Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I agreed that it was overwhelming, but disagreed with your insinuation that it was that way with all other groups; Hispanics were fairly close, male female was about the same as it was with Clinton versus Obama, Sanders won among Asian Americans, LGBT was very close to even, and so on. On a side note, 4:1 is 75%, and the difference between young (<30) African Americans and older African Americans was among the largest of all racial demographics. Demographics tell stories that are far more complicated than you might think by simply skimming them, especially when you start getting into intersections.
edited 29th May '16 5:59:12 PM by CaptainCapsase
4:1 is 80%. It means that for every four people on one side, there's one person on the other side. Or in other words, 4 out of 5 people are voting for one side. Multiply that by 20 and you get 80 out of 100 people, or 80%. 75% would be 3:1, or 3 out of 4.
And you keep saying that "demographics are complicated" as if that means anything. Yes, they're complicated. No, that doesn't mean that Bernie's doing any better with minorities than he actually is.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
It's 75%, my mistake. Also, you're entirely correct in saying that Sanders is not doing well with minorities. What I'm disputing is that "not doing well with minorities" is a statement that gives a remotely complete picture of the demographic situation of this election; there's a very different set of voting coalitions in these primaries than there was in 2008. In 2008, minorities of all ages along with young whites and independents favored Obama, while women and older whites favored Clinton. This season we have independents, young voters of all stripes, and older whites favoring Sanders, while women, blacks, and Hispanics favor Clinton.
edited 29th May '16 6:21:15 PM by CaptainCapsase
It's because not all polls count minorities other then blacks, not all count different minorities apart from each other and blacks make up the vast majority of the minority population.
edited 29th May '16 6:19:13 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Blacks are one of the biggest minorities in the US, much larger than Asian Americans or most religious minorities, but less than Hispanics believe it or not.
Actually no, there are more Hispanics than blacks, though some of those people would undoubtedly be considered white based on appearance.
edited 29th May '16 6:19:56 PM by CaptainCapsase
I mean, at certain points during this campaign cycle, he's been the only Republican candidate admitting Iraq and Libya and so on were mistakes. His claims that he was anti-war back in the day are almost completely false though. For Iraq, he really didn't give a shit, and he was definitely in favor of Libya. Then there's the occasions where he calls for outright 19th century style Imperialism. The one consistent thing about Trump is that he's been completely inconsistent during his campaign.
edited 29th May '16 7:59:57 PM by CaptainCapsase
Former New Mexico Govenror Gary Johnson won the Libertarian nomination for president.
edited 29th May '16 10:05:58 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.Honestly, Johnson is too good for this party.
edited 29th May '16 10:07:31 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv2_ApOzMF4
Oh, man. There are so many things wrong with this video I don't even know where to start
New Survey coming this weekend!
Let's be fair, people ranging from Noam Chomsky to Henry Kissinger are saying the current size of our nuclear arsenals are way, way, way bigger than they need to be to function as a deterrent, and accomplish little other than unnecessarily endangering human civilization. When those two people are in agreement, I think we can say there's a serious issue.
The manner in which that filters down to less educated sectors of the populace tends to be rather...obnoxious.
As far as the first few minutes of the video, it's vulgar, and poorly phrased but more or less correct; the most charitable view of that particular part of history is that we nuked the Japanese to make damn sure the Soviets had no place at the negotiating table, and dropped the second bomb because the theater's commander wanted to test another bomb design on a live target.
edited 29th May '16 9:27:28 PM by CaptainCapsase
Thought it was interesting to see someone defending DWS. I don't know that I agree with them
but it's such a seemingly rare position I thought I'd share it.
I have difficulty formulating a question about it, but I'd like to see evidence of the demographic claims made in the article. Especially because if memory from the debates serves, raw numbers do not seem to agree with it.
Also the article does not seem to address all the questions about how DWS has handled fundraising (complaints about using them for personal expenses, just as an example) and about the claims that she didn't endorse/support certain candidates in 2014 because she was a friend with the Republicans they were challenging. I am sure some or all of that can be defended but it has to be, the complaints about her go back a long time before the Sanders campaign.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanTo not let the Soviets on the negotiation table and not to let the military and political structure of the Imperial Japan to remain unscathed, without the nuclear bombings the Japanese terms would still keep the Emperor as the head of the state and the Imperial Japanese Military as the defacto rulers of Japan, that plus splitting Japan in two like Germany was.
The bombings brought the unconditional surrender option to the table, all the others either involved leaving the same structure that led the armies that plunged Asia or rip the country in two. It was cruel but still was the least shitty option and compared to the constant firebombings the Japanese cities suffered through the course of the war, the nuclear bombs were no more deadly than them but it showed the Imperial Japan they had no hopes of at least achieving to save face and get favorable surrender terms.
Also the possibility of an Soviet and American invasion to the Japanese main islands would result in so many deaths it would make the bombings pale in comparison.
Now take Russia feeling cocky again and China aggressive expansion in the Chinese Sea has put a lot of the US allies and the US itself back on the track of sheer deterrence again, specially since China is spending large sums of money to expand and modernize their nuclear forces and Russia pretty much withdrew from the stock reduction treaty due to the missile shields the US was cogitating to deploy in Poland along the redevelopment of IRBM like the Iskander missile and the SLBM Bulava missile have put the US back into a position where it wouldn't be politically feasible to reduce their own nuclear warhead stock when the other major political powers won't and the US allies are counting on the Nuclear Umbrella to keep their sovereignty.
The claim the US atomic bombings being unnecessary are another example of historian's fallacy, since it is pretty much easy to judge the outcome after all the alternatives have been analyzed post happening.
Inter arma enim silent leges
Uh, that's how we judge things. Analyze the consequences compared to the alternatives.

edited 29th May '16 5:53:03 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.