Jump to content

ExPDXer

Member
  • Content Count

    888
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ExPDXer

  1. Are you denigrating my religious beliefs? How many sperm did you kill today?
  2. The Church of Monty says.... You don't have to be a six-footer You don't have to have a great brain You don't have to have any clothes on You're A Catholic the moment Dad came, Because Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is great If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is great If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate Let the heathen spill theirs On the dusty ground God shall make them pay for Each sperm that can't be found Every sperm is wanted Every sperm is good Every sperm is needed In your neighborhood
  3. ExPDXer

    Biden is the only hope for beating THE PIG

    And you are basing this on ..... what? Here is his electoral record. He has never won a presidential primary, not even close. 1984 Democratic National Convention: Joe Biden received exactly 1 delegate vote (out of 3,884, or 0.03%), tying Martha Kirkland for last place. Final results: Walter Mondale– 2,191 (56.41%) Gary Hart – 1,201 (30.92%) Jesse Jackson – 466 (12.00%) Thomas Eagleton – 18 (0.46%) George McGovern – 4 (0.10%) John Glenn – 2 (0.05%) Joe Biden – 1 (0.03%) Martha Kirkland – 1 (0.03%) 1988 Democratic National Convention: Joe Biden received exactly 2 delegates. His campaign was derailed rather quickly after a plagiarism scandal culminated in an admission he lifted -- nearly verbatim -- a speech originally given by a British politician. Michael Dukakis – 2,877 (70.09%) Jesse Jackson – 1,219 (29.70%) Richard H. Stallings– 3 (0.07%) Joe Biden – 2 (0.05%) Dick Gephardt – 2 (0.05%) Lloyd Bentsen– 1 (0.02%) Gary Hart– 1 (0.02%) 2008 New Hampshire Democratic Vice Presidential primary: NH is basically an open primary. During his campaign, Stebbins bumper stickers "Vote for Ray Stebbins, Vice President", included phrases "easy to remove" and "so you wouldn’t have it on there for years". Raymond Stebbins– 50,485 (46.93%) William Bryk – 22,965 (21.35%) John Edwards* – 10,553 (9.81%) Barack Obama* 6,402 (5.95%) Bill Richardson* (write-in) – 5,525 (5.14%) Hillary Clinton* (write-in) – 3,419 (3.18%) Joe Biden* – 1,512 (1.41%) Al Gore* – 966 (0.90%) Dennis Kucinich* – 762 (0.71%) Bill Clinton* – 388 (0.36%) John McCain* – 293 (0.27%) Christopher Dodd* – 224 (0.21%) Ron Paul* – 176 (0.16%) Jack Barnes, Jr.* – 95 (0.09%) Mike Gravel* – 91 (0.09%) Joe Lieberman* – 67 (0.06%) Mitt Romney* – 66 (0.06%) Mike Huckabee* – 63 (0.06%) Rudy Giuliani* – 46 (0.04%) 2008 Democratic presidential primaries His 2008 bid is likely most remembered for his gaffes, including one in which he in-artfully described his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean." Barack Obama – 16,706,853 Hillary Clinton– 16,239,821 John Edwards– 742,010 Bill Richardson– 89,054 Uncommitted – 82,660 Dennis Kucinich– 68,482 Joe Biden – 64,041 Mike Gravel– 27,662 Christopher Dodd– 25,300 Others – 22,556
  4. ExPDXer

    Impeach

    Me too! 900 Prosecutors also agree: STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS And here are a few items analyzed by Lawfare.... Efforts to fire Mueller Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.” Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]” Efforts to curtail Mueller Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]” Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.” Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.” Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point. Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction. Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump. This is the box that Dem leadership has put us into. Pelosi et al seem to think that timidity, and weakness are positive traits to be running on. If voters wanted timidity, and impotence, why wouldn't they just vote for Republicans? I find it very disheartening that Pelosi, and Trump both want to run out the clock, and hope for the best, or change the subject. In the meantime, Trump gets his way, and will do who knows what for the next 2 years. Then if Trump gets re-elected, we might as well get the throne, and crown ready.
  5. Elizabeth Warren - "I've got a plan for that!" Bumper Sticker for 2020 elections:..... "Who will you vote for in the Last Election?"
  6. ExPDXer

    Impeach

    Pelosi shuts down key members of the Judiciary Commitee's recommendation to begin Impeachment 05/20/2019 Reps. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Joe Neguse of Colorado — all members of Democratic leadership — pushed to begin impeachment proceedings during a leadership meeting in Pelosi's office. Raskin — a former law professor — said he wasn't advocating impeaching Trump but suggested that opening an impeachment inquiry would strengthen their legal position while allowing Democrats to move forward with their legislative agenda. Pelosi dismissed this argument, asking Raskin whether he wanted to shut down the other five committees working on Trump investigations in favor of the Judiciary Committee. “You want to tell Elijah Cummings to go home?” Pelosi quipped. Member of the Judiciary responded... Reps. David Cicilline: "I think if this pattern by the president continues, where he's going to impede and prevent and undermine our ability to gather evidence to do our job, we're going to be left with no choice. It's a means where we can collect that information ... We need to have the ability to gather the evidence." Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.): "If McGahn doesn't show tomorrow, I think we're at an inflection point. If we can't get information, I think we have to start proceeding down this (impeachment) path." Pelosi: “Democats have invested this much time. I don’t know why we would say McGahn, that’s it.” Rep. Steve Cohen : Asserted that she was simply afraid impeachment would cost her the House majority. of Tennessee stood up and demanded Trump's impeachment. “President Bill Clinton faced impeachment proceedings “over sex” while Trump is “raping the country.” Pelosi: "This is not about politics, it's about what's best for the American people. We’ve been in this thing for almost five months and now we’re getting some results.“ DCCC chairwoman Cheri Bustos (Ill.):, a fierce Pelosi defender and ally, grew angry and scolded the lawmakers that an impeachment inquiry would further distract from legislating. pushed back as well, noting that when the DCCC asked voters in focus groups what topics they cared about, Mueller’s inquiry ranked near the bottom.
  7. ExPDXer

    So Who Are We Going To Support In 2020?

    There is some real danger that he will eat into Gillibrand's 0% share.
  8. ExPDXer

    Joe Biden is in the race

    Why?... Daniel Hilferty, a member of the Biden 2020 host committee, is the CEO of Independence Blue Cross. He is on the board of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade association working to defeat the progressive push for Medicare for All. In national politics, Hilftery has exclusively donated to Republicans. The health insurance executive gave $5,000 to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., along with smaller donations to other congressional Republicans. Biden launched his presidential bid with a pledge to reject registered, federal lobbyist cash. To sidestep his pledge, the lobbyists attending Biden's fundraisers are either unregistered or registered with state entities, not the federal system. “It costs a great deal of money to run. You have to go to those people who have money. And they always want something.” - J. Biden, 1974
  9. After listening to one (too many) of MSNBC Steve Kornacki's psuedo-statistical political analysis, I got to thinking about demographics, groups, and DNA. You may have heard Mr Kornacki,(or others) using phrases like 'college educated white females', or 'likely rural, middle class, asian american voters, over the age of 60, who identify themselves as evangelical republicans, and voted for Clinton in 2016' Okay, you may not have heard that last one, but I use it as an example of the futility, inherent prejudice, and division caused by placing everyone into ever more detailed demographic boxes, then generalizing about their behavior for political, or marketing purposes. Is this demographic data accurate? Useful?, Devisive? I take some pride in being a member of the very smallest demographic. There is only one ExPDXer, and no statistician can predict how I will vote, no matter how much data they have on my race, religion, income level, geographic location. Somewhere out there, two identical twin brothers, raised in the same household, voted for different candidates in 2016. I believe that everyone is different. Very different, and unique. The minute you start putting humans into groups, and generalizing about their behavior, the accuracy of those predictions take a nosedive. This becomes dangerous when 'predictions' turn into assumptions, and stereotypes. So what does this have to do with DNA? At least 2 of the major demographic variables are DNA based. Gender, & Race. (There may be some Cambridge Analytica type group out there claiming to predict how people will vote based on hair color, but I digress). This got me thinking, how many different DNA sequences are possible, and why do humans insist on putting themselves (and others) into groups? Consider this: Each human carries about 13,500 variants, and that perhaps 300 of these affect gene function. The number of possible combinations is 1 x 2 x 3 … x 300 = 3 x 10^614. A number so large it can't easily be comprehended. (There are currently about 7 billion living humans. The number that has ever lived is 108 billion.) IOW, the human race has only used up a tiny fraction of the available combinations, only occasionally producing a Hawkings, or Einstein. So we are very unique at birth, unique not only among others born in the same location, and place, but unique from anyone that has ever lived. After that, a lifetime of different experiences creates further uniqueness. It's amazing that we agree on anything. This may explain my Thanksgiving day political arguments with my siblings, and why twins may vote differently. Animals herd into groups for two reasons, protection, and to accomplish large tasks. It's impossible to communicate about politics without discussing various categories, or groups of people. But, I think this always involves inaccurate generalizations, and therefore useless assumptions, and predictions about behavior.
  10. ExPDXer

    We Are Indivisible

    Seems reasonable, if everyone agrees. https://pledge.indivisible.org/ These candidates have signed the pledge below (yay!): Booker, Buttigieg,Castro, Harris, Insley, Klobuchar, Sanders, & Warren The following candidates have NOT signed the pledge below: Biden, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Moulton, O’Rourke, Swallwell, & Yang We must defeat Donald Trump, I pledge to: Make the primary constructive. I’ll respect the other candidates and make the primary election about inspiring voters with my vision for the future. Rally behind the winner. I’ll support the ultimate Democratic nominee, whoever it is — period. No Monday morning quarterbacking. No third-party threats. Immediately after there’s a nominee, I’ll endorse. Do the work to beat Trump. I will do everything in my power to make the Democratic Nominee the next President of the United States. As soon as there is a nominee, I will put myself at the disposal of the campaign
  11. The famous Cole Porter tune “In In, You’re In” was actually Porter’s typically wry response to the urine-drinking craze of the 1920’s. There isn’t any shame in Meeting with the Shaman And making like the reindeers do… It’s just a little wonder That will unfreeze your tundra I’m in you’re in. You’re in, too The practice originated with the fierce reindeer herders of Siberia known as the Koryac, who centuries ago had devised a means of purifying the hallucinogenic toadstool known as fly agaric. A local shaman would eat the mushroom, using his body to filter out the poisonous muscarine; its mood-altering compounds were preserved in his urine, which was then ritually consumed by other Koryac and also some of the more favored reindeer. Marco Pensworthy, a monocled member of the American Museum of Natural History, who was later dismissed for seducing the skeleton of a giant ground sloth, introduced the custom to New York. During Prohibition, many a tuxedoed, thrill-thirsty swell attended one of Dr. Marco’s private “Siberian Tea Parties,” beneath the frozen gaze of the stampeding elephants of the Hall of African Mammals. After his disgrace , Pensworthy would wander Central Park humming Porter’s tune and offering passerby swigs from a suspicious flask. Finally arrested and institutionalized, he trepanned himself to death in 1952.
  12. ExPDXer

    Were you aware of it?

    I do not know specifically about Mellon et al, but if you look closely near the end of your video, the guy in the yellow sweater does seem to have a circular scar at the top of his forehead. I've concluded that the story about Pensworthy is an old, 'tall tale'. I have found no evidence, just a quirky story someone wrote a long time ago... The Feilding story has quite a bit of documentation. Some people are crazy enough to do something like that. It's possible. I'm too squeamish at this point to investigate further. I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. Only a few decades prior, in 1942, Walter Freeman wrote Psychosurgery: Intelligence, Emotion and Social Behavior Following Prefrontal Lobotomy for Mental Disorders. Freeman wasn’t a surgeon, so he came up with an operation that didn’t require drilling holes in the skull or even a sterile operating room; it was simpler but even more barbaric. To put it bluntly, he stabbed the patient’s brain with an icepick through the eye socket. Some of his colleagues were horrified by the icepick method, and they denounced it. So Freeman became his own PR agent, traveling around the country in a van he called the Lobotomobile, assaulting patients with icepicks and spreading the gospel of lobotomy. He got to the point that he could do a lobotomy in 12 minutes. Lobotomy became increasingly popular, from 150 operations in 1945 to 2,000 in 1947. In 1949, Egas Moniz was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery of lobotomy. They called it: …one of the most important discoveries ever made in psychiatric therapy because through its use a great number of suffering people and total invalids have recovered and have been socially rehabilitated. There's no doubt they had a feeling of well being. This I would attribute to relief that the whole stupid, barbaric procedure was over, similar to the euphoria after completion of root canal. There are however many documented cases, like Derek Amato, who became a musical genius after hitting his head, or Jason Padgett who became a math genius after a brain injury. I agree. Needless to say, I do not condone this in any way (quite the opposite).
  13. ExPDXer

    Were you aware of it?

    After reading "More Information Than You Require", I'm reading John Hodgman's satirical almanac titled: "An Almanac of Complete World Knowledge Compiled with Instructive Annotation and Arranged in Useful Order by myself, John Hodgman, a Professional Writer, in The Areas of My Expertise, which Include: Matters Historical, Matters Literary, Matters Cryptozoological, Hobo Matters, Food, Drink & Cheese (a Kind of Food), Squirrels & Lobsters & Eels, Haircuts, Utopia, What Will Happen in the Future, and Most Other Subjects" very funny reading from the guy that played Bill Gates in Apple's "I'm A PC" commercials. The origins of trepenation were indeed LSD inspired : From Eccentric Lives & Peculiar Notions by John Michell. "The People With Holes In Their Heads" The opening sentence of Joey Mellon's 1966 book called Bore Hole: 'This is the story of how I came to drill a hole in my skull to get permanently high.' At the time the passage below was written, Joey and his partner, Amanda Feilding had made two previous attempts at trepanning Mellen. The second attempt ended up placing Mellen in the hospital, where he was reprimanded severely and sent for psychiatric evaluation. After he returned home, Mellen decided to try again. He describes his third attempt at self-trepanation: After some time there was an ominous sounding schlurp and the sound of bubbling. I drew the trepan out and the gurgling continued. It sounded like air bubbles running under the skull as they were pressed out. I looked at the trepan and there was a bit of bone in it. At last! Experiencing immediate beneficial effects from this operation, he began preaching to anyone who would listen to the doctrine of trepanation. By liberating his brain from its total imprisonment in his skull, he claimed to have restored its pulsations, increased the volume of blood in it and acquired a more complete, satisfying state of consciousness than grown-up people normally enjoy. The medical and legal authorities reacted to Huges's discovery with horror and rewarded him with a spell in a Dutch lunatic asylum. Feilding also performed a self-trepanation with a drill, while Mellen shot the operation for the short film "Heartbeat in the Brain", which was long thought to have been lost. Portions of the film can be seen in the documentary A Hole in the Head.
  14. ExPDXer

    So Who Are We Going To Support In 2020?

    The voting record is the most accurate measure of how a representative truly feels about issues. It’s where true leadership, (or true weakness) is tested, and recorded. That’s why I give it so much weight. The main reason that I vote for any candidate is to represent my views, or in other words vote the same way I would on critical decisions. It’s their only function. Everyone has their own definition of critical. Going to war is one of mine. I grew up in a Military family. Although I did not choose to serve, others in my family chose a different path.Arlington National Cemetery, is located across the river from the WH, and Congress (for a very good reason). I understand memories fade, but I have particularly acute memories of the AUMF vote that probably will not fade anytime soon. It's not my only issue, but it takes more than a statement of regret to overcome. Everyone has their own unique experiences, and list of issues important to their lives, so I respect, expect, and appreciate other views. AUMF, Glass-Steagall, Dodd-Frank, Citizens United, and Supreme Court votes, were historic events that changed the direction of the country, IMHO. The Voting record is the most accurate measure of how a representative truly feels about issues. It’s where true leadership, (or true weakness) is tested, and recorded. That’s why I give it so much weight, over sound bites, or political ads, or what people (like me) say on the internet. Candidate Warren on Candidate Biden: “Our disagreement is a matter of public record. When the biggest financial institutions in this country were trying to put the squeeze on millions of hardworking families who were in bankruptcy because of medical problems, job losses, divorce and death in the family, there was nobody to stand up for them. I got in that fight because they just didn’t have anyone, and Joe Biden was on the side of credit-card companies.” Well, the public (congressional) record is available, and it’s a very good source of information, and enlightening. Here is the exchange between (then)Sen. Biden, and (then) Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren on that Bankruptcy bill, after the collapse of Enron. It's a respectful, informative economic debate ... Judge for yourself the very good points made by both candidates. Senator BIDEN. Is the colleague suggesting that the Delaware chancery court is not open, is somehow an unfair court? I find it outrageous such a statement. Maybe you can tell me. Is it not a competent court? Is it not an open court? Ms. WARREN. Are you asking me, Senator? Senator BIDEN. Well, yes. You are the one that said ‘‘escape the obligation of making the process open.’’ Ms. WARREN. Actually, Senator, bankruptcy cases are not heard in Delaware chancery court. Senator BIDEN. Excuse me, in Delaware, in Delaware. Bankruptcy courts in Delaware are not open? Ms. WARREN. They are not open to employees of companies like Enron who cannot afford— Senator BIDEN. In what sense do you mean open? Ms. WARREN. Excuse me, Senator? Senator BIDEN. In what sense do you mean open? The record is not open or they can’t conveniently get there? Ms. WARREN. Employees of companies like Enron literally cannot go to Delaware and hire local counsel, which the Delaware bankruptcy court requires of them before they can make an appearance, and that effectively cuts thousands of small employees, pensioners and local trade creditors out of the bankruptcy process. If they can’t afford it, they are not there. Senator BIDEN. No. Forget bankruptcy. I am asking a larger question. Forget about bankruptcy. Ms. WARREN. But that is what I mean. It is the question of what role bankruptcy plays— Senator BIDEN. That is not my question. I would like you to answer my question. Who should be responsible for taking them out from under that crushing burden? Whose responsibility is it? That is really the question, because if you buy into this argument, which is very compelling, in my view, you are saying the creditors should be the ones to buy into that philosophically, enshrined in a piece of legislation obligation. That is my question. Ms. WARREN. Senator, I think you are exactly right, and that is that we need fewer families to need to turn to the bankruptcy system. We have a broken health care finance system in the United States, and all I can do is point out that it is bankrupting families. Senator BIDEN. Absolutely right. Ms. WARREN. Until we fix the broken health care finance system, those families have to turn somewhere and that means now they turn as a last-ditch effort to the bankruptcy courts. Senator BIDEN. And that means they turn to asking the people that they borrowed money from to pay for their health care costs, right? Ms. WARREN. Senator, the costs— Senator BIDEN. Isn’t that literally correct? Ms. WARREN. It is literally correct that the costs of a broken health care system are borne throughout the economy. Senator BIDEN. I would like to put in the record a Forbes article, and I would like to ask you whether it is an accurate quote, Professor. They quote you in an article entitled ‘‘Everybody Knows It’s Credit’’ in Forbes magazine saying, quote, ‘‘The lobbyists are going to be the only ones who really profit, scoffs Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law professor. I submit this for the record, if I may. Chairman SPECTER. Without objection. Senator KENNEDY. Can Professor Warren just respond to the quote? Do you want to just respond to the quote? Ms. WARREN. I think the Senator makes an entirely fair point about externalizing the costs and I would add only one caveat to it. Not only does this bill treat all debtors alike. In many ways, it treats all creditors alike. The gas company doesn’t have the capacity to change its pricing to reflect these risks, or has very limited capacity. But I remind you of what the credit card companies have already-….. Senator BIDEN. Should it? That applies they should. Ms. WARREN. No. Senator BIDEN. Should the gas company be required to change their prices to reflect these? Ms. WARREN. No. Of course, they shouldn’t, Senator. Senator BIDEN. The way you stated it, you said they don’t have the capacity. The implication is maybe they should have that capacity. Ms. WARREN. No. My point is the losses will go to some creditors who cannot reflect this in their prices. But look at the cases cited in my testimony where credit card companies—I have a specific case, In re McCarthy, but nothing unusual about it, a woman who borrowed $2,200. She paid back $2,100 over the 2 years preceding bankruptcy, and at the end of that period of time she was told she still owed $2,600. With fees and interest, I submit, Senator, that there are many in the credit industry right now who are getting their bankruptcies prepaid; that is, they have squeezed enough out of these families in interest and fees and payments that never paid down principle. Senator BIDEN. Maybe we should talk about usury rates, then. Maybe that is what we should be talking about, not bankruptcy. Ms. WARREN. Senator, I will be the first. Invite me. Senator BIDEN. I know you will, but let’s call a spade a spade. Your problem with credit card companies is usury rates from your position. It is not about the bankruptcy bill Ms. WARREN. But, Senator, if you are not going to fix that problem, you can’t take away the last shred or protection from these families. Senator BIDEN. I got it, okay. You are very good, Professor. [Laughter.] Senator BIDEN. May I be excused, Mr. Chairman? I am going to another tsunami hearing. Chairman SPECTER. We will miss you.
  15. ExPDXer

    Are we more different than similar?

    But they don’t tell you why. They are simply choosing a candidate from a list without explanation. Maybe there a poll out there asking that specific question, but it would have to be an open-ended question (not multiple choice), and therefore difficult to tabulate. I suspect that the number of different reasons would approach the sample size of the survey, ranging from the logical (racism, economic policy, immigration policy, etc.) to the ridiculous (‘I don’t like his comb-over’, or ‘ I lost money in his casino’). I could not begin to write down all the possible reasons why anyone would choose candidate B over candidate A. The most accurate polling data available is of course the election itself. With a sample size of 134 million, it only represents only 58% of the 250 million eligible voters, and even less (40%), of the total population of 327 million. Still, it is the benchmark for candidate preference surveys. It is multiple choice, with no explanation given. In fact, no other data is available from this source except voting district, and party affiliation. They don’t disclose their education, income level, or anything else. I have no magic words. We can look back in history for some guidance. It seems like the only time the country is truly united in purpose is after national tragedies: After the Great Depression, FDR made use of Radio technology to deliver his fireside chats. I believe this was useful in curtailing potential divisions within the country. After Pearl Harbor, and during WWII, most of the economic, political, and racial divisions melted away, temporarily. Bringing the country together was imperative to winning the war, so the media focus, and political discourse was limited to war issues. It did not hurt that diverse populations from all demographics were brought together on the battlefield, and on the home front for common cause. Of course there has to be a tragedy, and common cause. Vietnam did not bring us together, it drove us apart, because there was no unifying event, and no agreed upon common cause. Yes, there are as many grievances as there are people (even more, if you add my cantankerous uncle, who has an infinite number of them. Opinions flow out endlessly into the media, and the internet like a raging river. I do not expect agreement, I expect differences, it’s only logical. It’s harder to agree than it is to disagree, it takes work. Like I said, it’s amazing that we agree on anything. Regarding the NFL, the anthem, and kneeling, I will defy my demographic by saying the political protest by players, coaches, or owners have no place during sporting events. Sports has a unifying purpose as a pastime, if politics stays away from it. However, it is also big business with employees. No other business that I am aware of starts their workday by playing the anthem, and requiring employees to stand as a condition of employment. But perhaps I am unique in my views. I also think god has no place in the pledge of allegiance. I know others feel differently, but that's ok. Differences, and individuality should be expected. We don't need to fight over every issue. Demographic micro targeting, like any technology, has its bright, shiny side, and its dark hidden underbelly. I am not clever, or evil enough to tell you how this technology could be used for destructive, or corrupt purposes, but I'm sure someone is working on it. You have made a good case for using this type of data in political campaigns, Renegade. I accept this as current reality. I also suspect that campaigns want to understand the data fully, and use statisticians to gauge the accuracy, or lack thereof. The media, on the other hand, does not want to understand the data. They want a headline. That usually involves reducing a complex data-set into simple graphics, and armchair statisticians opining, or coming to erroneous conclusions about what the data really means. I would be happy just to see error bars displayed on the graphs indicating the pollsters MoE, or even better, its real, absolute error as demonstrated by each polls historical performance. Divisive? Yes. I think we agree. Not only promoting stereotyping, and prejudice, but also the rise of identity politics, where each demographic has a candidate designed specifically to meet their perceived preference. Accurate? Not accurate enough to predict close races. Accurate enough to get a general ‘feel’ for where elections stand. No one should base their vote, or stay home because of this data. It’s like predicting the path of a hurricane. No matter how impressive the technology, it’s attempting to predict chaos, so there is a large cone of uncertainty. Feeling safe because you are outside of the thin line displayed on the TV screen is not wise. Useful? Somewhat, accurate enough for basic campaign strategy. Useful as public information if it is presented properly. It’s usefulness is diminished by it’s divisiveness, IMHO.
  16. ExPDXer

    We Are Indivisible

    I agree with you about the subjective nature of Item #1 "Make the primary constructive". If i could rewrite 'rules' for a constructive primary, it would be addressing The DNC's failure as an honest broker. I would have the Tom Perez and top DNC members sign a pledge not to engage in any 'thumb on the scale' activities, and maintain radio silence throughout the primaries. All in all, this is a subjective pledge, signed by politicians on the honor system, with no official referee, or penalties. I have no illusions. Some things are not subjective, though. Iowa, and Nevada caucuses were fraught with problems.. Here is Sen. Boxer making the Nevada caucus constructive, and encouraging voter participation in our democracy! . However...there are 2 things I really like about this Indivisible Pledge Immediately after there’s a nominee, I’ll endorse. Nothing ambiguous, or subjective about that! If all candidates agree, this takes the issue off the table for 2020. The nominee will immediately get many endorsements of (varying conviction) after the convention. Back when there was only 2-3 candidates, it was considered a 'norm' to endorse. With 19-20 candidates, it needed to be formalized. As soon as there is a nominee, I will put myself at the disposal of the campaign I would be more specific like, "I will use all leftover campaign funds for (post-primary) media buys encouraging my supporters to vote during the General Election."
  17. ExPDXer

    We Are Indivisible

    Updated....Seems to be catching on quickly. These candidates have signed the pledge below (yay!): Booker, Buttigieg,Castro, Gillibrand, Harris,Hickenlooper, Insley, Klobuchar, Ryan, Sanders, & Warren The following candidates have NOT (yet) signed the pledge below: Biden, Delaney, Gabbard, Moulton, O’Rourke, Swallwell, & Yang
  18. ExPDXer

    We Are Indivisible

    I view it as a guardrail, or deterrent against truly destructive negative campaigning.They say all is fair in politics, but there is a limit, at least as far as personal attacks against other candidates, or their supporters. Policy differences should be debated vigorously, then let the primary voters decide based on the issues. I can dream, can't I? Nov 5th? He's not allowed to talc about the case until then. Crawl? He's more like a rolling Stone. Despite his faults, I think everybody must get Stone. I have not hit rock bottom yet. I dug up some more puns that are not too dirty… Why did the tectonic plates break up? It wasn’t her fault, but there was just too much friction between them, and he took her for granite. What do you do with dead geologists? You barium. Why was the sedimentary rock extra cheap? Because it was on shale. What do rocks eat? Pom-a-granites. Did you hear about the geologist who went to jail? He was charged with basalt and battery. What did the geologist say when his doctor said he needed a colon exam? No Frackin' way! Why are geologists great dates? They are very sedimental. Why was the sedimentary rock so cheap? It was always on shale. What did Darth Vader tell the geologist? May the quartz be with you! .Why are geologists great dates? They can make your bedrock. Did you hear about the geologist who got divorced? He was taking his wife for granite, so she left him. Why is the world so diverse? Because it contains alkynes of people. I really hate rock puns. My sediments exactly. What did the gold say to the pyrite? You’re a fool and a fake! What do you call a benzene ring where the iron atoms replacing all of the carbon atoms? A ferrous wheel. What did the diamond say to its friend copper? Nothing, silly, minerals don’t talc! What is black, purple, blue, yellow and white? Sugilite, sardonyx and opal all fighting over a gumball.
  19. ExPDXer

    Are we more different than similar?

    Continued... Obviously there is correlation, but is this evidence of causation? What made non-college educated white women vote for Trump 62% to 34% over a white women candidate? Did their gender cause them to vote for Trump? Was education the cause? You might conclude that racial identity, is a stronger influence than gender, or education. Maybe that's true. I hope not. I see your point. This data is useful to campaigns for the reason you state. I was actually thinking about a blue neighborhoods in a ruby red zip codes, or a vice versa. I'm sure that battleground states will turn into battleground zip codes, then battleground neighborhoods, so maybe it's the opposite....talking to the trees instead of the forest. We need consistent macro, not micro-messaging that brings the country together, rather than divides along racial, or other lines. Also many are not represented in the polls as they do not have landline phones, or computers. Repulsive, yes. But, I wouldn't say it's disqualifying. They all do it. I think it's just the nature of politics that, when speaking to a particular group, you emphasize your points of agreement. They're just getting better at it now.  If you are trying to deliver the same message to all voters, why would you need to segment your audience at all? Emphasize, yes, but pandering, or adjusting your message to fit what pollsters think they want to hear is problematic.
  20. ExPDXer

    Are we more different than similar?

    Exactly. Causation, or some logical theory of what causes candidate, issue, or party preference. I was searching for the logical theory that gender, or race causes them to vote a certain, aside from being told that they should fall in line their demographic stereotype. The actual results seem to harder to explain.... So I'm thinking, what is it that causes people to vote a particular way? Personally, I
×