Off Topic Thread 4.0

pickarooney

Is there no Ross Perot type that could just hop in and run as a third candidate?

Bazzo

No third candidate will ever win, the most they could do is split the democratic vote and make things even easier for trump. I don't think it's exactly a cake walk for trump, the margin he won by in 2016 was miniscule, the fact that there's any hope for him at all is ludicrous.

Podge_irl

Buer wrote: »

David McWilliams has an interesting take on left and right wing political ideologies. The right will seek out common ground to see what unifies them and people will vote for the common views they identify e.g. many people might think Trump is an idiot but they fully support his stance on immigration and will vote for him on that one item. The left is the opposite. They seek out the differences between themselves and ostracise those they see as not ticking certain boxes for them. It often leads to multiple factions and splits where there's a dilution of power/support and candidates become unelectable.

Not sure I would portray it as the right finding "common ground" so much as them having an ability to coalesce to fight the greater enemy when the time comes. I think a lot of "the right" would vote for someone they truly despised as long as it wasn't a democrat, whereas the left are much more likely to just stay home in that scenario.

Don't agree with Trump cruising it mind you. He didn't cruise it last time and I don't understand how anyone could see him doing better. Whatever you want to say about Biden, and there are many issues, his negatives are nowhere near as bad as Clintons were. He might eek it out again, but that's about it.

Neil3030

The expectation of Biden's performance in the Presidential debates is already so low that as long as he doesn't soil himself it'll be considered a victory.

Dog Botherer

the problem with Biden is that he isn’t substantially better than Trump and as a result inspires record low levels of enthusiasm. he’s almost completely senile at this point too so i don’t really see that changing in any way. Trump is just gonna call him Sleepy/Senile/Rapey Joe and crush him.

incredibly worried about the political situation here now. genuinely thought Bernie winning was the only way to stop almost inevitable social unrest, and the coronavirus has only exacerbated major societal issues.

Buer

Podge_irl wrote: »

Don't agree with Trump cruising it mind you. He didn't cruise it last time and I don't understand how anyone could see him doing better. Whatever you want to say about Biden, and there are many issues, his negatives are nowhere near as bad as Clintons were. He might eek it out again, but that's about it.

I don't think it's going to be about the negatives so much as Biden will be shown up to be physically/mentally unfit for the position by a more brash and outspoken candidate who is completely at home when attacking others. Trump is obviously unfit for it too but he'll easily bludgeon his way through any attempt by Biden to highlight that.

I don't think Biden possesses the mental sharpness any longer to expose Trump. Sanders has it but that race is run and a huge chunk of the electorate would never vote for him on principal (or lack thereof).

Bazzo

Bazzo wrote: »

No third candidate will ever win, the most they could do is split the democratic vote and make things even easier for trump. I don't think it's exactly a cake walk for trump, the margin he won by in 2016 was miniscule, the fact that there's any hope for him at all is ludicrous.

Preferential voting solves a ton of problems with US politics overnight. Not a hope Trump would have won if there was 10 candidates to choose from. Votes wouldn't be split.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

I don't think it's going to be about the negatives so much as Biden will be shown up to be physically/mentally unfit for the position by a more brash and outspoken candidate who is completely at home when attacking others. Trump is obviously unfit for it too but he'll easily bludgeon his way through any attempt by Biden to highlight that.

I don't think Biden possesses the mental sharpness any longer to expose Trump. Sanders has it but that race is run and a huge chunk of the electorate would never vote for him on principal (or lack thereof).

If VP nominations make a difference, then Biden's could be crucial. At this stage it's probable he doesn't see out a full term in office.

Dave_The_Sheep

What's the rationale behind not having Sanders has VP, so that drags along as many of the "only vote Sanders" brigade? Would he really put that many off that the flip side wouldn't be worth it?

Dog Botherer

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

What's the rationale behind not having Sanders has VP, so that drags along as many of the "only vote Sanders" brigade? Would he really put that many off that the flip side wouldn't be worth it?

Sanders doesn’t put many off, he’s actually the most popular elected official in the USA. his alienation from the Democratic party is purely ideological.

the Veep will almost certainly be a woman, probably Kamala Harris. it’s rumoured Obama was a big fan of hers right up until her campaign ate **** before the first primary.

awec

end the politics chat please

Buer

Manchester police had to break up 660 parties last weekend in the Manchester area alone (not that they'd be policing elsewhere, in fairness). 494 house parties and 166 street parties. Some of the parties featured DJs and bouncy castles.

We're actually not that bad over here really, when you think about it! Greater Manchester has about the same population roughly as Leinster, for context.

Bazzo

Buer wrote: »

Manchester police had to break up 660 parties last weekend in the Manchester area alone (not that they'd be policing elsewhere, in fairness). 494 house parties and 166 street parties. Some of the parties featured DJs and bouncy castles.

We're actually not that bad over here really, when you think about it! Greater Manchester has about the same population roughly as Leinster, for context.

Yeah people are morons. I live on a big park, circumference somewhere between 2.5 and 3 miles. Gorgeous weather yesterday, 18+ as I was out in the evening for a run and there were dozens and dozens of idiots out with the family for a picnic or sunbathing. The cops have been around quite a bit but no sign of them yesterday unfortunately, if it's the same again today I really really hope they're out issuing fines, not that £30 will be putting many off.

Buer

Almost 1,000 died yesterday. They said last week that if they get away with 20k dead it will be a good result. If they continue on their current trends and behaviour, I can see the UK comfortably surpassing that figure in the next few weeks.

You have to think that the population weren't put on guard properly from the off by their leaders. Demonstrate a strong, aggressive approach from the outset and you'd like to think that people would have sat up and taken notice. Put the sh*ts up the people in a controlled manner and get their compliance.

aloooof

Buer wrote: »

Almost 1,000 died yesterday. They said last week that if they get away with 20k dead it will be a good result. If they continue on their current trends and behaviour, I can see the UK comfortably surpassing that figure in the next few weeks.

You have to think that the population weren't put on guard properly from the off by their leaders. Demonstrate a strong, aggressive approach from the outset and you'd like to think that people would have sat up and taken notice. Put the sh*ts up the people in a controlled manner and get their compliance.

Managing that message is another thing I feel we have largely gotten right from relatively early on. When the HSE said they cannot dispute that 1.9m people may fall ill, that seemed to fairly concentrate the mind of some people I knew who weren't taking it that seriously. That was on March 8th, when we had 21 cases.

swiwi_

Buer wrote: »

Almost 1,000 died yesterday. They said last week that if they get away with 20k dead it will be a good result. If they continue on their current trends and behaviour, I can see the UK comfortably surpassing that figure in the next few weeks.

You have to think that the population weren't put on guard properly from the off by their leaders. Demonstrate a strong, aggressive approach from the outset and you'd like to think that people would have sat up and taken notice. Put the sh*ts up the people in a controlled manner and get their compliance.

I’m pretty happy with where NZs heading. Looking like they might smallpox the virus. Then just keep the borders closed until vaccine arrives. Bring a remote island sometimes has its advantages.

Greenland is now corona free

Clegg

New Zealand seem to be doing well at curbing the growth of the virus too. So much so that the government is ignoring calls to loosen the restrictions and are sticking to them in an attempt to stamp it out of the country.

Zzippy

swiwi_ wrote: »

I’m pretty happy with where NZs heading. Looking like they might smallpox the virus. Then just keep the borders closed until vaccine arrives. Bring a remote island sometimes has its advantages.

Will keeping the borders closed that long not kill off the economy? Certainly the tourism industry anyway...

swiwi_

Zzippy wrote: »

Will keeping the borders closed that long not kill off the economy? Certainly the tourism industry anyway...

Tourism is in trouble. They could always stop the rip-off prices they charge tourists and get Kiwis visiting the tourist attractions again. I think there was only 29 cases yesterday, so there are now more "cured" cases each day than new cases. If they can eradicate the virus and keep the borders shut, then they can get the economy running full swing (ha ha Trump) without "sacrificing" "old people" for the sake of the economy.

Bazzo

Does anyone who knows a bit more about uh.. money and stuff... than me know if the financial package announced by the EU seems adequate? A total of 500 billion but the Americans have dedicated 2 trillion to theirs?(Assuming this doesn't count as politics)

Bazzo

Bazzo wrote: »

Does anyone who knows a bit more about uh.. money and stuff... than me know if the financial package announced by the EU seems adequate? A total of 500 billion but the Americans have dedicated 2 trillion to theirs?(Assuming this doesn't count as politics)

Was discussing this earlier in the week with a contact of mine who would be senior in one of the bigger consulting units. Two interesting remarks he made one of which applies to your post query.

Firstly he said that they are anticipating a mid-late June easing of restrictions but social distancing to continue indefinitely as another outbreak is inevitable. We are very early doors in this situation and the worldwide response to covid19 will still be ongoing in 2022.

The second remark is that the EU is going to do very little about this until the scale and depth of it is accounted for. They'll leave member governments to react initially as a 'first wave response' and the EU will step in as needed and implement some short term responses (such as the 500 billion). When things begin to settle down they'll put together a much more detailed plan for the medium to long term.

As for America, it's too politicized to make any sense of it. Trump massively inflated the national debt mid election cycle to boost the stock market. There has been no long term investment under Trump and this stimulus package looks like it will be lost to corruption. What little of it goes to help your average American will target the specific votes in specific states that Trump / Senate republicans need to hold onto the upper house and presidency.

If you ever wanted to know how Russia turned into an Oligarchy, you are watching a version of it in America right now. What Putin achieved for himself with violence, corruption and intimidation - Trump may be able to replicate with highly targeted propaganda and a poorly educated, easily fooled population.

Former Former

Bazzo wrote: »

Does anyone who knows a bit more about uh.. money and stuff... than me know if the financial package announced by the EU seems adequate? A total of 500 billion but the Americans have dedicated 2 trillion to theirs?(Assuming this doesn't count as politics)

That's the central EU stimulus which is in addition to the national measures that each country is launching. Germany alone has committed 750 billion.

Squidgy Black

As Former says, it's just an EU top up to the measures being rolled out by each member country.

The main impact the EU will have is on guiding monetary policy with the ECB to stop inflation and help the economic growth, which is something economists have been warning the US Federal Reserve on for a couple years now that they're starting to push the limit and reach a point of no return. Especially with the 2 Trillion that's just appeared out of nowhere to be pumped in.

Interested Observer

This is a complete aside, but a small thing I found pretty bizzare.

https://www.the42.ie/mma-ufc-249-dana-white-5071591-Apr2020/

UFC BOSS DANA White has been forced into a U-turn on his bid to continue staging MMA bouts through the Covid-19 pandemic.

The 50-year-old had been pressing ahead with plans to run UFC 249 on 18 April. The event was originally scheduled for New York, then moved to California.

Why on earth are the42 throwing Dana White's age into the article? Just found it such a strange way to describe him.

Interested Observer

Interested Observer wrote: »

This is a complete aside, but a small thing I found pretty bizzare.

https://www.the42.ie/mma-ufc-249-dana-white-5071591-Apr2020/



Why on earth are the42 throwing Dana White's age into the article? Just found it such a strange way to describe him.

Covid19 targets certain ages more than others so the age of someone who is effectively advocating to let the virus spread ends up being part of the discussion. Someone who is younger and advocating for a relaxation of restrictions has in all likelyhood a much lower % personal risk from the virus and that should be taken into account when listening to their position on 'public' health.

I agree that in this instance it's a bit unnecessary. If a married politician who has a history of denying gay marriage rights is caught cheating with a man or a woman, their historical positions are usually thrown back at them as hypocrisy and that's fair game. In this instance it's a bit tenuous but at the same time I can understand where they are coming from.

irishbucsfan

Its just them saving copy by explaining who he is naturally in the article instead of in a separate paragraph. Very common practice, not actually relevant to the story.

The Lost Sheep

Interested Observer wrote: »

This is a complete aside, but a small thing I found pretty bizzare.

https://www.the42.ie/mma-ufc-249-dana-white-5071591-Apr2020/



Why on earth are the42 throwing Dana White's age into the article? Just found it such a strange way to describe him.

very common for journalists to write articles like that.
Take yesterdays Irish times and the article on Ireland u21 soccer side. It's about the manager. Hes referred to by his name at start of article then 'the 46 year old' then 'former midfielder...' during the piece
It's to stop using same words to describe someone multiple times in a short article.

stephen_n

So 3 more weeks of Lockdown, not surprising.

Buer

Not surprising but I think they'll have to look to relax it after that. They need to work with the public on it and I think we're going to see people defying the measures as we near that deadline. I've managed the last few weeks quite well but I think I'll be going a little bit crazy by May 5th.