years about Russian" is too vague. Care to elaborate which parts of it turned out to be false and which publications knowingly pushed false information?

Please also define "left media sources" and/or provide examples other than CNN.

"Pointing out left-leaning editorial bias is not even close to a counterpoint." -Me, just a few posts ago. You're really missing the point.

Let's see if I can't re-state this more clearly: The problem here isn't that some media outlets are right leaning and some are left leaning, it's that the decline in independent local news has left a vacuum that's been filled mostly by zombie "publications" that don't really exist but pretend to exist and fill page space mostly with a combination of automated "articles" and taking money in exchange for positive coverage.

From the article: Jeanne Ives, a Republican candidate for the U.S. House in Illinois, has had a direct financial relationship with the operation. Ms. Ives has paid Mr. Timpone’s companies $55,000 over the past three years, according to state and federal records. During that time, the Illinois sites have published overwhelmingly positive coverage of her, including running some of her news releases verbatim.

If there was a vast network of Potemkin papers doing this for Democratic candidates, I assure you I'd be pointing out the un-ethical nature of it. But there isn't. So stop pretending that CNN's *admitted* opinion/analysis bias is the same.

Monopolization is an issue on which I think you and I would find much common ground, but monopolization generally isn't the topic of this thread. A quick scan of that chart seems to show mostly entertainment media like Showtime and Cartoon Network. The "News" category in the web has just 9 links. So... 6 Corps own 9 news outlets. Compared to the OP in which 1 corp own 1,300 news outlets. Come on, man

we get it. there is always bias. but you won't convince me that the nypost hunter biden story is credible (there's a reason even FOX NEWS passed on that bullshit), and that is should be equivocated with the examples you posted. the real sad thing is that you actually believe it..

meanwhile, more important, real news regarding actual foreign influence that is happening right now, for those of you who didn't chase the red herring:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TrumpChinaBankAccount&src=trend_click&vertical=trends

there's much more evidence to support one of these stories than the other, so i'll follow the evidence. once again, the opposition party found no wrong doing in the biden case- that's not media spin, it's an actual, real report the gop put out. what more do you want?

i don't watch cable new, it's all garbage.

I agree on the cable news is garbage thing. It is hard for me to believe that anyone can watch it and not understand they are being manipulated. That being said, if what you took from this convo was that you should watch MSNBC ... you really missed the mark.

or a convenient dodge..

I mean this is basically clairvoyance ...

tduds

"Pointing out left-leaning editorial bias is not even close to a counterpoint." -Me, just a few posts ago. You're really missing the point.

"I actually watched MSNBC last night because of this convo" hahahah why?

I'm not "missing" the point, you're trying to hijack the point.

For just fucking once I'd like to be able to be concerned about one thing without a torrent of Whataboutism diluting the thread to useless nothingness.

hopeless. jxlax's "points" are rarely, if ever, substantive, factual, or intelligent. they rely on incredibly vague generalizations and right-wing talking points via whataboutism to create a constant moving targets. though (arguably) his politics are different, in style it's trumpism/new-grievance politics at its finest.

1) Derail ad infinitum. 

2) Induce resigned exasperation. 

3) Declare victory when they give up. 

I'm giving up so I guess you win.

x-lax has points? Last I read his posts were a fetid fountain of fecal fabrications that fall from his fingers like freshman faces after their first fall finals.

"Americans Who Mainly Get Their News on Social Media Are Less Engaged, Less Knowledgeable" 

"Some of the most popular articles on Mr. Timpone’s sites get tens of thousands of shares on social media. That is a modest reach in the national conversation. But with the focus on small towns, less readership is needed to make an impact." 

Glad we finally agree.

Here's a pretty good analysis of the topic: https://newrepublic.com/article/159876/liberals-losing-journalism-wars-brian-timpone

"just pointing out the the left wing media does as well" 

Not nearly to the same extent, has been my point.

"But there is, actually, a liberal version of this scheme, funding innocuous-looking “local news sites” around the country. That network, called “Courier Newsroom,” is the brainchild of one of the geniuses behind the utterly disastrous Iowa caucus app. It comprises eight sites, to Timpone’s more than 1,200." 

There's also a whole thing in here, that I've read a lot about before, where quality journalism is paywalled while bullshit propaganda is free. That, again, exists on both sides but is far from symmetrical.

This reinforces something that I've been thinking about lately. This isn't fully formed yet so feel free to call me out on it if you feel it's wrong, but it seems like Republicans are more willing to push the boundaries and do something to gain an advantage, where Democrats think that just playing nice will win in the end. Ds might be right about it in the end, but it sure sucks to see them get their asses handed to them in the meantime. Not to mention the innocent people that continue to face discrimination, etc. because the Ds aren't willing to play hardball. I'm not advocating for a race to the bottom. Not really sure what I'd be advocating for either. So, yeah ... take this as you will. 

TL;DR: Rs follow the philosophy that it's not a crime unless you get caught, and that it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Ds are constantly losing the battles on those grounds, but may have a longer view of what it means to "win" (whatever that might mean). Meanwhile it sucks that there are so many casualties in the battles they aren't fighting effectively.

I'm not disagreeing with your placing responsibility on the Dems for those things, but if we are playing your favorite game of hypotheticals, Repubs under a McCain and/or Romney administration would have done the same IMO ... if not more. I'm not talking about the ways all politicians are the same, I'm talking about how they're different in the public eye. Your comment about the Dem brand is about appearing good vs the Repub brand is about appearing to not be politicians is appreciated. They are all politicians behind the scenes. Perhaps the Rs simply are more cunning than the Ds at the moment.

ruthless, which is not to be admired in a person whose chosen career is representing other humans

My interpretation is that a democratic socialist works within the principles of a democracy to eventually establish a socialist society, whereas a social democrat simply fights for social(ist) issues within a democratic society.

hot take.

tell me more

I would prefer not to.

Trump was in good shape, from what I saw in some very selective snippets, looks like an easy re-election to me...

My wife was watching it and provided plenty of commentary. I overheard some juicy bits. Dude’s gonna win again, so as the holy Sam L Jackson once said “hold on to your butts”.

It's extremely weird to me that a single non-pants shitting performance from a guy whose spent the past five years constantly and loudly shitting his pants would actually sway anyone at this point. But, people are stupid so I guess we'll see.

I agree with this tduds. I only watched a small portion of it before I turned it off to get some work done. I've got it DVRed and will finish watching today, most likely. But from what I saw, I could see the headlines being written about how Trump appeared presidential, or that his campaign is pivoting before the election, or whatever. From what I saw, he didn't perform well, he just didn't wet himself ... but when the bar of expectations is set so low, it's pretty easy to clear it if you exercise even a small amount of restraint or decorum. If this changes anything at all, it will simply be to give people who were on the fence about voting for Trump an excuse to not feel guilty about doing it. I don't have the time to look it up now, but after the first debate there was this white donor bemoaning that Trump couldn't even denounce white supremacy and that Trump had lost his vote. He then followed up with if he denounced it now, he could get his vote back or something like that. People are too stupid, or too eager to give Trump all the chances he needs. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, as long as you apologize and your tax breaks are nice, I'll vote for you again ... ad nauseum.

I think that people who can easily be swayed by such debate + post debate click-bait headlines already vote trump.

I watched the whole thing. Trump started out strong but halfway through lost his mind, just making things up from thin air. Meanwhile Biden continues to be a terrible speaker. Overall it was a nightmare but no surprise there.

I don't think Biden claims to be a great speaker. Quite the opposite, if memory serves.

^ begs the question: does Trump claim to be a great liar? I mean on the one hand, yes he does lie a lot, but on the other hand it's not great if he gets caught in those lies all the time. Also, does he claim (while playing the invisible accordion) to be the biggest and best liar?

"he won because Hillary was a disingenuous unlikable swamp creature...they picked another 2 disingenuous unlikable swamp creatures" 

Stats suggest otherwise. 

2016: "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton head into the final hours of the 2016 presidential campaign with the worst election-eve images of any major-party presidential candidates ... Trump's image is worse than Clinton's, however, with 61% viewing him negatively on the 10-point scale compared with 52% for her." (https://news.gallup.com/poll/197231/trump-clinton-finish-historically-poor-images.aspx) 

2018:" Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's favorability with U.S. adults is unchanged from last November -- remaining at a record low (36%)." (https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx) 

2020: "President Donald Trump and Joe Biden differ most on likability: 66% of U.S. adults believe Biden is likable, while 36% say Trump is." (https://news.gallup.com/poll/321695/americans-view-biden-likable-honest-trump-strong.aspx) Kamala Harris is just about even in polls but her "favorability" has only risen since her VP Nom. (https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/trackers/kamala-harris-favorability)

I honestly still have no idea who will win. It's a strange election in a strange time with a strange candidate and basically silo'd parallel universes of facts. But the idea that Biden/Harris are "just as bad" as Hillary (which, itself, was a self-fulfilling fabrication), isn't really borne out if you ignore the pundits & actually look at how people view them. Nevermind that Trump is *more* unlikeable than any of them. All that said, he might still win because of our weird way of electing a president.

a) there is 0 evidence that trump is in a better position than when he ran in 2016 (he was unknown, now he is known) and b) biden is far more popular than clinton- just because you don't personally like him doesn't mean that the country feels otherwise. they can see the objective difference between the two, and it's big.

if you look at all the evidence, without massive cheating and corruption, it is pretty clear that biden will win. this has been the most stable race in decades. anyone that has been definitively claiming a trump win is coming from extra-partisan pollsters (trafalgar, rasmussen) or are relying on anecdotal evidence from the last election, which is a big logical mistake.

it surprises me though how many people are caught up in the media's motivation to portray it as a close race, both because of their fear of 2016 and because it pays to portray things are closer and more exciting.

"without massive cheating and corruption" Which is a non-zero possibility, of course.

yes, for sure. can it happen on the scale necessary? i'm skeptical. certainly a possibility. the narrative "but the polls" though is getting tiring and really not based in reality.

"if you think..." Nobody's making endorsements here, just describing reality.

"the vast majority of people voting for trump, which does DEFINITELY not describe me, i just happen to know how they think and feel.."

x-jla wrote

"The vast majority of people voting trump are silent about it because of fear of physical assault . . ."

Please provide sources that where someone has been physically assaulted because they said they supported Trump.  I'm sure it has happened but you make it sound like it's a common occurrence and I just don't see any data backing that up. 

chad, there's little/no data backing up most, if not all xjla's claims

Not living under a rock - I simply wanted to see what you'd come up with as evidence. Two of the three links you provided are pure bullshit. All three of them are instances of people protesting and fighting each other. In once instance the trump supporter was quoted saying that they was out looking for someone to take issue with him. Sounds like they where all looking for a confrontation. Your original post implied that the vast majority of people voting for trump are silent because of concern they would be physically assaulted. That's a far cry from someone going out, shouting pro Trump slogans, looking for a fight and getting one.  Nice try.  

I said it elsewhere but I'll repeat: The so-called "silent majority" is neither silent nor a majority.

RIP my inbox

xlax, you're right, people are afraid to voice their support for the democrat(ically) elected governors and politicians because the far right is becoming increasingly unhinged, threatening to kidnap them.

what was that about those leftist looters? seems like we should be more afraid of the zealots who carry the guns

"Feds say far-right group coordinated attack on Minneapolis police precinct during protest"

"The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota on Friday announced that the FBI brought charges against a member of the far-right “Boogaloo Bois” group for organizing and participating in an effort to “incite a riot” outside a Minneapolis police precinct in May amid protests against the police killing of George Floyd"

https://thehill.com/homenews/n...

xlax- what about the far righters who coordinated the attack on the minneapolis police headquarters? please respond to the real news.

https://thehill.com/homenews/n...

"AP finds most arrested in protests aren’t leftist radicals"

https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748

i can do this all day too..

citing isolated incidents does not prove that a) biden supporters aren't equally silent out of fear of right wingers like the boogaloo boys or the idiots who threatened to kidnap the governor of michigan or the guy who was ready to go murder biden who was arrested recently or that b) the majority of those inciting violence are "left-wingers" (see ap article)

^this is so subjective i'm not sure how you can claim it as a fact. not to mention varies wildly based on where you live. governors are being threatened for supporting biden and pushing back against trump; i'm a little more concerned about that than people being "canceled" on social media platforms that most americans could give two shits about.

it's hard to take you seriously when you rely on such subjective hyperbole. not to mention the media has loved the narrative about looting and violence via blm, which is "leftist" according to your world view.

my broader point is everything you cite as fact in actually an opinion, and there are just as many stories (most from reputable news sources) that claim otherwise.

the gas-lighting.. i'm done. maybe you should take a break too- i'm sure posting at the rate you do isn't helping your health.

"AP finds most arrested in protests aren't leftist radicals"
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748

I love that if I criticize jla for a fallacy, within a few days he's using the criticism on others like he knows what he's talking about. 

Narrator: ... but it's apparent to everyone he does not know what he's talking about.

I mean, I wouldn't call it "rent free" ... but I definitely have some space on lease.

there is supposed to be a voice in the back of jla's head, sort of like a conscious, that says 'it was ok for you to type stuff about rwandan genocide, but here's where you don't push the "post" button.'

xlax, you are incredibly simple-minded, inventing counter-arguments yet again.

no one claimed there weren't negative consequences to being a trump voter. what we were arguing is that your claim that this can be extrapolated to a mythical shy voter that won't anonymously tell polls they are voting for trump, hence making polls fake, is a ridiculous logical jump that at best requires a lot of assumptions, with no data to back it up.

here's an anecdote that i won't use to try to argue broader speculations, but leave at just that: try wearing a mask in rural wyoming. or tell them you live in the city.. you'll get yelled at about freedom, america, etc.

I have no problem with the supporters of autocrats being taken to task for supporting autocrats.

i can see you're priming your goal-shifting responses when you're wrong on this

archi-Dude, I’ve *now* had done bourbon so I’m here to say: Skedaddle off with your faux wide-eyed naive innocence about human rights being taken away under this SCOTUS. It’s going to happen and you won’t mind until it affects you directly. It’ll be too late by then, tho.

Just look at the current state of Poland when talking about taking away human rights slowly but surely: new government-friendly supreme court voted in by parliament, new pro-government journalists at national tv, they basically killed abortion, very much anti-LGBTQ (special LGBTQ-free zones), basically no free elections possible with government controlling the media and fake news being broadcast 24/7 on national tv, denial of science, religious propaganda as part of school curriculum to bread the next generation of mindless drones, etc.

There are no such things as 'rights' x-jla. There are just government allowed privileges'. A right cannot be taken away, a privilege can. Any 'right' that you think the constitution or the bill of rights establishes can be taken away from anyone, at any time by the government, the courts, or a private citizen.

Seems appropriate in this context: https://www.theonion.com/holocaust-survivors-recall-exact-day-holocaust-started-1830685498

"They honestly believe that employers providing free condoms is a natural “right”" 

No "they" don't. No one says this.

Somebody call 250 years of supreme court analysis, jla has figured it out once & for all.

The suggestion that only the young, supposedly uneducated people only know Trump is bad because of Facebook says more about your intelligence than theirs.

The constitution guarantees no such rights. It's up to the people to ensure that such rights are provided. Any 'right' can be and often are taken away from anyone. They're not 'rights' if they can be taken away.

The right-leaning courts are very activist. That's the whole game. It's an active dismantling of the liberally activist court of our parents' generation. The courts have always been political. They've always been ideological. We just complain about ideologies that aren't ours. That's fine, but admit it. I'm happy to admit it.

The idea that people are opposing Barrett primarily because of her Catholicism is a right-media plant. I've yet to hear a single serious statement claiming that, but I've seen hundreds of counter-statements claiming that everyone is claiming that. Meanwhile the Democratic nominee for President is a practicing Catholic...

As I've said before, there are plenty of *actual* statements that you can argue for or against if you'd like. There's no need to invent new ones, unless you have no leg to stand on otherwise...

Catholicism is a convenient victim card. I have first-hand experience with that.

on the plus side, bourbon is good

I didn’t have any bourbon until after I posted this, curtkram.

The right loves this virus. It's an excuse to cut the social safety net and disenfranchise more voters. It's a perfect opportunity to further cement permanent anti-majoritarian rule and pursue their largely unpopular policy agenda without consequence. Mark my words.

What's important is not that we work together towards a common goal of public health, but that we obsess over our paranoid fever dreams of the opposition boogie man taking over.

That's an extremely generous reading.

I was being facetious / hyperbolic in response to jla's equally hyperbolic (but apparently serious) claim.

I saw where you said that & told you how stupid it was.

Since no one asked, here's a good essay that roughly aligns with how I actually feel: https://slate.com/news-and-pol...

"When Judge Amy Coney Barrett was being vetted for her lifetime position on the highest court in the land, she declined to answer even straightforward questions about presidential powers and voter intimidation. She declined to give serious responses to the follow-up Senate questionnaires probing even the simplest legal issues. She would not say, for instance, whether it’s a crime to vote twice, or whether Article II allows Trump to “do whatever I want,” or whether a judge’s ethnic or racial heritage constitutes bias. She wouldn’t answer questions about whether women seeking to terminate their pregnancies could face capital punishment. 

 The refusal to answer even the simplest yes/no questions about what black letter law means, and who it binds, has the effect—intentional or not—of unsettling what was once widely accepted and understood. It’s the judicial equivalent of “flooding the zone with shit“ and the result is the same when it’s done in law as it is when it’s done in media—it renders all that was known to be certain as indeterminate and up for grabs. It puts us all at the mercy of powerful deciders and consolidates the power to decide those newly open questions in an authority figure. It recalibrates both truth and power as emanating from someone else."

Frankly, jla, I'm surprised that you - of all people - are cool with this kind of naked power-flex by the GOP. It's openly anti-democratic.

"The constitution is what balances power." lol

Much like guns don't kill people.. people balance power.

But in the real world it's the results that count. Trump didn't invade any country illegal, didn't start any war one-sidedly, he is simply using trade and economic pressure against America's adversaries instead of the bombs and drones of his predecessors and the loss of life that comes with those. He is the president of peace as far as the rest of the world is concerned. His handling of corona is way off, but that is insignificant on a global scale, people would have died under Obama, Hillary or Biden too, maybe more maybe less, we don't know how long this will still last, you can lockdown only for so long. Some countries might think they're safe only to get bitten in the ass with another wave. And his handling of climate change, how many here stopped flying, have an electric car, solar panels on their roof or a wind turbine in their yard, or design using only reclaimed or renewable building materials? It is so easy to point fingers at the leadership (or lack thereof) without being the change you want to see happen, no?

@randomise @volunteer you both appear to have drunk the Fox News koolaid ... read the court papers http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/10/20/ms_l_v_us_immigration_and_customs_enforcement__casdce-18-00428__0556.0.pdf

[citations needed]

No I haven't drunk that koolaid TED. Domestic US immigration policy is totally irrelevant for matters in the rest of the world, just like the American handling of Covid does not matter at all. What does matter is how the US is handling China or how the US is behaving in the Middle East.

So, thumbs down because the US hasn't invaded any foreign country or started any (illegal) war under Trump...noted!

We ("the US") assassinated a foreign official, dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in history, and have more or less continued drone strikes, increasing civilian casualties relative to past administrations. The main accomplishment of the Trump admin has been to quietly remove the requirements for disclosure. How does that square with "peace"?

That MOAB was dropped to kill IS-terrorists and according to the BBC didn't kill any civilians, Trump still didn't start any illegal war or invaded a foreign country. In absolute terms Trump is responsible for much less civilian deaths in the wars and conflicts started by his predecessors and unfortunately some still dragging on. And that foreign official was a good kill and likely prevented further escalation of the tensions between US and Iran and saved many lives both American and Iranian...

Hey new page! Never look back.

Being a complete nerd, I've thought a lot about how I'd construct each branch from scratch. So I'll kick this off with how I think the Supreme Court could be fixed (or "checked"), given a relatively blank slate: 

1) 12 circuits, 12 justices. Every circuit has one elevated to the supreme court. If a justice from the 6th circuit retires or dies, their replacement must come from the 6th circuit. And so on. If the US grows to the point where circuits are added, the supreme court automatically grows proportionally. This is more or less how the court was originally, but the two levels diverged in the mid-19th century.

2) Now that we have an even number, ties are a possibility. This is *good*! One vote should never make or break the entire nation's policy. A just ruling would command a significant majority. In a tie, the lower decision stands. 

3) Term limits. Longer terms than the president (12 years maybe?) and one re-nomination (that must be re-confirmed by the Senate). So no justice can serve more than two terms. After their supreme court tenure expires they can return to their circuit, or retire. 

4) I've also lately been thinking about a 2/3 requirement for Senate confirmation. Until recently most justices were overwhelmingly if not unanimously confirmed, and the few that weren't turned out to be some of the worst justices. Requiring a 2/3 majority would, I think, temper some of the naked partisanship that's taken hold in nominations recently.

Those are my fantasy thoughts.

What would you call the explicitly stated goal of appointing justices to overturn Roe v. Wade then?

"Activism" is when politicians do politics I don't like.

A good idea.

Since an apolitical judiciary is a fantasy, I would prefer a political judiciary that I align with to a political judiciary that I think is actively regressive. Like I said earlier about a slightly different topic, the least the right could do is admit it wants the same.

"SCOTUS works fine" Because of interpretation. Laws are written with intent. Politics has latched onto those judges whose bias’s align with their political aspirations and agendas. For instance; in 1857 the Supreme Court 7 to 2 found that Congress does not have the authority to ban slavery since slaves were property and therefore protected by the 5th amendment against the government seizing personal property. Black people were legally defined as property by the US Supreme Court stacked with democrats (who were the racist party back then). Those kinds of bias’s start Civil Wars…

you never answered my question jla. What would you call it?

tduds, I like your blank slate approach. I've pretty much rejected any plan that tries to put in place term limits because of how the constitution has been interpreted to allow tenure for life. I don't really have a preferred approach, but I am interested to see what Dems are willing to do. I think whatever they do the biggest obstacle is likely to be selling the plan to the public. Repubs won't let them do anything without a fight. Their only hope would be to get the public on their side or the midterms (assuming they get the Senate and presidency next week) will be a bloodbath.

The constitution has also been interpreted to accept amendments ;) 

Wishful thinking, I know...

Yeah, constitutional amendments is another thing I've given up on in the current political environment. I saw some people lamenting the chipping away at RvW, and their solution was for a democratic congress and presidency to pass laws guaranteeing rights. When it was pointed out that a conservative SCOTUS could declare those laws unconstitutional, they responded that we should amend the constitution. 

Ok, I won't stand in your way, but I'd rather spend my time proving the existence of unicorns, Santa Claus, or Bigfoot. It would probably be more productive.

I'm not saying you're taking your own thoughts too seriously though. You've been clear from the start that they are fantasy.

I believe the process is broken.

Time to post my most favorite historical document! 

"...no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right" 

-"Popular Basis of Political Authority" Thomas Jefferson. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html

No discussion of the constitution is complete without recognizing that the writers of the document argued that it should be temporary and constantly re-written.

What does it say about the process when the justices that are part of the main process are originalists?

Plus, weren't you the guy on the previous page saying the process for selecting the president is the problem, but now we are supposed to trust the process for selecting SCOTUS justices!? You must realize who picks the justices, right? If the selection process to select the person who gets to select the justices is problematic, doesn't that mean the whole process is problematic?

"Trust the process" ... GTFO!

But originalists can be progressive too, if they think something can't or shouldn't be decided by the supreme court (out of scope of constitution) it is up to the states, the people, and not just 4+1 justices, right? Seems quite progressive to let voters decide on matters and not just some 4+1 old justices whose ruling can only be overturned by themselves, if they feel like it. Yes they made a progressive ruling in '73, but they also reinstated the death penalty in '76...

"...because of money in politics..." your favorite originalists were all over Citizens United weren't they?

I look forward to a correct usage of "originalist" arriving in this thread at some point.

tduds, not sure if that was in part directed at me, but I'll explain anyway. If not for your sake, for jla's. 

What I meant when I tied the originalists to Citizens United was that while the majority opinion was not written based on an originalist reading of the case, the other opinions (the dissent, and Scalia's concurrence) were very much involved in arguing whether or not originalism applied to the decision. From an article about whether or not the decision in Citizens United can be defended as originalist: 

"Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas, wrote a concurrence that advanced an originalist theory why corporations should be able to make unlimited corporate expenditures expressly advocating the election or defeat of political candidates. 

"Justice Scalia wrote his concurrence to rebut Justice Stevens's own historical exposition, which argued that corporations had no right at the time of the framing of the Constitution to engage in political speech. Justice Stevens pointed out that, to the extent that it was possible to discern the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and that these intentions were relevant to the case, they tended to undermine the majority's position." 

I'm not claiming to be an expert on originalism or the court, so instead I'll quote some more from the article: 

"Thus, we conclude that however Citizens United is rationalized, it cannot be defended solely or primarily as the product of a disciplined application of the originalist method of constitutional interpretation. Because Citizens United takes a view at odds both with the historical understanding of business corporations' legal subordination to the decisions made by elected legislators and the lengthy history of federal and state legislation restricting the involvement of for-profit corporations in the political process, it can be fairly described as more 'original' than originalist." 

So I find it odd that jla is trying to defend the ruling in Citizens United while simultaneously trying to defend originalism, and claim that SCOTUS is not dictating policy but simply ruling on constitutionality based on slow and well vetted original intent. 

Anyway, if jla (or anyone else) wants to read more to get a better understanding of originalism in the context of Citizens United, here's the article in the Notre Dame Law Review.

Just so we're clear then, your defense of the legality for Citizens United is not one that is based on originalism. Rather you're defending it based on the concept of a living constitution being interpreted not on the original meaning, but on the context of the current times. 

I only bring it up because that seems at odds with your earlier comment, "First amendment for instance. Do we want that to be easily tinkered with? Do you not want an originalist to interpret the first amendment?"

"Justice Stevens pointed out that, to the extent that it was possible to discern the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and that these intentions were relevant to the case, they tended to undermine the majority's position." (emphasis mine) 

But I suppose you're free to keep digging. If it were me though, and I found myself in the type of hole you're in. I'd read the article I posted.

You pointed out above that the courts look at these things on very technical grounds whereas we might take a more overall view of the big picture. I think you're getting a little too big picture with your understanding of originalism. That's another thing I was trying to point out with Citizens United. You're big picture view of the intention of the first amendment as it should apply to corporations does not hold up under a technical scrutiny based on originalism (read the article and you'll get a lot more information on how originalism works). If you're trying to understand how the original intent was understood, you need to dig into the historical context, but you're not. So excuse me if I'd rather not get into your flawed understanding of originalism and how it applies to other amendments. 

Can we get back to the original topic I was trying to discuss, namely, what plans people like for rebalancing the court?

I read an article suggesting poison pills into new legislation as a means to spoil the use of SCOTUS as a back door to political power by the minority party. I quite liked it.

link?

@tdus, you might enjoy this. it's a 12 part thing, the 12th part sort of talks about how to hack government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm-L9cIRdmY&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5BMjoxHASNb0uGK_XQrUx9D

Ah, I see he's now joined the 10k+ comment club.

It takes a village.

He's like our own little slice of /realDonaldTrump

To be fair to jla he's not *nearly* that bad. Intelligent & occasionally reasoned, but imo overly contrarian to the point of unintentionally making bad faith arguments.

Because some states want more people to vote, and some states want fewer people to vote.

That‘s one of those things that shouldn’t be state regulated...

^ and they tried to change that because of the current extenuating circumstances. Why do you think the change shouldn't be allowed? Why should the federal judiciary tell a state how to regulate their voting process?

I haven't verified all the information, but I took a sampling and they check out. For tduds' sake, here is the pertinent information for Oregon: 

For Utah, because I was curious about the postmark the day before election day, here is that: 

All of this is pretty easily found online with the State's Secretary of State office or voter information pamphlet.

"limit" is an interesting verb choice there.

Also, no. Re-read A rticle II

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." 

There is no federal law requiring a popular presidential vote. In the first couple, a number of states had no popular vote, and simply appointed electors to vote on the states' behalf.

Sorry I accidentally hijacked the thread by referencing this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-rights.html Which I incorrectly assumed was referenced in the buzzfeed link.

That's only for selecting the Pres and VP. Article I talks about voting for congress and it's pretty clearly spelled out that it's a state's right to figure out how to hold elections. Some amendments make it clear that voting rights cannot be taken based on race, sex, or age above 18, but as far as I know there is not explicit right given that you have the right to vote and that it is governed on a federal level.

i think kavanaugh just wanted to get out ahead of what's about to happen with his consenting opinion, so we know he intends to decide the election.

have you read any of the articles about the mistakes and/or errors in Kavanaugh's opinion?

Here's one from Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-pol...

Kavanaugh's doing a great job painting himself as exactly the sort of dangerous idiot his appointment hearings suggested he would be. I don't even have a surprised face any more.

i understand what you're saying EA, but that's not what's happening. it's like, kavanaugh gets to decide if kavanaugh is right or not, and he's telling us he's going to decide the election. if the president does something opposed to the constitution, that's what the supreme court is for. if congress does something opposed to the constitution that's what the supreme court is for. if the supreme court does something opposed to the constitution. . . between this and corruption in the senate under mcconnell's leadership, we're seeing some real flaws in our system that were always hidden because people used to be decent.

What do you think I'm saying? I don't even know that I've put anything forward as something I'm trying to say. My response above about Article II being for selection of the Pres and VP, was supposed to be right after tdud's comment about rereading Article II, but apparently I took too long drafting it. My statement about Article I was to give some more context to an individual's right to vote as being handled by the states and why each state has different rules. 

My later comment about Kavanaugh was just to chime in and add some fuel to the discussion about his consenting opinion in the Wisconsin decision. I'm not trying to make any larger statement by that other than the opinion apparently has some factual issues. You could take that to mean what SneakyPete commented, or in some other way I suppose. I'm not knowledgeable enough to try to make any sort of larger statement from it (like does a SCOTUS opinion matter if it can be shown that it was based on flawed logic or "facts" that weren't true?).

Relying on people's good faith usually works up until there's people involved.

The SCOTUS commentary on twitter has been interesting regarding the PA decision yesterday. Basically boils down to signaling in the opinions that if republicans are leading on election night, they can bring the case back to the court to decide if the late-arriving ballots should count. If they aren't leading, they don't have to do anything and they might gain some ground with the late-arriving ballots. 

You gotta hand it to them, they're learning from their opinions just earlier this week and leaving multiple options open for how they can decide the election.

As expected you did not read the link. Back on ignore you go.

The "imperfect" implementation of the law is a feature, not a flaw, of conservatism. That's the thrust of the original quote. You're, again, arguing - albeit well - against a point that was not made.

statements like [x-jlas] that attempt to paint [leftism] as a disease, ignores their ecological niche.

"I’m not arguing for conservativism, and don’t consider myself a conservative" 

I didn't say you were.

I also feel like you're arguing abstract philosophical ideals of conservatism while ignoring non-abstract behaviors of current self-styled "Conservatives" (though I wouldn't personally call them that) in power today. As usual, it's a misunderstanding of definitions. 

these mixed metaphors have been excruciatingly tortured to fit your personal narrative.

if you stop viewing various wings of the political spectrum as monolithic blocks, and instead view them as elements that are all sprinkled throughout different aspects of our whole system, then you'll find that "leftism" does indeed exists within the"framework," and has for a long time. there was quite a robust socialist party in oklahoma in the early 1900s, and many of our favorite institutions are socialist: libraries, for example, allow anyone to use books, computers, and other resources at no cost, regardless of income or social status.

at the end of the day, i'm much more interested in conversations that operate through nuance and material reality, in other words concrete things, instead of those that exist in abstract, over-generalized ideologies that dumb down such conversations into dualistic, but unrealistic, fights.

waiting for... BUT POL POT

The modern Republican party is conservative outside the framework.

Are going to define "framework" or just leave it vague enough that things you think are good are within it and everything else is out?

xjlax, could be the most accurate thing you've ever said.

Thanks for defining Framework. I like that concept and agree. And also stand by my prior statement about the Republican Party.

who are you and what have you done with jxlax. is this part of the wisconsin hack?

grasping at straws...

This guy called 2016 correctly, he’s calling Trump: https://www.google.nl/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-pollster-who-thinks-trump-will-win-11604011863

Seeing how people get attacked for simply wearing a MAGA hat I can’t believe all people will openly admit on the phone during a survey that they are considering voting Trump. The social pressure in certain parts of society to stay in line and follow the politically correct narrative (on the surface that is) will (unfortunately) once again surprise people. Even here on archinect you can see that anyone who won’t vote Biden is treated as a kind of leper and somehow comes under attack. We’ll see, just a few more days...

Seeing how people get [threatened by militia to be kidnapped and murdered] for [challenging trump] I can’t believe all people will openly admit on the phone during a survey that they are considering voting [Biden].

it's easy to play the speculation game, and one can speculate about shy biden voters just as easily as shy trump voters. it's impossible to quantify these things. so, we have two analysts who called 2016 correctly and see entirely different realities. like you said, we'll see.

i'm going off the fact that polls have never been wrong enough to close this large of a gap. maybe they will be, but based on history, if these results hold, it's incredibly unlikely.

https://twitter.com/baseballot...

There's only a few of those, can't honestly compare them. But let's wait and see if there are hidden secret Biden voters out there, that will be the gamechanger this time.

here's a more clear one; of course we know what happened in 2016, and the predictions about the electoral college were wrong, but the popular vote was pretty accurate:

https://twitter.com/PpollingNu...

I'd like to take this moment to remind all Americans that the Canadian border remains closed. Also, it's already snowing.

NS - would you be willing to sponsor my wife, dog, and I for Canadian citizenship? Both of them are adorable and awesome. I'd be able to assist you with snarky architectural comments . ..

“ or the that they other half of the country is dumb” ...

i think i know which half are the that they

don't need an election to tell us half the country is dumb

even the tiniest bit of digging into climate policies reveals the indisputable fact that biden will be better for the environment- even if he were to simply reinstate obama's fuel efficiency standards (which he will go beyond), your dumb argument is proved wrong.

i don't mind someone stating the opinion that nothing will change, but arguing that people who think a biden presidency will change things, at all, are dumb, is a strange position that sets the bar for proving you wrong incredibly low.

It’s not that if you vote for the “right” candidate you are suddenly not dumb...most people are dumb, the word you’re looking for is stupid. People can’t help being dumb but stupidity is usually preventable...

agreed, i didn't vote biden in the primary. but settle for biden or go down in flames with trump; i'll take settling

I wouldn't use the word "rigged" but I think we'd find most in here agree that the "enthusiasm" is misplaced.

Biden win there will likely only be a few small pockets of violence. If trump declares victory before votes are counted and/or refuses to concede there will be massive protests - but I think we will end up being ok. If Trump wins we’ve got a huge problem - not only will there be massive protests, but it will also embolden right wing extremists to turn even more violent toward protestors. The fact that they’re building a massive wall around the White House is not a good sign.

"which entirely consisted of innocent flag waving" 

Weird lookin' flags they got here.

If the election and the results are seen as legitimate and the participants agree to a abide by the results in a peaceful way, I don't think their followers will protest all that much. And when they do, it will probably be peaceful. 

Unfortunately, one of the candidates has been sowing seeds of doubt in the process usually contingent on if he wins, it's legitimate ... and if he loses, it's because of fraud or an illegitimate process. 

Also unfortunately, the party that candidate belongs to has also been trying to disenfranchise voters. The result is that both sides will call foul if their candidate loses. One side because they've been manipulated to distrust the system even if it is legitimate, and the other because it is apparent that the process had been rigged against them. 

It's probably too late to expect for peace after the election. I'll hope for it, but I don't expect it.

Wave that flag all the way to the governor's house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_plot

The president said this crime was good because it targeted his opponent. Explain in your own words why this isn't fascist. https://twitter.com/mcbyrne/status/1322566702048153600

I seem to remember folks getting real upset about blocking highways when black folks did it. https://news.yahoo.com/trump-supporters-spend-weekend-clogging-201629986.html

"I tuned into msnbc to see what bs they were peddling." Well there's your problem.

The reaction is different because the action is different. 

Folks blocked highways for BLM to get people to pay attention to ignored violence against black bodies. I supported the action because I supported the cause. But if you're against that you can't say "I'm fine with violence against black bodies" so you make it abstract, you make it about the inconvenience, you say "I support you but it's the principle of your actions. You can't block highways." 

Then some dumb motherfuckers go out and block a highway cause they want their cult leader to stay president, and all those people who were so high & mighty a bout the sanctity of highways are suddenly nowhere to be found. Because they were never really against the action, they were against the cause.

But as soon as somebody points out that the dumb motherfuckers are dumb motherfuckers, you can come back with BUT YOU WERE OK WHEN BLACK LIVES MATTER DID IT.

Apples and Airplanes, my man.

(*airplanes. because oranges are a lot like apples, when you think about it)

It's pretty annoying that I've had the same ten or so conversations so many fucking times in the past few years that I can cough up a few hundred word counterpoint with so little effort. Get some new arguments, dorks.

Thanks for your analysis. Local police can definitely always be trusted to get the facts right.

Why was the truck where it was, again?

Oh, right. For the same reason Kyle Rittenhouse decided to go play soldier in a different state.

I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. TEACHER HE HIT ME!

Hey, I can pull up shit too! Remember the murder they tried to pin on protestors when it was right wing boogaloo morons?

Video is not in any way conclusive, as the jockeying for position is not shown as the camera pans away. Regardless, the truck had no reason to be there except to provoke. Regardless of the human who broke the law, the truck should not have been there. If you're only interested in finding out who was in the wrong lane, you have willfully missed the point.

I had to turn x-lax back on to reply, and holy fucking shit the whataboutism and false equivalency and hard pulling to force everything to fit in his world view is nauseating, even for a glance.

Willful ignorance has never looked good on you, dude. But you do you.

Everyone tries to fit everything into their world view. It's a very basic function of our evolutionary cognition.

edit: I had a whole thing here but, nevermind. Bedtime.

Similarly, election night coverage is bad and no one should watch it.

An election night conclusion to the election is a fabrication by and for television news. It creates a "Sports Championship" narrative that runs counter to - and this year may actively undermine - fair democratic process .

As a matter of fact, even if dems win they can claim voter suppression. Republicans have made sure of that.

x-jla do you not watch or read the news? Where have you been the last decade?

Strike that, reverse it.

All that talk about Russia or China, the States have meddled in plenty of elections over the last couple of decades, have ousted democratically chosen officials all over the globe and now, because the establishment's candidate might not win (again) it is suddenly Russia and/or China interfering and stealing the elections or something...boohoo crocodile tears. Perhaps there's a lesson in here...

i strongly disagree with the notion that the polls are worthless. are they flawed? yes. but what would be the alternative? the truth is while imperfect, they are the best tools we have to understanding elections, scientifically, in real time; otherwise, we'd be inundated with gross speculation. think xjlax 24/7.

2016 was off, but if you look at it closely, it was actually pretty accurate in terms of popular vote. and 2018 was even more accurate. the key is to manage expectations relative to data that will never be 100% accurate. but there is still a lot of useful information polls provide.

frankly i'm surprised at how many educated folks are willing to throw empiricism out the door, but i guess it's a sign of the times.

some [polls] are more equal than others!

"2016 was off" Not by as much as people think.

Why do we need to *understand* elections? They are not supposed to be a set of rules to dissect and manipulate, they are supposed to gather peoples personal opinion. Polls demonstrably do NOT assist in this and instead create stress, chaos, and LOTS OF CASH for people who do not deserve it.

I "liked" SPs statement but I also agree with square. that the polls aren't completely worthless. I do think they create a news item that doesn't really mean much to the average news consumer, except to make them feel like they are not alone in their views (which they probably didn't need anyway). I think they get over used and under analyzed by the general news media and I think it a backwards type of way they probably further polarize people and feed the "us vs. them" narrative. That's why I don't really like them used as much for "news." 

For the empirical, scientific-understanding-of-the-electorate purpose ... yes, I do think they are helpful. However, in order to really use them properly for that, it is probably beyond most people's expertise. That type of analysis doesn't usually lend itself to a quick soundbite for cable news.

EA, as usual, has written a much more nuanced explanation of my emotional screed.

My opinion has little to do with 2016. I do not care if polls are right or wrong, I want to get to a place where the next election cycle isn't in the news the day after the fucking inauguration ceremony is over. Polls cause the opposite of that wish.

i think use (or misuse) of the polls causes this- but i very much agree with the sentiment.

Today I learned I use the word screed wrong.

Like I said elsewhere, the whole media craze around elections has 'sportsified' politics. The election day has to be the big finale, and polls have to exist so they can "keep score". It's all for and by television, and no one should watch it.

Say what you will about the sportsification of politics and polling, but I just wasted a good portion of my afternoon playing with the interactive map at 538. 

270 to win is fun too, but doesn't react the same way as 538's map which pulls information from their election model (based on polling data) to update the likelihood of other states. Gotta do something to pass the time.

Maps are fun.

This is also fun: https://twitter.com/existentialfish/status/1323752032000450570

^ I actually turned on Fox News to verify those weren't photoshops. I don't claim to have verified them all, but the ones I saw were legit.

how many videos do you need to see of cars harassing campaign buses, grieved white men walking around the streets with military rifles, and attempted plots against sitting dem governors? violence against property is one thing; violence against people is always worse. of course there is violence on the left, but what we see on the right should terrify you at least equally. your blindness on this one is incredible.

suspicious dots appearing outside biden supporter's homes. https://www.newsweek.com/california-blue-dots-joe-biden-roseville-1544292

(Sarcasm) Only the left riots and loots...

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/522509-feds-say-far-right-group-coordinated-attack-on-minneapolis-police-precinct

how do you objectively quantify something like "the left is more unhinged?"

hint: you can't, which is why it's impossible to take you seriously.

.

"If they were afraid of Trump's rednecks why wouldn't they put signs up saying they were KKK supporters to placate them?" 

Or they are putting up signs that say what they actually believe, so putting up racist slogans favoring the red hat klan would be reprehensible?

And you don't know about color blindness but feel entitled to use it as an analogy. Kind of you in a nutshell, when you think about it.

for one thing, systemic racism is actually bad. for ano ther thing, wtaf? https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-329-since-1994-antifa-killed-none-2020-7

Ignore it all you want exlax because you are *clearly* so above it all - I mean seriously, you’re so cool - but this country is an abject failure.

x-jla, you are the biggest moron on this site and I have no idea why you are even allowed to post here. You have literally nothing to offer in terms of topic of architecture. You constantly spam political BS and little else. Can you like... just leave?

I'm calling it a night, but thought I'd post this here if it might help anyone with their stress, anxiety or whatever. Looks like Fox News is way out ahead of the other news organizations in calling states, and even with everything they have filled in on their map, 538 still gives Biden quite a favorable outcome based on their model with those states filled in. It could all still be wrong, but if it helps anyone sleep a little better, well that's probably not a bad thing.

liberty bell didn't threaten to burn the country down, she said the country deserves to burn to the ground, that's not the same, not by a long shot...

jlax, you’re unwilling to engage with the actual problem, just to throw simplistic “solutions” that absolve you of having to be challenged by anything you don’t like. You’re the perfect encapsulation of the moronic me-first attitude in this country. I could let her live with me and also I could leave the country. There are a million reasons why neither of those are actual workable solutions. But your inability to engage in complex thought processes means that’s all ya got.

Also: thanks, randomised. But seriously, that fine a distinction is way above jlax’s mental ability. He sees what he wants to see, nothing else.

.

“...big problems that you are not willing to address on a microcosmic scale“ this is exactly what I AM doing god you’re dumb.

xlax, you don't need to respond to every statement you disagree with and turn it into an abstract ideological argument. there are a lot of emotions and anxiety going around, everywhere.

some people need to vent.. just let it go.

the decriminalisation of drugs

Oregon is great. Wish the rest of this place would hurry up & get their shit together already.

source: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/29/2020-polls-trump-biden-prediction-accurate-2016-433619

"expressing an opinion outside the mainstream" is a funny way to say pro-fascism.

I don’t think those very fine people even know what fascism is.

It's too early in the morning to go that dark, dude. You need a day off.

Never! Also, I get up at 5:30am so it's practically lunch time for me already.

You hiring? The personal evacuation likelihood has probably gone up over the last 24 hours.

Bench, maybe... I know I'm quickly getting swamped, but I know others are looking at lighter work loads so not sure if we're in need of staff (or can even provide you with a comparable offer to what you get in M'erica Town...). Anyways, you know how to get in contact with me so if you're serious, I can at least throw out some feelers to my office and my colleagues'.

I jest for now (I think...), but much appreciated. This place is... a bit loopy.

Well I told my wife that if Trump wins I'm buying an AR.

pew pew pew.

.

x-jla wrote:

'Good luck, they are completely sold out everywhere.'

Not where I live.  We have several gun shops that have them and are allowing you to build them with their in stock parts. 

It starts to look like you don’t need to buy one, lucky you!

Gowd I hope so!

NS - Don't forget the pig firing crossbow mount.

Regardless of who wins & what happens I'll be getting a gun soon. Been procrastinating way too long. Not for self-defense, but not against using it that way if it ever needed to be.

WTF are you talking about?

The idiot Cubanos in FL

What did they do?  I think the overwhelming white population voting for Trump.

If you (generally, not calling anyone out specifically) haven't read any of the articles about the lack of homogeneity in the "latino" or "hispanic" demographic yet ... you should find some and look it up. Even calling the demographic by those names can be argued as to what they represent. Still waiting to see how it all plays out, but there will be more written about this in the coming days/weeks with what looks like Trump winning FL and Biden winning AZ and potentially NV (still too close to call).

The idea that Biden is anything close to a "socialist" is hilarious, and yet morons keep falling for the right's lie that anything less than full-throated hypercapitalism is a reincarnation of Stalin.

As usual, Democrats are wimps while Republicans are evil.

Nope.

The Democratic Party is a center-right corporatist party with some socially-liberal goals and a small but robust center-left caucus. The Republican Party is a far right authoritarian party with literally no policy platform and a recent but all-encompassing focus on disenfranchisement & obstruction. 

Their written and spoken actions over the past 25 years plainly lay out these realities. Anything suggesting otherwise is one media-bubble (Good guys! Bad guys!) or another, more annoying media-bubble (They're the same!) .

really tiring of the both-sides-parties-are-equivalent narrative. it take so little work to dismantle, yet you keep insistently peddling it. just because there are two does not mean that they are equal.

https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

your data? or anything other than purely-speculative abstractions?

One thing I've been thinking about with the graph above that bothers me is that presumably the circle is centered on where the party would be "centered" on average left to right, but that doesn't really tell you about the extents of the party as they extend either right or left. 

So if you imagine the circle instead as a line with the center located in the same place, but the extents of the line extending to the extreme views each party might have, you'd probably see some Democrats further to the left, but also toward or even crossing the center to balance out those to the left. The same for Republicans, only their extents probably don't even get to the center, and if they do, it's only to balance out a heavier far-right component. 

Also the line doesn't necessarily need to be equal left and equal right of the center point. Again if you have some extreme views further from the center or balance point, those could be balanced out with a lot of views near the center or balance point. Like balancing a teeter-totter with a fat kid and skinny kid. Fat kid's mass has to move toward the fulcrum and the skinny kid has to move further away. 

That's the graph I want to see.

lol

On turnout, he's not quite there. Hillary had 48.2% whereas Trump at this moment only has 48.1%.

The self-own is going to be dope.

For them to backtrack on AZ now, after reaffirming multiple times they called it right, and at the same time admit that companies like CNN were smarter for holding off on calling it would be fantastic.

Dead voters, lol. The people making the claims aren't offering any supporting evidence and saying the reporters asking the questions should do their jobs and find them. Sounds like they're throwing whatever they can at the wall and hoping it sticks. 

Meanwhile...https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1324415080226643971

Why do we always have to do the work for others? Is that the Libertarian mindset, or is it crony capitalism? NC isn't being called, because they have a November 12th deadline for mail in votes to arrive, if postmarked by election day.

Polling is an inexact science. Voting is a simple counting exercise. Statistics is not arithmetic.

.

North Carolina is, imo, the least likely Biden win of the states remaining. But it's by no means a sealed deal.

tduds, does that include Alaska as a remaining state?

EA - Oh I keep forgetting about Alaska. There's no way in hell Alaska isn't deep red, so its almost not worth mentioning.

^no one is paying attention to this clown car of bullshit. There's zero evidence, and it's only goal is to manipulate emotions, not get at truth. Voter fraud has only been committed by one side, and they're on both sides of the issue; "count the votes" "don't count the votes". Understand? One side is arguing opposite sides of the argument in different states. That is fraud.

A population flooded with misinformation will ultimately reflect the effect of that misinformation in opinion polls. The number of people who "believe" an election is fair has zero bearing on the fairness of said election. Sucks that we've got a hoodwinked populace of paranoid people, but there's no evidence so far to support fraud or unfairness.

Oh, I'm not being naive, in fact I'm being deadly serious; the only voter fraud that has been occurring, is by this fucking Muppet in the white house. Well, that and the guy working for his campaign in 2016.

i thought the polls were wrong.

Oh, but I do know. Any attempt, or suggestion that the counting of votes should cease, is an attempt to defraud the voters. Period, end of fucking sentence.

I'm not even sure Trump knows what he's referring to ... he's just sowing chaos because THAT'S WHAT HE DOES. The more chaotic the process the more enticing his offer to stop the chaos if he gets his way. That's the type of transaction he's looking for.

You're joking right? Are you actually saying the Democratic Party wants a chaotic process?

It's one one party is currently doing and what the other party hypothetically would do if we pretend it's even remotely likely that an inverse scenario would occur and... actually no, even then "both parties" wouldn't do that.

Ah yes, Both Sides.

Just for fun, let's take a look at the twitter feeds of both sides:

Biden: "Keep the faith," "I ask people to stay calm. The process is working. The count is being completed." "Democracy is sometimes messy, so sometimes it requires a little patience." "We're fighting to ensure every last vote is counted across the country," and more. 

Trump: "misleading content," "misleading content," "Big legal win in Pennsylvania!" "STOP THE COUNT!" "Fmr NV AG Laxalt: 'No Question' Trump Would Have Won Nevada 'Convincingly' Without Mail-in Voting (via BreitbartNews)," "misleading content," "STOP THE COUNT!" and more.

yeah, I suppose you're right jla. All the democrats trying to negotiate and pass a stimulus to help the economy, calling on protesters to remain peaceful and such were trying to sow chaos. 

Meanwhile, Trump flip flopping on whether he would even sign a stimulus bill, feeding the flames of racial tension, sowing misinformation about the pandemic (and then just giving up on it and ignoring it) were all trying to calm things down. 

If Dems wanted chaos pre-election, their standard bearer was Trump himself.

That's such a great summary.

Devils advocate-mode: it is very easy for Biden to say to remain calm and be statesman-like as he knows he rigged the elections and stole the results, all he has to do is wait and take his minimum 270 to the White House...

That's awesome!

Devils advocate-mode, or tinfoil hat conspiracy theory-mode? 

The number of moving parts and pieces that would have to fall into place just right for that to be even remotely plausible is so far beyond even more mundane conspiracies like faking the moon landing or covering up alien autopsies at Area 51.

Back to the original topic ... looks like PA might be Fox News' out, allowing them to call it for Biden without needing to worry about AZ, or NV. NV isn't supposed to put out new numbers until tomorrow, but the PA sec of state was saying earlier they thought there would be enough vote counted that networks would be able to project a winner tonight.

Most candidates can't even pick a campaign song without getting a Cease & Desist, and you want me to believe they orchestrated a rigged election so precisely that it's still being decided several days later, and also *decided* to lose seats in the House and fail to get a majority in the Senate? Devil's Advocate... get real.

tinfoil-hate mode: If anything can be learned from Russia it is that you don't need to orchestrate things very precisely to get the results you need, it can be blunt, it can be brutal, it doesn't matter, the end justifies the means. Do you think Putin ever lost a minute of sleep over not winning his elections? A country that pulls fake weapons of mass destruction out of a hat to go to war surely is capable of rigging elections anywhere in the world, even in their own backyard.../tinfoil-hat mode.

And now let's just wait till all votes have been counted, the ones cast in person or sent via mail. And kudos to Fox for calling Arizona when and how they did.

"kudos to Fox for calling Arizona when and how they did." 

If you look at the raw numbers from the link tduds provided below ... it is looking like they may have called it wrong. I've read elsewhere that the remaining vote won't be as favorable to trump, but we'll wait and see.

Remember when I said I'm not sure that Trump knows what he's referring to ... ? 

Yeah, about that...

Assange is fearing for his life and Snowden in exile exactly for that reason...Guess they are only the good guys if they expose the wrongdoing of the opposition. The US has rigged and interfered in numerous elections, don’t see why they would be incapable suddenly to pull a similar trick at home...the entire military and intelligence community is backing Biden, I’m sure they had scenarios prepared to save the country from a guy like Trump, otherwise what use are they?

lol

If you look at the vote differential vs. votes remaining, and the proportion of each block, you can see why it's still too close to call. Not a toss-up in every state, but 70-30 isn't sure enough for obviously & rightly gun-shy journalists.

why did you give me this.

It's worse than anything else I've been looking at for sucking up my time. Really interesting though.

quite happy to see the right infighting over a state that won't really matter in the end.

Seems possible.

Possible if they allow cacti and slot machines voting power. Most of the vote coming in is from Pima County, not Maricopa. Maricopa, has Las Vegas, and some of the largest unions in the country. Not to mention heavy Mexican heritage population. It's not rural.

Maricopa = Vegas?? 

Maricopa = Phoenix

Correct. I got the county wrong, forgive me. Not at my computer. At the Y.

Even then I got that wrong...jfc.

sorry b3ta...

EA the hits keep coming!

Yeah, bless em for doing the devil’s work...Biden showing his true colours immediately, the world is gonna burn after 4 relatively peaceful years :-(

I thought god blessed both sides of the battle... must be some serious conflict of interests there. Someone should report god to its professional association.

rando, nothing is going to burn. What peaceful 4 years? I guess you have forgotten about all the police killings in the US this year, and millions infected by a pandemic Trump failed to control. You anti-immigrant rhetoric will not hold here...

I’m not talking about America burning but the rest of the world, as it did under Trump’s predecessors because of imperialist American interventionist politics. The world loved the America First politics, no new illegal American wars. Well that’s gonna change soon, I’m sure of it unfortunately. I also don’t have anything against immigrants, my family is one of immigrants as they had to flee religious persecution back in the day, my girlfriend, the mother of my children is an immigrant and my children have dual citizenship, so please inform yourself a little better next time.

"The world loved the America First politics" 

*sources required*

Sources for not invading foreign countries, for not starting illegal wars or proxy wars or bombing all those innocent civilians...sure!

Sources for your claim about what "the world" thinks. Stop playing dumb if you want me to believe you are anything else.

I know there was less war, less invasions and illegal killings by American troops under Trump and so do you, the one playing dumb here is you. Don’t like that Trump actually did something right for a change, something that actually matters? Good to know where you stand in all of this, that you prefer war over peace, illegal invasions and killings of civilians worldwide...a true ‘America First’ apologist, noted!

The NSA finally found this thread...

Someone decided "more feces than wall" wasn't a good look for the room.

Wow, yeah, what.

He's still allowed in which perpetual threads now? What music are you listening to? Any others? 

The worst part about this is that when he brings up anything political in other threads (which you know he will), we can't just tell him to take it to Politics Central. Seems like the mods didn't think this one through all the way.

Looks like the posts are back.

It was a slip of the finger, I think?

EA, he's back in the thread, and still spreading his bullshit in other threads.

Decriss!

Calisse d'sti. Tabarnak.

Super spreader event.

Super spreader event.

If it didn't involve people contracting a deadly virus, I'd be laughing about this.

The super spreaders keep super spreading!