Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 390: Where Uvalde Cowboys Gone?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Pfizer and Moderna have finally been authorized for kids 6 months to 5 years old:

https://www.vox.com/23166033/covid-vaccines-kids-babies-fda-pfizer-moderna

Pfizers data shows it being considerably more effective at preventing disease than Moderna (~80% vs ~40%), though another article I read implied that the error bars in Pfizers data were particularly large. I assume this is mostly a function of the fact that the 0.5-5 year old Pfizer schedule uses three shots vs two for Moderna.

https://twitter.com/stevievanzandt/status/1537439622283681792?s=21&t=Kuomjvo7SrBoQFFAQiWuCw

This was interesting

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/18/1105927483/in-a-time-of-national-division-polarizing-primaries-are-part-of-the-problem

Primary voting is almost by definition dominated by activists, who tend to be more ideological. More moderate candidates who might represent the majority of citizens in a state or a district are at a disadvantage.
. . .
As the system has evolved, however, primaries have come to be dominated by ideological partisans who please the more agenda-driven elements in either party who are the most likely to participate in primaries.
There is comparatively little incentive to reach out to voters who might fall somewhere between the two parties. And that is especially true as computer-assisted gerrymandering creates more districts that are "safe" for one party or the other in November elections.

I dunno, I feel like this isn't true at all? At least for the DNC, """"moderates"""" win constantly in all but the most progressive areas. And since when are GOP candidates elected based on their agenda? It's like the writer thinks nothing has changed since 2006.

Kenri posted...

I dunno, I feel like this isn't true at all? At least for the DNC, """"moderates"""" win constantly in all but the most progressive areas. And since when are GOP candidates elected based on their agenda? It's like the writer thinks nothing has changed since 2006.

Probably depends what their definition of "agenda" is. Is MAGA/America First considered an "agenda," even though it doesn't actually stand for anything tangible?

It's completely wrong when it comes to the DNC, atleast.

Kenri posted...

Primary voting is almost by definition dominated by activists, who tend to be more ideological. More moderate candidates who might represent the majority of citizens in a state or a district are at a disadvantage.
. . .
As the system has evolved, however, primaries have come to be dominated by ideological partisans who please the more agenda-driven elements in either party who are the most likely to participate in primaries.
There is comparatively little incentive to reach out to voters who might fall somewhere between the two parties. And that is especially true as computer-assisted gerrymandering creates more districts that are "safe" for one party or the other in November elections.

I dunno, I feel like this isn't true at all? At least for the DNC, """"moderates"""" win constantly in all but the most progressive areas. And since when are GOP candidates elected based on their agenda? It's like the writer thinks nothing has changed since 2006.

Yeah this article is just completely detached from reality at least as far as democratic primaries are concerned. Aside from Jayapal the entire northwest Washington area is in a New Democrat Coalition strangehold that we absolutely cannot break out of - my rep's the fucking chair for christ's sake. I WISH left-wing activists stood a chance!

https://twitter.com/noliewithbtc/status/1538217194659667968?s=21&t=Kuomjvo7SrBoQFFAQiWuCw

Related to the topic at hand, lol

So moderates always win in Democratic primaries, far-right crazies always win in GOP primaries, and the GOP is heavily favored to win Congress this fall. I'm confused, where's the evidence that America thinks their politicians should move towards the center rather than towards the right?

Xeybozn posted...

So moderates always win in Democratic primaries, far-right crazies always win in GOP primaries, and the GOP is heavily favored to win Congress this fall. I'm confused, where's the evidence that America thinks their politicians should move towards the center rather than towards the right?

If 40% of the country now identifies as independent, its pretty easy to get to that number

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/noliewithbtc/status/1538217194659667968?s=21&t=Kuomjvo7SrBoQFFAQiWuCw

Related to the topic at hand, lol

This is hilarious for so many sad reasons.

Xeybozn posted...

So moderates always win in Democratic primaries, far-right crazies always win in GOP primaries, and the GOP is heavily favored to win Congress this fall. I'm confused, where's the evidence that America thinks their politicians should move towards the center rather than towards the right?

People are dumb. E.g. they perceived Trump to be more moderate than Clinton in 2016!

LordoftheMorons posted...

People are dumb. E.g. they perceived Trump to be more moderate than Clinton in 2016!

If voters looked at Trump and Clinton and felt Trump was the moderate one, wouldn't that also support the hypothesis that voters generally think our politicians need to move to the right? If they thought he was the moderate one then presumably they thought his ideas would lead in a better direction.

Granted, it's also good evidence that people are dumb, but still...

Yeah, I'm not sure "Trump is the moderate one" is the takeaway there at all. Clinton just kinda uniquely pushed leftist voters away, it's not indicative of any movement.

Xeybozn posted...

If voters looked at Trump and Clinton and felt Trump was the moderate one, wouldn't that also support the hypothesis that voters generally think our politicians need to move to the right? If they thought he was the moderate one then presumably they thought his ideas would lead in a better direction.

This is why the Right keeps moving right btw. It keeps things recentering to the point where Hillary Clinton is seen as FAR LEFT while Donald Trump is MODERATE. (He held up an LGBT flag upside down!)

LordoftheMorons posted...

People are dumb. E.g. they perceived Trump to be more moderate than Clinton in 2016!

Did they really? I mean ideologically they are both moderates but Clinton is so far in the center that it's hard to see how someone could be more moderate than her.

StealThisSheen posted...

This is hilarious for so many sad reasons.

half their feed is transphobia which is pretty fun for a group claiming to represent LGBT

HeroicCrono posted...

Did they really? I mean ideologically they are both moderates but Clinton is so far in the center that it's hard to see how someone could be more moderate than her.

I forget where I saw the data (maybe a 538 article?) but yeah. In 2020 the electorate saw Trump as more conservative than they saw him in 2016; Biden was perceived to be the more moderate candidate in that election.

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, I'm not sure "Trump is the moderate one" is the takeaway there at all. Clinton just kinda uniquely pushed leftist voters away, it's not indicative of any movement.

This was - somehow - actually a thing.

Maybe I'm putting the wrong words into google because getting the raw polling data and not just articles alluding to it (without links!) is apparently an ordeal but polling absolutely showed that more people viewed Trump as moderate than Clinton in 2016. After about 10 minutes of looking around the best I got in terms of raw data was a May 2016 poll showing 27% thought Trump was moderate compared to 25% who thought Clinton was moderate and a ton of articles both 2016 postmortem and 2020 discussion talking about it (and how in 2020 Trump had lost this perception in a massive way especially against Biden)

xp1337 posted...

This was - somehow - actually a thing.

Maybe I'm putting the wrong words into google because getting the raw polling data and not just articles alluding to it (without links!) is apparently an ordeal but polling absolutely showed that more people viewed Trump as moderate than Clinton in 2016. After about 10 minutes of looking around the best I got in terms of raw data was a May 2016 poll showing 27% thought Trump was moderate compared to 25% who thought Clinton was moderate and a ton of articles both 2016 postmortem and 2020 discussion talking about it (and how in 2020 Trump had lost this perception in a massive way especially against Biden)

After some quick Googling, I found one from October 2016 that saw 25% who saw Clinton as moderate vs. 22% for Trump, so they were close, fair enough.

Apparently Clinton is still a right-wing boogeyman (woman?). Convinced people are just sick and tired of her since she has been a fixture of US politics for decades now.

lock her up

Plus I think Hillary had the same position as the majority of Americans on basically every single issue. That was part of why she lost - people thought it was unlikely that anyone would just happen to agree with the majority of Americans on every single issue, so she must be lying to get votes.

That's awfully circular logic there. Yes I'm still bitter.

Just listened to some of bernie vs Graham.

Bernie has not lost a single lick of cognitive ability I love you bernie please live forever.

https://twitter.com/ExpressNews/status/1538538762992590848

Uvalde PD didn't even try to open the door where the gunman had students and teachers trapped. Didn't even try.

Hillary is getting back into politics. If Biden wants to retire, I think the center has a candidate for 2024.

If they let her run again we are doomed as a country.

I mean like, moreso than we already are.

Yeah they should just let no women run if they want to win as its clear centrists wont vote for them.

What

If we get a Hilary vs Donald rematch in 2024 I'm just going to take the blue pull and go back into the matrix.

Anybody talking about Clinton running for any office ever again needs to be shot into the sun posthaste.

Fuck off.

why the fuck are we talking about hillary?

she literally said "No, out of the question" when asked if she would consider running literally yesterday

Yeah, Hillary herself said she's not running, so anybody trying to push it is just looking to cause strife.

EDIT: Which I see is being pushed by Red Sox. Have better control, please, everybody.

How is it attempted murder for that guy against Kavanaugh? If I were on a jury, I would definitely go not guilty here unless I am missing something? Like, he intended to murder him, but then he decided against it?

Corrik7 posted...

How is it attempted murder for that guy against Kavanaugh? If I were on a jury, I would definitely go not guilty here unless I am missing something? Like, he intended to murder him, but then he decided against it?

He targeted a conservative Republican.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/politics/supreme-court-june-preview/index.html

While the article summarizes some of the major issues in the remaining cases SCOTUS has this term, I'm sharing this for another detail in it - SCOTUS has traditionally read the opinions they issue from the bench when they release their decisions.

But this SCOTUS has decided "nah fuck that" and is going to overturn Roe and the rest by just sending it out online instead of reading it out.

Lord Ephraim posted...

Amazon switched to "Supercycle" shifts, where employees work 4 10 hour days a week. You might think one extra day off sounds nice, but do this for 3+ years and you will burn out. 10 hour shifts turn into 14-16 hour shifts during peak time and suddenly you feel like you spend half your life at a job that pays peanuts.

If you ever think about working those shifts, don't. Each day you work is a physical and mental grind and the days you have off you spend most of the time dreading the time it's time to go back to work. I've had two good friends commit suicide over working 40+ hours a week at these manual labor warehouse jobs. One of them worked at Amazon and he used to be fun to hang out with and game with but his job tore at his soul and couldn't take it anymore. Fuck Amazon and I haven't order and will never order from them again.

I'm not sure why people expect Amazon warehouse jobs to be "high paying". Aside from fast food restaurants, it's probably the most common job that has literally zero qualifications or requirements to do the work.

I worked in an Amazon warehouse fifteen years ago and I loved the 4-10s. In large part because I only ever worked two days in a row, Monday/Tuesday on, then Wednesday off, then Thursday/Friday on, then the weekend off, and the most OT we ever had to do was coming in an hour early, maybe volunteer for a half-shift on your day off. But that was so long ago and things werent anything like the more recent horror stories.

Within the context of the 2016 election, you also have to remember that Trump didn't really hang his hat on traditional republican wedge issues. The main message of his campaign was about draining the swamp and cleaning up the operation to remove typical government inefficiencies. Even his stance on immigration I think you would find most of the country would support actually enforcing the immigration laws that are already in place, especially areas near the border that have to deal with all the problems that mass illegal immigration cause. Which if you take both campaign messages at face value, you can definitely see the appeal Trump had.

Now obviously it was a manufactured message that meant nothing and Trump was just as big a crony as the rest of them, and anyone with half a brain would have known that from the get-go.

4-10s is literally amazing. I'd work 1-40 if I could. Extra days off are impossible to quantify the benefit of.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

I'm not sure why people expect Amazon warehouse jobs to be "high paying".

Because it sucks and no one wants to do it? Basic supply and demand shit

In a masochistic fervor today, I rediscovered the batshit insane gem that is Conservapedia. Here's a classic:

https://www.conservapedia.com/Video_game

Somehow, I think this article has gotten less crazy since the last time I saw it. If you want true insanity, the 2020 presidential election page doesn't disappoint.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Young_mass_murderers

The vast majority were addicted to violent video games. Nearly all were atheistic or liberal, or driven by hatred of God. Most of these killers absorbed Hollywood values and communist indoctrination through public schools. Many were marijuana users.

but wait, it gets worse

https://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda

these guys sure love Russia nowadays

E: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conversion_therapy

The Bible and Christian faith are powerful methods of becoming a heterosexual, as are participation in activities like baseball and chess.

now that's a sentence

They seem to really like chess on that site.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Special_rights

What rights are being denied due to same sex marriage?

Maniac64 posted...

https://www.conservapedia.com/Special_rights

What rights are being denied due to same sex marriage?

the right to hate gay people

holy shit, I found the holy grail of Conservapedia articles

https://www.conservapedia.com/Bernie_Sanders

just knew that would be a good one! okay, that's enough brain rot for me today

StartTheMachine posted...

In a masochistic fervor today, I rediscovered the batshit insane gem that is Conservapedia. Here's a classic:

https://www.conservapedia.com/Video_game

Somehow, I think this article has gotten less crazy since the last time I saw it. If you want true insanity, the 2020 presidential election page doesn't disappoint.

First of all, an article there complaining of exploiting workers is very hilarious.

Second of all, I love how a Civ fan clearly hijacked the article partway through to explain how Civ is good, actually.

Lightning Strikes posted...

First of all, an article there complaining of exploiting workers is very hilarious.

Second of all, I love how a Civ fan clearly hijacked the article partway through to explain how Civ is good, actually.

Yeah, the best articles are the ones that are clearly hijacked. Almost certain parts of the Bernie article were too. Like the policies section starts off with the usual Conservapedia bullshit, then after the first two, they barely try to refute the obviously good policies. Could just be they had no effective propaganda for refutation, but I'd wager they'd just not mention the policies instead.