|
hobbesmaster posted:No idea how an alternate history Vietnam would turn out so I'm not going to speculate more.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:Biden would probably make the best president of all of them. But I think the media narrative is that he's somewhat of a joke which is completely unfair but pervasive. Don't get me wrong, I love Biden. I would support Hillary (and Schweitzer if she doesn't run) over him, but a lot of that comes down to how electable they are. Like you said, the media has this narrative about Biden that he's a gaffe machine and a joke (he does gaffe a lot but when he's right a lot of the time). Biden is one of the most genuine politicians out there. It's too bad the media doesn't that that Biden instead of loose cannon Joe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Arbitrary Coin posted:What Holy poo poo, that is some cocktail. It's like he took the trunk of the car from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Well, it would be the other way around and they just were rolling with Kennedy's medicine cabinet. Because god drat, they even got the adrenochrome with the animal organ cells  On a topical note, Christie can put his douchebaggery to good use when he directs it behind noble things. He nominated a highly qualified judge to the NJSC, and got some flak for it because the judge was a Muslim. At his press conference he flat out called it a "bunch of crap" (pretty sure that's verbatim, he definitely called it crap in one way or another) and got testy about it, same with the Fire Island stuff during Sandy, as well as some moments during the aftermath where he addressed people getting whiny about him working with Obama. It comes off as somewhat honest and lends credence to his "no bullshit charm" people like to grant him (seems they forgot about his nixing of the train tunnel, saying it went into the basement of Macy's, his blowing his top repeatedly at people who asked him about stuff like teachers, etc) but I think it's a manifestation of a temper that would be tough to fully control. He's a loose cannon in that regard and it would drown out any reasonable discussion he might put forth at a debate. He also could stand to lose weight for strictly image reasons (though it would also be a healthy thing to not be morbidly obese) but he's got a bigger image problem posed by his temper and he will torpedo himself the moment he lays into the GOP base for questioning his judgment with their goofy phobias.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Wheresmy5bucks posted:It seems as so, but it was also thought like that in 2008. It's probably playing to Hillary's attention yes, but she's probably leering at one of the Castro brothers to suddenly s how up and steal it from her again. I think Cuomo is by far the best fit for where the party leadership has been going. Top notch neoliberal, not adverse to racking up a deficit, pro privatization, managed to get gay marriage and halt a tax increase as well as a min wage increase in his state in one grand coup. He's the perfect modern Democrat and solid in all areas. He also instructed Democrats to vote with Republicans and form a Republican block in his state which is getting him solid media credibility and centrist points. He'd also have no problem generating $Texas from Wall Street in an instant... could also be great on a ticket with Booker who's also in a huge bromance with private equity right now. Bloomberg could easily back him and then Thomas Friedman would die off joy. On the other hand Clinton + a Castro would be great for shoring up minority support in our growing interest blocks. She's also solidly neoliberal as well and very much goes with solid centrist economic options. But I'm not for electing family members of former presidents because it's nepotism and she's got a problematic history that could easily be dragged up. I'd shoot the TV if I heard one more thing about Whitewater and Foster. I'd want Biden + Warren but that's not going to happen. quote:And didn't enough young naive people such as myself learn that there's no such thing as a perfect progressive You ever heard the saying "Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love". The same thing will happen. Someone will get on stage and all you'll hear are the sweet nothings of progressivism on the things you care about, not the warning signs. They'll have a winning smile and say all the things you want to hear while in public. You'll feel safe, part of the process, you have input into this! It's not about one leaders ambition and narcissism, this is about all of us, it's a movement, I'm part of this and we matter. Then the same thing will happen again that did after 2008, and the rest of us will just  , and you'll just rage. When their chance at a second term comes around you'll want to change things, to show that progressives don't support this, but you will vote them back into office and donate your money and your time. Because the Republicans will act crazy and say things about abortion, gay people, Mexicans, birth control, and generally act crazy as gently caress so we'll have to vote for the betrayer again or America will end.- Before anybody gets mad I wasn't trying to just be an rear end there, that's generally how these things go with the Democratic party now. I put no stock in history not repeating all over again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Speaking as someone who's politics lean right I don't really see a strong candidate in the Republican party at the moment; though I won't rule out Rand Paul (provided he's not as cuckoo as dad). Rubio, perhaps, but I'm skeptical unless the GOP ditches the anti-hispanic rhetoric. I don't see any right-wingers getting excited over another Bush and people like Huckabee and Santorum only appeal to a small subset and that's folks who's religious and social priorities are paramount. I'm not fully engaged on Democratic up-and-comers, but I'd even consider throwing my vote for Cory Booker, despite being my being a conservative/libertarian. My estimation of him is that he actually and truly gives a poo poo, and he's not wowed by perks and the aura of being in charge. I might not agree with all his politics, but he seems refreshingly honest. Hillary has actually gone up in a lot of right wingers eyes and I'll certainly praise her for a tirelessness in her efforts as SoS. Cuomo seems to me like a Democratic equivalent of G.W.B.; sorta riding on daddy's coattails. But I don't really know enough about him to feel qualified to comment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
MoraleHazard posted:Speaking as someone who's politics lean right I don't really see a strong candidate in the Republican party at the moment; though I won't rule out Rand Paul (provided he's not as cuckoo as dad). Rubio, perhaps, but I'm skeptical unless the GOP ditches the anti-hispanic rhetoric. I don't see any right-wingers getting excited over another Bush and people like Huckabee and Santorum only appeal to a small subset and that's folks who's religious and social priorities are paramount. I think it's pretty much a given Booker is going to run for Governor, so I wouldn't expect to see him in 2016. Maybe 2020 where he would have a better chance of winning since he would have being a governor under his belt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
MoraleHazard posted:Speaking as someone who's politics lean right I don't really see a strong candidate in the Republican party at the moment; though I won't rule out Rand Paul (provided he's not as cuckoo as dad). Rubio, perhaps, but I'm skeptical unless the GOP ditches the anti-hispanic rhetoric. I don't see any right-wingers getting excited over another Bush and people like Huckabee and Santorum only appeal to a small subset and that's folks who's religious and social priorities are paramount. Rubio as candidate would indicate that the GOP had decided to go with tokenism rather than actually doing anything about the party's significant and well-deserved problems with Hispanics. He's the poster boy for "but we've got one too, why aren't you loving people voting for us?" This of course presumes the GOP hasn't found a to square the circle of finding a way to genuinely appeal to minorities without alienating the party's base, which I continue to maintain is their existential, and likely unsolvable, dilemma of the moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Rubio as candidate would indicate that the GOP had decided to go with tokenism rather than actually doing anything about the party's significant and well-deserved problems with Hispanics. He's the poster boy for "but we've got one too, why aren't you loving people voting for us?" I agree with you on Rubio and I think Republicans don't necessarily see the differences in what attracts 2nd generation Cuban voters and 1st generation Mexican / Guatemalan / etc. voters. And there's no way they will win significant numbers of Hispanics without providing a pathway to citizenship / legal work status AND making it easier and more straightforward to immigrate or come here to work. My guess is that even if a hispanic person is here legally, and is attracted to the Republican's fiscally or socially conservative message, they'll be afraid of or turned off by the nativist rhetoric that often comes out of the right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
greatn posted:I don't think anyone could steal the primary from Hilary again. Didn't they already change the delegate rules to make the way Obama did it a lot less plausible? No. canyonero posted:I was just reading this on PPP's site as well. This makes me wonder what a 2016 map would look like. Does Hillary make other Southern (I realize Kentuckians may not consider themselves Southern) states back in play? Does her nomination help Republicans get back into states that Obama won or made close (VA and NC come to mind)? Ever since '92 & '96 the Clinton states of Arkansas, West Virginia and Tennessee (especially WV which had traditionally been a solid D) have been trending away from the Democrats as a block. Something in the ballpark of 46% in 2000, 44% in 2004, 40% in 2008 and 37% in 2012. But yeah, I am certain that the face of Hillary Clinton is exactly the face of the Democratic party that will appeal to the voters of these states. They never accepted Obama, Kerry was a Northern liberal and I'm not too sure about what their issue with Gore was though it may just have been that Bush was right up their alley. However the Clinton machine Bill and Hillary know exactly how to appeal to those working, hard working, white Americans. I can't include Kentucky though. Bill never won a majority there and it doesn't really have a Democratic tradition. With her current soaring approval numbers I suspect that that 48% is Hillary's ceiling. Of the three Tennessee was the most friendly to Obama, which looks then infinitely better for her, and if WV can succeed in not electing a Republican senator in 2014, I am certain she'd be able to carry it. SilentD posted:On the other hand Clinton + a Castro would be great for shoring up minority support in our growing interest blocks. That certainly sounds like a fierce combination. Brigadier Sockface fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
MoraleHazard posted:I agree with you on Rubio and I think Republicans don't necessarily see the differences in what attracts 2nd generation Cuban voters and 1st generation Mexican / Guatemalan / etc. voters. And there's no way they will win significant numbers of Hispanics without providing a pathway to citizenship / legal work status AND making it easier and more straightforward to immigrate or come here to work. My guess is that even if a hispanic person is here legally, and is attracted to the Republican's fiscally or socially conservative message, they'll be afraid of or turned off by the nativist rhetoric that often comes out of the right. I'd like to point out in agreement that while nativist rhetoric is certainly the cherry on top of the sundae--insert your own (in)appropriate fecal adjectives there--there's no real evidence that even full comprehensive immigration reform "on its own" will sway any significant number of the bloc to vote GOP at this juncture. Every bit of polling I've seen in the past few months just cements my notion that Republicans would have to take an about-face on every single thing they are currently aggressive pushers for, up to and including the culture war, to have a shot at denting the Democratic Party's advantage in that bloc. Which is why I'm willing to bet they're going to do a tokenism thing with the candidates, not seriously push/support any actual immigration reform, and that their overall strategy going forward will be the same as in 2012, topped by (continuing to) nakedly trying to suppress traditionally Democratic supporting constituencies like unions and other pinko non-Americans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Hillary would beat Rubio...badly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
api call girl posted:I'd like to point out in agreement that while nativist rhetoric is certainly the cherry on top of the sundae--insert your own (in)appropriate fecal adjectives there--there's no real evidence that even full comprehensive immigration reform "on its own" will sway any significant number of the bloc to vote GOP at this juncture. [quote]In the late '80s and early '90s, Republican strategists approached the NAACP with offers of free mapping software to help them create majority-minority congressional districts that would be more likely to elect black and Hispanic members of Congress. But this tactic, dubbed "Project Ratfuck" by one of its chief architects, had nothing to do with increasing minority representation. Rather, it was designed to pack lots of liberal-leaning minority voters into a single district, leaving the surrounding districts as easy pickings for Republican challengers.[/quotes] Progressives fall for this poo poo all the time, it goes with the turf. Give them a shiny liberal thing that will screw them over in the long run, and every single time they'll take it as long as it falls into social issues. The best thing about that is once it's drawn up like that, almost impossible to undo! http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/scott-walker-defunding-democratic-donors Good article on the GOP screwing Democrats in various ways to gain an electoral advantage they otherwise wouldn't have had. But there are ways for the GOP to do things for minorities that are actually a trap and yet look good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
MoraleHazard posted:Speaking as someone who's politics lean right I don't really see a strong candidate in the Republican party at the moment; though I won't rule out Rand Paul (provided he's not as cuckoo as dad). Rubio, perhaps, but I'm skeptical unless the GOP ditches the anti-hispanic rhetoric. I don't see any right-wingers getting excited over another Bush and people like Huckabee and Santorum only appeal to a small subset and that's folks who's religious and social priorities are paramount. There's your problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Lee Harvey Oswald posted:Hillary would beat FTFY.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
richardfun posted:There's your problem. Well he's not. He's certainly better at handling the GOP establishment for instance and won a bigger election than his Dad ever did. And for the most part is smart enough to not ramble off conspiracies like dad and veer away from accepted republican canon. Also no racist newsletter. He's not any better a person, but he's miles better a politician.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:I'm surprised U of L fans make up as much as 17%, but not the rest. The Clintons are well loved down here. I was down there last month and heard, without a hint of irony, that they'd support Hillary because "She really gave that friend of the family what for back in 08." If she carried the state over Rubio, I'm pretty sure Rubio's ethnicity will be a big part of that. Rand Paul running gives me chills, because I really want to see how far down the rabbit hole we are if you can't nuke a campaign with "This motherfucker opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, get the gently caress outta here." greatn posted:I don't think anyone could steal the primary from Hilary again. Didn't they already change the delegate rules to make the way Obama did it a lot less plausible? So, I've been out of the loop with Democratic pols lately, is this "steal the primary again" thing really a frame? Like, do people think Obama boosted Clinton's electoral stereo in '08? She got beat, that's all, but I've heard similar phrasing from a certain type of progressive and I'm curious how far it's spread. SilentD posted:The GOP does do things for minorities. So, this is why "packing" is a violation of Section 2 the Voting Rights Act, it's a form of vote dilution. It depends on whether you consider minority-represented districts a good independent from the number of Democrats in office and whether packing violations can be adequately fought, though. Edit: Full disclosure, I'll be working for whoever runs against Hillary in the 2016 primary (though I'll begrudgingly vote for her in the general) because I don't think we should let people who are willing to engage in race-baiting in their campaigns run the party and a lot of that '08 stuff - especially around South Carolina, not to mention Geraldine Ferraro - came close enough to crossing the line that I'm not comfortable supporting her in a Democratic primary. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Hillary is going to testify to Congress on the 20th about the Benghazi attack. So look for that to be a complete poo poo show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:So, I've been out of the loop with Democratic pols lately, is this "steal the primary again" thing really a frame? Like, do people think Obama boosted Clinton's electoral stereo in '08? She got beat, that's all, but I've heard similar phrasing from a certain type of progressive and I'm curious how far it's spread. You're right, that's really bad phrasing for me to use, and has racial undertones. Obama obviously won that fair and square. The "steal" in my head probably comes from Clinton being the obvious winner so far ahead of time that it was shocking someone else beat her. I'd smack myself four years ago if I heard myself saying that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Hillary is going to testify to Congress on the 20th about the Benghazi attack. "I know, let's attack Hillary! There's no downside, women will love us for it, and I've never seen any evidence that she can defend herself under pressure. Clear eyes, full hearts, etc." *smugly retires to House cafeteria to eat bacon*
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
greatn posted:You're right, that's really bad phrasing for me to use, and has racial undertones. Obama obviously won that fair and square. The "steal" in my head probably comes from Clinton being the obvious winner so far ahead of time that it was shocking someone else beat her. I'd smack myself four years ago if I heard myself saying that. A lot of the hard feelings came from the sexual undertones used against Hillary, combined with Mark Penn being a loving moron and the Obama camp rules lawyering things. It wasn't theft by any means, but it's understandable why people were pissed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Wheresmy5bucks posted:It seems as so, but it was also thought like that in 2008. It's probably playing to Hillary's attention yes, but she's probably leering at one of the Castro brothers to suddenly s how up and steal it from her again. Hillary's position entering the 2016 cycle is so much stronger than her position entering the 2008 cycle that it's barely even comparable. And in 2008 it took a remarkable historical figure running an unparalleled campaign to beat her. I don't even think she'd face serious opposition in 2016 if she runs, Current Hillary is the kind of candidate that clears the field.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
Didn't Hillary's 2008 campaign people(like Mark Penn) not actually know how delegates were apportioned?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
point of return posted:Didn't Hillary's 2008 campaign people(like Mark Penn) not actually know how delegates were apportioned? Correct. Plus Obama's people pulled the Ron Paul trick of just waiting longer than other people so delegates that were Clintons were Obama loyalists and messed around with things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
point of return posted:Didn't Hillary's 2008 campaign people(like Mark Penn) not actually know how delegates were apportioned? Penn has been quoted by others as thinking that Democratic primaries are winner-take-all rather than proportional, though he himself denies having said it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
SilentD posted:A lot of the hard feelings came from the sexual undertones used against Hillary, combined with Mark Penn being a loving moron and the Obama camp rules lawyering things. I dunno. In hindsight Hillary fans should be hugely glad that Obama beat her out for the nomination in 2008 because he got to deal with all the heaping poo poo while potentially setting her up for a 2016 run with a strong economy the Democrats can claim credit for so she can basically just act like it's the '90s all over again. Now granted they wouldn't have thought that at the time, but...
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Occasionally I will see it tossed into a news article that Paul Ryan is still considered a potential future Presidential candidate for the GOP. I don't see how this would be possible without him having first getting elected to statewide office. Aside from the usual general principle of candidates not having shown the ability to be elected to statewide office lacking credibility for a Presidential run (unless they happen to have become VP through other means), Ryan has established the following during the 2012 campaign: -he's not very good on the stump -he couldn't carry his home state -he couldn't even carry his HOMETOWN of Janesville, WI -he was so lacking as a campaign asset that he was essentially mothballed after the convention Can someone convince me that the enhanced name recognition from the 2012 campaign could possibly lead to a realistic Ryan Presidential run without him having been elected to some higher office in the meantime?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
It's not out of the question. Ryan shored up the Romney campaign with the social conservatives who were doubting it in the summer and also with the conservative punditocracy. He's loved by everyone from the Breitbart crew to David Brooks and that counts for a lot on the right. Ryan's future will depend a lot on whether he can maintain that status during the coming budget negotiations in the next year, since he's the House Budget chairman again. I hope he does run because I think he'll be really interesting to watch in the half million debates they'll hold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:So, this is why "packing" is a violation of Section 2 the Voting Rights Act, it's a form of vote dilution. It depends on whether you consider minority-represented districts a good independent from the number of Democrats in office and whether packing violations can be adequately fought, though. What I'd argue is that you can make a strong case for this being a net good for minority rights forty or even twenty years ago, the way the national parties have become polarized and the way Dixiecrats have fled or been pushed out means that it's not the case today. quote:because I don't think we should let people who are willing to engage in race-baiting in their campaigns run the party Then why would you vote for Obama? He managed to pull off the "stern lecture to lazy black folk to pull themselves up by their bootstraps" in a way that Hillary never could have. There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Clinton in the primary(assuming she actually runs) but the idea that she's some evil race-baiter is and always have been horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's not out of the question. Ryan shored up the Romney campaign with the social conservatives who were doubting it in the summer and also with the conservative punditocracy. He's loved by everyone from the Breitbart crew to David Brooks and that counts for a lot on the right. Ryan's future will depend a lot on whether he can maintain that status during the coming budget negotiations in the next year, since he's the House Budget chairman again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's not out of the question. Ryan shored up the Romney campaign with the social conservatives who were doubting it in the summer and also with the conservative punditocracy. He's loved by everyone from the Breitbart crew to David Brooks and that counts for a lot on the right. Ryan's future will depend a lot on whether he can maintain that status during the coming budget negotiations in the next year, since he's the House Budget chairman again. Ever since his budget proposal I've viewed Ryan as a mostly-empty suit who doesn't nearly deserve the praise he's given for being a Serious Policy Guy TM and that he was kept well away from the lime lights during the campaign has only reinforced that suspicion. If anything, I'd like to think that both the GOP primary and subsequent disaster that was Romney's general run would have convinced the party that they need someone with at least some substance*, and it will be interesting to see if Ryan's actually got any sand in the coming session. *Ahahahahaha no of course not, they haven't learned a goddamn thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:What I'd argue is that you can make a strong case for this being a net good for minority rights forty or even twenty years ago, the way the national parties have become polarized and the way Dixiecrats have fled or been pushed out means that it's not the case today. So, the overarching lesson of the 20th century racial rights struggle is that "you cannot trust white liberals to have your back when the poo poo gets tough, you have to constantly put pressure on them through minority-led movements or you have to get your own people in." Obviously the best solution is to enforce Section 2, get majority-minority districts that cap out at about 55-60 percent minority (the optimal level for ensuring descriptive representation), but between "more white Democrats, fewer/no black/Hispanic/Asian Democrats" and "potentially fewer Democrats, more minority Democrats," I'll take the latter every time rather than trust that white Democrats will do something other than smile and perform only nominal outreach to black and Hispanic communities because what, are we going to vote for the Republican? quote:Then why would you vote for Obama? He managed to pull off the "stern lecture to lazy black folk to pull themselves up by their bootstraps" in a way that Hillary never could have. There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Clinton in the primary(assuming she actually runs) but the idea that she's some evil race-baiter is and always have been horseshit. I don't think it was evil in some kind of nefarious, extra-racist sense, but the second the Clinton campaign saw black votes sliding to Obama they just went hard on the codewords to Southern and Midwestern whites. It was an entirely rational political decision but I think that it's morally reprehensible. Comparing Obama's dialogue with the black community as if it compares to the "talk to whites about that black guy" isn't really appropriate. How a minority politician talks to his own community, whether or not you agree with what he's saying, is decidedly different than a white politician exploiting racial tensions and stereotypes to convey something about a minority politician or minority community. I mean, Bill Clinton has always been absolutely poo poo on race, and I always thought it was unfair to impart his fuckups to Hillary, but the Clinton campaigns have historically been less than thrilling if you're not white.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Then why would you vote for Obama? He managed to pull off the "stern lecture to lazy black folk to pull themselves up by their bootstraps" in a way that Hillary never could have. There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Clinton in the primary(assuming she actually runs) but the idea that she's some evil race-baiter is and always have been horseshit. She didn't but her surrogates sure as hell did. See Mark "Did you notice how many times I said ‘cocaine’?" Penn and Bill "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too" Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:So, the overarching lesson of the 20th century racial rights struggle is that "you cannot trust white liberals to have your back when the poo poo gets tough, you have to constantly put pressure on them through minority-led movements or you have to get your own people in." Phil Ochs's wisdom proves timeless, yet again
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
I've never heard that recording of it before - I like the little lead-in "10 degrees left of center in the good times, 10 degrees right of center if it affects them personally." A lot of people still think of the Sister Souljah thing as Bill Clinton revealing his true colors, and even more have forgotten that "the First Black President" label wasn't "Oh, Bill gets it," it was Toni Morrison being dark and sardonic about "well poo poo, he's about as black as they'll let a president be, best we're gonna loving do." Not that Obama hasn't has to make his own compromises (as Booker, Patrick, Castro, or whoever the next big nonwhite name is in the party will undoubtedly do), but the Clintons get a lot of credit on race where it's not deserved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Because god drat, they even got the adrenochrome with the animal organ cells For whatever it's worth, the "animal organ cells" mentioned almost certainly refers to dessicated extract of the thyroid glands of slaughtered pigs, which was the way hypothyroidism was treated for a long time before synthetic thyroid hormone existed. It's even still around, if you ever see advertisements for "all natural thyroid remedies" or whatever online/on TV/etc it's almost certainly pig thyroid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:For whatever it's worth, the "animal organ cells" mentioned almost certainly refers to dessicated extract of the thyroid glands of slaughtered pigs, which was the way hypothyroidism was treated for a long time before synthetic thyroid hormone existed. It's even still around, if you ever see advertisements for "all natural thyroid remedies" or whatever online/on TV/etc it's almost certainly pig thyroid. That's not terribly odd, we've used animals to generate lots of medicinal hormones - insulin is a big one. Pigs share some kind of similarity in some system or another (like immune system, maybe?) with humans so they are a good place to go to when you need a hormone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:That's not terribly odd, we've used animals to generate lots of medicinal hormones - insulin is a big one. Also pig valves used to be used in heart surgery before synthetic valves were developed. It's a mix of compatibility and availability, I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Robert McNamara didn't have any any qualms about saying that would have been the case in Fog of War. To clarify, since this isn't really a complete thought, McNamara said and wrote later in his life that he believed Kennedy would have chosen to keep the US out of Vietnam rather than commit to war, as Johnson did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Obviously the best solution is to enforce Section 2, get majority-minority districts that cap out at about 55-60 percent minority (the optimal level for ensuring descriptive representation), but between "more white Democrats, fewer/no black/Hispanic/Asian Democrats" and "potentially fewer Democrats, more minority Democrats," I'll take the latter every time rather than trust that white Democrats will do something other than smile and perform only nominal outreach to black and Hispanic communities because what, are we going to vote for the Republican? On the other hand, this renders them utterly incapable of actually doing anything for your target demographics since as we've discovered, the Republicans control the House and the most state governments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
api call girl posted:On the other hand, this renders them utterly incapable of actually doing anything for your target demographics since as we've discovered, the Republicans control the House and the most state governments. I'd argue it'd would force them to be politically active. People are so apathetic in the black community especially here in Wisconsin and Walker's batshittery finally got people out of the everything is hosed anyway mindset. Plus having them spread out a bit more means more candidates are going to at least have to do token outreach which despite how annoying they are still do something even if it's a temporary something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 19:09
|
|
