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?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMegFe2GUp
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.
just look at cornel west, for example.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
j reacts to the primary race exiting the deep south (tactics to beat trump/clinton)
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.
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.
at
23:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the new york times calling states at 19:04
three states called at 19:04.
thanks, new york times. geez.
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.
thanks, new york times. geez.
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.
at
19:08
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the false equivalence in freedom of expression for structural violence
the only winner in this fight is the bankers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AylKVWon2wQ
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AylKVWon2wQ
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.
at
17:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the common polling error that correlation implies causality [over race]
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.
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.
at
06:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)