but, if it gets to a brokered convention, that's not what the numbers will look like. you've only counted conservative states. you haven't counted michigan, florida, ohio, pennsylvania, new york, california, etc. in the end, trump will probably be still sitting around 35% - but cruz will fall closer to 15% as kasich climbs closer to 20%. don't be surprised, even, if rubio gets more votes than cruz (and half the delegates).
this is why it doesn't make sense for anybody to drop. the venn diagrams have a lot of overlap, and the directed graphs are really complicated. if rubio drops, trump wins. if cruz drops, trump wins. and if kasich drops, trump wins, too. if your sole focus is on beating trump, the best candidate to drop is actually cruz - because he will finish in third or fourth in most of the remaining big states. the only reason you hang on to cruz is because there's still a few closed primaries in deep red states; the last thing you want to do is drop rubio, as it gives trump a huge advantage amongst the swath of middle of the road conservatives that think cruz is too conservative and kasich is too liberal.
the most likely result of a brokered convention is not a cruz/rubio ticket, but a rubio/kasich ticket.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
but, trump isn't winning because he's doing well with republicans. he's winning because he's doing well with independents. i didn't see a single poll in maine, but i think the results demonstrate the clear truth that trump isn't winning the republican base so much as he's overrunning the limes and pillaging the party. so, you put some soldiers up guarding the entrance, and the conservatives pick their guy, which is obviously cruz. and, cruz can keep pulling this off in republican states with closed primaries.
where cruz can't win is in states like ohio and pennsylvania. if a turn happens, it won't be to cruz - it will be to kasich and it won't get around the bend until the convention.
so, a caucus does not allow independent voters. but, all the polls show that hillary does better with democrats, and most of bernie's support is coming from independents. so, one would expect her to do better in a caucus, not worse. now, there's an alternate explanation for this in states like kansas & oklahoma & nebraska, namely that the states are so red that there are not "moderate democrats" because there's nothing in it for them. if you're going to bother being a democrat in oklahoma, you're going to be a liberal democrat. this flips the other way in the deep south, where black conservatives have to vote for the democrats due to racial politics. but, it doesn't explain a state like minnesota - the caucus process should have helped her, there. there's a long list of inconsistencies piling up....
i'm not convinced that trump is a greater evil than clinton. sanders can still win, but the odds are against him. if it's trump v clinton?
well, let's look at some issues.
1) foreign policy. i think trump is an isolationist (although it's hard to be sure), where as it is clear that clinton is an interventionist. clinton *will* launch more wars in the name of the glory of the american empire. trump? that's less clear, and i think there's an argument he might pull back a little. ultimately, these are hard fights to win. civilian military control in the united states isn't really, actually a thing. it's not at all clear that he can convince the generals, if he'd want to. but, trump at least provides some hope of a reversal of imperialism. clinton represents the absolute status quo. sanders beats them both on foreign policy, but trump beats clinton.
2) trade. well, they're both claiming various levels of opposition to the expansion of "free trade". clinton has no credibility. remember: her husband campaigned against nafta. trump might very well put up some tariffs. again: sanders beats them both. but, trump provides more hope for some break in the status quo than clinton does.
3) health care. this is actually an important issue in canada. sanders is the best on health care. clinton supports the status quo. it's not clear where trump really stands. repealing obamacare is a populist issue in the united states, so he's taken that position. but, trump spent years supporting single payer, too! again: there's some hope that trump might bring in single-payer. clinton didn't take all that money to attack the insurance lobby with.
4) that wall. it's going to lead to inflation. i...i don't think he can really do this. but, clinton has her own albatrosses. i've been vocal about libya. they balance out.
5) xenophobia. see, this comes down to the question of how big you think the difference is. are the democrats really better? they're less obnoxious, perhaps. but, look at obama's record on mass deportations. i don't really see a difference.
i'm a staunch leftist. but, that's kind of the point: trump seems to be really running a good deal to the left of hillary, who is running essentially as a republican. it's hillary that seems like she wants to uphold the legacy of reagan, and trump that seems like he wants to blow it up.
i'm not endorsing trump. i couldn't imagine voting for him. it's just not clear who the lesser evil is.
i'm still rooting for bernie and hope he can pull it off, but the writing is on the wall. so, notwithstanding some come back by bernie, i'm going to officially endorse non-voting.
non-voting sends the message that neither option is acceptable. trump might win - but it's not clear he's worse, and he might even be better. but, if we can collectively pull voting below 30%, it sends a strong message of discontent. that is the most activist choice in this cycle, as far as i can tell at this point.
so, i'm going to have to avoid the vlogs for a few days. i'll be continuing to vlog - when i get back to it, they'll have to come up quickly until i catch up. but, i just don't have the computer resources to multitask at the moment.
why?
exhibit one is what it looks like when i open a thread on youtube in my browser. youtube seems to be doing something in it's scripting that breaks older versions of firefox, at the html level. it looks like there's a tag here that is aligning the table incorrectly. it is resolvable by upgrading.
however, i do not want to upgrade for ui reasons. if firefox would like me to upgrade, it's going to have to restore my ability to change the ui to the way that i want it. i know that there are plugins, but it's not good enough. it could just be a question of finding the right about: config options.
for example, i should have the right to default the ui back to square tabs. and, i should have the right to combine everything to two lines, to provide for more space. a picture is attached. the modern firefox ui (the ripped off chrome ui) is just wasteful.
i don't want it and will resist it until the end. i will use a fork if i have to.
i want to be clear that it isn't about security settings. i don't believe in "internet privacy". the internet is a public place! it's incoherent: a contradiction in terms.
but, the chrome ui sucks. i don't want it and i won't use it.
this is particularly problematic for me at the moment because i'm archiving - i'm tracking down old youtube reply threads, copying them to an output file and deleting my contributions to them. i can't do that in firefox without updating, as you can see. so, for now, i've been using an updated version of firefox in a virtual machine [with a ui plugin to eliminate the hideous chrome update].
i also edit vlogs in that same virtual machine. i simply do not have the resources on my 32-bit machine to do both things at once.
uploading the vlogs in a timely manner is less important, in a historical sense, because they will exist, regardless of if they're uploaded. it's just a marketing tool, remember. so, i'm going to halt the uploads until i'm done archiving, when i can get back to multitasking.
(so, it seems obvious that something is backwards in the script. i'm not going to pretend that it's an error - they're trying to force me to upgrade, for some data collection reasons.)
(compact & efficient.
it's just the question of user choice that bothers me. you do what you want. i don't care. just don't tell me how to organize my fucking browser...)
there appears to be an issue with the water pressure. it comes in and out, which is not the end of the world - so long as it comes back, and it always does. but, it seems to be dependent on the weather. it seems to slow down a lot when the temperature comes down. that relationship has held this morning. so, i'm left to conclude that maybe something is freezing over....?
i'll let you know if the pressure comes back when it warms up over the next few days.
(pause)
yeah, i think that what's happened is that the heat upstairs was turned off, and the pipes somewhere in the basement have frozen as a consequence of that. i'm leaving the water running (cold) to try and de-ice the pipes.
it was very nice last weekend. but, it's been below zero for the last several days. and, there's no source of heat in the basement. so, if you don't have the heat upstairs on, it gets very cold in the basement (causing me to turn my heat up to buffer).
what i'm getting across is that i understand that i have a lease responsibility to prevent the pipes from freezing. i've had the heat on in the unit. but, it seems like the heat is not on on the main floor. so, i need to deflect responsibility for any burst, frozen or broken pipes.
(pause)
i let it run for a few hours and turned it off because it wasn't making any difference. also, the pressure is the same for both the cold and the hot; one would think that a frozen pipe would affect one more than the other, unless the frozen pipe is on the way into the building. i still think the dominant factor is like the heat coming off upstairs.
i'm just pulling out a correlation with temperature and making a guess. it should warm up on monday. i'll let you know if the pressure comes back before then.
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
actually, i want to second this. we're being set up with a shitty deal. the media is trying to pressure us into voting for clinton by implying that we must be white trash racist scum if we're not. never explicitly. but between the lines, always. and, it's backfiring. instead, we're walking into a reality where the media is leading us down the path to this end point where hillary clinton is the nominee and it's black people's fault.
but, actually, it really isn't. look at the numbers more closely. there's a bit of rambling on this topic on my page if you care to look. but, she's carrying these states with big white victories as well.
she's winning in the south because southern democrats are conservative christians and they don't like the liberal jew. it's across racial lines. he does better with younger voters that identify as liberals, regardless of any other category. it's actually the easiest narrative you could build. but, the media is trying to obfuscate it and split us along racial lines instead.
Sanders leads Clinton 58% to 39% with 18-39 year olds.
Clinton leads Sanders 52% to 48% with 40-49 year olds.
Clinton leads 62%-33% with voters 50-59
Clinton leads 65%-29% with voters 60-69.
Clinton (82%) leads Sanders (16%) with voters 70 and older.
pretty clear trend. maybe a little too clear.
i don't really like ivr polls. but, those are numbers that are hard to spin.
Clinton is ahead with white voters 61%-35%.
Clinton has a huge 84%-13% lead with African-Americans.
so, michigan is the state where bernie needs to break this trend and close that gap. black voters in michigan ought to be a lot more liberal. if he can't close that gap - at least to the point where it's statistically immeasurable - then he has to deal with the reality that there's a racial component to the race.
let's be clear, though: african-american voters will not turn the results in michigan. there's just not enough black people in michigan. the pivotal part is going to be swinging older people.
but, whatever the black numbers are, they need to get closer to the white numbers in terms of percentages.
it's just a proof of concept. he has to demonstrate that blacks aren't voting as a bloc, somehow - that issues and individual preferences are more important than racial identity politics, or whatever it is that people are throwing around.
well, they've counted all the votes in massachusetts now, and she managed to win by one delegate.
the proper scorecard is:
hillary: 6
bernie: 4
& one tie
but, it's the delegate count that matters. and he kept her under 600 pledged delegates (the superdelegate talk is establishment scare mongering - they are free to change their vote at any time, and would be committing suicide if they voted against the primary process). she's less than 200 ahead. he can catch her on that, if he can beat her in pennsylvania and washington and ... by the same margins that he beat her in minnesota and colorado - and if he can split, or win, michigan and florida. and, he can do this. the democratic nominee should not be determined by the bible belt! and, you can't blame liberals for bailing, if it is.
but, the race is pivoting this week. clearly. there are less red states coming up. logic and abstraction needs to yield to concrete results.
it's just better than the media would like you to believe, that's all i'm saying.
i'm more interested, right now, in trying to understand this map. maybe it's evidence that a canadian should be taken skeptically - and i've warned you repeatedly. but, i think it's a little more sinister.
this map makes absolutely no sense. clinton's ability to disproportionately swing blacks makes no sense. and, when things consistently fail to make sense, it's reasonable to question their legitimacy.
i don't claim to have an understanding of data on the urban/rural split in america, and the fact that the parties have been so interchangeable for so long throws some wrenches into everything. but, in canada, this map would be equivalent to suggesting that the ndp swept the rural farming communities and suburbs, while the liberals swept the downtown cores - which had a certain level of coherence 100 years ago, but is impossible to understand, today.
the wealthier people live outside the urban cores. they own property. they have good jobs. they're less interested in "socialism". the less wealthy people live inside the urban cores. they work minimum wage jobs. they rent. they're more interested in "socialism".
so, how does sanders sweep the rural areas and clinton sweep the urban areas? it's the same incoherent proposal as clinton sweeping urban, southern blacks. but, at least you can jump through some hoops on that. i don't see any hoops to jump through on hillary sweeping boston and sanders sweeping the countryside.
i'm only able to come up with two explanations, and they both reduce to an unfair election:
1) turnout is remarkably low. now, why this is is maybe complex. apathy. voter suppression techniques, perhaps? you don't think the democrats are above that, do you?
2) it's just rigged from the start.
no, i can't prove anything. apathy is the least complex hypothesis, but i'm not entirely convinced it's the right one.
we'll have to see, as time goes on, if any of this starts to make any sense or not. but, i can't explain my inability to make sense of that map in purely cultural terms. this is a class analysis, and that ought not be corrupted by inconsistencies in canadian v american culture.
that map is simply impossible to understand as an accurate reflection of popular will. and, it's not just that sanders lost in boston - it's that he won outside boston, too. it's completely the opposite of what anybody ought to expect.
just to add to this: you can see the "boston upper crust" on the map by looking at the republican map. they voted for kasich. one would expect to be able to reasonably super-impose those two maps around the boston area - albeit not outside of it. so, yes - one would expect that upper crust that swung to kasich to also swing to hillary. but, one would equally expect the famous boston working class (that clearly swung to trump) to swing to bernie, as well. the map suggests otherwise.
that's the part of it that i can't make sense of. and, yes, the urban/rural split ought to be inverted. but, i can't understand how the urban poor in massachusetts of all places is voting against it's class interests like this...
--
the only other answer here - and, i'm sorry, but it is - is that lower class americans (across racial and geographic divides) are simply so unaware of what their class interests actually are that they're unable to make a decision that is in their proper self-interest. and, that throws the whole basis of democracy out the window. it reduces the entire thing to a pointless charade.
3. to ensure that a candidate's perspectives demonstrate proper consistency with the "washington consensus" of establishment objectives, principles and tactics. the bankers vetted the politician.
see, conservatives think this is terrible and proof that trump is a liberal. i think it's just as valid to point out that it's evidence that hillary is a shill. drop hitlery. godwin's law. shillary is better.
you had the opportunity to make chocolate milk. if you wanted to be uber hipster, you could have made strawberry or even banana milk. but, you went with the most boring choice possible.
total fail.
also: your bedroom is a green screen. wtf?
you don't really believethis, do you?
if you really wanted to know what would happen if you put marshmallows in a vacuum, you would eject conan* o'brien's head into space.
*ted kennedy is dead, so conan ipso facto becomes the punchline of all of his own jokes.
i think i've demonstrated that clinton isn't winning in the south because of black or minority support - that she would be winning there anyways, and that what's going on is more cultural than racial: conservative voters are supporting her, across racial lines.
i don't think i've demonstrated that bernie is able to win black liberal voters. the demographics haven't provided for it, yet. i misunderstood virginia (what i was thinking is more applicable to maryland).
so, michigan is massive in trying to chart out the rest of this.
it's less that bernie has to win the state, although it would help. he'll be ok if he splits the delegates. michigan is kind of purplish, and it's not reasonable to expect a bernie blowout. in fact, i believe that clinton is currently leading most polls...
it's more that bernie absolutely has to win some black voters. he simply cannot get beaten down like he has been in these southern states. black voters in michigan are liberals. there is a measurable black middle class around detroit. the data has to uphold the idea that the split is ideological, not racial.
if the data starts coming in and you see these huge margins with black voters, bernie is going to have to acknowledge that he has some problems. it doesn't make any sense. but, he's going to have to address it.
so, that's the date to circle: michigan. and the key question is whether bernie can swing some northern black liberals or not.
is colorado a blue state, now? well, it's acting like one. and, he got nearly 60%.
he got over 60% in minnesota. clinton got over 60% in a few southern states. so, it kind of balances out, even if the delegate count is a little lopsided because there were more red states in play.
and, massachusetts was a clean split.
when the situation reverses, and there's more blue states at play, the numbers will start to right themselves. it all hinges on the question of whether he can win states like oregon, washington and california by the same kinds of margins. how about pennsylvania?
and, i think he can.
like i say, this is just a bad schedule for bernie. louisiana and mississippi are likely to also be bad. but, he's just gotta break even after that until some of those liberal states come up. if he can win them by the same margins that he won colorado and minnesota, it will start to balance out before june.
i think it's clear that it comes down to california.
sanders, however, was not at all able to breakthrough in atlanta. those numbers suck, there's no way around it. one would have hoped he would have done well in atlanta, even if he crapped out everywhere else.
i thought there was a substantial black population south of dc, being that it is in dc, and i know there are plenty of blacks in dc (and baltimore).
but, this map suggests that:
(1) this area has few blacks
(2) clinton won this area.
it also suggests that the black population is higher around norfolk, and that sanders won some of those counties. so, my logic may have worked out in the end, despite misunderstanding the demographics of the state.
it seems that clinton win both white and black voters in virginia.
the "clinton wins massachusetts" thing is a good example of what i was talking about, and what many people have pointed out.
it's currently at 95% reporting:
clinton: 50.3%
sanders: 48.5%
you can't truly call that. especially not with the last precincts coming from the most populated areas around boston (and everybody being aware of that).
but, they call it early to get the headlines before everybody goes to bed. and it's this reinforcing thing, right.
people just have to be able to see it for what it is. it's the only way to deal with it.
the delegate count, btw, is 45/43. given that the three precincts still to report are known to be heavily populated boston area precincts, it's actually likely that he'll win the delegate count. barely.
if i understand right, it's not strictly proportional but based on who wins what precinct. that happened to clinton in 2008. she won the popular vote but lost the delegate count because she got beaten in the urban cores.
anyways. it's 1:00, now. it'll close down within a few hours, no doubt. we'll see how that works out. but, it's just a good example of how this works.
i'm going to need to wait until some more data comes in to do a closer analysis and debunk the race theory. but, considering that i caveated oklahoma (which seems to have finished voting very quickly, indicating low turnout - and a small base of exaggeratedly liberal voters, as i hypothesized. oklahoma is just so overwhelmingly republican. all the businesses are republican. all the social advancement is republican. you don't bother joining the democratic party unless you're ideologically aligned with it. you'll probably see the same thing in places like nebraska and wyoming. very red states, sure. but the ten people that bother showing up to vote are going to be doing so purely out of conviction. i mean, i understood this, i was just a little skeptical about it.), we're just waiting on a winner in massachusetts.
--
again, i need data. but, combining 2008 race data with 2016 numbers...
i suspect you will see that the number of clinton supporters was higher amongst both whites and blacks, when you compare these states to the other four - indicating that it wasn't just that more blacks were voting for clinton, but that more whites were, too.
--
but, this is what the media does, right.
if you don't support the establishment candidate, you must be white trash racist scum.
--
i was hoping he could keep her under 60 in virginia.
i do still suspect you'll see a higher number of black liberals supporting sanders, particularly around dc. i have to wait for data...
the results to this point are really not making any sense. and, the republican results are making sense, so it's not like we've entered the twilight zone or something. there's something going on that's not quite right....
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
the idea that if you bring more black people into the system then the banks will have less influence is utter idiocy - you don't need to be white to accept a pay check from goldman sachs (just ask barack obama). but, hillary does have somewhat of a point: you don't get anywhere trying to convince hillary clinton that some ideal is of greater worth than her sponsors. you have to run against her and beat her. why don't you run?
but, if you look into it a little bit further, you'll realize that the democrats really never embraced civil rights so much as they acted to prevent a civil war. they passed the laws, and everything. and, it's true that the really open, loud-mouthed racists moved to the republicans - who courted them on that basis [see the southern strategy]. but, that doesn't suggest that the democrats ever really reversed their positions on much of anything substantive. the truth is that the clintons come from a pretty nasty lineage, and they've done more to uphold it than reverse it.
--
i just want to point out that it's well documented that hillary clinton campaigned for goldwater.
--
this idea that welfare makes people less intelligent is rather curious. does it follow that the strict division of labour would make people more intelligent? that the more work you do, the smarter you get?
it would then follow that the working class should be demonstrably more intelligent, through history, than the idle aristocratic classes, right? that all our great scientists and philosophers should have been people that spent their lives performing hard labour.
ah, calvin. orwell's got nothing on calvin, i tell you. nothing at all.
--
milton friedman also supported a guaranteed income, though. it's not a particularly left-wing idea.
--
this is a debate i've seen before, and these are all the same arguments that normally come up. i wanted to let it come to a conclusion...
see, here's the thing: mlk was neither a republican nor a democrat. he was a communist. and, that's why he ended up dead.
southern black democrats, today, are not a liberal voting bloc. but, they do vote overwhelmingly for the democrats. it's hard to see why mlk would exist outside of this existing relationship, although he would no doubt have been marginalized by now.
cruz is delusional. if rubio & kasich drop out, most of those votes will go to trump. the focus would become beating cruz, not beating trump.
the geography switches after tonight. bernie just got through his rough patch, and he's actually doing a little better than i thought (although i think he needs to win massachusetts, even if it's just a symbolic thing). it looks like he's coming out of this in good shape for some big wins in less conservative states. the media will hit him hard. but, he's in good shape.
the deep south results are not reflective of the democratic base. hillary won five solid red states that the democrats will never win, all by huge margins. the fact that sanders is winning in colorado should be seen as of much greater importance than hillary's fifty point wins in the bible belt.
he has to win some blue states by the same kind of margins to balance it out. california, new york, washington, oregon - those kinds of states. that was always obvious. and, it's not crazy to think he can, either.
this is just getting started.
but, cruz is not going to be competitive anywhere else - he just got through his good stretch, and has nothing but pain left. the texas results are not indicative of the rest of the country. the minnesota and massachusetts results are. cruz is in third in virginia and fourth in massachusetts. he can win some more small bible belt states, but he has no chance in the purple or blue ones. ohio. california. new york. pennsylvania. he's hopeless, there.
what happens if cruz drops, though? trump benefits, too.
the best way to beat trump right now is probably divide and conquer. can the candidates get through a prisoner's dilemma? they're fucking republicans. my faith is not strong. but, they're better off all staying in and continuing to split the field. any narrowing will just benefit trump.
if they all stay in, kasich can bleed northern liberals, cruz can bleed the christian conservatives and rubio can bleed purple-state middle-of-the-roaders. carson can even bleed black votes.
if you remove any of these candidates, only one person benefits: trump.
i don't know exactly how a brokered convention works, but keeping the field split is probably the only way to actually get there.
the cruz campaign is likely not smart enough to figure this out. the kasich campaign might be. the trump campaign probably is.
if the banks push rubio out to clear a path for cruz, they're actually handing over the nomination to trump.
let's see how smart these actuaries really are.
in fact, they might want to increase the field. can they get rand paul to unsuspend his campaign? that'll take another bite out of him with libertarians. & etc.
two out of three (georgia, vermont) are obvious. i doth not protest. no, virginia....
but, i need to be clear: i'm not suggesting that sanders will win virginia. i do, however, think you can expect him to nearly split the delegates - based on stronger than expected supported amongst black liberals.
but, let's see how this works out. i'm making myself a sandwich, i'll be back in a bit.
the reason people aren't able to see through the false equivalence is because they're basing their ideas on a concept of morality, rather than a concept of rational self-interest. i'm attacking them as naive liberals - and i'm right, on this particular point - but it's more of a broadly fundamental difference in the way that conservatives and liberals see the world.
a conservative would interpret racism as immoral, and a violent attack against it as also immoral. they would conclude that two wrongs don't make a right. they interpret the value of behaviour on whether it upholds these moral principles.
a liberal would argue that racism is irrational and that the only logical way to deal with it is through the use of extreme force. now, there's some caveats to that. you have to get to root causes, as well, or you're just perpetuating a cycle. but, when faced with violent racists a foot away from you? there's no morality in holding to some set of commandments. after all, liberals believe that moral principles are contrived nonsense that only exist in our heads. they're useful as a way to order society when they can be demonstrated using tools of deduction, but they have no intrinsic value unto themselves.
if you take a step back, you can see why the liberals are arguing for proactively taking them down and the conservatives are creating a false equivalency. as usual, the conservatives are wrong, here. but, that's the breakdown of thought, anyways.
please remember, as these results come in and the media tries to create a race war in the democratic base, that the following truth is true: obama was and remains the more conservative of the two candidates from 2008, and the results in many places were a reflection of this fact - at least as much as his skin colour was.
bernie's a liberal. he's not a socialist. but, he's at least a liberal. and, in my lifetime, i've never seen a liberal take a real shot at the presidency.
so, it's a different dynamic than we've seen since...what? dukakis? see, the earliest i can really remember in any seriousness is bill clinton's second term...
so, you've got a legit liberal and a centrist. last time, it was a clear conservative and a centrist. and, so you're seeing the spectrum shift to the right, as you'd expect - if you were analyzing results based on meaningful things, rather than convenient categories.
i mean, it's easy to ask people what colour they are or what their gender is, and then chart a graph. you may even pull out a correlation. it's a lot harder to establish any meaningful causality.
if you gathered data on shoe size or hair length or eye colour, you may very well see correlations develop, too. what does that mean?
don't get me wrong: i'm not exactly faulting anybody. people ask these questions. that's the data that exists. if exit polls asked questions about favourite soda or preferred ice cream flavour, you'd have that data instead, and you'd measure charts and try to figure things out.
based on heavy support from sprite drinkers...
and, i'm not denying that there's some value in the data as proxies, either. black southern democrats tend to be conservative, for example. so, the data bunches the way i'm saying, by measuring it the way you're claiming is important, right?
it's just that there's an actual election about ideas going on right now. it's a little unusual. it'll probably go back to normal next cycle, too, even.
but, for now, it would behoove everybody to focus a little more on ideology and a little less on identity.
the results, when they come in, will uphold this. i'll help you out a little by explaining them tomorrow or the next day.
arkansas is mostly white, but it's also clinton's actual home state (not new york, or illinois). so, it's a bad control.
tennessee is better - although note that it is gore's home state. although note that gore lost it in 2000.
texas is fucked, always has been. and virginia is more of a purple state, really.
if tennessee's numbers are (statistically) the same as the numbers in south carolina, georgia and the other southern states (including arkansas) then it can be safely concluded that the dominant factor in clinton's southern strategy is actually not race, and the media is totally out to lunch. something else will need to be pinpointed (conservative democrats vs liberal democrats).
you also want to look carefully at the numbers in atlanta, where there's a substantial intersection of black and liberal voters. i wish there was a state where the democratic base is both black and liberal - but there isn't. so it's hard to test. atlanta is the closest thing we have in the short term. in the long run, let's see what black voters in chicago and detroit and new york think.
actually, virginia is important to watch, too.
tennessee is your control for race....
but, if sanders does surprisingly well in virginia (which means roughly splitting the delegates), this ideological liberal/conservative split in the democratic party will no doubt become more obvious.
as i think that the split is going to be red/blue, rather than white/black, i'll put down what i think, more explicitly:
1) clinton wins the red states, often by large margins. these are texas, alabama, arkansas, tennessee, !oklahoma and georgia.
2) sanders wins the blue states, often by large margins. these are minnesota, massachusetts, vermont.
3) the purple states will split. these are colorado & virginia.
!polling in oklahoma seems to suggest that sanders is winning that state, which is surprising to me. i'm skeptical. but, keep in mind that oklahoma is so red that "moderates" may identify primarily as republicans, leaving behind a sort of a liberal rump that would benefit sanders. there will, of course, need to be some exceptions to the rule - it will be remarkable if every red state votes for clinton and every blue state votes for sanders.
there's black liberals in virginia, south of dc. keep an eye on them.
MegaMazury
These anti-racists are the same idiots like the racists
jessica +MegaMazury
if the kkk get their way, the result is violence directed at what is, in fact, today a majority of americans. it's beyond "unpopular speech". the counter-reaction consequently reduces to self-defense. it's a false equivalency.
if it's one klan member, discourse is preferable - albeit likely pointless. it's even preferable with two. but, as few as three klan members in the same place at the same time is enough of a threat to public safety that i would argue that violence is justified.
it just simply can't be tolerated - especially not with the political climate as it is.
jessica +Going Coastal
the issue with the kkk is not a speech issue. they're not gathering together to protest. they're trying to start a race war.
your argument is consequently disingenuous and should be treated that way.
it's one thing if somebody is writing a book, or doing a march, but, the kkk is raising an army to start a war. they have absolutely no intent to do anything other than kill people. so, there's just not any way to coherently make the argument you're making - you'd have to ignore what they're actually doing.
your choice with the kkk is actually quite simple.
1) you can wait for them to start killing people.
2) you can beat the shit out of them before they get the chance.
this middle point of de-escalation through discourse that freedom of expression is based around does not exist. there is no choice but violence, it's just a question of when the violence happens and upon what terms it happens.
===
ct92404 +Tim
They are incredibly annoying, self-righteous, and narcissistic...much like yourself. You can spot a Tumblr SJW freak from a while away - hair dyed a bright unnatural color, fake glasses, usually but not always fat, and they all talk exactly the same and say "literally" every other word. Misusing the word, I might add. They are also afraid of getting "triggered" by everything and demand "safe spaces" where no one can say anything at all that they don't like. Much like you, they don't believe in the Constitution.
jessica +ct92404
i know the kind of person that you're talking about, but that is not at all what is being represented on this thread. the people you're arguing with are good, old-fashioned anti-fascist punks. we're not afraid to offend people. and, we don't have any attachment to pacifism as a moral principle, either.
the argument is more along the lines of the one against appeasement. that doesn't work. you have to fight.
ct92404 +jessica
That was actually a separate argument that Tim guy and I were having. I was just making fun of him and calling him an SJW because he talks like them, saying "literally" every other word. Well, and also he does believe in the First Amendment.
But to get back on the topic, I completely understand people being angry, I hate the KKK too. I would be there right along with the people, cussing at them and holding a sign to protest them and let them know they are not wanted. BUT where I draw the line is physically assaulting them. They still have the right to free speech, even if we hate them.
jessica +ct92404
if you refuse to hit at them, you have no right to complain when they hit at you. all you've done is enabled them to facilitate violence, out of some naive liberal stupidity.
canada has a more modern constitution with more sophisticated language. we do not allow for absolute free speech (and, in fact, you don't, either). rather, we allow for freedom of expression within the limits of a free and democratic society.
an organization that would openly carry out acts of genocide if it were not for the violence of state coercion is not an organization that ought to be allowed to operate within the limits of a free and democratic society. the only thing that is stopping them from behaving violently is the threat of violence against them. the seriousness of that threat must be made clear, or they will resume their lynchings tomorrow.
you need to pick what side you're on. they are at a perpetual war against all. and, they won't return your naivety.
===
The Helghast Empire
worser...They beat up people...The racist would never...
jessica +The Helghast Empire
the kkk is a violent terrorist group that seeks the elimination of several ethnic groups through state-enforced genocide, and the forced slavery of others. yet, you claim they wouldn't beat people up?
your ignorance is astounding.
the reason people aren't able to see through the false equivalence is because they're basing their ideas on a concept of morality, rather than a concept of rational self-interest. i'm attacking them as naive liberals - and i'm right, on this particular point - but it's more of a broadly fundamental difference in the way that conservatives and liberals see the world.
a conservative would interpret racism as immoral, and a violent attack against it as also immoral. they would conclude that two wrongs don't make a right. they interpret the value of behaviour on whether it upholds these moral principles.
a liberal would argue that racism is irrational and that the only logical way to deal with it is through the use of extreme force. now, there's some caveats to that. you have to get to root causes, as well, or you're just perpetuating a cycle. but, when faced with violent racists a foot away from you? there's no morality in holding to some set of commandments. after all, liberals believe that moral principles are contrived nonsense that only exist in our heads. they're useful as a way to order society when they can be demonstrated using tools of deduction, but they have no intrinsic value unto themselves.
if you take a step back, you can see why the liberals are arguing for proactively taking them down and the conservatives are creating a false equivalency. as usual, the conservatives are wrong, here. but, that's the breakdown of thought, anyways.
i'm normally doing this routine for republican voters.
hillary supporters don't care about the military. like, at all. they care entirely about domestic issues. she can blow up as many countries in africa as she wants, it's not going to crater her at all. this is useless, as a tactic - unless you're trying to hold female identity voters to the republicans. but, you might want to focus on something else.
so, i know ahead of time that when i point out that it's disgusting that nobody talks about civilian casualties that i don't have an audience. that ought to be the issue, here. but, the republicans won't touch it because they know their base doesn't care. and, bernie's trying to beat her on domestic politics - which is actually probably the right choice.
the end result is that the real reason she should not be president is never going to get discussed.
she destroyed an entire country and set the world on the path to world war three in order to get a few headlines - and she didn't even get the press she wanted. and, nobody is even mentioning it.
this page will soon be wiped down, like the other one.
my vlogs are staggered by a week, but this topic will present itself in time.
bernie is likely to come out of "super tuesday" down pretty far in the delegate count, even if he wins by 70 points in new england (and i think he just might). i continue to think that he has a fighting chance to come back based on a strong showing in california, by presenting himself as the liberal counterweight to hillary's rather blatant conservatism. california is a reliably liberal state. combined with new york, it has a huge number of delegates (546 + 291 = 837). this is bernie's actual path to victory: he has to sweep liberals. it doesn't matter what colour they are, or who they have sex with or what gender they are. and, in fact, getting that point across is really fundamental. so, he's doing this right. it's just that it's not an easy thing to do. and, i'm a realist. it's not over. but, it's clear who is winning. bernie ought to sweep liberals. but, he ought to have won the civil rights vote, too (and, maybe he did - maybe the take away lies in a really strong reevaluation of what drives black voters in 2016).
likewise, the republican primary is pretty much over. cruz will drop out if he doesn't win texas. rubio will drop out if cruz does win texas - because he's not going to win anything. it's pretty clear that trump will win every state on tuesday, with the possible exception of texas. but, neither cruz nor rubio benefit from the other dropping nearly as much as some might think (cruz would pick up a bit more from rubio than rubio would from cruz), and the numbers just don't get there. neither has a serious chance, and that will be made obvious on tuesday. but, kasich is still standing. and, he consequently has a real chance of cleaning up when the blue states hit the schedule. but, this is again an abstraction - the reality is that trump probably coasts.
then, what's left - trump v. clinton.
i couldn't care less. they're both catastrophes. as i've stated a few times here, i honestly don't think that trump makes it past the inauguration alive. so, we're stuck with (probably) eight more years of imperialism and austerity.
so, i'm not going to get between a trump-clinton election.
americans may not realize how important the american election cycle is to canadians. but, it is very important.
as one example, consider health care. the biggest problem facing our health care system is it's geographic proximity to the united states. just about the best thing that could happen to canadian health care is the adoption of a single-payer system in the united states. that would eliminate a massive, corrupt market from being less than 100 miles from almost all of the population. i have selfish reasons for supporting sanders, on this point.
another is inflation. our dollar tends to move with the american dollar. yes, it's tied to oil. but, it's also almost always moving in the same direction as the usd. so, when our dollar goes up relative to the usd, that usually means it's climbing faster. and, when our dollar falls relative to the usd, that usually means it's falling faster. there's also the question of the cost of food. because we import a lot of our food from the united states, inflationary pressures in the united states can have a huge effect on us. s, consider trump's wall, for example. that's going to dramatically increase the price of strawberries. i'm already pissed that they're too expensive!
another issue is foreign policy. we're tied together through nato, and we like to be good neighbours. so, we want to contribute the way we can. but, canadians are not a warring people - we want peace. so, it's in our interests to support candidates that want to reduce the number of wars that nato is involved in.
that's just three obvious issues. there's many more. there's nafta, and the tpp. there's climate change. there's border security.
i mean, listen: america is the empire. everybody is affected by what they do. but, we are in much greater proximity. a famous leader of ours said that it was like sleeping with an elephant - no matter how friendly relations may be, every twitch is dramatically felt. and, this is very much true.
so, i mean...you'd have a lot of nerve to tell people not to interfere. as though america never interferes in events outside it's borders, right? get fucking real. but, canada is far too invested to not interfere, and america will just have to deal with that. get used to it - we're not going away, and we want a say and we will not be quiet.
but, i can't pick a side if the election is trump v clinton. they're both too awful. i could loudly argue for sanders. and, i could loudly argue against both trump and clinton. but, i'm not seeing a reason to root for one or the other.
i think clinton would be better domestically - if barely. however, i actually think that trump would be less inclined towards interventionist conflict - he strikes me as more of an isolationist. i'd prefer trump's foreign policy.
i could maybe get involved with a third candidate. or, if sanders manages to get ahead in the ways i'm suggesting...
but, i think my interest in this cycle has closed. i just don't see much that's going to excite me.
although i'll close off with one more observation: i think i'm probably pretty reflective of a general opinion. if hillary wins and barely carries any blue states, and trump wins with weak support from conservatives, you could see record low turnout.
this is all very true - but it's not surprising. it's been clear for quite a while that, despite having a solid civil rights record, and despite clinton having a clearly racist record, sanders cannot beat bill's saxophone - and, perhaps, obama's quasi-endorsement. it's a sad reflection of the voter base, but everybody saw this coming.
sanders has to do something that has not been done in a long time - he has to ride white liberal support to beat black conservative support. that's different than in 2008, where the difference was less ideological.
i think that sanders could conceivably win big in both california and new york. i haven't seen polls for either. but, massachusetts is a better comparison than south carolina - and some polls have him beating clinton in massachusetts by over 70 points.
that's right. over 70 points.
it's not really black v. white. it's more north v. south - which means liberal v. conservative. red v. blue. and, it's a big deal.
iowa and nevada are purple states, and they split the delegates. new hampshire is a blue state, and sanders won huge. south carolina is a red state, and clinton won huge. that is the dynamic that you are likely to see repeated: clinton is going to win red states, and sanders is going to win blue states.
and, both by substantial margins - because that is the real split that is developing. it's not identity. it's ideology.
(although i still think sanders would be doing a lot better if he was a christian and appealed more to the christian/conservative base of southern black democrat voters)
see here's the thing: if clinton wins then it means that liberals will be void of a candidate. and, it opens up a space for a third party run.
i'm not joking. if this pattern holds and sanders wins all of the blue states by 50% and clinton wins all of the red states by 50%?
well, what other conclusion is there, then, that the blue states need to back a new party?
it's not a new thing, either. maybe they need to modernize the delegate structure so that it gives less power to red/conservative/southern states [who used to be democrat locks, remember]. but, northern liberals have been getting reamed by this party for decades. they want universal health care. they want to tone down the military-industrial complex. they want lower tuition. they're liberals. and, they're unable to get anything through, because they're held up at gun point by a delegate system that wants to define the race by who wins in south carolina.
bernie has a hill to climb. clearly. but, i am certain that the clinton campaign is going to be dramatically disappointed by numbers from california and new york. the question is whether it's enough that he can catch her or not.
the odds are against him, maybe. the conventional wisdom, sure. but, the numbers from blue states are consistent: sanders is their overwhelming choice.
i am consciously choosing to not review the show last night. i will continue reviews next show. there's a reason, but even pointing it out would contradict my reason not to do the review. that's all you're getting. sorry.
an economic truth that has arisen over the last several decades is the reality that individualistic feminism (the kind that argues that women's liberation is tied into increasing economic freedom) is inconsistent with technological innovation and automation. that is, these ideas are moving in different directions.
that is to say that the increasing elimination of labour through the expansion of technology is happening at the same time as increasing female participation in the labour market. this has led to structural unemployment levels, and it is single men who have been most affected by it.
there's a lot of reasons why this could be seen as progress, and the rising problem of unemployment for single men as collateral damage. but, this is a short-sighted way to look at things. there are costs to unemployment that all of society - including employed women - need to pay. if you're one of the social engineers at the top, you need to weight positives off against negatives and work out cost-benefit analyses.
does the higher level of talent that women bring to the workforce offset the necessary deadweight created by increasing male unemployment? and how is the system to react to forecasts for increasing levels of structural unemployment?
all of this is creating an alliance between certain progressive strains of thought and certain conservative strains of thought to put greater emphasis on the role of the family, as it is the most profitable way for the elite to order society.
as an anarchist, i realize that liberal approaches to feminism are not emancipatory. one is not less free in the family than they are in the workforce - these are two broadly equivalent expressions of slavery. true emancipation can only be achieved by abolishing currency relations and working towards full communism. but, it has long been understood that the perception of freedom is more important than the actualization of it. it is enough that you think you are free.
the economics of the situation are not up for question; they're agreed upon across the spectrum (for an example of a flat-out marxist thinker that believes that individualist feminism will collapse capitalism as we understand it through mass unemployment, see richard d. wolff). so, we're going to be seeing an increase in this kind of brainwashing in the near future.
it's back to the kitchen, ladies. a technology-based economy can only support a fraction of the jobs, and it's just cheaper to convince you to stay home than it is to hand out welfare checks for single dudes.
i'd like to request that somebody in the serious media does a serious analysis on the effects that a border wall would have on the price of food in north america.
the identity politics narrative on hillary won't go away.
they express bafflement at women not voting based on identity. then, they try and explain it away using more identity politics. if she was only gay, if she was only black...
stop.
how about: if she was only liberal.
it's not hard. female liberals respond poorly to clinton because clinton is not very liberal. it's the same reason that male liberals respond poorly to clinton.
the takeaway is that clinton tends to do poorly with liberals. which is neither surprising, nor is it new.
you want a control? here's your experiment. do this study:
ask female voters that have picked sanders over clinton about their opinion of elizabeth warren: a white female.....liberal.
you'll see your arguments fall apart, as warren dominates clinton - and probably beats sanders (amongst women).
kids are going to have stupid trends. remember the stupid trends when you were a kid? it's fine to have hated them at the time; i remember thinking the macarena was pretty bloody stupid.
what i find more unsettling, and more worthy of legitimate hate, is when adults want to hop on teenager memes. i never had to deal with some fifty year old listening in and trying to be cool. and, i would not have been impressed, either. i would have thought it was flat out pathetic.
i generally identify as gen x, so i'm speaking to my peers, here: grow the fuck up.
it's gotten to the point where i'm beginning to seriously advocate that canada pull out of nato.
we need to start thinking about putting down global sanctions. trade embargoes. the rest of the world needs to be actively considering ways to take this evil empire down.
why do they hate us?
are you really confused? really unsure?
i'm a canadian, and i'm starting to hate you. no, really. i've never particularly liked you. but, you know - you learn to live through disagreements with your neighbours. it's life. but, i'm starting to really hate you.
i bet a substantial proportion of your population is even beginning to actively hate itself.
maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: maybe it's the reason you need to spend trillions on defense. but, keep it up.
you've got your best friends rooting for your demise.
i just played around a little on the atwood vlog...
i'm being really strenuously, actively censored. i seem to have the power to take entire posts down.
well, then. bwahahaha...
i've got six primary comments left to remove, although i'm realizing i've accidentally deleted a few. the system makes even less sense than i thought.
(1) if you delete a post on your google+ page, it removes it from the youtube comment section and vice versa. (2) but if you reply to the post on youtube, you cannot access it from your google+ page (and similarly, if you reply on google+)
what's worse is that the hyperlink to youtube seems to break when you have a certain amount of comments. the comments are there. but, you need to scroll through thousands (literally - in fact, tens of thousands) of posts to find them.
so, i deleted a few comments from my google+ page, thinking that i had the pages open and i'd be scrolling through to find them. but, this resulted in removing the comments from the youtube system. they're gone.
whomever created this system was an incompetent idiot. it was a perfect system. and it's been replaced by something that could only be described as irrational.
but, there's six left. then, i need to clear my watch history post-by-post to try and find all the conversations that i had - and are still there.
the koala central command would like to request your help in tracking down our prime fugitive, deathtokoalas.
we
have managed to take over her page and will soon have succeeded in
erasing all of her comments. our koalas are hard at work in
accomplishing this task. you can help us destroy this koala hater once
and for all by replying to any posts where you see our logo.
however, she, herself, remains at large.
this
individual has recently changed her name and identity. she is
considered armed with wit and dangerous to communicate with, so please
approach (verbally) with caution.
we believe that she will continue to communicate from the following known pseudonyms:
bush is out, so it's kasich left standing. and, in the end, that might be what gets him the nomination.
but, trump currently has very large leads in basically all of the northern and swing/moderate states. it may work out to a time issue - kasich may have needed bush to drop sooner (or, more fairly, bush really needed kasich to drop sooner).
if we end up with trump/cruz/rubio left standing?
the reality is that trump is the most moderate, and the least scary of the three.
one of the best things that could be done for a site like youtube is character minimums. you float through that jenner page, and it's just one-line post after one-line post.
again: 20,000 posts, ten ideas. it's the same post over and over. it doesn't seem to be enough to get the idea down and have it catch a wind of upvotes - people want their own posts. and, i'd encourage that, actually. except that it ought to pre-suppose an original thought, y'know?
if you made it so that you'd have to put down 500 characters before you're allowed to post? you'd clear out 90% of the posts. you'd get rid of all of the "you're st00pid!" posts. & etc.
as a user and a content creator? that would be the change i'd make, if i was going to make one. not character maximums - character minimums.
people will get upset at first. but, you'd just have to coach them along a little.
your post is not long enough. please type a little more.
if you're having difficulty typing more, maybe you'd rather find a post to upvote, instead?
i just created and deleted a "normal" google+ profile trying to find an old notifications list for the now almost wiped down dtk page.
so, i got the old
"why don't you want to use google+?" page.
because i don't have any friends. why do you think i spend so much time on the internet?
and, you know, even if i did, what are the chances that i want to read somebody else's feed?
zero.
cat pictures and pseudo-science. i'm jumping at the opportunity, guys. really. reading my facebook feed was the best way i've ever spent my time. honestly.
i'm all about sending information out!
but, if you're cia and you're into tracking me? i've been clear about this on repeated occasions. it's real easy. i know nobody. i have no friends. i have no acquaintances. and i have no interest in meeting friends or building acquaintances, because i'm a bitter, misanthropic loner. cool?
now, give me access to my notifications...
the other option is that i need to go through my view history video-by-video. and, see, here's the thing: i will actually do this. really.
i've been sorting through this page trying to find the comments i left a few months ago, which were designed to address certain commonly expressed statements (of the 20,000 comments here, there's only about 10 ideas expressed) and i just feel the need to address an issue that is expressed here over and over again: biology.
it's all about chromosomes. x's and y's. but, see, this is the problem of knowledge disseminated to people that don't understand how to comprehend it. what are chromosomes, anyways? we know that they code for sex differences, but what exactly does that mean?
the confusion people are having is probably in the catholic concept of conception. they're converting what they think they understand about conception into a fixed idea of sexuality. god creates chromosomes, and chromosomes carry out god's plan. this is wrong, but it's the broad understanding of things.
here's a truth that might surprise people: if you take a genetically female foetus and you flush it in testosterone, it will develop male sexual characteristics. if you take a genetically male foetus and you flush it in estrogen, it will develop female sexual characteristics.
how can that be? you thought the chromosomes uniquely determined the sex, and that was carrying out god's plan. but, what the chromosomes actually code for - both in the womb and in later life - is hormone expression.
the chromosome argument is consequently rather lacking. it is true that transgendered people do not modify their chromosomes. but, the chromosomes only determine their biological sex in terms of how they determine the body's chemistry - and transgendered people do swap out that body chemistry, which is the actual defining point of biological sex.
so, i've done enough testing that it's clear to me that a lot (most...) of the posts that i'm making on youtube are invisible to everybody except myself.
that goes a long way to explain why the hit count came down. and, this is very sneaky - because i experience no signs of censorship. i can see my posts. if i go back to the page, my posts are there. i get no error message. but, if i log out of the site and come back, i can no longer see the posts.
that is behaviour that couldn't possibly be designed with anything other than political censorship in mind.
let's see if i can jam this....
i may have been targeted specifically because i had a habit of removing posts made to my posts. but, let's be clear about a few things.
(1) it was my post. i had the functionality to remove the responses to my posts. and, frankly, i believe i had ownership of those posts. no rules broken, there.
(2) i was actually very enlightened in the way i did this. i'm trying to save the conversations i had. that means plenty of people didn't get deleted - and there were plenty of interesting back and forths.
now, of course, some of the morons that ended up with deleted posts may disagree. but, that's a function of their idiocy - and the problem in the first place. just because they don't realize they're buffoons doesn't mean i have a responsibility to listen to them.
it's just another symptom, really. youtube was perhaps too good for it's user base, for a while.
i don't feel i have a choice but to stop posting here, seriously. they've reduced the platform to something that is essentially useless for anything but trolling. but, if that's what they want, they can get ready for some of it...
what i'm saying is that i may have gotten a very high number of complaints, because i deleted a large number of posts.
but, if you saw those posts, you'd understand - they were personal attacks, baseless insults, unsupported arguments and just flagrant idiocy.
the difference is that i didn't cry to an authority figure. i just removed the posts. then, the people that were posting nonsense and insults complained that their posts were being removed, and i'm the one that ends up getting silenced - while they keep on posting stupidity.
should i have reported them instead of taking matters into my own hands?
no.
the system was designed so that people could police their own content, and that was actually an ideal way to do it.
1) the owner of the video could decide if they wanted the thread there or not; if the owner of the video removed the thread, it appeared only in google+.
2) the owner of the thread could decide who was allowed to comment on the thread, and which comments were allowed to stand.
this allowed for people to moderate their own content - this is the anarchist ideal of self-moderation. it's easy to see why i liked it...
but, people didn't seem to understand the system, or thought that they should have the right to comment on other people's posts, whether they liked it or not. they weren't able to get the abstraction of personal property rights. so, they complained to authority figures, who had to step in - and i'm the one that got punished for it.
again: it's not a situation where i wish i had reacted differently. it's a situation where i'm learning that this is a bad platform, and that i need to adjust to it's failings.
the other option was that my content, while it existed, would not have been the pleasant conversations that people became accustomed to seeing my name attached to. instead, it would have been full of people posting personal insults, back and forth name-calling, strawmen arguments, unsupported arguments, stupid memes - everything else on youtube, essentially. and, then i would have stopped using the platform quite a long time ago. it was either that i cleaned these threads up and pissed a lot of people off, or that i didn't use the system at all.
and, you just have to laugh, right? people wanted in on my comments because they were high profile enough to be noticed. but, that relied on my ability to screen the garbage out. in the end, the garbage i screened out seems to have ganged up on me and has gotten me declared a spammer, out of spite.
but, i wouldn't have had anything worth noting if i had let anybody and everybody go ahead and vomit all over my posts.
in the end, i got nailed for using the system as it was designed, and actually succeeding in making it better, and the youtube comment system has remained a nest of absolute stupidity. if anything, it's worse now than it's ever been.
i can't regret that. rather, i have to point out that i'm a victim of stupidity.
listen: this is how the world works, right?
where's the alternate history where everybody listens to jesus, agrees and goes to smoke a fatty in the park?
mass idiocy is normal. intelligence is always persecuted.
they hate you when you're clever....
the reality is that any other outcome would be unheard of - astonishing.
really, i should be content in realizing that i'm lucky that i haven't been lynched, yet.
i'm almost done in clearing the page down. i should get close to 1500 pages in the end. it's probably 1500/2000 or so. i'm sure the lost ideas will regenerate elsewhere, eventually.
a lot of the polling had bush over 10%. but, i still think you need to look at the bottom three - and realize that the major problem is that carson (who might try running for city council before he runs for president?) is going to hand trump the win.
carson's purpose may be to try and prevent blacks from voting in the democratic primary (and therefore give sanders, the "easier candidate", a boost), but it looks like it's doing more damage to the republicans than anything else.
the bottom three, together, would combine to second place. and i think that's very important to point out, because rubio is a sort of hybrid candidate - created through media obfuscation.
kasich is the sole remaining serious candidate. if he's not able to pull support from carson, soon, and bleed moderate support from trump, then the purpose of the primary becomes voting for trump to stop cruz - and trump wins. huge.
