RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

They should have. If the tech nerds that created it could see it coming, and why would they have invested in/lobbied for it so hard if they didn't, then why couldn't legislators? There is still time to cut some of it off. Every converted physicist and statistician that traded in science for financial algorithms can still see it happening.

I don't know how many of those physicists you've met but I wouldn't bet the bank on their predictions (or ask them about their algorithms), also I doubt anyone setting up Google, Facebook or Twitter had any idea we'd end up where we have, just as I doubt Microsoft truly saw the big picture looking to the future.

Regardless of how unpredictable the emergence of Google, Facebook and Twitter was they can be dealt with through regulation, enforced corporate break-up or even nationalisation. If there was the political will to do so.

Unfortunately, as the treatment of Microsoft/Windows has shown, there is no such political will.

They're going to have to think about what they want to do and how they're going to do it. Else what's coming down the line is a world run by Google, or maybe Amazon, the East India Company will be as nothing compared to the power they'll have if left unchecked

morepork wrote:Anyone under 80 probably had to work Tuesday.

Possibly even 2-3 different jobs. But decisions aren't made by people who can't be bothered to vote, and this is becoming a worrying trend that the kids can't be bothered to be counted

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:Anyone under 80 probably had to work Tuesday.

Possibly even 2-3 different jobs. But decisions aren't made by people who can't be bothered to vote, and this is becoming a worrying trend that the kids can't be bothered to be counted

Is this you acknowledging a lot of people can’t take time of work or is this you saying they’re lazy and can’t be bothered. It’s hard to tell.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:Anyone under 80 probably had to work Tuesday.

Possibly even 2-3 different jobs. But decisions aren't made by people who can't be bothered to vote, and this is becoming a worrying trend that the kids can't be bothered to be counted

Is this you acknowledging a lot of people can’t take time of work or is this you saying they’re lazy and can’t be bothered. It’s hard to tell.

That they might be busy but can't be bothered.

Busy and lazy all at once.

Yes, I made that assumption. A compromised incubator then.

Remember kids, when the going gets tough, the tough go golfing.

It ain’t nothin but a movie

cashead wrote:And bringing it back to Trump, just a reminder:



https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/02/ ... ecord-high

To a degree that's unavoidable it would seem, you pull troops out of a live conflict and they struggle with a return to domestic setting and hate group membership blooms. Though of course the President of the USA validating them is of both striking and damning consequence

Mainly for Digby, but also for others:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

Stom wrote:Mainly for Digby, but also for others:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

Why for me? Or are we simply glossing over the best candidate on policy for me is Warren?

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:Mainly for Digby, but also for others:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

Why for me? Or are we simply glossing over the best candidate on policy for me is Warren?

About the need for drastic change, not “incremental”

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:Mainly for Digby, but also for others:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

Why for me? Or are we simply glossing over the best candidate on policy for me is Warren?

About the need for drastic change, not “incremental”

If you can deliver drastic change then fine, I suspect in advance it's a waste of time and effort and practically to actually deliver change and get it to stick revolution isn't a good idea. If one were starting with a blank piece of paper I'd be far more adventurous, but given the reality I tend to lean on the idea that politics is the art of the possible. And some of the more 'progressive' ideas to have large and powerful vested interests set against them, and aren't popular with a huge number of the electorate.

Not even all Democrats agree with Bernie never mind the Republicans, and the GOP might well still control the Senate aft

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
Why for me? Or are we simply glossing over the best candidate on policy for me is Warren?

About the need for drastic change, not “incremental”

If you can deliver drastic change then fine, I suspect in advance it's a waste of time and effort and practically to actually deliver change and get it to stick revolution isn't a good idea. If one were starting with a blank piece of paper I'd be far more adventurous, but given the reality I tend to lean on the idea that politics is the art of the possible. And some of the more 'progressive' ideas to have large and powerful vested interests set against them, and aren't popular with a huge number of the electorate.

Not even all Democrats agree with Bernie never mind the Republicans, and the GOP might well still control the Senate aft

You get nothing if you don’t try. The worst case scenario for Bernie is the same as the best case for Biden. No change

Stupin old men #10127

“I like this stuff. I really get it,” Trump boasted to reporters during a tour of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, where he met with actual doctors and scientists who are feverishly scrambling to contain and combat the deadly illness. Citing a “great, super-genius uncle” who taught at MIT, Trump professed that it must run in the family genes.

“People are really surprised I understand this stuff,” he said. “Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.”

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
About the need for drastic change, not “incremental”

If you can deliver drastic change then fine, I suspect in advance it's a waste of time and effort and practically to actually deliver change and get it to stick revolution isn't a good idea. If one were starting with a blank piece of paper I'd be far more adventurous, but given the reality I tend to lean on the idea that politics is the art of the possible. And some of the more 'progressive' ideas to have large and powerful vested interests set against them, and aren't popular with a huge number of the electorate.

Not even all Democrats agree with Bernie never mind the Republicans, and the GOP might well still control the Senate aft

You get nothing if you don’t try. The worst case scenario for Bernie is the same as the best case for Biden. No change

That’s a good way of putting it.

It’s just such a mess that if a guy like Biden (and to call him a moderate would be very generous) gets in office and is a shambles that will be seen by many as the result of electing another Democratic/left-wing president. It’s either that or he appeals enough to the right and may as well have run as a republican. To see if a Sanders, or even Warren, Presidency could actually work would be very interesting.

That’s not saying the failings of Obama etc. are down to them not being left wing enough, but does America actually have any idea of what a President enacting more progressive policies might look like? Is it even possible?

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
If you can deliver drastic change then fine, I suspect in advance it's a waste of time and effort and practically to actually deliver change and get it to stick revolution isn't a good idea. If one were starting with a blank piece of paper I'd be far more adventurous, but given the reality I tend to lean on the idea that politics is the art of the possible. And some of the more 'progressive' ideas to have large and powerful vested interests set against them, and aren't popular with a huge number of the electorate.

Not even all Democrats agree with Bernie never mind the Republicans, and the GOP might well still control the Senate aft

You get nothing if you don’t try. The worst case scenario for Bernie is the same as the best case for Biden. No change

That’s a good way of putting it.

So what, just because you can't get everything you want right away it's not good enough? Ignoring the practical problems of vast shifts in policy and that not everyone agrees with you? Also what happens if the other side wins the next election, can they simply switch everything back, or back further?

I noted the quote from Max Weber about the need to have patience and a work ethic in delivering change, but to expand further than that first line:

“Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth - that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible. But to do that a man must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well, in a very sober sense of the word. And even those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes. This is necessary right now, or else men will not be able to attain even that which is possible today.”
― Max Weber

I would like to remind everyone that president Sanders will not achieve anything without a majority in Congress. You saw it with Obama too, I hope.

So change, or revolution, has to come from a majority. If Sanders struggles to get a majority in the Democratic Party, most likely he won’t have one in Congress.

So far the turnout of those segments of population that Sanders is supposed to dominate has been inferior to the turnout of the moderate segments. And the overall turnout is significantly up.

I would say that so far, Democrats do not want a revolution, just a regime change...

gransoporro wrote:I would like to remind everyone that president Sanders will not achieve anything without a majority in Congress. You saw it with Obama too, I hope.

So change, or revolution, has to come from a majority. If Sanders struggles to get a majority in the Democratic Party, most likely he won’t have one in Congress.

So far the turnout of those segments of population that Sanders is supposed to dominate has been inferior to the turnout of the moderate segments. And the overall turnout is significantly up.

I would say that so far, Democrats do not want a revolution, just a regime change...

Even if the Rep.s have 100% of Congress, President Sanders wil achieve a lack of President Trump - which is far from "nothing"

Any of the candidates will not be Trump. I think Biden comes across as a cardboard cutout of a person, and that's just as much better for not being Trump

I already expressed my agreement on this subject. That is a regime change.

gransoporro wrote:I already expressed my agreement on this subject. That is a regime change.

You are far too reasonable to argue with. I banish you to a cruise ship on the Adriatic sea with coughing tourists.

Digby wrote:Any of the candidates will not be Trump. I think Biden comes across as a cardboard cutout of a person, and that's just as much better for not being Trump

Looking at Bidens recent speeches I’d be particularly interested in who his running mate will be.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Any of the candidates will not be Trump. I think Biden comes across as a cardboard cutout of a person, and that's just as much better for not being Trump

Looking at Bidens recent speeches I’d be particularly interested in who his running mate will be.

Anyone with a pulse will have more personality than Pence, and someone more likely to have a pulse than Biden in 4 years time will be useful too. 3 out of the 4 candidates for President and VP look very weak, so this might at least throw up one name which suggests competency

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Any of the candidates will not be Trump. I think Biden comes across as a cardboard cutout of a person, and that's just as much better for not being Trump

Looking at Bidens recent speeches I’d be particularly interested in who his running mate will be.

If Biden's got half a brain, then he'd try and tap up Bernie as his running mate to try and keep the fanatics on his side.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Any of the candidates will not be Trump. I think Biden comes across as a cardboard cutout of a person, and that's just as much better for not being Trump

Looking at Bidens recent speeches I’d be particularly interested in who his running mate will be.

If Biden's got half a brain, then he'd try and tap up Bernie as his running mate to try and keep the fanatics on his side.

Puja

Other than they'd both be actuarially very likely to die in office in the same term, or maybe that's what you meant by half a brain. Also Biden needs help to speak to multiple groups, Latino votes, blue collar workers, moderate republicans and more progressive democrats, I don't know the best way to get them all is to put a Bernie on the bottom half of the ticket, or even a Warren if either were willing to do it for a chunk of portfolio

It's easy to recall lots of Bernie supporters stayed at home or voted for Stein last time around, but she wasn't the only smaller party candidate so there are lots of other voters up for grabs, and I don't really have a sense of how that breaks down by state in way that will allow for electoral college success