USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Davedave24 posted:

This actually just happened in my town, our new mayor challenged the incumbent in the Democratic primary and lost, but got enough write-in votes to claim the empty Republican ticket spot, and then managed to win the general election.

which town please?

# ? Feb 10, 2018 18:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 10:25

Davedave24: Mar 11, 2004; Lacking in love

GlyphGryph posted:

which town please?

York, PA
https://www.ydr.com/story/news/2017/11/07/2017-york-mayor-election-kim-bracey-michael-helfrich/835333001/

# ? Feb 10, 2018 18:20

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Also a rational actor should almost never engage in the strategy of lesser evilism within the constraints of our political system. What people generally think of as "rational" usually isn't anything of the sort and is closer to "naive", resting on the argument of "well this is the choice you would make in the simplified model I made of a different situation so its only rational to make it here as well".

Actually thats not naive its just stupid, and rests on lots of bad assumptions regarding game duration

# ? Feb 10, 2018 18:22

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

What's really amazing about people who unironically subscribe to lesser evilism is that they're still clinging to it even though it literally brought us the age of Trump.

# ? Feb 10, 2018 19:24

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

My feeling is that lesser evilism is technically correct in the limited context of "should I, as an individual who hypothetically can take the time to vote without any problems, vote?" but once you start trying to use it as an argument against others choosing not to vote you're actually causing harm through your impact on the "greater discourse" (in that it demoralizes people and makes them reject the party when a bunch of other people tell them they should be obligated to vote for politicians they don't like). So while voting in the general election might be marginally preferable to not doing so, telling other people that they should do this likely causes harm exceeding any hypothetical benefit (and realistically there's zero benefit, since it's super doubtful anyone is ever going to be persuaded by one of these arguments).

# ? Feb 10, 2018 19:37

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

GlyphGryph posted:

Also a rational actor should almost never engage in the strategy of lesser evilism within the constraints of our political system. What people generally think of as "rational" usually isn't anything of the sort and is closer to "naive", resting on the argument of "well this is the choice you would make in the simplified model I made of a different situation so its only rational to make it here as well".

Actually thats not naive its just stupid, and rests on lots of bad assumptions regarding game duration

I've posted about it before, but it's pretty much the Ultimatum Game experiment. One person divides a pot of money however he likes between him and another and the second person chooses to accept or reject the division, if he accepts both keep their part of the division and if he rejects both get nothing.

The rational game theory strategy for a no-repetition game is for the recipient to accept any division where he gets anything more than 0 because obviously you're strictly better off getting something rather than nothing, therefore the rational game theory strategy for the offer-maker is to offer the absolute minimum above zero to the recipient and reserve almost all the money for himself. And this is of course the lesser-evil strategy the political wonks in the Democratic Party are pursuing, they think as long as they are at least 1% less evil than Republicans they are owed all the votes because it's the rational strategy to vote against Republicans even if Democrats are selling us out to the rich almost as much.

Of course, when you do the Ultimatum Game experiment with real human beings, they don't follow the rational strategy at all. Most offers fall in a range very close to fair and most offers that aren't nearly a 50-50 split get rejected even though that means those recipients are hurting themselves just to punish unfair offers. But as a result on average the recipients do much, much better than the """rational""" strategy says they should, because that threat of punishment prompts people to make much fairer offers than they would if they were assured of a "rational" opponent. Even in a no-repetition game anyone who has ever dealt with real human beings in their daily lives knows that if they offer $1 and keep $999 for themselves, that grossly unfair offer will almost definitely be rejected even though from a "rational" standpoint the recipient would be strictly better off taking the dollar and foregoing the opportunity to punish the unfair offer.

Lesser evilism is a failure at the ballot box because people aren't rational actors in the game theory sense, and really if you consider the outcome of Ultimatum Game experiments it's good that they are not because in the Ultimatum Game and in real-life politics rational players/voters would get reamed over a barrel. So if you define rationality by what results in the best outcomes it's actually rational to say "no, gently caress you" to deals which are unfair enough even though in a strictly limited sense looking at only the outcome of a single interaction it's an irrational decision, because if you look at the overall picture that threat prompts offers of better treatment. And of course in 2016 Dems tried to offer America a poo poo sandwich because "look at the other guy" and got the biggest "no, gently caress you" in possibly world history, will they learn from the repetition Ultimatum Game that is two-party politics, I guess we will see!

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Feb 10, 2018

# ? Feb 10, 2018 19:43

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

Kobayashi posted:

I�m not gonna argue that the every Democratic voter is ready for the DSA, but I�d argue most of the blame lies with the party, which is so thoroughly contemptible as to be written off completely. There�s just such a dearth of talent at every level that we�re effectively starting a party from scratch. That poo poo�s hard, and unfortunate it looks like there�s a very real chance it�s too late. On the other hand, Bernie got a lot closer to breaking through than I would have expected, so that�s something. But yeah, decorum fetishists are the worst.

Politely disagree, allow me to expound:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-democrats-and-republicans-did-a-sudden-180-on-the-fbi/

Almost 70% of Democrats are now favorable on the FBI, rating the agency as "Excellent" or "Good". You see this again and again with Dems, somebody with a terrible history says a few pretty words and they're welcomed into the #Resistance or whatever the flavor of the minute Dem social club is.

See, the Dem party apparatus being contemptible doesn't explain this at all, it doesn't explain George W Bush's rehabilitation, it doesn't explain the near-universal 95% approval of Obama, a weak loser who presided over the collapse of the Party and, when he wasn't pushing center right-wing legislation, was getting absolutely trolled and rolled by the right-wing. The only explanation is that Dems want pretty words over results.

We're over a year out from 2016 and the party has simply not adapted fast enough and the Dem voters have not actually reflected on, and re-framed, their lack of values or their understanding of politics. This is not entirely their fault but nonetheless it needed to happen and it didn't. So now we're hosed.

# ? Feb 10, 2018 19:47

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

RuanGacho posted:

I have spent a lot of time lately trying to analyze what causes government not to work, at least at a sub-state level. I dont interact with the federal government enough to really have insight into that other than the fact that we very clearly dont fund enough bureaucrats to process the workload.

The most significant issue however is the people who are already in power, be they elected or staff, tend to have a set culture of how things should be handled. To the point that when facts on the ground change they insist no course corrections should be made.

People whom work in government in good faith usually have a much longer view of things, months and years rather than days and weeks. This Is in part because they have to for any long term projects, but it also doesn't match modern service expectations, nor ultimately should it be ok for there to be government processes that take 14 months because of rising service demands.

When I say these things take 14 months, I mean because they don't even look at the documents in queue because they're 7 months behind from obtaining them to having time to look with first I first out.

When I come back to this thread and see people wailing about how the Dems are useless I am forced to consider two options:
1. gently caress It all, time to leave this country because there is no hope
2. Why are things as bad as they are? How do we fix It?

We have over time come to understand what happened to the party of the people, and why they do not tend to embrace labor and populism principles the way they should, we have seen the reports about how Dem leadership is more concerned with fund raising than fighting, with stalling progress and avoiding punishing banks. It's the same thing that makes local government fail as far as I can see.

Those in power are past their expiration date.

We have a congress, and the Dems especially are older than they should be. When you look at the players in the current arena, the dems are ruled by Old Money, literally older people with money. You might consider the fact that while generations are roughly 20 year blocks of people that might in the very loose sense have common experiences that shape their world view, those that are currently in power have been so since roughly Reagan.

I mean that quite literally, I don't think it's unfair to say that we are still, and have been living under the rule of the Boomer generation for going on 40 years now. They have taken power relatively early and held onto it, near as I can speculate held onto it even longer. Obama probably resonated with people to some extent because he was closer to the median age of the populace, he literally had more in common with them. I will not speculate on his politics or representations of them at this time. Let me clarify that I don't think boomers are inherently bad, my parents are as are my extended family like aunts and uncles all whom I don't want to obliterate from existence.

However, I think there is a case to be made that when you put people whom are rich, not relatable, who vacation at Martha's vineyard and don't have anyone who's immigrated in their family for 100 years, and are in their 60s and 70s, and thus don't actually have any skin in the game, you get what we see now.

People who are by most statistics likely to be dead in 30 years don't really have reason to care about 30 years from now. The current situation I can see us in could have been resolved with a rather straight forward LAW (because Trump wouldn't have followed a decorum piece or tradition) that once you reach 65 you can't run for election or re-election.

To be sure, there are people over this age that have reasonable contributions to make, we know a few of them, but this is not so much a cause to punish those of long service and expertise so much as a curated attempt to keep society functional. We must make way for society to be ruled by those that most have a stake in it. If you doubt my hypothesis, consider Orin Hatch or the sitting president.

I think at the very least it's not crazy.

Excellent post. While I think you have further problems with the gen xers currently in charge being true believers in Clintonism. For the most part there really is a problem with the party being dominated by boomers.

# ? Feb 10, 2018 20:18

Kanine: Aug 5, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Politely disagree, allow me to expound:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-democrats-and-republicans-did-a-sudden-180-on-the-fbi/

Almost 70% of Democrats are now favorable on the FBI, rating the agency as "Excellent" or "Good". You see this again and again with Dems, somebody with a terrible history says a few pretty words and they're welcomed into the #Resistance or whatever the flavor of the minute Dem social club is.

See, the Dem party apparatus being contemptible doesn't explain this at all, it doesn't explain George W Bush's rehabilitation, it doesn't explain the near-universal 95% approval of Obama, a weak loser who presided over the collapse of the Party and, when he wasn't pushing center right-wing legislation, was getting absolutely trolled and rolled by the right-wing. The only explanation is that Dems want pretty words over results.

We're over a year out from 2016 and the party has simply not adapted fast enough and the Dem voters have not actually reflected on, and re-framed, their lack of values or their understanding of politics. This is not entirely their fault but nonetheless it needed to happen and it didn't. So now we're hosed.

liberalism is a fuckin cancer my dudes

# ? Feb 10, 2018 20:30

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

which is why the problem isn't that Democratic politicians aren't responsive to their voters but rather that they are, and the only solution is to focus on organizing

# ? Feb 10, 2018 20:49

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Politely disagree, allow me to expound:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-democrats-and-republicans-did-a-sudden-180-on-the-fbi/

Almost 70% of Democrats are now favorable on the FBI, rating the agency as "Excellent" or "Good". You see this again and again with Dems, somebody with a terrible history says a few pretty words and they're welcomed into the #Resistance or whatever the flavor of the minute Dem social club is.

See, the Dem party apparatus being contemptible doesn't explain this at all, it doesn't explain George W Bush's rehabilitation, it doesn't explain the near-universal 95% approval of Obama, a weak loser who presided over the collapse of the Party and, when he wasn't pushing center right-wing legislation, was getting absolutely trolled and rolled by the right-wing. The only explanation is that Dems want pretty words over results.

We're over a year out from 2016 and the party has simply not adapted fast enough and the Dem voters have not actually reflected on, and re-framed, their lack of values or their understanding of politics. This is not entirely their fault but nonetheless it needed to happen and it didn't. So now we're hosed.

I think that this is largely of the result of what people see and hear from party leadership and the media, though. Your average person isn't capable of judging what policy will actually help them, so all they have to go by is whether politicians simply acknowledge their problems. So, for your average Democrat, all they care about is that Obama said stuff like "income inequality is a problem"; they don't know enough to judge anything he actually did aside from that. This is a big reason Obama was so popular. Regardless of the actual specifics of what he did, he was a friendly face who seemed to acknowledge peoples' problems, so they put their trust in him.

I believe that if party leadership and Democratic-affiliated media started focusing on how the wealthy are scum and their wealth should be redistributed (for example), that many Democrats would begin to consider that "a thing that a Democrat is supposed to believe." It's just that, right now, people learn "what it means to be a Democrat" from what they see and hear from Democrats and the media.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

which is why the problem isn't that Democratic politicians aren't responsive to their voters but rather that they are, and the only solution is to focus on organizing

No, I think that voters are responsive to the greater society and culture in which they live, and politicians and media are what define most of the political aspect of that culture.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Feb 11, 2018

# ? Feb 11, 2018 00:27

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Ytlaya posted:

I think that this is largely of the result of what people see and hear from party leadership and the media, though. Your average person isn't capable of judging what policy will actually help them, so all they have to go by is whether politicians simply acknowledge their problems. So, for your average Democrat, all they care about is that Obama said stuff like "income inequality is a problem"; they don't know enough to judge anything he actually did aside from that. This is a big reason Obama was so popular. Regardless of the actual specifics of what he did, he was a friendly face who seemed to acknowledge peoples' problems, so they put their trust in him.

I believe that if party leadership and Democratic-affiliated media started focusing on how the wealthy are scum and their wealth should be redistributed (for example), that many Democrats would begin to consider that "a thing that a Democrat is supposed to believe." It's just that, right now, people learn "what it means to be a Democrat" from what they see and hear from Democrats and the media.

No, I think that voters are responsive to the greater society and culture in which they live, and politicians and media are what define most of the political aspect of that culture.

Also something like 87 percent back Bernie.

# ? Feb 11, 2018 02:44

Kanine: Aug 5, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

meanwhile in illinois, a microcosm of the nation.

# ? Feb 11, 2018 03:16

PenguinKnight: Apr 6, 2009

god forbid you primary the Dem, though. think bout the #resistance and :decorum:

and the lesser evil

# ? Feb 11, 2018 03:35

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

PenguinKnight posted:

god forbid you primary the Dem, though. think bout the #resistance and and the lesser evil

Best thing about even mentioning primarying people like Manchin is that they suddenly become candidates that are so fragile that even mentioning a primary might derail their campaign, but at the same time so formidable that they are the only ones who can win the general.

# ? Feb 11, 2018 04:52

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

PenguinKnight posted:

god forbid you primary the Dem, though. think bout the #resistance and and the lesser evil

Lipinski is being primaried, his challenger is Marie Newman

# ? Feb 11, 2018 04:52

ded redd: Aug 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

https://twitter.com/bradisterrific/status/962326504385470464
(Shamelessly ripped from WhiskeyJuvenile)

# ? Feb 11, 2018 05:06

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

joepinetree posted:

Best thing about even mentioning primarying people like Manchin is that they suddenly become candidates that are so fragile that even mentioning a primary might derail their campaign, but at the same time so formidable that they are the only ones who can win the general.

The logic is basically "if there's even a 1% chance of a particular action having a negative impact on the Democratic candidates' campaign, no matter how small, that action is bad." Of course, this logic quickly leads to bizarre conclusions like "you should literally never criticize the Democratic politician" and ignores less direct effects, like such a "you mustn't criticize the candidate" attitude depressing voter enthusiasm.

# ? Feb 11, 2018 05:19

PenguinKnight: Apr 6, 2009

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Lipinski is being primaried, his challenger is Marie Newman

that's good to know and I hope Marie wins

# ? Feb 11, 2018 05:29

Kanine: Aug 5, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

# ? Feb 11, 2018 05:39

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Ytlaya posted:

The logic is basically "if there's even a 1% chance of a particular action having a negative impact on the Democratic candidates' campaign, no matter how small, that action is bad." Of course, this logic quickly leads to bizarre conclusions like "you should literally never criticize the Democratic politician" and ignores less direct effects, like such a "you mustn't criticize the candidate" attitude depressing voter enthusiasm.

Yeah isn�t that the same logic used for various military actions in the war on terror.

# ? Feb 11, 2018 06:51

Karnegal: Dec 24, 2005; Is it... safe?

Davedave24 posted:

York, PA
https://www.ydr.com/story/news/2017/11/07/2017-york-mayor-election-kim-bracey-michael-helfrich/835333001/

Wow, York got even weirder since I moved out.

# ? Feb 11, 2018 11:07

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

Dead Reckoning posted:

I know this may come as a shock to some, but being to the right of D&D does not a Republican make. Though apparently being a centrist Democrat is just as bad these days.

Good thing you're just a plain ol' fascist then

# ? Feb 11, 2018 15:09

TGLT: Aug 14, 2009

joepinetree posted:

Best thing about even mentioning primarying people like Manchin is that they suddenly become candidates that are so fragile that even mentioning a primary might derail their campaign, but at the same time so formidable that they are the only ones who can win the general.

I don't think anyone other than Manchin thinks he's super fragile to a leftist primary. I mean he is being primaried, Paula Jean Swearengin is taking a crack at him. I don't suspect she has much of a shot. It's not "Manchin is weak and also our only hope," rather it's West Virginia and, this being a representative democracy, only West Virginians matter when determining who is their senator. West Virginia's pretty red and extremely white. edit: For a comparison, WV is 93.9% white and 3.4% black whereas Alabama is 66.8% white, 30.9% black, and 7.2% hispanic. poo poo Virginia is only 68% white. WV is whiter than Wyoming.

TGLT fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Feb 11, 2018

# ? Feb 11, 2018 15:37

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Office Pig posted:

https://twitter.com/bradisterrific/status/962326504385470464
(Shamelessly ripped from WhiskeyJuvenile)

Manchin is accepting that young woman's choice to choose life for herself and her child. AGC.

# ? Feb 11, 2018 16:01

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Hmm yeah that's what defunding Planned Parenthood is all about: "respecting women's choices"

# ? Feb 11, 2018 16:35

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Nevvy Z posted:

Manchin is accepting that young woman's choice to choose life for herself and her child. AGC.

Respecting the choice to take choice away from everybody else.

# ? Feb 11, 2018 16:37

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

Chomskyan posted:

I didn't know any of this about Schumer. He is truly garbage

He is a New York Dem, they are garbage.

# ? Feb 11, 2018 20:20

Einbauschrank: Nov 5, 2009

Against my better judgement I entered into a debate with a tea-partyish Libertarian who posted a Ron Paul quote on abortion. I was surprised to learn, that while most US states follow a not too unreasonable approach when it comes to abortion laws, there are several states in the US that have little to no restriction in place.

As I am from Germany, I have trouble understanding how this works out in practice, as it is a Federal matter over here . For what it is worth: in Germany abortion is against the law, but carries no penalty if undertaken before the 14th week and legal (even after the 14th week) if pregnancy would mean harm (including psychological) done to the mother. This is governed by Federal law (after a ruling by the Supreme Court) The states have no say, though the state of Bavaria tried to appeal against it. If an abortion is medically indicated, it is covered by the mandatory basic health insurance. If it isn't, you have to pay for it, unless you earn less thank roughly 15000$ a year.

So what happens e.g. in Alaska or Vermont, if somebody is 7 or even 8 months pregnant and wants an abortion. Would it be legal to abort/kill the (healthy) fetus at this point? Or is there some general federal law/court ruling in effect that supersedes state law (or the absence of such) that protects a viable fetus?

I don't want to open the whole can of worms. I am simply interested to know whether it is flat out legal to abort a fetus that late in pregnancy as claimed by this Paulian or if there 's more to it.

Thanks!

# ? Feb 12, 2018 02:04

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Einbauschrank posted:

So what happens e.g. in Alaska or Vermont, if somebody is 7 or even 8 months pregnant and wants an abortion.

Yeah this doesn't happen.

The flighty woman who casually decides to kill her baby at eight months pregnant so she can go dancing at the club is a mythical creation of pro-life propagandists that's based in some very strange ideas about women.

# ? Feb 12, 2018 02:16

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah this doesn't happen.

The flighty woman who casually decides to kill her baby at eight months pregnant so she can go dancing at the club is a mythical creation of pro-life propagandists that's based in some very strange ideas about women.

To elaborate, something like 90+% of abortions happen in the first trimester and if you're getting an abortion that late (as in, in the question) into the pregnancy, you statistically speaking wanted that baby and are terminating as a last resort for medical reasons.

# ? Feb 12, 2018 02:33

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

I suppose the major difference is some US states would still let you abort that late even if it was a medical issue about the health of the child leading to the abortion (which does happen for late abortions, with fetuses that have failed some sort of major developmental milestone and thus were at high risk of dying anyway or never developing properly) while it sounds like Germany would not allow that.

# ? Feb 12, 2018 02:40

The Muppets On PCP: Nov 13, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

getting into the tall weeds on specifics wrt to abortion regulations is playing the bible thumpers' game

they really don't give two shits about medical accuracy, otherwise there wouldn't be over a month's range among state abortion bans based off the same ill-defined concept of fetal viability

and even then those bans aren't the primary mechanism for restrictions these days. it's overloading existing clinics with new facility and practice regulations which force them to either close for extended periods of time to do massive, expensive and unnecessary renovations and pay for extra physicians on staff or close period

# ? Feb 12, 2018 02:57

Einbauschrank: Nov 5, 2009

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah this doesn't happen.

The flighty woman who casually decides to kill her baby at eight months pregnant so she can go dancing at the club is a mythical creation of pro-life propagandists that's based in some very strange ideas about women.

I don't expect people in Vermont to undergo late-term-abortions for the lulz. But my question stands: Would it be legal?

I have a hard time believing that, even if it were purely theoretical.

# ? Feb 12, 2018 03:10

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

Einbauschrank posted:

I don't expect people in Vermont to undergo late-term-abortions for the lulz. But my question stands: Would it be legal?

What kind of question is that? If the law says you can get an abortion for any reason at any time, then yeah, it's legal. That seems fairly straightforward to me.

The point is that contrary to the established social conservative narrative, people who get late abortions are nearly universally getting them for medical reasons. Nobody carries a baby to 8 months in and is like "WAIT, NEVERMIND, gently caress THIS poo poo" on a whim.

# ? Feb 12, 2018 03:12

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Einbauschrank posted:

Would it be legal?

Yes.

A lot of Europeans have trouble with this because you're used to very strong central governments. US states have extremely wide latitude in setting and enforcing their own laws

What you call states in Germany have roughly the same amount of Independence as a municipal level government in the US.

# ? Feb 12, 2018 03:14

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Einbauschrank posted:

I don't expect people in Vermont to undergo late-term-abortions for the lulz. But my question stands: Would it be legal?

I have a hard time believing that, even if it were purely theoretical.

Yes it would be legal.

No there are no federal restrictions on abortion, it's entirely a state matter (except for course for case law from the Supreme Court that restricts states from banning it completely and imposes some other restraints on state interference with a woman's ability to get an abortion).

# ? Feb 12, 2018 03:16