ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , democratic party , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 6th October 2019, 06:34 AM   #1281
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,841
The fact that Biden is polling ahead of Trump in Texas makes a pretty strong argument for Biden. Most of the rest are in striking distance but not ahead going into the primaries. If Biden were to win Texas, he would be right at 270 without winning any Obama states that went for Trump in 2016. If he took Texas and Pennsylvania it would be Trump's destruction. Biden is also polling ahead of Trump in Florida.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.

Last edited by Craig4; 6th October 2019 at 06:38 AM.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 09:14 AM   #1282
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
The fact that Biden is polling ahead of Trump in Texas makes a pretty strong argument for Biden. Most of the rest are in striking distance but not ahead going into the primaries. If Biden were to win Texas, he would be right at 270 without winning any Obama states that went for Trump in 2016. If he took Texas and Pennsylvania it would be Trump's destruction. Biden is also polling ahead of Trump in Florida.
This is why Trump is doing everything he can to ensure he's not facing Biden in the general. It's also why he's the safe bet for the Democrats.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 10:55 AM   #1283
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,068
I'm not concerned about Bernie's heart attack or a candidates age/health in general.

Even if he were elected and died shortly after in office, he would have picked a VP with similar values.

The only candidates you'd have to worry about are those who pick their VP solely based on strategic vote getting rather than because of shared ideology.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 12:05 PM   #1284
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,462
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
I'm not concerned about Bernie's heart attack or a candidates age/health in general.

Even if he were elected and died shortly after in office, he would have picked a VP with similar values.

The only candidates you'd have to worry about are those who pick their VP solely based on strategic vote getting rather than because of shared ideology.
Nah. For sure the VP's ideology is going to be a close enough match regardless. If there's one thing you should absolutely have learned from the Hillary campaign, it's that doubling down on redundant votes is a terrible strategy.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 12:06 PM   #1285
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,151
It might even help a progressive movement if Sanders dies while in office, preferably towards the end of the term. He will choose his VP wisely.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 12:12 PM   #1286
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,462
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
It might even help a progressive movement if Sanders dies while in office, preferably towards the end of the term. He will choose his VP wisely.
Do you realize how crazy this sounds?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 12:57 PM   #1287
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
It might even help a progressive movement if Sanders dies while in office, preferably towards the end of the term. He will choose his VP wisely.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Do you realize how crazy this sounds?
I wouldn't say it's crazy. After all, Trump made Pence his Vice President
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 01:14 PM   #1288
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,092
Naomi Klein was on CSPAN this morning. She pointed out the fact Biden's son was on the board of an oil company doesn't bode well for addressing climate change.

From her Twitter Account:
Quote:
Biden just confirmed he opposes banning fracking on the state and national level. A measure Germany and France introduced long ago.

The fact that his fundraiser tomorrow night is put on by an executive up to his eyeballs in fracked gas is totally unrelated.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 01:20 PM   #1289
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,462
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I wouldn't say it's crazy. After all, Trump made Pence his Vice President
Do you realize how non sequitur this sounds?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 01:22 PM   #1290
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,725
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Naomi Klein was on CSPAN this morning. She pointed out the fact Biden's son was on the board of an oil company doesn't bode well for addressing climate change.

From her Twitter Account:
Why would an oil company want to protect natural gas companies?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 06:49 PM   #1291
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,151
Professor Allan Lichtman, who successfully predicted the last 9 presidential elections, says forget about the polls completely.

Earlier this year he urged Democrats to "grow a spine" and move forward with impeachment proceedings.

At the time his "13 keys" to the White House seemed to predict a Republican win in 2020.

Originally Posted by The 13 Keys to the White House
Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Perhaps not very profound at first glance, but he's the first I've seen who's arranged these factors into some kind of weighted points system. Could be a bunch of Monday morning analysis, but it can't be worse than just looking at the polls can it?

He wants Democrats to drop the ineffectual "inquiry" and go straight to impeachment.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 06:55 PM   #1292
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Do you realize how non sequitur this sounds?
No.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 07:31 PM   #1293
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,092
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Why would an oil company want to protect natural gas companies?
I think you can figure out the answer on your own. Maybe start over and actually listen to Klein. It's free access.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 6th October 2019 at 07:33 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 08:52 PM   #1294
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,725
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I think you can figure out the answer on your own. Maybe start over and actually listen to Klein. It's free access.
Nevermind. I misunderstood the production numbers. Way more natural gas comes from fracking, but shale oil is a large percent of US oil.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 6th October 2019 at 08:54 PM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 12:05 AM   #1295
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,686
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Professor Allan Lichtman, who successfully predicted the last 9 presidential elections, says forget about the polls completely.

Earlier this year he urged Democrats to "grow a spine" and move forward with impeachment proceedings.

At the time his "13 keys" to the White House seemed to predict a Republican win in 2020.


Perhaps not very profound at first glance, but he's the first I've seen who's arranged these factors into some kind of weighted points system. Could be a bunch of Monday morning analysis, but it can't be worse than just looking at the polls can it?

He wants Democrats to drop the ineffectual "inquiry" and go straight to impeachment.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Really, I donít see much interesting here in terms of his credentials or his advice. I mean, predicting 9 of the previous elections really just means he predicted Trump would win. Otherwise he is probably not that different from all the other pundits. And surely pointing out that a major scandal could prevent a president winning an election is hardly profound.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 01:10 AM   #1296
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,920
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Really, I don’t see much interesting here in terms of his credentials or his advice. I mean, predicting 9 of the previous elections really just means he predicted Trump would win. Otherwise he is probably not that different from all the other pundits. And surely pointing out that a major scandal could prevent a president winning an election is hardly profound.
There's a pretty obvious "Texas sharpshooter" fallacy going on here. He does not claim that his formula predicted the events before they happened. He came up with a formula that explains things after the fact. I am particularly suspicious that at least according to the article, there is no weighting applied to any of the 13 factors; each is apparently equally significant. Note especially that he does have some fairly fuzzy categories in there, like significant scandal, charisma of both candidates, etc.

There are any number of simple factors one could come up with to predict the results of the last X elections. Start with:

1. All other things equal there is a strong tendency for the party in power to remain in power for 8 years and then turn over the White House to the party out of power.
2. Incumbent presidents always win re-election (provided they were originally elected) unless the economy goes into recession in the last year or so of their term, or they took office as the result of a major scandal.
3. If there is no incumbent president running, the party out of power will win unless their candidate is filmed riding around in a tank.

Explains every election since 1956. Eisenhower was an incumbent in 1956 with no recent recession. In 1960, there was no incumbent running and so the party out of power (Democrats and JFK) took over. LBJ wins on the 8 years of power rule with no recession. 1968 no incumbent, so turnover to the Republicans. 1972, incumbent wins. 1976, incumbent took office as the result of a major scandal, plus 8-year rule. 1980 incumbent loses due to late-term recession. 1984 incumbent wins. 1988, well, you do have the tank. 1992, recession plus pressure from the usual 8-year turnover. 1996 incumbent. 2000 8th year, 2004 incumbent 2008 8th year, 2012 incumbent, 2016 8th year.

ETA: Obviously the tank bit is a joke, but it would not be too hard to come up with some sort of oddball but reasonable criterion that explains 1988 but does not apply to the other years.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 8th October 2019 at 01:31 AM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 08:18 AM   #1297
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,686
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
There's a pretty obvious "Texas sharpshooter" fallacy going on here. He does not claim that his formula predicted the events before they happened. He came up with a formula that explains things after the fact. I am particularly suspicious that at least according to the article, there is no weighting applied to any of the 13 factors; each is apparently equally significant. Note especially that he does have some fairly fuzzy categories in there, like significant scandal, charisma of both candidates, etc.

There are any number of simple factors one could come up with to predict the results of the last X elections. Start with:

1. All other things equal there is a strong tendency for the party in power to remain in power for 8 years and then turn over the White House to the party out of power.
2. Incumbent presidents always win re-election (provided they were originally elected) unless the economy goes into recession in the last year or so of their term, or they took office as the result of a major scandal.
3. If there is no incumbent president running, the party out of power will win unless their candidate is filmed riding around in a tank.

Explains every election since 1956. Eisenhower was an incumbent in 1956 with no recent recession. In 1960, there was no incumbent running and so the party out of power (Democrats and JFK) took over. LBJ wins on the 8 years of power rule with no recession. 1968 no incumbent, so turnover to the Republicans. 1972, incumbent wins. 1976, incumbent took office as the result of a major scandal, plus 8-year rule. 1980 incumbent loses due to late-term recession. 1984 incumbent wins. 1988, well, you do have the tank. 1992, recession plus pressure from the usual 8-year turnover. 1996 incumbent. 2000 8th year, 2004 incumbent 2008 8th year, 2012 incumbent, 2016 8th year.

ETA: Obviously the tank bit is a joke, but it would not be too hard to come up with some sort of oddball but reasonable criterion that explains 1988 but does not apply to the other years.
Indeed we can probably reduce it to economy or scandal. And with the caveat that either of the two has to be enough of a factor. Easy!
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 10:42 PM   #1298
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,452
Elizabeth Warren calls out Zuckerberg over new Facebook ad policies after his meeting with Trump

I'm mildly surprised that I haven't seen more of the Democratic candidates hammer at this.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:36 AM   #1299
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,092
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Elizabeth Warren calls out Zuckerberg over new Facebook ad policies after his meeting with Trump

I'm mildly surprised that I haven't seen more of the Democratic candidates hammer at this.
It only came out yesterday.

Quote:
Here’s what we do know: Trump did indeed meet with Zuckerberg on Sept. 19 in Washington, D.C. We don’t know what they talked about. Something we do know, however, is that on Sept. 24, Facebook shared it would not fact check or remove ad content by politicians, even if said content violated Facebook’s rules. Basically: Even if it’s false, that ad can stay up on Facebook, as long as a politician bought it.

Hmm. That’s some ... interesting timing, to say the least., especially considering we already know Trump’s re-election campaign has dropped serious money to reach potential voters on Facebook. How serious? As Warren suggests in her thread, about $1 million per week. If we want to look at recent numbers on the impeachment, for example, Trump’s campaign is spending an astounding $2 million per week on Facebook ads alone.
That's some scary ****. It looks like Zuckerberg happily accepted millions from Trump for specious ads and got a twofur, Zuck doesn't want to see Warren elected because she's a threat to his empire.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 9th October 2019 at 12:37 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 03:41 AM   #1300
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,879
It would be unfair to hold Republicans to any standards.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 08:26 AM   #1301
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,975
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Naomi Klein was on CSPAN this morning. She pointed out the fact Biden's son was on the board of an oil company doesn't bode well for addressing climate change.

From her Twitter Account:
Bidenís son isnít running for office. Why the hell does this matter?
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 08:28 AM   #1302
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,907
And for what it's worth (at least at this early stage)...

From: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-...lls-2019-10-07
Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has overtaken rival Joe Biden in four out of five recent polls.... Warren, the Massachusetts senator, scores 26.6% support in a RealClearPolitics average of polls, just ahead of the former vice president’s 26.4%.

The next few candidates are Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, and Yang, with between 15% and 2%.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 08:39 AM   #1303
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,907
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Quote:
Elizabeth Warren calls out Zuckerberg over new Facebook ad policies after his meeting with Trump

I'm mildly surprised that I haven't seen more of the Democratic candidates hammer at this.
It only came out yesterday.
Quote:
Hereís what we do know: Trump did indeed meet with Zuckerberg on Sept. 19 in Washington, D.C. We donít know what they talked about. Something we do know, however, is that on Sept. 24, Facebook shared it would not fact check or remove ad content by politicians, even if said content violated Facebookís rules. Basically: Even if itís false, that ad can stay up on Facebook, as long as a politician bought it.
That's some scary ****. It looks like Zuckerberg happily accepted millions from Trump for specious ads and got a twofur, Zuck doesn't want to see Warren elected because she's a threat to his empire.
That's a strange thing for Facebook to do, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, after the 2016 elections, and all the scrutiny over things like Cambridge Analytica's misuse of data they skimmed from Facebook, you figure Facebook would be extra careful to at least give the appearance of wanting to be clean. Allowing ads based on false information will be another blow to their already questionable reputation.

Secondly, why do even more to piss off the democrats? Allowing Trump to purchase ads on facebook to promote his lies may give Trump some benefit, but there are strong indications that Trump may be headed to defeat in 2020, even with Facebook's help. The didn't like Warren before, how friendly do you think she'll be to facebook's interests if she wins the presidency despite Facebook hosting dozens of ads accusing her of all sorts of conspiracy theories?
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 08:43 AM   #1304
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Bidenís son isnít running for office. Why the hell does this matter?

Obviously he will be given a high ranking position in the Biden administration. That's how it works now, isn't it?
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 08:48 AM   #1305
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,500
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Bidenís son isnít running for office. Why the hell does this matter?
All members of the tribes have to answer for the sins, real or hypothetical, for all sins of all members of their tribe and you cannot criticize the other tribe until every member of your tribe is 100% morally pure.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 01:11 AM   #1306
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,452
Fox National Poll: Trump Losing by 10% to Warren and Biden, Losing by 9% to Sanders
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 03:40 AM   #1307
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,452
Hmm. I suppose this is worthy of note, too.

Elizabeth Warren's pregnancy discrimination 'scandal' is no such thing

If the goal was to smear Warren as a liar, it has backfired spectacularly. All over the country, women have spoken out to say this is how discrimination works


Personally, I don't think much of this particular attack attempt, regardless, for similar reasons to why I don't think much of the attempts to falsely claim that Warren falsely claimed Native American ancestry to get jobs. It's fairly certainly nothing more than a smear based on a very selective picking from the relevant facts.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 04:50 AM   #1308
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,013
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
That's a strange thing for Facebook to do, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, after the 2016 elections, and all the scrutiny over things like Cambridge Analytica's misuse of data they skimmed from Facebook, you figure Facebook would be extra careful to at least give the appearance of wanting to be clean. Allowing ads based on false information will be another blow to their already questionable reputation.

Secondly, why do even more to piss off the democrats? Allowing Trump to purchase ads on facebook to promote his lies may give Trump some benefit, but there are strong indications that Trump may be headed to defeat in 2020, even with Facebook's help. The didn't like Warren before, how friendly do you think she'll be to facebook's interests if she wins the presidency despite Facebook hosting dozens of ads accusing her of all sorts of conspiracy theories?
Because it's Facebook. Secretly violating norms is literally their business model. They have not and can not stop doing any of the sketchy crap they've been caught doing several times by now. Warren's called them out on it and basically said she's going to regulate the ethics into 'em sideways, so they're on Team Trump now whether they like it or not. And they do!

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 11th October 2019 at 04:51 AM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 05:26 AM   #1309
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,309
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Hmm. I suppose this is worthy of note, too.

Elizabeth Warren's pregnancy discrimination 'scandal' is no such thing

If the goal was to smear Warren as a liar, it has backfired spectacularly. All over the country, women have spoken out to say this is how discrimination works


Personally, I don't think much of this particular attack attempt, regardless, for similar reasons to why I don't think much of the attempts to falsely claim that Warren falsely claimed Native American ancestry to get jobs. It's fairly certainly nothing more than a smear based on a very selective picking from the relevant facts.
Why do you think this with such certainty? She described the situation very differently in one interview than she now describes it. "This is how discrimination works" might be true, but that has no bearing on the contradictory versions. Nor does the backlash.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 07:03 AM   #1310
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,452
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Why do you think this with such certainty? She described the situation very differently in one interview than she now describes it. "This is how discrimination works" might be true, but that has no bearing on the contradictory versions.
She described it differently, yes. It's possible that she lied on one occasion, the other, or both, but as the article notes, the two descriptions are actually not mutually exclusive. Going further, even if she did lie on one of the occasions, we've got a rather limited range of reasonably believable reasons why, most of which are simply not grounds for condemnation of any sort.


Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Nor does the backlash.
I'm going to be a bit of a terrible person here and say something simple. I don't get what backlash there should be from this - for Warren, at least. That Warren might have lied, period, thus establishing that she's just another totally corrupt and untrustworthy politician? That if one assumes, like the right-wing smear machine does, that the worst reasoning that they think that they can get to stick to her is what should immediately be accepted as truth?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 11th October 2019 at 07:06 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 07:33 AM   #1311
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,309
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
She described it differently, yes. It's possible that she lied on one occasion, the other, or both, but as the article notes, the two descriptions are actually not mutually exclusive. Going further, even if she did lie on one of the occasions, we've got a rather limited range of reasonably believable reasons why, most of which are simply not grounds for condemnation of any sort.
I mostly agree -- "any sort" is a bit much if indeed she lied -- but here's where I have a problem as a voter who wants to see Trump defeated above all other priorities:

The way things are trending, there's a fair chance that Warren will be the nominee. I worry that she has a tendency to play loose with the facts about her personal bio, and more importantly, that's a sign of internal fragility that could manifest in the general. I want a candidate who conveys supreme confidence.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 07:33 AM   #1312
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,686
Biden goes full-on Grandpa Simpson:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...n-hall-vpx.cnn
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 07:36 AM   #1313
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,197
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
I want a candidate who conveys supreme confidence.
Vote Trump, then!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 07:40 AM   #1314
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,309
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Vote Trump, then!
Do I get a fee for being your straight man?

But as long as you mention, Trump doesn't convey confidence to me. I see that trait as superficial in the extreme. He conveys to me that he's an insecure baby.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 08:16 AM   #1315
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,197
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Do I get a fee for being your straight man?
Wait, so this wasn't voluntary work? Where's my damned check?

Quote:
But as long as you mention, Trump doesn't convey confidence to me. I see that trait as superficial in the extreme. He conveys to me that he's an insecure baby.
Agreed 100%. He just thinks he conveys confidence. As someone said before, he's a weak man's idea of a strong man.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 11th October 2019 at 08:17 AM.
Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 08:49 AM   #1316
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,994
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
The way things are trending, there's a fair chance that Warren will be the nominee. I worry that she has a tendency to play loose with the facts about her personal bio, and more importantly, that's a sign of internal fragility that could manifest in the general. I want a candidate who conveys supreme confidence.
Whatever tendency she has there seems really minor to me compared to Biden, tho:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...013_story.html
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 11:15 AM   #1317
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,647
The Dems need to nominate the candidate best able to take down Trump. Everything else is way down on the list.
I am not a big Biden fan but some of the comments here are realty cheap shots.
And indictive of the "we don't need no stinking moderates" attitude that, if it carries over into November 2020 will reelect Trump.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.

Last edited by dudalb; 11th October 2019 at 11:17 AM.
dudalb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 11:38 AM   #1318
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,309
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Whatever tendency she has there seems really minor to me compared to Biden, tho:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...013_story.html
I'm squeamish about Biden too. It's a dilemma.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 12:09 PM   #1319
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Do I get a fee for being your straight man?

But as long as you mention, Trump doesn't convey confidence to me. I see that trait as superficial in the extreme. He conveys to me that he's an insecure baby.

I mentioned in another thread that Trump's recent demand that everyone apologize to him for the impeachment inquiry reminded me of the final episode of "Preacher", in which God was shown to be an insecure, needy whiner who wanted everyone to tell Him that they love Him, regardless of what He had done to them.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 12:10 PM   #1320
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,994
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And indictive of the "we don't need no stinking moderates" attitude that, if it carries over into November 2020 will reelect Trump.
Plenty of moderates like Warren. It's one of the things that makes the "Bernie Only" camp hate her so much.

Independents like her, too:
https://www.dataforprogress.org/memo...d-favorability
Quote:
Senator Elizabeth Warren had the highest net favorable ratings among the presidential candidates we tested.
Quote:
Independents in the battleground districts have a much more favorable opinion of Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.