General News Thread

[Tobias]

Thank you, thirteenseal

[Twelveseal]

You're welcome, rapebird XD

[AsGryffynn]

Oh I see, well you aren’t wrong, but there is some important nuance there. Suburban women are a huge voting block. Like African American men or college educated whites. Trump doesn’t have to win them out right, but he needs to not get blown out of the water. IIRC Hillary beat him with suburban women by somewhere between 12 and 14%, or thereabouts. Respectable but trump was able to deal with that but winning other voting blocks. Biden however is crushing him with suburban women by around 25%.

That’s literal millions of votes in the other column when trump won the election on the back of less then 500,000 strategically placed people. And suburban women are such a coveted voting block because they are spread evenly throughout swing states instead of grouped en mass in a regional area.

I don't think that would matter an awful lot to be honest. There's a reason they are suburban women: constituencies + turnout is going to be a much bigger game changer.

I mean, suburbia are highlighted as the nominal regions surrounding most cities: these share common traits including low population density. It isn't African Americans, which do have significant populations. This is a group that would only change the election in some communities, especially in very wealthy liberal leaning suburbia.

Looks however, can be deceiving: while Trump could campaign tirelessly pitching a dead horse at people, my recommendation would be as simple as redlining the rural vote, which is more easily swayed by GOP policies, to his side. That one's significantly easier since it was this and not the suburban block that carried him to victory, as evidenced by, obviously, the Pennsylvania map:



I'd focus on turning the pink states deep red if I were him, instead of clawing at the purple and light blue areas that are probably just going end eviscerating him.

[Altima of the Gates]

Toby's kind of right, but at the same time, we basically allowed our country to gentrify by continuing an essentially unbroken chain of globalist, neoconservative, and neoliberal social, economic, and foreign policies.

We created a situation where the average American also lives paycheck to paycheck because we have to compete with foreign labor markets that enjoy lower costs of living in their own countries. We have to compete with new technologies that are cheaper and more efficient than pure human labor and require the training and/or qualifications earned from grossly overpriced higher education to be able/allowed to use. Education most of us can't make the time or scrape together the money to pursue because we live paycheck to paycheck. Our earnings are high compared to 3rd world countries, but our cost of living tends to be rather... oof. Our whole system has been built up over centuries (with a few attempts to break the pattern) to be as efficient as possible for maintaining the flow of money and goods under ideal conditions... but conditions are never ideal. And even when they are, such a model obviously benefits a select, privileged few over the rest. Since those few control the government as well as industry and have gutted labor's power to affect meaningful change, it's been a steady tightening of the system for the past some-odd 40 years.

It's telling that most of the country is poor and struggling, but we also suddenly gained something like 26 new billionaires and haven't lost any yet. Except maybe that one guy who got busted for $2 billion in tax fraud.

You'd think that it only really takes educating people in how broken and self destructive crony capitalism is, but there are a fairly large amount of people who want to try to abuse that system and dream of making themselves kings, those billionaires (and for a couple, soon trillionaries, are so scared of losing the power they've gained BECAUSE they know how things work and don't want to be eaten alive by losing that power. Then there are the types that know, but think they can't do anything about it and forget their own influence, so they resign themselves to being the cog until they get grinded by the machine.
But I have a hard time swallowing that people are ignorant in how they are being used. Turning one's eyes away from the problem and ignorance are two different things. Before Trump ever got into politics people knew he was a scam artist, dirt has been following him for decades. Its just that his ³
fake populist rhetoric was an easy banner for some to rally around to vent.

[Tobias]

I don't think that would matter an awful lot to be honest. There's a reason they are suburban women: constituencies + turnout is going to be a much bigger game changer.

I mean, suburbia are highlighted as the nominal regions surrounding most cities: these share common traits including low population density. It isn't African Americans, which do have significant populations. This is a group that would only change the election in some communities, especially in very wealthy liberal leaning suburbia.

Looks however, can be deceiving: while Trump could campaign tirelessly pitching a dead horse at people, my recommendation would be as simple as redlining the rural vote, which is more easily swayed by GOP policies, to his side. That one's significantly easier since it was this and not the suburban block that carried him to victory, as evidenced by, obviously, the Pennsylvania map:



I'd focus on turning the pink states deep red if I were him, instead of clawing at the purple and light blue areas that are probably just going end eviscerating him.

counterpoint, 2018.

EDIT: to expand upon a post that in retrospect looks more crass then I intended, the strategy you suggest was the one Trump and co actually attempted to use during the mid terms. It’s notable that in mid terms this strategy of base firing is generally more successful due to decreased turn out and motivation being more important relatively.

and said strategy was an utter failure. Suburban women swamped team red all throughout the country and handed republicans a humiliating loss that, presuming the president is indeed defeated in a few weeks, historians will likely point to as the beginning of the end of the great mystique of Donald trumps invulnerability.

[asterism42]

The USA is that character in the zombie film who insists they're fine despite having a conspicuously mouth sized chunk missing from their arm

[AsGryffynn]

counterpoint, 2018.

EDIT: to expand upon a post that in retrospect looks more crass then I intended, the strategy you suggest was the one Trump and co actually attempted to use during the mid terms. It’s notable that in mid terms this strategy of base firing is generally more successful due to decreased turn out and motivation being more important relatively.

and said strategy was an utter failure. Suburban women swamped team red all throughout the country and handed republicans a humiliating loss that, presuming the president is indeed defeated in a few weeks, historians will likely point to as the beginning of the end of the great mystique of Donald trumps invulnerability.

Base firing didn't work especially because of the dead turnout rates. Trump needs levels of turnout higher than those in 2016 to accomplish a PA win. Otherwise, "casual interest" is going to win him over because tactical voting, which was not existent in the mid terms, will help any candidate whose turnout's highest.

And tactical voting is extremely likely in ultra polarized elections like this one, where the polarization seems to be much worse. So far, I hope either Biden and Kamala end up somehow unable to be in their ticket... or lose. Otherwise America will simply go on surviving in what I call a "zombie state": too afraid to change for the better, not afraid enough to reorganize itself or start questioning its identity... and completely insincere and inauthentic. Such an state, devoid of a defining personality, cannot hope to survive or lead for long and it's a message I've been hammering ad nauseum. Trump was right about something: the establishment must die, or America will take it's place in a bonfire. This is not apocalyptic fear mongering. This is a message I've been saying since 2016.

Twice did America reject the candidates that could've brought change for the better. Twice it was that they choose to embrace a nebulous, "poster child" position for their "left" (to most of us, center) and once have you lost to the "greater evil" because it actually had something to say "this is what defines me". You can't keep on voting against. Hopefully this message gets hammered home... or I will see more of the political apathy we saw pre-2016... which every person will say is "normal", even though "normal" isn't healthy.

Sorry, I'm getting carried away, but it just amazes me coming from a country that made exactly the same mistake and is now way worse off as a result.

- - - Updated - - -

The USA is that character in the zombie film who insists they're fine despite having a conspicuously mouth sized chunk missing from their arm

Missing eyes I'd say.

[Altima of the Gates]

The USA is that character in the zombie film who insists they're fine despite having a conspicuously mouth sized chunk missing from their arm

Fool yourself for long enough and you can convince yourself of anything.

[Tobias]

base firing didn’t work especially because of the dead turnout rates. Trump needs levels of turnout higher than those in 2016 to accomplish a PA win. Otherwise, "casual interest" is going to win him over because tactical voting, which was not existent in the mid terms, will help any candidate whose turnout's highest.

That’s not how that works. They tried exactly that and failed in 2018, a time where firing up the base and trying to stoke partisan passions works better because turn out is lower over all in mid term elections. The thing about votes is that passion itself doesn’t effect the power of a vote. Someone who would crawl across broken glass to pull that lever counts exactly the same as the person who only voted because the girl directing traffic through the voting area was in a halter top.

in mid terms, since less people turn out as the mid term elections are perceived to be less important, registering your base and getting everyone going is a pretty good strategy because light blue and light red people don’t show up at all.

in a presidential election, where the middle is much more likely to turn out in higher numbers, trying to maximize base turn out instead of working the various voting blocks congregated around the center is a strategy that is not very successful.

[LegalLoliLover]

Accursed Nazis and their rounding... Of numbers.

[Twelveseal]

China says it's doing alright, financially.

Meanwhile, France involved in more Islamist terrorist troubles.

[Saiga]

Accursed Nazis and their rounding... Of numbers.

Funnily enough, it's not on Snopes, and the tweet author claims that's because Snopes took it down "last year" in contradiction to claiming it was up "right now" as of yesterday. And their claim that it is still up on ADL is false because the ADL page doesn't say the same thing as this page.

5 minutes of looking into it would have told you that.

[AsGryffynn]

That’s not how that works. They tried exactly that and failed in 2018, a time where firing up the base and trying to stoke partisan passions works better because turn out is lower over all in mid term elections. The thing about votes is that passion itself doesn’t effect the power of a vote. Someone who would crawl across broken glass to pull that lever counts exactly the same as the person who only voted because the girl directing traffic through the voting area was in a halter top.

in mid terms, since less people turn out as the mid term elections are perceived to be less important, registering your base and getting everyone going is a pretty good strategy because light blue and light red people don’t show up at all.

in a presidential election, where the middle is much more likely to turn out in higher numbers, trying to maximize base turn out instead of working the various voting blocks congregated around the center is a strategy that is not very successful.

Except that Trump's base is specifically known for rallying around the president and not his party. Turnout, in the case of this man, works in reverse.

The idea this was going to work at a time where the voting demographic was not only fairly anemic, but also uninterested in general, is not exactly a good argument. The midterm voting electorate as a rule is either A. invested in politics in general or B. interested in their constituency. It's really easy to highlight the midterms as a sign Trump's ordeal is doomed when the predictions of a blue landslide ended up being hogwash and they only took control by an average margin... which points out to the midterms being an election built especially for the NIMBY voters: exactly the kind of people known to go for the Trump vote because "hey, my representative needs to align with me" but the POTUS... "well, should he win, he will at least give me lower taxes bitch!" and that's what's really at work here.

In fact, if the middle would turn out in higher numbers during a Presidential election, that's more reason to fire them up: be aware that turnout in 2016 was 59.999999....... and so on, so what should make the most sense is to think of the enemy constituencies and trying to get a total number of voters in your friendly constituencies to vote for you to the point of drowning the vote from hostile ones and non-hostile/non supportive ones. Given turnout is likely to be even lower as a result of mail in voting, I believe the odds of firing his base up are high enough if he can command enough loyalty. If his support is lukewarm, however, he's going to be in serious trouble because most people who could carry him to the finish line will just stay home and not even bother requesting or mailing in a ballot.

Source: witnessing the monumental trainwreck that was the last Spanish election and the disastrous mess it has made of Spain... and witnessing America sleepwalking into the same ravine.

[rxrx]

Putting my bets on Trump even though I don't really like him. Populism will allow him to mobilize his cronies and win against those against him, but too lazy to vote for some reason.

[Tobias]

Except that Trump's base is specifically known for rallying around the president and not his party. Turnout, in the case of this man, works in reverse.

The idea this was going to work at a time where the voting demographic was not only fairly anemic, but also uninterested in general, is not exactly a good argument. The midterm voting electorate as a rule is either A. invested in politics in general or B. interested in their constituency. It's really easy to highlight the midterms as a sign Trump's ordeal is doomed when the predictions of a blue landslide ended up being hogwash and they only took control by an average margin... which points out to the midterms being an election built especially for the NIMBY voters: exactly the kind of people known to go for the Trump vote because "hey, my representative needs to align with me" but the POTUS... "well, should he win, he will at least give me lower taxes bitch!" and that's what's really at work here.

In fact, if the middle would turn out in higher numbers during a Presidential election, that's more reason to fire them up: be aware that turnout in 2016 was 59.999999....... and so on, so what should make the most sense is to think of the enemy constituencies and trying to get a total number of voters in your friendly constituencies to vote for you to the point of drowning the vote from hostile ones and non-hostile/non supportive ones. Given turnout is likely to be even lower as a result of mail in voting, I believe the odds of firing his base up are high enough if he can command enough loyalty. If his support is lukewarm, however, he's going to be in serious trouble because most people who could carry him to the finish line will just stay home and not even bother requesting or mailing in a ballot.

Source: witnessing the monumental trainwreck that was the last Spanish election and the disastrous mess it has made of Spain... and witnessing America sleepwalking into the same ravine.

there are multiple questionable points in there but I am gonna cover the most provably wrong.

first off in the mid terms exit polls on both sides confirmed that vast majorities from both sides (as in, better then 90% each) were casting their vote because of the president. In other words, he wasn’t on the ballot but they were voting either for or against him anyway. Secondly, again on both sides, turn out in 2018 was shockingly high. And the demographics of said turn out were party base voters. So much so that it actually rivaled a presidential election. Several states broke records for turn out.

So the idea that that trump wasn’t on the ballot in 2018 doesn’t hold water, and the party’s respective bases all turned out in droves you see.

EDIT: also, I skipped one. The idea that this election will be lower in voters then the norm due to mail on ballots is also unlikely based on empirical evidence. The numbers of ballots returned already rivals that of the entirety of 2016 and we are currently breaking record at in person early voting locations. It’s true republican leaning areas have attempted to hinder such and such efforts have born some fruit, but all in all the numerical advantage appears to have increased, not decreased, vs 2016

[SpoonyViking]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...arty-luis-arce

"Oh, protesting does nothing, just vote!" Protesting is what enabled the vote in the first place, dipshits.

[LegalLoliLover]

I don't know. Does Bolivian law allow for violent rioters called "protests" because I know that US law certainly doesn't? Now, if you make the argument about the "necessity" of breaking laws, then you have no right to complain when the other side uses those same tactics out of "necessity" and "the greater good".

[LegalLoliLover]

According to Sony, black lives matter:

Uighur lives don't:

[Twelveseal]

Pretty standard for Capitalism, really. Business see money? Business do what need get money.

CCP's got a lot of that. Even more post-covid, since they're the only major economy on the planet posting nice growth numbers. Capitalism and corporations generally don't give a fuck about human rights unless doing so makes them money or failure to do so costs them. Blue and Orange morality, except it's based on Profit and Loss.

[LegalLoliLover]

Capitalism also looks to future gains. Most companies don't want any government to have a stranglehold over them. With China, there will be more strangling than the kinkiest bondage session. And given what you said, Sony should stop virtue signaling the US, then, or do they honestly think that's profitable? For example, Teespring banned Antifa stuff.

Again, the world has too many Batmen and Doctors Who who expect to guilt-trip their nemeses into changing. China can only be dealt with using Goblin Slayer or Dragonborn tactics.