US Politics Thread

[calitennis127]

This has nothing to do with the US. This was all done in order to benefit Roger Federer. He had to go on injury leave, so Uniqlo initiated a pandemic to stop the tour until he’s healthy again.

Unfortunately they did this 11-12 years too late because they could have saved him some clay losses against Nadal.

 

[El Dude]

This has nothing to do with the US. This was all done in order to benefit Roger Federer. He had to go on injury leave, so Uniqlo initiated a pandemic to stop the tour until he’s healthy again.

Actually, the opposite is true. Novak and Rafa aligned to try to stop Federer and released the virus, knowing at his ripe age he was more vulnerable to it.

 

[El Dude]

Good points. Just bear in mind that a pivot needs to be made now to the elections. I don't buy the polling so much. I see those as mostly aspirational. But when the rubber hits the road what people actually want or are willing to pay for is an entirely different thing. You can ask whatever you want in a poll, but it's essentially a one dimensional framework. However in the real world people have to balance a multitude of wants, and that's where it gets tricky. 2018 is a classic illustration of where America is at the moment. It wasn't the AOC's who had the real success. It was the moderate Representatives who won in purple and red districts. Bernie is not in control of that. He needs to be smart and get out before the end. If he stays too long he's just being self serving and not really working to achieve his aims. I think his speech actually hints that he understands that. Progressives have gotten ahead of their skis is mis-reading what Americans in general want, because they have been in as much of a bubble as Trump and his base have been. The side that really sits down and sniffs which way the wind is blowing will find that the centre of American politics is still the most important and the driving force that needs to be respected. Everything we have seen in these primaries tells us that the biggest problem in 2016 was how incredibly unpopular HRC actually was. It turns out that while Bernie does have a strong loyal base it's not quite the plurality we all thought it was. Heck the biggest turn outs have been to Biden's benefit. That tells everything we need to know. I just hope Bernie and his people understand that

I think we have tactical differences of opinion, even if we want the same basic results. And whether or not you agree with polls, they do have some value, they do mean something. Almost every state exit poll says the same thing: Not only that most Americans want MfA, but that there is a discrepancy between the official results and what the exit polls say. Meaning, Bernie is not only more popular than the election results, but that they're likely fraudulent.

I don't think we can, in good faith, accuse Bernie of being "self-serving." Staying in helps him leverage his policies, puts pressure on Biden. Let Joe cook a little with the pressure - he hasn't been vetted, and will fold to Trump without some tempering.

The progressive wave is rising. Maybe the US is not ready yet, but that just as much--if not more--because the elites are blocking it as it is the people being ready or not. I don't know how it is in the UK, but people don't always vote in their best interest, but according to what propaganda they buy. Oh wait, that's exactly how it is in the UK (e.g. Corbyn and Brexit).

I would also argue that Bernie supporters are far more passionate than Biden supporters, a lot of whom actually align more with Bernie's ideas, but are voting for Biden out of fear.

 

[calitennis127]

A reminder on this thread: as of this time, there are a paltry 33 deaths in the U.S. and 1,000 cases reported. That is absolutely nothing compared to what prior pandemics have caused. The coronavirus has a long way to go to even reach their level.

This hysteria ginned up by the New York Times and Washington Post is one of the dumbest things I have ever witnessed. It is causing totally unnecessary economic damage.

 

[El Dude]

Cali, the US system has its strengths and weaknesses. But overall, it is a debacle because of a primary cause: it is profit-based and continually screws, even bankrupts thousands and thousands--even millions--of Americans. Refer back to my earlier post. You can cite Italy, but what about the rest of Western Europe? What about Japan, South Korea?

 

[El Dude]

A reminder on this thread: as of this time, there are a paltry 33 deaths in the U.S. and 1,000 cases reported. That is absolutely nothing compared to what prior pandemics have caused. The coronavirus has a long way to go to even reach their level.

This hysteria ginned up by the New York Times and Washington Post is one of the dumbest things I have ever witnessed. It is causing totally unnecessary economic damage.

I don't disagree with this, with the caveat that it is early.

 

[calitennis127]

I don't disagree with this, with the caveat that it is early.

And the question is whether this tiny little speck on the radar warrants shutting down the economy for the next three months and making people come to blows over toilet paper in Aisle 5.

 

[Federberg]

And whether or not you agree with polls, they do have some value, they do mean something. Almost every state exit poll says the same thing: Not only that most Americans want MfA, but that there is a discrepancy between the official results and what the exit polls say. Meaning, Bernie is not only more popular than the election results, but that they're likely fraudulent.

Are you saying that there is electoral fraud? And Bernie has been winning? I haven't heard this anywhere else. Tell me more

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, the US system has its strengths and weaknesses. But overall, it is a debacle because of a primary cause: it is profit-based and continually screws, even bankrupts thousands and thousands--even millions--of Americans.

It didn't do that nearly as much until the idiotic policy of Obamacare was passed. A pure free market system would be the most efficient and cost-effective.

 

[Federberg]

I don't disagree with this, with the caveat that it is early.

It's not early though. We don't know how bad things are in the US only because officials are so behind the curve testing. As things stand it seems to me a huge leap of faith to believe that the outcomes in the US will be any better than elsewhere

 

[Federberg]

I would also argue that Bernie supporters are far more passionate than Biden supporters, a lot of whom actually align more with Bernie's ideas, but are voting for Biden out of fear.

he gets bigger turnouts for sure, but.. and this is contingent on your providing an answer to my earlier query... the surges have actually been in Biden's favour which was a complete surprise to me. Also how do you account for the fact that progressives didn't really have much success in purple and red districts in 2018. It seems to me that there's more noise (particularly in social media) than reality so far

 

[El Dude]

Are you saying that there is electoral fraud? And Bernie has been winning? I haven't heard this anywhere else. Tell me more

I have to go to work, but will post more later. But in short, there are significant discrepancies in various states. It isn't being covered by the mainstream media, of course.

As for Bernie's popularity, one interesting thing is that he's winning independent voters in almost every state.

But the difference in Biden/Bernie can be explained easily: Bernie is getting like 70% of voters under 45, while Biden is getting 70% of voters over 45. It is a huge generational divide, and a greater percent of older voters actually show up at the polls. Not to point the finger, but youth turnout is a major problem, even if it is slightly better (in some states).

Crap, I'm late! Thanks, Federberg

 

[Federberg]

I have to go to work, but will post more later. But in short, there are significant discrepancies in various states. It isn't being covered by the mainstream media, of course.

As for Bernie's popularity, one interesting thing is that he's winning independent voters in almost every state.

But the difference in Biden/Bernie can be explained easily: Bernie is getting like 70% of voters under 45, while Biden is getting 70% of voters over 45. It is a huge generational divide, and a greater percent of older voters actually show up at the polls. Not to point the finger, but youth turnout is a major problem, even if it is slightly better (in some states).

Crap, I'm late! Thanks, Federberg

Be safe! I'm eager to here more

 

[El Dude]

Be safe! I'm eager to here more

Haha, so you can tell me how wrong I am? But thanks.

I have some time before my next appointment so I'll offer some thoughts. First of all, the caveat: there is no clear smoking gun, although that may be because the "gun" is being hidden. Or rather there are wisps of smoke - but enough of it that, in toto, it looks pretty fishy.

I also feel it necessary to declare my own bias. Not that I think I'm wrong, but that I'm at least open to being wrong. When investigating something I always want to keep my own bias to the forefront so I minimize the chances of fooling myself (this is, for instance, how I approach looking at tennis stats - I'm a Federer fan and try to make sure that my bias towards Roger doesn't overly influence my analysis). I'm a Bernie supporter, basically progressive (although on the libertarian side of things, vs. authoritarian, ala the Political Compass), and have a strong distrust of establishment politicans and corporate media, even insofar as I basically view the big media outlets--at least in the US--as being propaganda for the establishment (corporate interests, centrist politicians, military-industrial complex, etc). MSNBC/CNN for the establishment Dems, FOX for the Reps. So I tend to listen to a lot of alternative and independent news, which usually has its own bias: although unlike cable news, they are at least pretty honest about it (like me...haha).

Finally, I'm mostly not going to provide sources, both for the sake of time, but also because any source can be challenged or disputed. Plus, I think it is important that people do their own resource. If you want, later I can provide some links - but you can Google this stuff yourself. In the end, we live in an era with tons of confusing data, and no matter how presumably official or factual, there is always interpretation involved and we all have to draw our own conclusions.

OK, now to it. First of all, the biggest source of "fraud" is the news media itself. It isn't technically fraud, but it is spin and bias. Various studies have shown that the so-called "liberal" cable news tv--the biggest in the US being CNN and MSNBC--are terribly biased against Bernie, with far more negative mentions than other candidates. there is also the spin factor: for instance, the "Bernie Bros" phenomena. A recent study basically refuted the whole notion, pointing out that the whole thing is fake: Bernie supporters are no more (or less) virulent than any other candidate. Ironically Bernie is the only candidate that has spoken out against his supporters, presumably because he's the only one who has been accused.

There are so many other elements of media bias against Bernie that it is rather comical (and tragic, really). But the main point is that a lot of people, especially older viewers, have their opinions influenced and even formed by media pundits. They're getting bad information or, at best, a terribly skewed picture. This may not be technically "fraud," but is certainly fraudulent and has a major impact on voting.

As for more specific instances of fraud, we can start with the Iowa caucus and its voting ap debacle, which was created by ex-Clinton staffers, partially funded by the Pete Buttigieg campaign. Couple that with Buttigieg's early declaration of victory, delayed counting, and media spin, and Buttigieg had a declared victory when he ended up having less votes. There are also numerous documented and filmed instances of sketchy behavior, like the ridiculous instance of the delegate flipping the coin in his hand on a tie vote, giving the delegate to Buttigieg.

Then we come to the discrepancies between official vote and exit polls, which in most cases see Bernie losing delegates. One or two instances is one thing, but you'd think the "love" would be more evenly spread around. Massachusetts is particularly telling, with Biden, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg (the three leading moderates at the time) out-performing their exit polls, and Sanders and Warren (the two progressives) under-performing. Here are the actual numbers, with official to exit poll percentages and gain or less % from exit poll:

Biden: 28.9 to 33.5 (+16.2%)
Bloomberg: 9.1 to 11.8 (+29%)
Buttigieg: 1.3 to 2.7
Sanders: 30.4 to 26.6 (-12.4%)
Warren: 25.2 to 21.5 (-14.7%)

Again, those parenthesized % aren't the difference between the two numbers, but the increase or decrease in percentage from the exit to the official. They are well above margins of error.

Texas had a variety of issues, from hundreds of poll sites closing--especially in areas that were favorable to Bernie--and exit polls showing Bernie and Biden essentially tied, but Biden winning the official count by 4.5%. Bloomberg and Warren also saw gains over their exit polls.

California is a big mess, both because of the way voting occured (over months) and still over a million uncounted votes, which at least implies the possibility of voter suppression. Once again, Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg all out-performed exit polls, and Bernie and Warren under-performed.

There are also discrepancies in Vermont, New Hampshire, and South Carolina - I think Michigan as well, maybe other states. I haven't looked into all of them.

Now you might say I'm focusing too much on exit polls, but two important points: One, exit polls are one of the ways that people have traditionally looked for fraud, and they generally are beyond the margin of error. When you add it all up, there is at least smoke, and a lot of it consistly pointing in a certain direction. Two, the extent of the difference, and the fact that Bernie Sanders is consistently (if not always) hurt by the difference, is rather telling.

Could all of this just be noise and accounted for by ineptitude? Possibly. But again, taking everything together--exit polls, polling sites closing, media spin and propaganda, and the fact that Bernie is consistently more hurt than other candiates, and of course the "hidden hand" of Obama congealing the moderate wing of the party--at the very least, it looks suspicious. Even if there is no actual fraud, there is a rigged and manipulated primary, which is clearly coordinated to beat Bernie, who poses more of an existential threat to the political establishment than Trump does, imo. The main reason corporate Democrats want Trump out is not because of his politics, imo, but because he's a loose cannon and is so obviously corrupt. His behavior pulls back the curtain too much, and Dems like to keep their corruption quiet and hidden. But I honestly believe that the establishment would rather see four more years of Trump then a Sanders presidency.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This has nothing to do with the US. This was all done in order to benefit Roger Federer. He had to go on injury leave, so Uniqlo initiated a pandemic to stop the tour until he’s healthy again.

No, this is all due to Novak. He is currently #1 and he figured that if the circuit is halted now, he can add on several weeks at #1 for free without any work.

 

[britbox]

A reminder on this thread: as of this time, there are a paltry 33 deaths in the U.S. and 1,000 cases reported. That is absolutely nothing compared to what prior pandemics have caused. The coronavirus has a long way to go to even reach their level.

This hysteria ginned up by the New York Times and Washington Post is one of the dumbest things I have ever witnessed. It is causing totally unnecessary economic damage.

So, based on your medical expertise, you'd suggest waiting until deaths hit epidemic proportions before anything gets done?

You know these viruses have an incubation period, right? So by the time you raised a finger (which I presume is based on the number of fatalities), you'd have a load of people dead, a whole lot more sick and then a load of others who are incubating the disease and still contagious.

I'm amazed the doctors aren't kicking your door in for more advice.

Countries are implementing these measures because it's a) highly contagious b) has a higher fatality rate and c) they've got evidence of what happens when it goes unchecked.

 

[Federberg]

Haha, so you can tell me how wrong I am? But thanks.

I have some time before my next appointment so I'll offer some thoughts. First of all, the caveat: there is no clear smoking gun, although that may be because the "gun" is being hidden. Or rather there are wisps of smoke - but enough of it that, in toto, it looks pretty fishy.

I also feel it necessary to declare my own bias. Not that I think I'm wrong, but that I'm at least open to being wrong. When investigating something I always want to keep my own bias to the forefront so I minimize the chances of fooling myself (this is, for instance, how I approach looking at tennis stats - I'm a Federer fan and try to make sure that my bias towards Roger doesn't overly influence my analysis). I'm a Bernie supporter, basically progressive (although on the libertarian side of things, vs. authoritarian, ala the Political Compass), and have a strong distrust of establishment politicans and corporate media, even insofar as I basically view the big media outlets--at least in the US--as being propaganda for the establishment (corporate interests, centrist politicians, military-industrial complex, etc). MSNBC/CNN for the establishment Dems, FOX for the Reps. So I tend to listen to a lot of alternative and independent news, which usually has its own bias: although unlike cable news, they are at least pretty honest about it (like me...haha).

Finally, I'm mostly not going to provide sources, both for the sake of time, but also because any source can be challenged or disputed. Plus, I think it is important that people do their own resource. If you want, later I can provide some links - but you can Google this stuff yourself. In the end, we live in an era with tons of confusing data, and no matter how presumably official or factual, there is always interpretation involved and we all have to draw our own conclusions.

OK, now to it. First of all, the biggest source of "fraud" is the news media itself. It isn't technically fraud, but it is spin and bias. Various studies have shown that the so-called "liberal" cable news tv--the biggest in the US being CNN and MSNBC--are terribly biased against Bernie, with far more negative mentions than other candidates. there is also the spin factor: for instance, the "Bernie Bros" phenomena. A recent study basically refuted the whole notion, pointing out that the whole thing is fake: Bernie supporters are no more (or less) virulent than any other candidate. Ironically Bernie is the only candidate that has spoken out against his supporters, presumably because he's the only one who has been accused.

There are so many other elements of media bias against Bernie that it is rather comical (and tragic, really). But the main point is that a lot of people, especially older viewers, have their opinions influenced and even formed by media pundits. They're getting bad information or, at best, a terribly skewed picture. This may not be technically "fraud," but is certainly fraudulent and has a major impact on voting.

As for more specific instances of fraud, we can start with the Iowa caucus and its voting ap debacle, which was created by ex-Clinton staffers, partially funded by the Pete Buttigieg campaign. Couple that with Buttigieg's early declaration of victory, delayed counting, and media spin, and Buttigieg had a declared victory when he ended up having less votes. There are also numerous documented and filmed instances of sketchy behavior, like the ridiculous instance of the delegate flipping the coin in his hand on a tie vote, giving the delegate to Buttigieg.

Then we come to the discrepancies between official vote and exit polls, which in most cases see Bernie losing delegates. One or two instances is one thing, but you'd think the "love" would be more evenly spread around. Massachusetts is particularly telling, with Biden, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg (the three leading moderates at the time) out-performing their exit polls, and Sanders and Warren (the two progressives) under-performing. Here are the actual numbers, with official to exit poll percentages and gain or less % from exit poll:

Biden: 28.9 to 33.5 (+16.2%)
Bloomberg: 9.1 to 11.8 (+29%)
Buttigieg: 1.3 to 2.7
Sanders: 30.4 to 26.6 (-12.4%)
Warren: 25.2 to 21.5 (-14.7%)

Again, those parenthesized % aren't the difference between the two numbers, but the increase or decrease in percentage from the exit to the official. They are well above margins of error.

Texas had a variety of issues, from hundreds of poll sites closing--especially in areas that were favorable to Bernie--and exit polls showing Bernie and Biden essentially tied, but Biden winning the official count by 4.5%. Bloomberg and Warren also saw gains over their exit polls.

California is a big mess, both because of the way voting occured (over months) and still over a million uncounted votes, which at least implies the possibility of voter suppression. Once again, Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg all out-performed exit polls, and Bernie and Warren under-performed.

There are also discrepancies in Vermont, New Hampshire, and South Carolina - I think Michigan as well, maybe other states. I haven't looked into all of them.

Now you might say I'm focusing too much on exit polls, but two important points: One, exit polls are one of the ways that people have traditionally looked for fraud, and they generally are beyond the margin of error. When you add it all up, there is at least smoke, and a lot of it consistly pointing in a certain direction. Two, the extent of the difference, and the fact that Bernie Sanders is consistently (if not always) hurt by the difference, is rather telling.

Could all of this just be noise and accounted for by ineptitude? Possibly. But again, taking everything together--exit polls, polling sites closing, media spin and propaganda, and the fact that Bernie is consistently more hurt than other candiates, and of course the "hidden hand" of Obama congealing the moderate wing of the party--at the very least, it looks suspicious. Even if there is no actual fraud, there is a rigged and manipulated primary, which is clearly coordinated to beat Bernie, who poses more of an existential threat to the political establishment than Trump does, imo. The main reason corporate Democrats want Trump out is not because of his politics, imo, but because he's a loose cannon and is so obviously corrupt. His behavior pulls back the curtain too much, and Dems like to keep their corruption quiet and hidden. But I honestly believe that the establishment would rather see four more years of Trump then a Sanders presidency.

Exit polls are a snapshot in time. They missed the Biden surge. I don't see anything suspicious about it at all. It's nothing we've ever seen before, but it's well within the bounds of probability, particularly given the specific circumstances that had just preceded the primaries

 

[Federberg]

Very interesting analysis from a markets guy. He thinks Bernie still has a chance if he hangs on unti May which is projected to be the peak of the crisis. It makes sense. Because at that point the entire US healthcare system is projected to collapse and voters are likely to be more receptive to his Mfa argument

 

[calitennis127]

So, based on your medical expertise, you'd suggest waiting until deaths hit epidemic proportions before anything gets done?

What I am saying is that the world economy does not need to be shut down for 3 months for a virus that causes fatalities predominantly in people over the age of 80. I'm not objecting to taking some precautions. I am objecting togoing overboard to the point that you cause completely unnecessary economic damage.

 

[calitennis127]

It's not early though. We don't know how bad things are in the US only because officials are so behind the curve testing.

This is just unbelievable.....and Federberg perfectly represents the mindset of the American and Western European media. Instead of blaming China, they are focusing their ire on the American health system, which Johns Hopkins has rated as the best prepared in the world for a pandemic like this.

Also, what does it say about this pandemic (assuming that the likes of Federberg are right that there are hundreds of thousands who have the virus but not have been diagnosed yet) that people are going about their lives normally without even knowing they have it? Shouldn't they all be dropping dead with hives like the Black Plague is hitting them if it so bad?