Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 392: PM Mess

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yes famously stable government, the UK. The UK has gone through as many governments and elections in just over seven years than Ireland has in twenty. Majorities do not bring stability, and even if they did its a moot point because AV also gives you majorities, it just presents minority-rule and vote splitting which FPTP allows. Why back FPTP over AV then?

I know that its all trolling by the way, just important to get these arguments out there since a lot of people who benefit from FPTP actually make them.

Whether or not red sox is an act is irrelevant. The 'lol he's just trolling' angle doesn't fly anymore after a bunch of the 'trolls' on 4chan etc turned out to be expressing their true opinions the whole time. If someone acts the way red sox does, you're free to call them a piece of shit and treat them like that's who they really are.

i mean it's relevant as it comes to people bothering to respond to him when he doesn't actually hold the slightest bit of sincerity in the nonsense he posts. I get that some people don't wanna use the block feature, but for people who just lob dumb takes they don't even believe in it's better to think of it as an adblocker.

KamikazePotato posted...

Whether or not red sox is an act is irrelevant. The 'lol he's just trolling' angle doesn't fly anymore after a bunch of the 'trolls' on 4chan etc turned out to be expressing their true opinions the whole time. If someone acts the way red sox does, you're free to call them a piece of shit and treat them like that's who they really are.

Right, and the other thing we learned is that you don't want to just "let the trolls be, because nobody is listening to them anyways".

People DO listen and it's imperative to provide a counter-argument from time to time.

"nobody listens to the trolls anyway" kind of went out the window when trump became president

https://twitter.com/zekejmiller/status/1554217406767276033?s=21

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1554228780264144897?s=21

lmao I guess thats one way to ensure he can claim he backed the winner

(I know nothing about Schmitt but Greitens is like Roy Moore level bad)

My favorite part is ERIC is in all caps which makes me think he didnt write this at all and just form filled the name

It's odd that Trump keeps polling well when his endorsements have fallen flat on their face so often. Trump actually endorsed Roy Moore's primary opponent, and he still lost, and that was back when he was president too.

LightningStrikes posted...

Yes famously stable government, the UK. The UK has gone through as many governments and elections in just over seven years than Ireland has in twenty. Majorities do not bring stability, and even if they did its a moot point because AV also gives you majorities, it just presents minority-rule and vote splitting which FPTP allows. Why back FPTP over AV then?

I know that its all trolling by the way, just important to get these arguments out there since a lot of people who benefit from FPTP actually make them.

My experience with FPTP is much more with the US than the UK. FPTP rarely produces majorities here; the norm is divided government (which is usually more stable - it's one party rule that allows for chaos here, as most recently witnessed when Republicans had the trifecta for 2 years). I wasn't comparing FPTP with AV. The alternative system I had in mind was proportional representation.

The reason I view FPTP as promoting stability is the long history of stable government and orderly transitions of power in, roughly, the UK and former settler colonies (who largely have all inherited FPTP from the UK) since 1660. AV could produce similar or better results (and logically I suppose it should), but it doesn't yet have the historical track record. I see the historical track record of FPTP since 1660 as significantly better than for proportional representation.

I acknowledge there could be other reasons for the observed historical stability besides FPTP.

I mean I can point to a bunch of situations where that simply isnt the case. In fact FPTP is essentially a fast-track to authoritarianism and democratic backsliding. The most absolute example would be Belarus, but you can see it in the UK, India, the US, Nigeria. Hungary and Russia dont have pure FPTP but have it as a large component. Its not exactly a great tribute to FPTPs ability to produce strong democracies, in fact FPTP clearly weakens it as it concentrates power in the hands of the minority.

By contrast, PR systems have a much better track record and are associated with lower inequality and better political participation, political culture, pluralism, and civil liberties due to encouraging consensus building. FPTPs historical track record is terrible so that is just a wild take. Also I dont support AV, I support MMP or STV depending on the situation but what I am saying is that AV has all the supposed benefits of FPTP without the vote-splitting and enabling of minority rule.

So Pelosi is going to Taiwan, for reasons.

The Biden administration doesnt want her too, but cant publicly reprimand her because itll look like cowing to China.

But why the hell is she going? What the fuck is going with Democrats rn

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

So Pelosi is going to Taiwan, for reasons.

The Biden administration doesnt want her too, but cant publicly reprimand her because itll look like cowing to China.

But why the hell is she going? What the fuck is going with Democrats rn

This is a dumb post. Exactly zero votes are changing because of this

Huh?

Ok Im gonna ignore Plum making it about getting votes and just double post more thoughts:

There are basically two positions we could have on Taiwan:

Taiwan is independent, and should stay that way.

Taiwan is a province of China, or should be.

Pelosi going to Taiwan presumably gives power to the idea of Taiwan being autonomous.

Yet multiple outlets are reporting that the Biden administration didnt want her to go, because of fear of inflaming tensions with China.

Say what you will about the correct position, but having the speaker of the House and President on different pages seems entirely pointless.

My understanding is that Pelosi is a big supporter of Taiwan as an independent nation. She probably views this as her last chance to go there and show her support while being Speaker of the House since she will likely lose that title next term and never get it back.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3584515-mcconnell-defends-pelosi-trip-to-taiwan-she-has-every-right-to-go/

I don't see how this has anything to do with democrats

what the fuck are you saying

Maniac64 posted...

My understanding is that Pelosi is a big supporter of Taiwan as an independent nation. She probably views this as her last chance to go there and show her support while being Speaker of the House since she will likely lose that title next term and never get it back.

If its her personal position and shes saying fuck the status quo about it, thats the most relatable thing shes ever done.

masterplum posted...

I don't see how this has anything to do with democrats

How does the two most powerful people in the Democratic Party disagreeingwith one of them taking actionabout a major foreign policy position not have anything to do with Democrats?

https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/1554468755136184320?s=21

Omg it was on purpose

That was obvious if you read the surrounding text. He talked about letting them make up their own mind.

I mean, the US's policy on Taiwan has basically been "We support Taiwan... except we just won't say so officially." But we also say we'll defend them militarily from an invasion and sell them weapons and basically have had shadow diplomatic ties with them the whole time.

It also would inflame tensions with China and likely for no real gain which is why I presume the Biden administration is against it. If it actually advanced things maybe it'd be different. But I would assume they'd rather not strain things with China during a global supply chain and inflation crisis while NATO is also got its focus on assisting a nation in conflict with another big nuclear power and probably wouldn't be in the best position to help Taiwan god forbid it came to that.

All that said, now that Pelosi has decided to do this I do kinda think backing down would be a mistake. So it's just a shit situation.

I haven't looked into it but the sense I'm getting is that the actual people of Taiwan see the visit as aggravating things more than actually helping

AriaOfBolo posted...

I haven't looked into it but the sense I'm getting is that the actual people of Taiwan see the visit as aggravating things more than actually helping

Yeah this is my question: "Did Taiwan want this?"

Of course, I'm sure that's just as much of a divisive question there, there is likely nothing even remotely approaching consensus on this

AriaOfBolo posted...

I haven't looked into it but the sense I'm getting is that the actual people of Taiwan see the visit as aggravating things more than actually helping

America and making things worse for a country's people by going there, name a more iconic couple

Looking like the Kansas Abortion Amendment repealing the right to an abortion is going to fail

The first abortion vote happening in a republican state and going pro choice is a big statement.

Polling indicated that 47% planned to vote yes, 43% planned to vote no, and 10% were undecided.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/0/4/AANxMBAADhZE.png
That appears to have been slightly off.

MrSmartGuy posted...

Polling indicated that 47% planned to vote yes, 43% planned to vote no, and 10% were undecided.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/0/4/AANxMBAADhZE.png
That appears to have been slightly off.

That contains all early votes which are democratically leaned and not all election day votes so it should tighten a bit.

But still, polling seems off here

Will be interesting to see if this translates to November. Perhaps Republicans think voting is rigged and are staying home. Perhaps Abortion is a huge issue that will drive turnout. Perhaps pollsters are overcompensating for polling misses in 2020

Who knows.

Also I was curious, population of Kansas is 3 Million. This implies about 800,000 votes were cast.

I am leaning towards enthusiasm gap here.

I believe theres usually a pretty big bias towards no on referendums which I imagine is helping here

As we're getting more votes in, the percentages are closing in, but the margin is actually still increasing. It's now a 160k gap.

https://twitter.com/nate_cohn/status/1554655996815065089?s=21

https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1554683159899508737?s=21

Looks like Gibbs is gonna end up winning by only a few percent, so Im guessing the DCCCs spending probably did flip that race. Pretty gross.

(And yeah Im aware that they were negative ads and that the fact that they boosted him says a lot about how terrible Republican voters are; doesnt change the fact that the DCCCs actions could very likely have changed the outcome, possibly adding another lunatic to Congress next year).

Better hope that doesn't backfire tbh

Hell, even if it works and the Dem wins the seat it reinforces the really perverse incentive that Republicans will be punished electorally for actually doing the right thing once in a while

LordoftheMorons posted...

Hell, even if it works and the Dem wins the seat it reinforces the really perverse incentive that Republicans will be punished electorally for actually doing the right thing once in a while

If I thought the republican party could be saved this might bother me. Even 'the good ones' do horrible things regularly. I get it though, this is also bad.

Breaking my self imposed removal from all political discussion just for this little ray of sunshine.

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1554864067508060160

Get fucked Alex Jones.

As someone who is ignorant of how this works:

Wouldn't they have needed to present the contents of the phone during discovery? I thought you needed to bring any evidence forward at that time in order for it to be admissible. In which case, wouldn't Alex Jones' lawyers have found out then?

VintageGin posted...

As someone who is ignorant of how this works:

Wouldn't they have needed to present the contents of the phone during discovery? I thought you needed to bring any evidence forward at that time in order for it to be admissible. In which case, wouldn't Alex Jones' lawyers have found out then?

You are supposed to, but sometimes if you're a lawyer and you have no morals or care about whether or not you're disbarred you just kind of risk it for your piece of shit client in a high profile case you think may make your career.

Whoopsies rarely happen where you accidentally send emails to opposing counsel you shouldn't, and usually you just agree to not read it, but to do something this massive is nearly unheard of. Alex Jones and his attorney are absolutely fucked.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

You are supposed to, but sometimes if you're a lawyer and you have no morals or care about whether or not you're disbarred you just kind of risk it for your piece of shit client in a high profile case you think may make your career.

Whoopsies rarely happen where you accidentally send emails to opposing counsel you shouldn't, and usually you just agree to not read it, but to do something this massive is nearly unheard of. Alex Jones and his attorney are absolutely fucked.

What I mean is, wouldn't the Sandy Hook parents' lawyers needed to have presented this given they are now using it?

...Why would they, the defense is the one who gave it to them?

Technically the defense SHOULD have given it to them in the first place!

VintageGin posted...

What I mean is, wouldn't the Sandy Hook parents' lawyers needed to have presented this given they are now using it?

Without looking too far into it, there's a few ways that they can get it in. First of which is that they did technically exchange it, which is really all discovery is. If both parties have seen it, it can be presented (unless it was objected to prior).

Second of which is if they're in the rebuttal phase of the trial, it can just be presented as evidence to rebut literally everything Alex Jones said as false.

If I had to guess, Alex Jones was in the dark over this and this was not a shock to his lawyers, who opted to just not tell him because they'd get shit canned immediately for this and they wouldn't get more money.

He essentially got legal counsel that would "do anything" to defend him, which means the scummiest low moral lawyers you can get. And it extended to doing anything to keep getting paid too, even at the expense of your client.

congresswoman from Indiana killed in car crash

https://twitter.com/ericafinketv/status/1554915410880897024?s=21

yike

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

You are supposed to, but sometimes if you're a lawyer and you have no morals or care about whether or not you're disbarred you just kind of risk it for your piece of shit client in a high profile case you think may make your career.

Whoopsies rarely happen where you accidentally send emails to opposing counsel you shouldn't, and usually you just agree to not read it, but to do something this massive is nearly unheard of. Alex Jones and his attorney are absolutely fucked.

In order to even acknowledge it happened requires them to inform the defense and give them 10 days to respond.

Apparently Jones attorneys never did. Probably for multiple reasons, theyd immediately be fired for sure, but also perhaps leaving the door open for mistrial if the prosecution cant prove they informed them.

A shame that that probably won't move the needle on IN-02, it's pretty solid R

I have never loved hearing that music more. We need AA7!

Predominant theory I've seen is that Alex Jones' lawyer did this on purpose. Possibly to cause a mistrial, but even more likely because he hates Alex Jones lmao.