• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Electoral-Vote dot com Peanut Gallery

Jimmy Higgins said:
I doubt that. Fox News was able to not admit wrong doing, so that helped them with the "news" part of the business.
Click to expand...
Did they though? I thought it went down in such a way tyhat they could not deny wrongdoing?
 
Great comment

B.B. in St. Louis, MO, writes: When talks about raising the debt ceiling come up, the Republicans keep mentioning sitting the family down at the kitchen table to balance the budget. If we accept that analogy, it would be helpful to ask Dad why more than half the family's discretionary spending needs to keep going to his collection of 40,000 Warhammer miniatures, and perhaps request that musty old Uncle Elon kick in his fair share.
Click to expand...


I hate the “home budget” argument because it is so flawed. Running a country is not a single bit like a home budget, and the military spending part is just one of many reasons why it’s flawed. The other being that if you can just ask for a raise and get one, you should do it (raise taxes), and of course that is not the analogy they want at all. Nor should we just raise taxes because we can.

It’s nothing like a home budget and never was.
 
Also nodding along with these comments about messaging. Make it short, obvious and true.

M.S. in Alpharetta, GA, writes: I have a picture in my head of Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) holding a gun up to his own head and saying "give me what I want for a debt limit deal or I'll shoot."

Republicans act like only Democrats will endure pain and misery if we default. Maybe I should have capitalized and bolded the word "we", because every American will be affected adversely by a default. This isn't a case of "winners and losers." It's a case where EVERYBODY LOSES. Even red states.

This is why I just have a hard time taking Republicans seriously anymore, especially on macroeconomic issues.

In your abbreviated Q&A on Monday, B.C. in Walpole wrote: "Debt Ceiling Chicken, where are the Republican donors?" You pointed out that in the 21st century, we have digital ways to collect money from small doners. From my perspective, don't try to get the billionaire Republicans to put pressure on them, get the Republican senior citizens to put pressure on them. Start running 30-second ads, saying things like "Democrats want to keep paying Social Security to seniors, but if Republicans cause the U.S. to default, those payments would be halted." Because that will happen. Old people are a big percentage of their base, and messages like that won't make them happy.

Along those lines (but an unrelated topic), I think Democrats should just run 15-second ads with messages like "Democrats want to make abortion legal and Republicans want to outlaw it," or "Are you sick of all the mass shootings? Then vote for a Democrat." It's simple and would get the message across.
Click to expand...

To recap:
  • Democrats want to keep paying Social Security to seniors, but if Republicans cause the U.S. to default, those payments would be halted.
  • Democrats want to make abortion legal and Republicans want to outlaw it
  • Are you sick of all the mass shootings? Then vote for a Democrat

what would be your one-sentence advert?
 
Sorry Grandma, but our vacations are important to us, so you and your med expenses need to hit the road. Here is a list of shelters.
 
Rhea said:
Also nodding along with these comments about messaging. Make it short, obvious and true.

M.S. in Alpharetta, GA, writes: I have a picture in my head of Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) holding a gun up to his own head and saying "give me what I want for a debt limit deal or I'll shoot."

Republicans act like only Democrats will endure pain and misery if we default. Maybe I should have capitalized and bolded the word "we", because every American will be affected adversely by a default. This isn't a case of "winners and losers." It's a case where EVERYBODY LOSES. Even red states.

This is why I just have a hard time taking Republicans seriously anymore, especially on macroeconomic issues.

In your abbreviated Q&A on Monday, B.C. in Walpole wrote: "Debt Ceiling Chicken, where are the Republican donors?" You pointed out that in the 21st century, we have digital ways to collect money from small doners. From my perspective, don't try to get the billionaire Republicans to put pressure on them, get the Republican senior citizens to put pressure on them. Start running 30-second ads, saying things like "Democrats want to keep paying Social Security to seniors, but if Republicans cause the U.S. to default, those payments would be halted." Because that will happen. Old people are a big percentage of their base, and messages like that won't make them happy.

Along those lines (but an unrelated topic), I think Democrats should just run 15-second ads with messages like "Democrats want to make abortion legal and Republicans want to outlaw it," or "Are you sick of all the mass shootings? Then vote for a Democrat." It's simple and would get the message across.
Click to expand...

To recap:
  • Democrats want to keep paying Social Security to seniors, but if Republicans cause the U.S. to default, those payments would be halted.
  • Democrats want to make abortion legal and Republicans want to outlaw it
  • Are you sick of all the mass shootings? Then vote for a Democrat

what would be your one-sentence advert?
Click to expand...

"Vote for an America where seniors retire with dignity, women have control over their bodies, and children are protected from mass shootings by more than thoughts and fucking prayers."
 
Dang you libruls and your run on sentences.

I remember a similar question asked of a DNC big wig in 2012.

DNC bigwig responded:
"GM is alive. bin Laden is dead.
Vote Obama!

Tom
 
TomC said:
Dang you libruls and your run on sentences.

I remember a similar question asked of a DNC big wig in 2012.

DNC bigwig responded:
"GM is alive. bin Laden is dead.
Vote Obama!

Tom
Click to expand...

Hey I was just answering the question. If it were up to me the focus should be on the Economy/Inflation, Immigration & the deficit. Electoral-Vote seems to agree looking over today's topics.

Democrats are already known to have American's backs on the other issues so it's a considerable waste to beat that dead horse.
 
Gospel said:
Hey I was just answering the question.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really referring to you. Bunches of damn libruls round here. Can't form a complete sentence unless it's a hundred words long and so many commas ya think you're a pinko comma fag jus reading.

Good to see you. I checked your profile a day ago. You hadn't posted since Wednesday, I thought maybe something was wrong with Florida.
Tom
 
Very interesting comment in the reader letters bag today:

D.M. in Orange County, CA, writes: Of all the stolen docs pics, the one with documents strewn across the floor due to a fallen box is the most troubling.

In the background is a brown Gibson guitar case (the very top of the company logo on the case is just barely visible behind the mess). Unless Trump plays guitar, the implications are obvious: A musician at a Trump event was given access to that closet to store their guitar. Anyone who has played a wedding is familiar with stashing your gear in a side room not far from the main hall. This means that someone probably only making a couple hundred bucks that day saw this pile of stuff. It also would not surprise me if the garment bags are from a groom's party. I would think a good investigative reporter could cross-reference the date that photo was taken (Dec. 7) with any weddings at the club and then track down the guitarist and groomsmen to ask if they remember having access to that room. Given that the wedding storage room seldom changes at a venue, the reporter could work out, before and after the 7th, how many unquestionably unauthorized individuals had this same access. It would be a heck of a scoop.
Click to expand...

I agree, I would read that story. It does indeed speak to how easy it was for ANYONE to see those documents.
 
Great round up today of sites to read if you are looking for additional news aggregation:
Go to the site to get all the links if you want to click through to these sites.

Reader Question of the Week​

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: Is there an alternative to RealClearPolitics? It's gone from a simple news aggregator to one that aggregates mostly right-wing media and/or right-wing articles from the token conservatives The New York Times and The Washington Post have on staff.
Click to expand...
And here some of the answers we got in response:

T.S. in Mansfield, OH: First, thanks for linking to Taegan Goddard's Political Wire. I have not regretted making it a part of my daily routine, along with E-V.com
As to other aggregators, how about the Fark.com politics tab? As a bonus, the descriptions of the linked article often have a snarky summary (e.g., from 09/23: "Third GOP Presidential debate scheduled for November 8th in Miami where candidates must poll at least 3% to qualify. Any higher, and it'd be an empty stage.").
P.M. in Palm Springs, CA: I agree that Taegan Goddard's Political Wire is the go-to source as a news aggregator. Taegan himself is obviously a liberal Democrat. You can tell that by the few items on the list that he writes himself, and his bio also reveals his past affiliations. However, his aggregations come from multiples sources, as progressive as Rolling Stone and Huffington Post, and as conservative as The Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner and The New York Post. I would add that like E-V.com, many of his commenters are intelligent, informed and add significantly to the discussion. Because every item attracts many comments, not curated, there are always comments that are superfluous, ridiculous and contemptible, but they can be ignored. One more thing: If there is an ongoing event, like an election happening in real time, well-sourced commenters provide ongoing updates and results. Taegan will come in after a decision with his own analysis.
A.M. in Miami Beach, FL: I'm not sure I'd characterize them as "alternatives" to RealClearPolitics, but in addition to E-V.com I personally check out daily both All Hat No Cattle and Wonkette.
Both are more snarky in their selection of articles and commentary, so neither are appropriate for the humor-impaired.
R.G. in Phoenix, AZ: My choice would be ground.news. The site aggregates from a large number of news sources from the far left to the far right. Each article is labeled as to who is reporting on that story. The site offers a blindspot report that shows stories that are only, or mostly, being covered from organizations on the right or left. It also has a label as to the factuality of the news source.
The site does have a paid version, but the free version is really all I have ever needed.
G.K. in Mansfield Center, CT: I'm not sure this is what you mean by an aggregator, but I rely on Gabe Fleisher's e-mail newsletter Wake Up to Politics for clear, concise explanations of issues and developments. He foregrounds important contextual and historical information that is often not emphasized or even mentioned elsewhere. He's still an undergrad, but he does a better job than my newspaper, The New York Times, both in his reporting and his analysis. And his enthusiasm for the nuts and bolts of lawmaking is infectious!
M.K. in Franklin, WI: I think Common Dreams fits the request, especially its Progressive Newswire channel, which includes news releases, etc., that don't make it into other aggregators.
J.C. in Conley, IL: While not a news aggregator, I have gone down the rabbit hole into another aggregator of sorts—every single e-mail that Trump & Co. sends out to their cult members. E-V.com readers might find the site entertaining and/or horrifying. It's a complete record of every one-message-sent-per-waking-hour begging, pleading, threatening, harassing, and thoroughly emotionally manipulating everyone on their mailing list. While the site keeps all the formatting of the original e-mails, it does strip out all the grifting links to prevent any accident clicks.
M.C. in Austin, TX: * MemeOrandum is probably the best, and one of the oldest aggregators (founded in 2005). It's algorithmic, very fast to respond, and surfaces a lot of relevant commentary that others miss. It also provides a most-recent-news-first version and ranks its sources, which is a good list for a centrist/liberal audience, without excluding right wingers when they're relevant. Also, What The Fuck Just Happened Today? is hand-curated and intended for people who get depressed by the news but want to feel informed. It started in the Trump era, and is a good complement to E-V.com. I like that they have a "Last Year today" and a "3/5/6 Years today" features to remind us how much worse it could be.
K.S. in Harrisburg, PA: Daily Kos. Blatantly left wing, but rarely wrong. Also the best source I've found for Ukraine war info, often several days ahead of mainstream media.
J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: My favorite news aggregator is still the original one, the one I used to subscribe to long before the web existed, back in the 80s, the most unbiased magazine in the world because it includes all the biases, World Press Review. They reprint articles from around the world and focus on stories not covered by most American press, but unfortunately they don't publish current articles as much as they used to. A current sampling of their top articles are on local election officials and mayors in the most populous American counties, a young couple who died in the Ukrainian trenches together, an Iranian footballer scheduled for execution, Why do so Many Elderly Run America, and torture of Aghani women.
M.M. in Alexandria, MN: The Bulwark!
L.S.-H. in Naarden, The Netherlands: I use E-V.com as my political news aggregator. Saves going down a lot of rabbit holes and, if something especially piques my interest, I can always follow a link or highlight/select a term or phrase to immediately look up online for more info.
Click to expand...
 
Two interesting Q&A items today, sharing in case anyone else is interested.


First, I always appreciate the site’s ability to answer questions like, “was it always this bad”? I find it reassuring to know that yes, sometimes it was worse, we are in a situation that America has faced and gotten past before.

So in this question, “we are not “more divided than ever” as some people like to say and it is not more violent than ever, as they try to tell us. Still we have issues to resolve, but we’ve resolved them before, so we hope to be able to do so again.
A.S.W. in Melrose, MA, asks: We're clearly living in an era of political violence—most of it in the form of threats and harassment, but some physical violence as well. What I'm less clear on is how our current level of violence compares to earlier eras. Clearly, the mid-nineteenth century had its share ('lookin' at you, Preston Brooks), and I imagine that there's always been some baseline of threat against notable officials, Americans being who we are. But where does the current era sit in relation to all of that?

(V) & (Z) answer: Like Donald Trump himself, the Trumpers are very good at speaking loudly, but very unwilling to actually put their threats (explicit and implied) into action.

If you want serious, sustained political violence, look to the South in the 1890s, which averaged two lynchings, every week, for over a decade. Or the South and Midwest of the 1910s and 1920s, when the lynchings continued (although in decreased frequency), there were regular race riots, and tens of thousands of Ku Klux Klansmen marched around in their white dresses. Or the South of the 1950s and 1960s, with all the church bombings, murders of civil rights activists, etc.

And Black people haven't been the only targets. There was a whole century of warfare between the U.S. government and the Native Americans (roughly 1790-1891), including a clear-cut genocide in California in the 1850s. There has been ongoing anti-Asian violence, targeting the Chinese in the 19th century and the Japanese in the early and mid-20th. The Mexican border has been a near war zone, as often as not, and Mexicans have been the target of race riots as well, most obviously the Zoot Suit Riots of 1943.

Thanks to the Internet and social media, the rhetoric is as bad as it's ever been, perhaps. But maybe that's acting as a safety valve of some sort, because we're just not in a high-violence era right now.
Click to expand...


And second, on the triggers for WWI - I’m glad to read this super-short explanation. It is easier to digest and remember than most answers one gets.
J.S. in Durham, NC, asks: I would like to know what books you all would recommend that explain how the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand became World War I. I need something that will not get bogged down in military or logistical statistics.

(V) & (Z) answer: The short answer to the question is that Austria-Hungary grabbed some land from the much smaller and weaker Serbia, and Serbians affiliated with the Black Hand (basically, the Mafia) assassinated the Archduke. In retaliation, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, which triggered a secret treaty between Serbia and Russia. Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary, which triggered a secret treaty between Germany and Austria Hungary, etc., until most of Europe was at war.

In short, if all you want is to learn about the flashpoint (i.e., the assassination) there isn't really enough material there for a book, because it's not that complicated. On the other hand, if you want to learn why Europe was primed for a massive war by 1914, and how an otherwise local dispute between two countries became a continent-wide (and worldwide) dispute between dozens of countries, then there's a lot of meat there. And the book you want to read is Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914.
Click to expand...
 
E-V has just switched over its map to show nominating delegation selctions in GOP promaries, caucuses and conventions.

Their discussions about the primaries coming up in Jan and Feb will be covered there, and it is already colored by some states not putting Trump on the ballot. The first ones are only a few weeks away. Presumably a candidate is already campaigning.
 
These are interesting to think about. Three easy to enact and three hard-to enact changes that could improve democracy:

J.S. in Houston, TX, asks: You wrote: "In short, democracy in America is deeply flawed and there are many things that could be fixed, some easy and some not. The easy ones should be done quickly and a start should be made on the difficult ones."

I was wondering what you think are the top 2-3 things that are relatively easy and will have the most impact.

(V) & (Z) answer: We are going to pick things that could be done by Congress, as opposed to requiring a constitutional amendment (which is a far higher bar to clear).

Anyhow, #1 is getting rid of, or weakening, the filibuster. It gives too much power to the minority, and makes it too hard for the majority to implement their political program. If a party has bad policy ideas, let the voters make that decision, as opposed to a handful of recalcitrant senators.

Moving on, #2 is implementing ranked choice voting. This makes it much harder for extremist candidates to get elected to Congress. In the last 25 years, we've seen plenty of evidence of the harm extremists can do.

And #3 is eliminating gerrymandering. Create a federal board that draws district maps using computer software. Or create several regional boards. Or require states to create redistricting commissions along the lines of the ones used in California and Colorado.
Click to expand...

M.M. in Leonardtown, MD, asks: You responded to J.S. in Houston with 2-3 relatively "easy" fixes to some of America's democratic flaws; that is, statutory/procedural changes that need only a bare majority to implement. Expounding on this issue, what are the 2-3 "hard" changes (requiring Constitutional reform) that you think would be most impactful if implemented?

(V) & (Z) answer: We will go with:

  1. Getting Rid of the Electoral College: No more presidents who pander to a reactionary minority and don't give a damn about anyone else.

  2. Eliminating "Two Senators Per State": It's not a problem to amp up the voice of the smaller states some, so the apportionment can be less aggressive than the House is, but it's not a democracy if people representing 25% or 30% of the population can stymie the other 70% or 75% of the population.

  3. Overhauling the Federal Judiciary: This wouldn't take a constitutional amendment, but it would be a big deal to pull off. There are many directions this could go, but one possibility is to put all cases before pools of judges, with cases assigned randomly, the way it works at the appeals level. That would mean no more one-judge-venue shopping, and it also would mean that Supreme Court cases would be heard by, say, 9 of 25 Supreme Court justices, selected at random.
Click to expand...
 
Rhea said:
A.S.W. in Melrose, MA, asks: We're clearly living in an era of political violence—most of it in the form of threats and harassment, but some physical violence as well. What I'm less clear on is how our current level of violence compares to earlier eras. Clearly, the mid-nineteenth century had its share ('lookin' at you, Preston Brooks), and I imagine that there's always been some baseline of threat against notable officials, Americans being who we are. But where does the current era sit in relation to all of that?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Digression: How many Americans living today even know the story of Congressman Preston Brooks almost killing Senator Charles Sumner on May 22, 1856? I'll guess that at least ten times as many know of John Brown and consider him a psychotic murderer for the executions he organized at Osawatomie, Kansas on May 24, 1856.

Look at those dates. The executions at Osawatomie -- and only pro-slavery ruffians who were themselves murderers were executed -- were the direct result of exasperation about the caning of Sumner two days before.

Selective memory about Preston Brooks and John Brown reminds us of the present day, where millions of Americans learn only a tiny subset of the news, a subset carefully selected by Hannity, Musk, Koch and other evil-doers.
 

Trump's Lawyer Tries to Pressure the Supreme Court​

It is very likely that Donald Trump picked Alina Habba as one of his lawyers for five very good reasons: (1) She is pretty, (2) she is young (39), (3) she is conveniently located (her law office is a 6-minute drive from his Bedminster club; just turn right out of the gate and follow Lamington Road for 3 miles and you're almost there), (4) She graduated from a law school ranked in the top 160 law schools in the country (but barely, at #159) and (5) she was willing to take him on as a client. We don't know for sure, but we suspect her hourly rate is less than someone who graduated from Stanford (#1), Yale (#2), or Chicago (#3). After what she said on Friday, we're not so sure she was a great choice, even with five important things going for her.
Click to expand...

Rhea pauses to search how many law schools are in the USA. Answer = 198.
 
Rhea said:

Trump's Lawyer Tries to Pressure the Supreme Court​

It is very likely that Donald Trump picked Alina Habba as one of his lawyers for five very good reasons: (1) She is pretty, (2) she is young (39), (3) she is conveniently located (her law office is a 6-minute drive from his Bedminster club; just turn right out of the gate and follow Lamington Road for 3 miles and you're almost there), (4) She graduated from a law school ranked in the top 160 law schools in the country (but barely, at #159) and (5) she was willing to take him on as a client. We don't know for sure, but we suspect her hourly rate is less than someone who graduated from Stanford (#1), Yale (#2), or Chicago (#3). After what she said on Friday, we're not so sure she was a great choice, even with five important things going for her.
Click to expand...

Rhea pauses to search how many law schools are in the USA. Answer = 198.
Click to expand...
Woah. Someone with a worse law school ranking than Joe Biden's (Syracuse University College of Law, #122 out 198)? Not that good for Joe, but maybe his grades made up for it. Let's see:

Biden's Law School and Ranking

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Joe Biden claimed during a campaign appearance in New Hampshire last spring that he finished in the top half of his law school class, although records indicate he finished near the bottom.

In a videotape aired by the public service cable network C-SPAN several months ago, the Delaware Democrat was asked at a campaign stop in Claremont, N.H., on April 3 about what law school he attended and how well he did.

On the videotape, a clearly angered Biden told the questioner: ''I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do.

''The first year in law school I decided I didn’t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class and then decided I wanted to stay and went back to law school and in fact ended up in the top half of my class,’' he went on.

But last week Biden released his law school records showing he had graduated 76th in a law school class of 85. The law school transcript also showed he made little progress in class standing through the three-year course, ranking 80 out of 100 in the first semester of the first year, and 79th out of 87 the second semester of his second year.
Click to expand...

Uh oh. Not too good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom