General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 409

Can't really drop much further than where she is right now..

 

"I think I would not have assassinated Osama bin Laden but would have captured him and brought him to trial"

The whole quote would probably have even 'america fuck yeah' people less pissed off but I guess anything that doesn't immediately grab headlines is too much to ask for these days.

 

What would you call it?

 

Pneumonia.

 

Hey she's outpolling Trumpers in some demos!

 

How is not being able to walk or stand on her own as well as falling while being put into the van not qualify as a health episode? Even if it's a side effect of pneumonia it was still very much a health episode.

 

How The Press Created FrankenTrump and Ruined Civilization

And now back to the main point, the answer to a question I know many of you have been asking yourselves, in one form or another, for a long time. Why are the two main political parties so close in representation in government? Why are most elections so close? Why are opinions on various issues, even when one side is clearly utterly bogus and the other side so clearly correct, almost always close to 50-50, or at least, in the 60% to 40% range? Why is the balance of opinion about policy or candidates so near the middle so much of the time?

Fisher’s Principle.

Fisher’s Principle is an idea that was initially applied to explain the apparent fact that sexual reproduction produces a 1:1 ratio of males to females. Never mind that fact that most species, it turns out, probably don’t do this, and that the ones that do, do so because they are physiologically constrained to do so. It was still a good idea because it works in some cases, and is internally logical. The idea is also related to, and probably intellectually basal to, some very important game theory. And, for our purposes, it explains a lot about why the press is essentially incapable of doing its job, and why civilization is, at this moment, teetering on the edge of collapse because of that.

Here’s the idea. You are an organism concerned, rightfully, with your Darwinian fitness. You are about to have an offspring. You can have a male or a female.

So you do a marketing study. You find out that all the organisms in the next generation, into which you are about to launch your offspring, will be seeking a mate. Marketing theory tells you that if one sex is rare, it will be more valuable. So, you estimate the sex ratio of the next generation. The only way to do this, of course, is to assess the current sex ratio. You find out that a particular sex is more rare, and thus, individuals of that sex are more valuable, and that is the sex of offspring that you produce.

But, of course, all the other organisms of your kind are doing the same thing, so that rare and valuable sex is now flooding the market. So, the other sex becomes more valuable, and individuals start producing them. So the market shifts back the other way.

Owing to overlapping generations, some randomization of timing of information flow and decision making, and all that, the kind of organism you are, as a result of following Fisher’s Principle of producing the sex of higher value, ends up with about a 50-50 sex ratio.

 

She was able to walk and stand on her own. What the fuck? She wobbled and was helped getting into the car, because she was dehydrated. She's not traveling because of pneumonia.

 

She was clearly not standing or walking on her own when she was getting in the van. She had an episode because of the pneumonia. Not sure why the AP's use of the words health episode is so upsetting to you.

 

To me the issue is that calling it a health episode is playing into the dishonest narrative of the right, trying to disqualify Hillary as being physically unfit to hold office. Which narrative has been sexist and misogynistic in this case. Basically, in context, by calling it a health episode you should know what you're feeding into. Im sure the AP did.

 

Because, like quite a few of their recent tweets, it's bullshit headlines that lack proper context that any responsible journalist should write.

Also, she walked there, stood, got light headed when she stepped down, was helped into the van. She was dehydrated.

 

Doctor said "is recovering nicely" but yeah, "should recover" is the headline.

 

"recovering nicely" is a BS statement immediately after diagnosing and treating someone. I've had pneumonia where the antibiotics didn't work, there is no way to know if she will recover nicely or not for about a week. If we are going to complain about terminology, she did have a "health episode" which I think sounds nicer than a "health issue" especially if the details of why it occurred were not available, both phrases are accurate. Also, she's almost 70, pneumonia which poses a greater risk to her health as it does with all older individuals (as the article states).

I don't know how stubborn Clinton is or if her campaign was trying to make her not appear weak, but she's clearly being held up and propped against that structure and looks like her hand behind her back was bracing her up. Years of being drunk and dealing with drunk people makes that obvious.

 

webmd.chorus.fm

 

That reminded me of Leslie Snope.

 

Ireland’s Bad Apples | Jacobin

 

I don't like the idea of compelling candidates to release private documents. It's just something the media convinces us is important so that they have something to talk about for 2 weeks. I couldn't tell you what would be important about either someone's tax documents or medical records.

If both Trump and Clinton were to release their medical records and neither had terminal illnesses but Trump had erectile dysfunction or Clinton had a venereal disease all that really does is give the media and late-night shows something to eat up while not really contributing anything of value to the public discourse.

Same with tax returns, if we find out Trump's wealth is x and he pays y in taxes, and Clinton's wealth is y and she pays x in taxes, so what? Rich people game their taxes? And? That's great that it gives CNN content for their nightly panel but I'm not sure why I benefit from that information.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ maybe if elections weren't such a media spectacle we would get better candidates.

 

May I post something from our side of the Pacific?

How Countries Like the Philippines Fall Into Vigilante Violence

 

He's an idiot.

 

That's not all tax returns show.

 

That has the be the absolute worst way to do that ad ...

 

'A constitutional crisis': the CIA turns on the Senate

 

Tax returns give you an idea of where a political candidate is making their money, and thus where conflicts of interest may arise.

In Trump's case, the guy is claiming he gives "millions" to charities every year and his tax returns would show whether or not that's true. He's also based a decent amount of his campaign on his "Success as a businessman" and touts that by saying he's worth 9 billion dollars. A tax return won't show exactly how much he's worth, but it'll give you a general idea and all that.

 

How the fuck do you set 1) a target special ed rate, 2) well below the national average?