2020 US Election

[dr lopez]

no he sucks these days. a poster boy for coastal bourgeois chauvinism. bad news. rally to restore sanity was the beginning of the end.

[auxien]

^Colbert's hit and miss. his CC show was pretty consistent, and nowadays he's good with the interviews generally but he needs to get a better comedy bit than 'Trump is orange and dumb and sucks and i earnestly am worried about the future of the country' because it's pretty tired

just saw this and thought it was pretty cute tho. Warren definitely wins the 'would be most fun to have a beer with' out of the Dem nominees

 

 

also her showing some Berniebro how stupid he is on national television

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by auxien
better version of clip

[Brisbot]

Tru dat about Colbert. He leans WAY too much on Trump jokes.

[Candiru]

Seeing this made me miss Colbert Report big time. His interviews used to be amazing, now he has to be snob to Bill Burr. 

 

[ignatius]

36 minutes ago, Brisbot said:

Tru dat about Colbert. He leans WAY too much on Trump jokes.

yeah.. it's super tiresome. but his ratings weren't good until he started trashing trump. it sucks. he was way better during colbert report era. he's no david letterman.. no one is but he used to have a better style. for a while when the late show first started he would make really lame sex innuendo jokes that were so cringey. 

i miss conan too. i miss irreverent humor and absurd stuff. colbert is only good like 10% of the time. he's way too into himself. 

[Ivy Zemura yvI oo ii oo]

2 hours ago, auxien said:

^Colbert's hit and miss. his CC show was pretty consistent, and nowadays he's good with the interviews generally but he needs to get a better comedy bit than 'Trump is orange and dumb and sucks and i earnestly am worried about the future of the country' because it's pretty tired

just saw this and thought it was pretty cute tho. Warren definitely wins the 'would be most fun to have a beer with' out of the Dem nominees

 

 

also her showing some Berniebro how stupid he is on national television

 

 

it makes someone stupid to think the democratic party should be a democracy?

if you want to actually call him stupid i suggest you provide a source for warren's claim, she has a history of lying about bernie

[Braintree]

1 hour ago, ignatius said:

yeah.. it's super tiresome. but his ratings weren't good until he started trashing trump. it sucks. he was way better during colbert report era. he's no david letterman.. no one is but he used to have a better style. for a while when the late show first started he would make really lame sex innuendo jokes that were so cringey. 

i miss conan too. i miss irreverent humor and absurd stuff. colbert is only good like 10% of the time. he's way too into himself. 

I remember seeing Conan back in like 93 or 94 and loving the fuck out of how weird it was. All of the absurd stuff got lost throughout the years though. Maybe because Louis stopped writing for them.

[auxien]

51 minutes ago, Zeffolia said:

it makes someone stupid to think the democratic party should be a democracy?

if you want to actually call him stupid i suggest you provide a source for warren's claim, she has a history of lying about bernie

*yawn*

[ignatius]

50 minutes ago, Braintree said:

I remember seeing Conan back in like 93 or 94 and loving the fuck out of how weird it was. All of the absurd stuff got lost throughout the years though. Maybe because Louis stopped writing for them.

a lot of it got left at the previous network because they OWN all those ideas or whatever.. all those bits/skits etc are property of the network.. he's been good on the cable network.. i've watched some and some of the specials. he's still same weirdo. but can't say i watch w/any regularity

[may be rude]

his podcast is good

[ignatius]

[Ivy Zemura yvI oo ii oo]

What a disgusting candidate

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/27/warren-super-tuesday-ad-118055

Super PAC backing Warren makes $9 million Super Tuesday ad buy

The shadowy group has committed over $14 million to try to buoy Warren’s candidacy

A mysterious Super PAC supporting Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign is making a late attempt to save her candidacy with a $9 million ad buy in states voting next Tuesday.

Combined with the $3.25 million Persist PAC already spent in Super Tuesday states along with $2 million in Nevada and South Carolina, the shadowy group has committed over $14 million to try to buoy Warren’s candidacy.

 

All together, Warren — who has made the corrupting influence of dark money central to her candidacy — now has the biggest Super PAC advertising in the Super Tuesday states.

 

Asked if the group had any comment on where the money was coming from, Persist PAC’s spokesperson Joshua Karp texted back “no sir.”

“Our goal is to show voters that Elizabeth Warren has been fighting for the middle class her whole life,” Karp said in an email disclosing the ad buy.

The $9 million buy is only in three states: California, Texas, and Warren’s home state of Massachusetts, where Sen. Bernie Sanders has made a late play. The group is airing the same ad it ran in Nevada, South Carolina, and other Super Tuesday states that focuses on Warren’s humble upbringing and former President Barack Obama’s past praise of her.

The Warren campaign did not immediately respond to request for comment.

All of the Democratic candidates except for the billionaires — who have outspent their rivals with enormous sums of their personal wealth — have had help from outside groups.

A Super PAC supporting Joe Biden made a late ad buy in the low six-figures for next Tuesday and a Super PAC supporting Pete Buttigieg announced a seven-figure ad buy for Tuesday after helping them both in earlier contests.

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders has had help from several outside groups including the Nurses Union, groups affiliated with the left-wing groups Justice Democrats and Sunrise Movement along with the outside group Our Revolution that he founded after his 2016 presidential campaign.

Earlier in the race, Warren repeatedly criticized her opponents for getting help from outside dark money groups and Super PACs, trying to make it a winning contrast for her campaign. When a dark money group bought an ad in the Des Moines Register promoting her last November, she unequivocally denounced the group and asked them to stop.

Spokesperson Chris Hayden told POLITICO then that the “campaign was not aware of this and asks that those involved immediately stop purchasing advertisements of any kind. Elizabeth Warren believes democracy is undermined by anonymous, dark-money attempts to influence voters — whether that influence is meant to help or hurt her candidacy.”

Warren has pointedly not made the same request with Persist PAC and has argued that she would disavow it if other campaigns did the same. Persist PAC began advertising after her disappointing third and fourth-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

“If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in,” she said in Nevada. “I'll lead the charge. But that's how it has to be. It can't be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”

[dingformung]

Let's just say that anyone who wants to become president is not normal and probably has some form of narcissistic personality disorder.

Therefore it's all the more important to pick the candidate with the most continuity and authenticity, one that doesn't lie and one that has had the same agenda for ages and really wants to realise it. Not some former Republican that changes their policies based on opportunism. 

Edited February 28, 2020 by darreichungsform

[Nebraska]

 

[dr lopez]

warren's campaign has destroyed ANY credibility she had in being "progressive"

 

she will 100% lose to trump. bernie won't.

[dingformung]

9 minutes ago, dr lopez said:

warren's campaign has destroyed ANY credibility she had in being "progressive"

 

she will 100% lose to trump. bernie won't.

I think both can beat Trump.

[Nebraska]

the way i see it is like this:

the DNC desperately wants biden as the front runner, despite it being "somewhat" evident he cannot beat trump- from his lack of not being able to articulate his points well, changing facts and volatile nature when challenged. coincidentally, he's now doing pretty well in south carolina- but only by a small margin.

they'd settle for warren or buttigieg- in fact, so much so they're now claiming he might be the real winner of iowa and warren is currently even losing in massachusetts; her own home state. i don't see how that won't be the nail in her own coffin if she can't even win her home state if it's not already a sobering reality.

so, this isn't a race for the presidency as it currently stands: it's a race to keep sanders winning the majority. i mean, the dnc even allowed the coronavirus to get out of control so they can end trump's winning streak and put biden in office

 

[may be rude]

here's a wapo fact checker article that's informative of the details surrounding warren's dna test results and the reporting that misrepresented the results

Just about everything you’ve read on the Warren DNA test is wrong

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/

Quote

After being egged on by President Trump, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released the results of a DNA test Oct. 15 that indicated that she had a Native American ancestor.

The results — which identified Native American DNA from six to 10 generations ago — were immediately misinterpreted.

It started with a Boston Globe report, which initially indicated that the test showed she was at best 1/32nd Native American and possibly just 1/512th Native American. After confessing twice to a math error, the Globe corrected the numbers to 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American. That would translate to between 98.44 percent and 99.9 percent not Native American.

The RNC then issued a news release directing reporters to a 2014 New York Times report that said “European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.” So it sounded like Warren had less Native American DNA than the average European-American.

We even issued a tweet along these lines (at a moment when the Globe still indicated the range was between 1/32nd and 1/1024th):

 

But it turns out reporters and politicians are not very good at understanding genetics. So we will set the record straight, after reviewing the results in detail and consulting with genetics experts.

Warren’s DNA was sequenced and analyzed by a group led by Carlos Bustamante, a well-regarded Stanford University geneticist. Researchers studied a fraction — far less than 1/1000th — of Warren’s DNA, and then compared it to the DNA of 148 people from Finland, Italy, Spain, China, Nigeria and North and South America. Additional comparison was done with 185 individuals from Utah and Great Britain.

As one might expect, the vast majority of Warren’s DNA — 95 percent — indicated European ancestors. But five genetic segments were identified, with 99 percent confidence, as being associated with Native American ancestry. The largest segment identified was on Chromosome 10.

“While the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago,” the report said.

Here’s where the reporting went off course. The report said that Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than the reference set from Utah, and 12 times more than the set from Britain. The report also said that the long segment on Chromosome 10 indicated that the DNA came from a relatively recent ancestor.

Those are significant findings. But reporters focused on the language indicating a range of between the sixth to 10th generation. That raised the prospect of an ancestor amid hundreds of great-great-great-etc.-grandparents. The image below of eight generations (256 ancestors), via the UC Davis genetics lab, indicates how the generations quickly expand (red is for female and blue is for male). It shows an even distribution, with each successive ancestor contributing equally to the DNA of an individual.

But ancestors do not contribute genetic material equally over time. Here’s the image of 11 generations of ancestors by genetic material they contributed to a particular individual. Some ancestors contribute a lot — while others nothing at all. In other words, as you go back in time, the number of your ancestors keeps increasing but not nearly as fast as the number of genealogical ancestors. Look closely at the sixth generation, and you will see some strong contributors of genetic material — and many weak ones.

The most important point is this: The results in Warren’s DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation — living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however.

(Note: Bustamante did not have access to Native American DNA because of mistrust in the community that DNA results could affect tribal identity, so he relied on samples of indigenous people from Mexico, Peru and Colombia — populations in the Americas with high native American genetic ancestry. There is research showing that using these groups as references is accurate when differentiating between genetic ancestries at a worldwide level. But no tribe for Warren could be identified, only that she had an ancestor or ancestors descended from indigenous people.)

This basic error in understanding the test results was compounded by the RNC’s reference to the 2014 New York Times article, which was about a genetic profile of the United States, based on a study of 160,000 people drawn from the customer base of 23andMe, a consumer personal genetics company. With reporters believing that Warren’s genome was only as little as 0.01 percent Native American*, the article’s line that “European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American” made it appear as if Warren’s sample was even smaller than that of the average American. (*Note: an earlier version of this article mistakenly referred to the high end of range, 1.56 percent.)

Not so. Remember we said that the Bustamante study said she had 10 times more than the individuals from Utah? That’s the relevant statistic, indicating that her claim to some Native American heritage is much stronger than most European Americans.

In fact, the 23andMe study used a different methodology, so it cannot be compared to the Bustamante report. Moreover, the reference to an average “European-American” is misleading, because there are wide variations in the genetic makeup, with the vast majority of European Americans having no Native American ancestry. The small percentage of European Americans with more than two percent Native American ancestry are concentrated in a handful of states, such as North Dakota, New Mexico and Louisiana. But the majority of European Americans in the study have zero.

Mike Reed, the RNC spokesman who circulated the Times article, said in response: “The bottom line is Elizabeth Warren has, at most, a minuscule amount of Native American heritage and it is obvious she had absolutely no right to claim minority status while climbing the professional ladder to the Ivy League.”

The test results certainly have not won fans in the indigenous community.

Kim TallBear, associate professor at the University of Alberta, said the “very desire to locate a claim to Native American identity in a DNA marker inherited from a long-ago ancestor is a settler-colonial racial understanding of what it is to be Native American.” In an email, TallBear said that Native Americans' own definitions of legitimate Native American or tribal identity focus not on long-ago ancestors identified through a test but are based on a living community: “close social and biological relations of people one can name, indeed people one probably knows (huge LOL here) — one’s family, community, and tribe.”

We are not trying to defend Warren’s decision to release the test, just to set the record straight about what the test shows. The media bungled the interpretation of the results — and then Warren’s opponents used the uninformed reporting to undermine the test results even further. We fell into this trap as well, and were too quick to send out a tweet (now deleted) that made an inaccurate comparison. We should have not relied on media reporting before tweeting.

Warren’s Native American DNA, as identified in the test, may not be large, but it’s wrong to say it’s as little as 1/1024th or that it’s less than the average European American. Three Pinocchios all around — including to our tweet.

 

• she has native american ancestry and her family stories were verified by the test
• trump said he would give a million dollars to charity if warren got a test that found she had native american ancestry, and then she did. trump renegged.
• it may be unusual to identify with a dilluted ancestral ethnicity, but it's understandable with a unique ethnicity like native american that one may be proud of it and identify with it more.
• one unadmixed native american 6 generations back is the same as one half-native-american 5 generations back. that would be warren's great great great grandparent, and that would be rememberd through family stories.
• accusations that warren used her ethnic claim for advantage don't seem to be born out by evidence. people who hired her at harvard said it had nothing to do with their choice and warren was clearly over-qualified for the job. also at least some of the forms from her history that have been dug up said the field was for statistical purposes and would not make a difference.
• making fun of her for being proud of her ancestry is childish and lame.
• she never claimed tribal membership
• people are allowed to talk about their ancestry
• it looks like she may have plagiarized 2 recipes in a cookbook in 1984
• that's the worst they have on her. 2 recipes from a cookbook in 1984

Edited February 28, 2020 by very honest

[Nebraska]

^^^ cool. also turns out biden was not arrested in south africa. 

 

[luke viia]

16 hours ago, Zeffolia said:

it makes someone stupid to think the democratic party should be a democracy?

if you want to actually call him stupid i suggest you provide a source for warren's claim, she has a history of lying about bernie

here ya go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/bernie-sanders-pushed-contested-convention-2016-now-he-wants-avoid-one/

 

that's shitty and weird about the PAC ads getting bought on her behalf. trying to find more articles with details but not seeing much

and plz don't assume I'm anti bernie just cuz I'm providing the evidence you wanted, thxx

[DavieAddison]

[dr lopez]

jep lol

[Ivy Zemura yvI oo ii oo]

7 hours ago, luke viia said:

here ya go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/bernie-sanders-pushed-contested-convention-2016-now-he-wants-avoid-one/

 

that's shitty and weird about the PAC ads getting bought on her behalf. trying to find more articles with details but not seeing much

and plz don't assume I'm anti bernie just cuz I'm providing the evidence you wanted, thxx

yeah but she didn't even rightfully win the majority of pledged delegates so it's still dishonest to claim that what he said then applies now, or that he's changing his chance.  

[luke viia]

i really don't think it's dishonest at all but okay. 

[Ivy Zemura yvI oo ii oo]