Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
March 24, 2019
a small taste of the comments
and no, I didn't cherry pick, these are ALL in order, from the top, none skipped
If anyone has doubts about Buttigieg in Faux News country, just look at the comments on a Fox YT vid
Not saying he is going to melt every Rethug's scurrilous heart, but I have never seen Faux News comment section like this. It is at least a start.
a small taste of the comments
and no, I didn't cherry pick, these are ALL in order, from the top, none skipped
March 24, 2019
Democratic hopeful Pete Buttigieg is having a moment in his long shot quest to become the nation’s youngest and first openly gay president – 317 days before the Iowa caucuses. The little-known mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has drawn attention after a widely-praised performance during a CNN town hall and a string of media interviews – a sign of how fluid and unpredictable the Democratic presidential primary is nearly a year before voting begins. “He’ll be a little less of a long shot tomorrow,” David Axelrod, the prominent Democratic strategist and former adviser to Barack Obama, said after the town hall.
https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/1104922963386630144
Days later, after an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski said they were “overwhelmed” by the positive reaction to Buttigieg.“The only other time in 12 years that we heard from as many people about a guest was after Barack Obama appeared on Morning Joe,” Scarborough said.
snip
Democrats have applauded his answers to key questions. Is a two-term mayor of a city with just over 100,000 really qualified to be president? “I have more experience in government that the president of the United States.” And how will he stand up to Trump? “I’m a gay man from Indiana,” Buttigieg likes to say. “I know how to deal with a bully.”
snip
superb town hall video
https://twitter.com/ScottGoldstein/status/1104923546344656896
He might be 37 but I'm blown away by his depth and thoughtfulness. Progressive but not partisan. Researched but still relatable. Remarkable skill.
The Guardian: Pete Buttigieg for president? Long-shot stands out in crowded field
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/23/pete-buttigieg-democrat-2020-presidential-electionDemocratic hopeful Pete Buttigieg is having a moment in his long shot quest to become the nation’s youngest and first openly gay president – 317 days before the Iowa caucuses. The little-known mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has drawn attention after a widely-praised performance during a CNN town hall and a string of media interviews – a sign of how fluid and unpredictable the Democratic presidential primary is nearly a year before voting begins. “He’ll be a little less of a long shot tomorrow,” David Axelrod, the prominent Democratic strategist and former adviser to Barack Obama, said after the town hall.
https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/1104922963386630144
Days later, after an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski said they were “overwhelmed” by the positive reaction to Buttigieg.“The only other time in 12 years that we heard from as many people about a guest was after Barack Obama appeared on Morning Joe,” Scarborough said.
snip
Democrats have applauded his answers to key questions. Is a two-term mayor of a city with just over 100,000 really qualified to be president? “I have more experience in government that the president of the United States.” And how will he stand up to Trump? “I’m a gay man from Indiana,” Buttigieg likes to say. “I know how to deal with a bully.”
In response to a question during the CNN town hall about the former governor of his home state, Mike Pence, Buttigieg asked how a man who describes himself as a religious conservative became “the cheerleader of the porn star presidency”.
“Is it that he stopped believing in scripture when he started believing in Donald Trump?” the mayor asked.
“Is it that he stopped believing in scripture when he started believing in Donald Trump?” the mayor asked.
snip
superb town hall video
https://twitter.com/ScottGoldstein/status/1104923546344656896
He might be 37 but I'm blown away by his depth and thoughtfulness. Progressive but not partisan. Researched but still relatable. Remarkable skill.
March 23, 2019
he black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks. (It’s also the largest percentage-point decline among any racial or ethnic group since white voter turnout dropped from 70.2% in 1992 to 60.7% in 1996.) The number of black voters also declined, falling by about 765,000 to 16.4 million in 2016, representing a sharp reversal from 2012. With Barack Obama on the ballot that year, the black voter turnout rate surpassed that of whites for the first time. Among whites, the 65.3% turnout rate in 2016 represented a slight increase from 64.1% in 2012.
Why black voter turnout fell in 2016
How voting Democratic has become integral to African Americans’ cultural identity.
https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/1/15/16891020/black-voter-turnout
“Black Voters Aren’t Turning Out For The Post-Obama Democratic Party.” It’s a familiar headline in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. Indeed, post-election analysis of voter data shows black turnout in presidential elections declined 4.7 percent between 2012 and 2016 (overall turnout showed a small decline from 61.8 percent in 2012 to 61.4 percent in 2016).
How do we explain it — and can it be changed? My ongoing research with Ismail White on political norms among black Americans says we ought to have expected the decline, but that the Democratic Party can do much more to cut it back by recognizing how social dynamics shape African-American politics.
Some have attributed the decline in black turnout to voter suppression tactics made possible by the Shelby v. Holder (2013) decision that rescinded key protections from the Voting Rights Act. But black turnout saw similar declines in states where no new voter laws were implemented after the Shelby decision. Others have simplistically pointed to the absence of the first black president on the ballot — as if that fact offers an explanation. Our work on the social dynamics of politics within the black community provides the missing explanation.
In our recent publication in the American Political Science Review, we argue that the continued social isolation of blacks in American society has created spaces and incentives for the emergence of black political norms. Democratic partisanship has become significantly tied to black identity in the United States. The historical and continued racial segregation of black communities has produced spaces in which in-group members can leverage social sanctions against other group members to ensure compliance with group partisan norms.
snip
Study: Black turnout slumped in 2016
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/black-election-turnout-down-2016-census-survey-238226
Census shows pervasive decline in 2016 minority voter turnout
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/
Study: Black voter turnout in Wisconsin declined by nearly one-fifth in 2016
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/study-black-voter-turnout-in-wisconsin-declined-by-nearly-one/article_d3e72e41-96a0-51fb-83ba-11dfc6693daf.html
Turnout among black voters in Wisconsin dropped about 19 percent in the 2016 election from 2012, more than four times the national decline, according to a new study by a liberal group.
The study, released by the Center for American Progress, made the estimates based on data from the U.S. Census, polls and state voter files.
It provides the strongest evidence yet that Wisconsin’s decline in voter turnout, while seen in other demographic groups, was much more dramatic among African-Americans.
The study also found in Wisconsin, as in other key states, the 2016 electorate was significantly more white and non-college- educated than was reported by exit polls immediately after the election.
snip
Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote — and Don’t Regret It
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html
MILWAUKEE — Four barbers and a firefighter were pondering their future under a Trump presidency at the Upper Cutz barbershop last week.
“We got to figure this out,” said Cedric Fleming, one of the barbers. “We got a gangster in the chair now,” he said, referring to President-elect Donald J. Trump.They admitted that they could not complain too much: Only two of them had voted. But there were no regrets. “I don’t feel bad,” Mr. Fleming said, trimming a mustache. “Milwaukee is tired. Both of them were terrible. They never do anything for us anyway.”
Wisconsin, a state that Hillary Clinton had assumed she would win, historically boasts one of the nation’s highest rates of voter participation; this year’s 68.3 percent turnout was the fifth best among the 50 states. But by local standards, it was a disappointment, the lowest turnout in 16 years. And those no-shows were important. Mr. Trump won the state by just 27,000 voters.
Milwaukee’s lowest-income neighborhoods offer one explanation for the turnout figures. Of the city’s 15 council districts, the decline in turnout from 2012 to 2016 in the five poorest was consistently much greater than the drop seen in more prosperous areas — accounting for half of the overall decline in turnout citywide.
The biggest drop was here in District 15, a stretch of fading wooden homes, sandwich shops and fast-food restaurants that is 84 percent black. In this district, voter turnout declined by 19.5 percent from 2012 figures, according to Neil Albrecht, executive director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission. It is home to some of Milwaukee’s poorest residents and, according to a 2016 documentary, “Milwaukee 53206,” has one of the nation’s highest per-capita incarceration rates.
At Upper Cutz, a bustling barbershop in a green-trimmed wooden house, talk of politics inevitably comes back to one man: Barack Obama. Mr. Obama’s elections infused many here with a feeling of connection to national politics they had never before experienced. But their lives have not gotten appreciably better, and sourness has set in.
snip
and when they did vote there was this...
Mostly black neighborhoods voted more Republican in 2016 than in 2012
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/25/mostly-black-neighborhoods-voted-more-republican-in-2016-than-in-2012/
snip
A few things jump out. First: The most heavily white neighborhoods voted much more heavily Republican in 2016 than in 2012 (the dark red line shoots up past the light-red one). Second, the most heavily black neighborhoods voted less heavily Democratic last year than four years ago. (We’ll come back to this, obviously.) Third, Hispanic neighborhoods voted for Republicans less than in 2012.
The net effect of those shifts can be measured by comparing the margin between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012 with the Trump-Clinton margin in each neighborhood last year. In heavily white neighborhoods, a big shift to the Republicans. In mostly Hispanic neighborhoods, generally more support for the Democrat, except in the most dense places (although, as the chart on the right makes clear, the sample size for those is very small and therefore more subject to volatility).
snip
This Chart Shows Philadelphia Black Voters Stayed Home, Costing Clinton
A shift in Philadelphia voter turnout, which broke along racial lines, appears to have cost Hillary Clinton almost 35,000 votes.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johntemplon/this-chart-shows-philadelphia-black-voters-stayed-home-costi
One of the most surprising results of Election Day was Donald Trump winning Pennsylvania — a state that had voted for the Democrat in every election since 1988. As of the Pennsylvania Board of Elections’ latest tally, Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 57,588 votes. More than 60% of that margin comes from a shift in the vote in Philadelphia.
The Philadelphia data offers a particularly clear glimpse at what went wrong for Hillary Clinton: A block of voters who showed up for Barack Obama wasn’t inspired enough by her — or scared enough by Donald Trump — to show up. And as analysts pore over the results of the campaign, the numbers in Philadelphia offer perhaps the most devastating single data point for the Clinton campaign.
snip
massive drop in 85% black Detroit too
https://twitter.com/DomenicoNPR/status/796268386758049793
Black voter turnout fell in 2016, even as a record number of Americans cast ballots
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/he black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks. (It’s also the largest percentage-point decline among any racial or ethnic group since white voter turnout dropped from 70.2% in 1992 to 60.7% in 1996.) The number of black voters also declined, falling by about 765,000 to 16.4 million in 2016, representing a sharp reversal from 2012. With Barack Obama on the ballot that year, the black voter turnout rate surpassed that of whites for the first time. Among whites, the 65.3% turnout rate in 2016 represented a slight increase from 64.1% in 2012.
Why black voter turnout fell in 2016
How voting Democratic has become integral to African Americans’ cultural identity.
https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/1/15/16891020/black-voter-turnout
“Black Voters Aren’t Turning Out For The Post-Obama Democratic Party.” It’s a familiar headline in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. Indeed, post-election analysis of voter data shows black turnout in presidential elections declined 4.7 percent between 2012 and 2016 (overall turnout showed a small decline from 61.8 percent in 2012 to 61.4 percent in 2016).
How do we explain it — and can it be changed? My ongoing research with Ismail White on political norms among black Americans says we ought to have expected the decline, but that the Democratic Party can do much more to cut it back by recognizing how social dynamics shape African-American politics.
Some have attributed the decline in black turnout to voter suppression tactics made possible by the Shelby v. Holder (2013) decision that rescinded key protections from the Voting Rights Act. But black turnout saw similar declines in states where no new voter laws were implemented after the Shelby decision. Others have simplistically pointed to the absence of the first black president on the ballot — as if that fact offers an explanation. Our work on the social dynamics of politics within the black community provides the missing explanation.
In our recent publication in the American Political Science Review, we argue that the continued social isolation of blacks in American society has created spaces and incentives for the emergence of black political norms. Democratic partisanship has become significantly tied to black identity in the United States. The historical and continued racial segregation of black communities has produced spaces in which in-group members can leverage social sanctions against other group members to ensure compliance with group partisan norms.
snip
Study: Black turnout slumped in 2016
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/black-election-turnout-down-2016-census-survey-238226
Census shows pervasive decline in 2016 minority voter turnout
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/
Study: Black voter turnout in Wisconsin declined by nearly one-fifth in 2016
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/study-black-voter-turnout-in-wisconsin-declined-by-nearly-one/article_d3e72e41-96a0-51fb-83ba-11dfc6693daf.html
Turnout among black voters in Wisconsin dropped about 19 percent in the 2016 election from 2012, more than four times the national decline, according to a new study by a liberal group.
The study, released by the Center for American Progress, made the estimates based on data from the U.S. Census, polls and state voter files.
It provides the strongest evidence yet that Wisconsin’s decline in voter turnout, while seen in other demographic groups, was much more dramatic among African-Americans.
The study also found in Wisconsin, as in other key states, the 2016 electorate was significantly more white and non-college- educated than was reported by exit polls immediately after the election.
snip
Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote — and Don’t Regret It
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html
MILWAUKEE — Four barbers and a firefighter were pondering their future under a Trump presidency at the Upper Cutz barbershop last week.
“We got to figure this out,” said Cedric Fleming, one of the barbers. “We got a gangster in the chair now,” he said, referring to President-elect Donald J. Trump.They admitted that they could not complain too much: Only two of them had voted. But there were no regrets. “I don’t feel bad,” Mr. Fleming said, trimming a mustache. “Milwaukee is tired. Both of them were terrible. They never do anything for us anyway.”
Wisconsin, a state that Hillary Clinton had assumed she would win, historically boasts one of the nation’s highest rates of voter participation; this year’s 68.3 percent turnout was the fifth best among the 50 states. But by local standards, it was a disappointment, the lowest turnout in 16 years. And those no-shows were important. Mr. Trump won the state by just 27,000 voters.
Milwaukee’s lowest-income neighborhoods offer one explanation for the turnout figures. Of the city’s 15 council districts, the decline in turnout from 2012 to 2016 in the five poorest was consistently much greater than the drop seen in more prosperous areas — accounting for half of the overall decline in turnout citywide.
The biggest drop was here in District 15, a stretch of fading wooden homes, sandwich shops and fast-food restaurants that is 84 percent black. In this district, voter turnout declined by 19.5 percent from 2012 figures, according to Neil Albrecht, executive director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission. It is home to some of Milwaukee’s poorest residents and, according to a 2016 documentary, “Milwaukee 53206,” has one of the nation’s highest per-capita incarceration rates.
At Upper Cutz, a bustling barbershop in a green-trimmed wooden house, talk of politics inevitably comes back to one man: Barack Obama. Mr. Obama’s elections infused many here with a feeling of connection to national politics they had never before experienced. But their lives have not gotten appreciably better, and sourness has set in.
snip
and when they did vote there was this...
Mostly black neighborhoods voted more Republican in 2016 than in 2012
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/25/mostly-black-neighborhoods-voted-more-republican-in-2016-than-in-2012/
snip
A few things jump out. First: The most heavily white neighborhoods voted much more heavily Republican in 2016 than in 2012 (the dark red line shoots up past the light-red one). Second, the most heavily black neighborhoods voted less heavily Democratic last year than four years ago. (We’ll come back to this, obviously.) Third, Hispanic neighborhoods voted for Republicans less than in 2012.
The net effect of those shifts can be measured by comparing the margin between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012 with the Trump-Clinton margin in each neighborhood last year. In heavily white neighborhoods, a big shift to the Republicans. In mostly Hispanic neighborhoods, generally more support for the Democrat, except in the most dense places (although, as the chart on the right makes clear, the sample size for those is very small and therefore more subject to volatility).
snip
This Chart Shows Philadelphia Black Voters Stayed Home, Costing Clinton
A shift in Philadelphia voter turnout, which broke along racial lines, appears to have cost Hillary Clinton almost 35,000 votes.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johntemplon/this-chart-shows-philadelphia-black-voters-stayed-home-costi
One of the most surprising results of Election Day was Donald Trump winning Pennsylvania — a state that had voted for the Democrat in every election since 1988. As of the Pennsylvania Board of Elections’ latest tally, Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 57,588 votes. More than 60% of that margin comes from a shift in the vote in Philadelphia.
The Philadelphia data offers a particularly clear glimpse at what went wrong for Hillary Clinton: A block of voters who showed up for Barack Obama wasn’t inspired enough by her — or scared enough by Donald Trump — to show up. And as analysts pore over the results of the campaign, the numbers in Philadelphia offer perhaps the most devastating single data point for the Clinton campaign.
snip
massive drop in 85% black Detroit too
https://twitter.com/DomenicoNPR/status/796268386758049793
March 23, 2019
Giving Trump every single probable state and EV, it comes down to 3 states and we have to sweep them
Furthermore, drilling down as far as I am comfortable with, it comes down to 3 cities (Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Detroit, and the African American vote in those cities).
Here is the map (obviously flipping Florida (or North Carolina, etc) to Blue changes a tonne, but I am trying to paint a worst case scenario for us by giving Trump the all lightly pink 2016 states that were not nearly as close as the 3 biggies (the infamous 78,652 votes from WI, PA, MI)
We can alter that map so that we take NH, sweep Maine and all Trump needs is to win is take even the smallest of those 3 Browns (ie. Wisconsin) and he wins 270-268.
The main way we win all 3 is via what cost us badly (along with a myriad number of other things, some related) in 2016. The A-A vote (I am a POC myself), which was weak in Philly, Milwaukee, and Detroit.
If we run no POC on the ticket, especially 2 white males, we are sorely tempting fate, as those 3 states were by far the closest of the larger states, and they have a whopping 46 EV's combined.
I cannot envision a 'no POC ticket' that will swing enough of the other states to make up for that many votes. NC will be even harder to flip with no POC. Florida too. I could see Arizona and New Hampshire flipping without a POC on the ticket, but that is not enough to win, even if we also sweep Maine and take 2nd NE district. We lose 293-245. Pull AZ away from us in that scenario and ADD BOTH WI and MI (or even WI and PA), and we STILL lose.
In summation, we can lose EVERY other truly close swing state (and ME-2 and NE-2), as shown on the map.........
and just win WI, MI, and PA (states we have NO business losing, and states that all now have Dem governors) and we BEAT TRUMP.
A massive AA turnout in Philly (Chris Matthews, a Philly boy, as soon as he saw the low turnout there in inner city Philly, said that Hillary was in huge trouble, and that was hours, hours before anyone else), Milwaukee (brilliant move having the convention there), and Detroit (my god is their election system messed up,this MUST be fixed) pretty much guarantees that. We NEED a diverse ticket IMHO to get there.
March 22, 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/22/eu-mps-theresa-may-finished-brexit
The EU has no time for Theresa May, which doesn’t mean there is no flexibility in the Brexit timetable. Continental leaders have granted an article 50 extension, but not the one requested by the prime minister. She had pitched for a new departure date of 30 June. She was given eight days less, until 22 May. And that date only stands if parliament ratifies the deal.
If May flunks another meaningful vote, the extension gets shorter – 12 April is the new cliff-edge that comes into view. That date marks the point at which Britain would have to start organising European parliament elections, should it want another even longer extension. A national change of heart on the whole Brexit business would still be welcome in Brussels but it is not expected, and the priority is to escort a troublesome ex-member off the premises with a minimum of disruption before those MEP ballots get under way.
Does May like this plan? It doesn’t matter. She wasn’t in the room where it happened. The summit conclusions were handed down to the petitioning nation as it paced around an antechamber. This is the power relationship between a “third country” and the EU. Britain had better get used to it.
The terms of the extension are not drafted for the prime minister’s benefit. They contain a message from the EU direct to the House of Commons. In crude terms: piss or get off the pot. If you want to leave with a deal, vote for the damned deal. If you are foolish enough to leave without a deal, do not blame us. Have a couple more weeks to think about it. But if you want something else, a referendum or a softer Brexit, work it out soon. And then send someone who isn’t May to talk to us about it.
snip
The EU knows it, so do our own MPs - Theresa May is finished
European leaders have known for some time that the prime minister wasn’t up to the Brexit job. This week she’s proved ithttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/22/eu-mps-theresa-may-finished-brexit
The EU has no time for Theresa May, which doesn’t mean there is no flexibility in the Brexit timetable. Continental leaders have granted an article 50 extension, but not the one requested by the prime minister. She had pitched for a new departure date of 30 June. She was given eight days less, until 22 May. And that date only stands if parliament ratifies the deal.
If May flunks another meaningful vote, the extension gets shorter – 12 April is the new cliff-edge that comes into view. That date marks the point at which Britain would have to start organising European parliament elections, should it want another even longer extension. A national change of heart on the whole Brexit business would still be welcome in Brussels but it is not expected, and the priority is to escort a troublesome ex-member off the premises with a minimum of disruption before those MEP ballots get under way.
Does May like this plan? It doesn’t matter. She wasn’t in the room where it happened. The summit conclusions were handed down to the petitioning nation as it paced around an antechamber. This is the power relationship between a “third country” and the EU. Britain had better get used to it.
The terms of the extension are not drafted for the prime minister’s benefit. They contain a message from the EU direct to the House of Commons. In crude terms: piss or get off the pot. If you want to leave with a deal, vote for the damned deal. If you are foolish enough to leave without a deal, do not blame us. Have a couple more weeks to think about it. But if you want something else, a referendum or a softer Brexit, work it out soon. And then send someone who isn’t May to talk to us about it.
snip
March 22, 2019
When anonymous conspiracy avatar QAnon blew another prediction, this time one that promised unspecified “PAIN” at the end of a 21-day countdown, the poster’s followers do what they always do: took it in stride.
But disturbingly, the QAnon poster refocused the subject of their cryptic posts away from the deep state and the ever-approaching Great Awakening and onto individual people. First came a series of portraits of Obama-era officials that followed posts referencing words like “kill” and “ammunition.” This came just days after the 8chan-driven massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand—and the posts were seen by many as a kind of hit list.
But after that, Q became hyperfocused on one particular person, and it’s someone that has no political footprint whatsoever: a photographer and casting director named Rachel Chandler, a member of the newspaper-dynasty Chandler family.
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1108810494025043970
Q made a seemingly endless stream of posts referencing Chandler, insinuating that she took a 2017 picture of Bill Clinton and registered child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (whose light prison sentence handed down by current Trump cabinet official Alexander Acosta is currently under investigation) hanging out together in a pool.
snip
QAnon is attacking a random woman in a disturbing and dangerous way
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/qanon-rachel-chandler/When anonymous conspiracy avatar QAnon blew another prediction, this time one that promised unspecified “PAIN” at the end of a 21-day countdown, the poster’s followers do what they always do: took it in stride.
But disturbingly, the QAnon poster refocused the subject of their cryptic posts away from the deep state and the ever-approaching Great Awakening and onto individual people. First came a series of portraits of Obama-era officials that followed posts referencing words like “kill” and “ammunition.” This came just days after the 8chan-driven massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand—and the posts were seen by many as a kind of hit list.
But after that, Q became hyperfocused on one particular person, and it’s someone that has no political footprint whatsoever: a photographer and casting director named Rachel Chandler, a member of the newspaper-dynasty Chandler family.
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1108810494025043970
Q made a seemingly endless stream of posts referencing Chandler, insinuating that she took a 2017 picture of Bill Clinton and registered child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (whose light prison sentence handed down by current Trump cabinet official Alexander Acosta is currently under investigation) hanging out together in a pool.
snip
March 22, 2019
The author of a new book focused on the President's daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner's influence in the Trump administration warns of the danger she believes the two White House advisers present.
"I think that you can't underestimate the dangers of these two," Vicky Ward, the author of "Kushner, Inc.," told CNN's John Berman Wednesday during an interview on "New Day." "And I think that actually (President Donald Trump) knows that." Asked why she believes they're dangerous, Ward pointed to Kushner's heavy involvement in the administration's foreign policy, including the efforts to broker a peace agreement in the Middle East.
"Instead of solving Middle East peace, Jared nearly put us into a war in the region," she said, as she described how he essentially took over the State Department from then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Ward also raised Kushner's take over many international relationships when Tillerson was secretary of state, which she details in her book, and Kushner's relationship with the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, also known as MBS. "His complete control of the relationship with MBS in Saudi Arabia meant that he kind of got played by MBS," Ward said, adding that Saudi Arabia "made a mockery" of the US in 2017 by cutting off diplomatic ties with Qatar shortly after hosting the President, Kushner and Tillerson.
snip
video at the link as well
Author says 'you can't underestimate the dangers' of Ivanka Trump, Kushner
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/vicky-ward-kushner-inc-ivanka-trump-cnntv/index.htmlThe author of a new book focused on the President's daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner's influence in the Trump administration warns of the danger she believes the two White House advisers present.
"I think that you can't underestimate the dangers of these two," Vicky Ward, the author of "Kushner, Inc.," told CNN's John Berman Wednesday during an interview on "New Day." "And I think that actually (President Donald Trump) knows that." Asked why she believes they're dangerous, Ward pointed to Kushner's heavy involvement in the administration's foreign policy, including the efforts to broker a peace agreement in the Middle East.
"Instead of solving Middle East peace, Jared nearly put us into a war in the region," she said, as she described how he essentially took over the State Department from then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Ward also raised Kushner's take over many international relationships when Tillerson was secretary of state, which she details in her book, and Kushner's relationship with the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, also known as MBS. "His complete control of the relationship with MBS in Saudi Arabia meant that he kind of got played by MBS," Ward said, adding that Saudi Arabia "made a mockery" of the US in 2017 by cutting off diplomatic ties with Qatar shortly after hosting the President, Kushner and Tillerson.
snip
video at the link as well
March 21, 2019
https://www.wonkette.com/thats-not-what-he-said-mayor-pete-hillary-clinton-edition
As we mentioned in our piece about Pete Buttigieg's interview on the Morning Joe Coffee Achievers Show of Shows, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, also did an interview with Esquire magazine, published yesterday. And wouldn't you know it, the magazine's choice of a pull quote has led a whole bunch of people on Twitter to decide that Pete Buttigieg shat all over Hillary Clinton and everyone who supported her, so fuck him, that fucking entitled millennial piece of shit.
Twitter being Twitter, there is not a hell of a lot of nuance in the discussion. And that's why Yr Wonkette, just last week, inaugurated what we're afraid will have to be a regular feature during Campaign 2020: "That's Not What She/He Said," in which we take various chunks of the Dems In Disarray Narrative and give 'em a good hosing-down. So let's take a look at the idea that Pete Buttigieg is a snotty terrible man who trashed Hillary Clinton, shall we? We shall!
First up, one of several tweets accusing Buttigieg of just LOVING the glass ceiling and wanting to keep women in their place. (For those keeping score at home, this is actually the position we hope to debunk):
https://twitter.com/tomwatson/status/1108394610785701888
Gosh, that DOES look terrible! And if it had been all he'd said, then it would be terrible. Except it's a pull quote that pulls the quote right out of any context. Here's the full question, and Buttigieg's answer, and we think the context matters more than a little:
snip
also here is the Esquire article in full
The Esquire Interview: Mayor Peter Buttigieg
The South Bend, Indiana mayor and Democratic presidential candidate talks socialism, the Green New Deal, "I'm With Her," what Democrats can learn from James Joyce(!), and more.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26861236/peter-buttigieg-interview/
The more I see and learn about Mayor Pete the more I really really like
Pete Buttigieg must be surging, Wonkette exposes dirty twitter troll tricks against him
That's Not What He Said! Mayor Pete / Hillary Clinton Editionhttps://www.wonkette.com/thats-not-what-he-said-mayor-pete-hillary-clinton-edition
As we mentioned in our piece about Pete Buttigieg's interview on the Morning Joe Coffee Achievers Show of Shows, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, also did an interview with Esquire magazine, published yesterday. And wouldn't you know it, the magazine's choice of a pull quote has led a whole bunch of people on Twitter to decide that Pete Buttigieg shat all over Hillary Clinton and everyone who supported her, so fuck him, that fucking entitled millennial piece of shit.
Twitter being Twitter, there is not a hell of a lot of nuance in the discussion. And that's why Yr Wonkette, just last week, inaugurated what we're afraid will have to be a regular feature during Campaign 2020: "That's Not What She/He Said," in which we take various chunks of the Dems In Disarray Narrative and give 'em a good hosing-down. So let's take a look at the idea that Pete Buttigieg is a snotty terrible man who trashed Hillary Clinton, shall we? We shall!
First up, one of several tweets accusing Buttigieg of just LOVING the glass ceiling and wanting to keep women in their place. (For those keeping score at home, this is actually the position we hope to debunk):
https://twitter.com/tomwatson/status/1108394610785701888
Gosh, that DOES look terrible! And if it had been all he'd said, then it would be terrible. Except it's a pull quote that pulls the quote right out of any context. Here's the full question, and Buttigieg's answer, and we think the context matters more than a little:
snip
also here is the Esquire article in full
The Esquire Interview: Mayor Peter Buttigieg
The South Bend, Indiana mayor and Democratic presidential candidate talks socialism, the Green New Deal, "I'm With Her," what Democrats can learn from James Joyce(!), and more.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26861236/peter-buttigieg-interview/
The more I see and learn about Mayor Pete the more I really really like
March 6, 2019
https://www.socialeurope.eu/science-and-subterfuge
Mainstream economics has a tendency to decide on some ‘established’ conclusions, and then hold to them, notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary. This is bad enough, but what may be worse for a discipline that lays claim to being a science is the lack of insistence on the replicability of empirical results. This is both standard and essential in most natural sciences; in economics, by contrast, there is mostly indifference and occasionally even fierce resistance to it. In some cases, the data that must be used to replicate conclusions are denied to other researchers.
The reason is often deeply political, because the results which are promoted and disseminated accord with visions of the economy that support particular ideological positions and associated policy stances. For example, empirical work that supports fiscal austerity or market deregulation is cited extensively and becomes the basis for advancing those particular policy outcomes. Very rarely is such work subject to the scrutiny—for example, challenging its assumptions and questioning its statistical procedures—that would be the norm for research in the natural sciences.
Consider the claim made by Stephen Moore and Arthur B Laffer that the Trump tax cuts in the US would not only pay for themselves but actually bring down the government deficit while generating more private investment. Their claim was completely wrong but somehow economic reality seems to have had little impact on those who continue to believe the assertion of the ‘Laffer curve’ that lower tax rates will generate higher tax revenues.
Famous trope
Now, a new paper by Servaas Storm effectively demolishes another famous trope of neoliberal economics—the argument that labour-market ‘rigidities’ depress output and employment. One of the empirical investigations most often cited for this argument is a paper by Timothy Besley and Robin Burgess, using manufacturing data across Indian states for the period 1958-92. Besley and Burgess claimed to show that pro-worker regulations in some states resulted in lower output, employment, investment and productivity, and even increased urban poverty, relative to states that did not adopt such regulations.
snip
Science and subterfuge in economics
A big argument of neoliberal economics is that unemployment is reduced by labour-market deregulation. Lack of robust evidence doesn’t seem to get in the way.https://www.socialeurope.eu/science-and-subterfuge
Mainstream economics has a tendency to decide on some ‘established’ conclusions, and then hold to them, notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary. This is bad enough, but what may be worse for a discipline that lays claim to being a science is the lack of insistence on the replicability of empirical results. This is both standard and essential in most natural sciences; in economics, by contrast, there is mostly indifference and occasionally even fierce resistance to it. In some cases, the data that must be used to replicate conclusions are denied to other researchers.
The reason is often deeply political, because the results which are promoted and disseminated accord with visions of the economy that support particular ideological positions and associated policy stances. For example, empirical work that supports fiscal austerity or market deregulation is cited extensively and becomes the basis for advancing those particular policy outcomes. Very rarely is such work subject to the scrutiny—for example, challenging its assumptions and questioning its statistical procedures—that would be the norm for research in the natural sciences.
Consider the claim made by Stephen Moore and Arthur B Laffer that the Trump tax cuts in the US would not only pay for themselves but actually bring down the government deficit while generating more private investment. Their claim was completely wrong but somehow economic reality seems to have had little impact on those who continue to believe the assertion of the ‘Laffer curve’ that lower tax rates will generate higher tax revenues.
Famous trope
Now, a new paper by Servaas Storm effectively demolishes another famous trope of neoliberal economics—the argument that labour-market ‘rigidities’ depress output and employment. One of the empirical investigations most often cited for this argument is a paper by Timothy Besley and Robin Burgess, using manufacturing data across Indian states for the period 1958-92. Besley and Burgess claimed to show that pro-worker regulations in some states resulted in lower output, employment, investment and productivity, and even increased urban poverty, relative to states that did not adopt such regulations.
snip
March 5, 2019
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said last week that some young people are concerned about having children given the threat climate change could pose to future generations.
The comments drew intense media attention and some pundits called the comment "fascistic."
But a new INSIDER poll found that nearly a third of Americans - and about 38% of those between 18-29 years old - believe a couple should consider the negative effects of climate change when deciding whether or not to have children.
https://www.businessinsider.in/more-than-a-third-of-millennials-share-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-worry-about-having-kids-while-the-threat-of-climate-change-looms/articleshow/68262786.cms
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made headlines last week when she suggested that some young Americans are concerned about having children because of the threat that climate change could pose to future generations.
"Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don't turn this ship around ... there's scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult," Ocasio-Cortez said during an Instagram livestream. "And even if you don't have kids, there are still children here in the world, and we have a moral obligation to leave a better world for them." So, the 29-year-old New York progressive went on, young people are grappling with the question: "Is it OK to still have children?"
The comment garnered significant media attention and blowback from pundits, who argued the remark amounted to Ocasio-Cortez advocating for a ban on children.
snip
More than a third of millennials share Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's worry about having kids while the
threat of climate change loomsRep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said last week that some young people are concerned about having children given the threat climate change could pose to future generations.
The comments drew intense media attention and some pundits called the comment "fascistic."
But a new INSIDER poll found that nearly a third of Americans - and about 38% of those between 18-29 years old - believe a couple should consider the negative effects of climate change when deciding whether or not to have children.
https://www.businessinsider.in/more-than-a-third-of-millennials-share-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-worry-about-having-kids-while-the-threat-of-climate-change-looms/articleshow/68262786.cms
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made headlines last week when she suggested that some young Americans are concerned about having children because of the threat that climate change could pose to future generations.
"Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don't turn this ship around ... there's scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult," Ocasio-Cortez said during an Instagram livestream. "And even if you don't have kids, there are still children here in the world, and we have a moral obligation to leave a better world for them." So, the 29-year-old New York progressive went on, young people are grappling with the question: "Is it OK to still have children?"
The comment garnered significant media attention and blowback from pundits, who argued the remark amounted to Ocasio-Cortez advocating for a ban on children.
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,264
