Jump to content

Things seem to be going quite well for Joe Biden


Parliament

Recommended Posts

Just now, workswithseed said:

I mean if you don't want to use go track to show that she's very left, and therefore leftist, then go ahead.

I'm just speaking generally about you. It is impressive how limited your intelligence is while still displaying at least a facade of sentience. For example, my dog eats her own shit some of the time. You can't help but do it all the time. Seriously, donate your brain to science. No need to wait any longer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I mean if you don't want to use go track to show that she's very left, and therefore leftist, then go ahead.

Out of curiosity, who is the most left prominent politician in your eyes? Bernie? Someone else? Where does Harris fall in that spectrum for you? No bait, just trying to compare my leftist barometer to yours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I'm just speaking generally about you. It is impressive how limited your intelligence is while still displaying at least a facade of sentience. For example, my dog eats her own shit some of the time. You can't help but do it all the time. Seriously, donate your brain to science. No need to wait any longer. 

I bet you let your dog lick your face too.

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Out of curiosity, who is the most left prominent politician in your eyes? Bernie? Someone else? Where does Harris fall in that spectrum for you? No bait, just trying to compare my leftist barometer to yours. 

Bernie has been the most left politician that has run for president in so far that I've been paying attention. I'd say that AOC being a SocDem puts her even further than him. 

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Well that's not what it measures, so...

Ideology–Leadership Chart

Harris is shown as a purple triangle  in our ideology-leadership chart below. Each dot is a member of the Senate positioned according to our ideology score (left to right) and our leadership score (leaders are toward the top

 

are you telling me she's not very left? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a beating, man. Why don't you try reading the details? You obviously read one line then just swallow whatever your immediate interpretation is.

The data that goes into this analysis is a list of who sponsored or cosponsored which bills. The process doesn’t look at the content of the bills or the party affiliation or anything else about the Members of Congress, but it is able to infer underlying behavioral patterns, some of which correspond to real-world concepts like left-right ideology.

You’ll see in the charts on the right that the ideology analysis does a good job at separating the Democrats from the Republicans, and within each party the moderates from the extremes. If you wanted to know how your representatives stood in relation to their peers ideologically, this chart is a good place to start.

But keep in mind its limitations: Although we don’t report a margin of error, the scores fluctuate significantly over time because of the limited data used in the analysis and that legislating is a process involving chance. In addition, while we sometimes refer to this as a left-right score, that’s something we attribute to the analysis after we see the results — it may be measuring something else, perhaps something more closely related to partisan-ness, and it may be affected by the popularity of a legislator since the analysis looks at when legislators work together. Additionally, cosponsorship is a low-risk legislative action that might not reflect how a legislator might vote when forced to make yes-or-no decisions. And our scores may be gamed by legislators who cosponsor bills with the intent to move their score to the left or right.

It measures Democratness and Republicanness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, yoladu said:

It's funny, we all chuckle and think what a stupid farce this whole stupid thing is.

Over at texags..

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3150956

now to be fair.. a few aggys have a square head on their shoulders, even throwing around some AgTag smack. God, i love those knuckleheads over there.

and the oh so sweet smackdown. i want to buy this guy a beer.

 

I can confirm.... I saw on Politico recently that MAGA world is struggling to keep this story alive. It seems like it’s on life support. Besides..... once we get to Halloween, whose going to pay attention to politics for a few days anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I mean if you don't want to use govtrack to show that she's very left, and therefore leftist, then go ahead.

I'm sure where you're from that's in insult.  

I voted for her as VP yesterday.  I think a bunch of other people did too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, workswithseed said:

 

I'm married to a left hander. Love of my life, best man in the entire world. One of my children is left handed as well. Smart, funny, kind.  So is my brother. "Left" has a history going back a long long time. Sinistral first used in 1524 (Merriam-Webster: left-handed). Sinister is derived from the word and began use right around the same time. Stop and think about that for a minute. There is a lot more of that going back to the Greeks and Romans, but I'm a nerd that way and so it gets boring I'm sure. Although, if the anti-science crowd gets their way, I may need to worry about them a little more if you know the history of evangelicals and left handedness.

 

It is simply a place on a spectrum in your usage, but perhaps be wary of  words w/o exploring the little details and specifics (such as in the example that @Huckleberry provided). Be wary of personal biases and histories while reading not just about people, but the words themselves. I have extreme blind spots but one thing I liked and have continued to like is that Surly posters will unabashedly call out inaccuracies or biases (sure, sometimes with a few insults tucked in there), but good faith discussions are there for those who are willing to support their ideas with facts or other supportive arguments and reason. If one is not, then I guess I ignore them. It's the internet.

 

So, are you implying that candidate Harris is 'left' and 'left' is somehow not a good thing? Why not? If someone is 'right' (stop and think about the meaning of that word and its use for a moment----first known use was 12 century but the Latins and Greeks were the origin ), how far right is not a good thing? IOW, what are you getting at here? Instead, consider examining a specific policy and stop and think about it. No, really. What are the consequences in the short term? The long term? Are there things that would make it better? Worse? What is the short term cost? Long term? Benefits to implement? What happens if it is ignored? Who is advantaged by this? Who is disadvantaged? Who is left (!) out completely?

 

Just asking questions here.....

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

I'm married to a left hander. Love of my life, best man in the entire world. One of my children is left handed as well. Smart, funny, kind.  So is my brother. "Left" has a history going back a long long time. Sinistral first used in 1524 (Merriam-Webster: left-handed). Sinister is derived from the word and began use right around the same time. Stop and think about that for a minute. There is a lot more of that going back to the Greeks and Romans, but I'm a nerd that way and so it gets boring I'm sure. Although, if the anti-science crowd gets their way, I may need to worry about them a little more if you know the history of evangelicals and left handedness.

 

It is simply a place on a spectrum in your usage, but perhaps be wary of  words w/o exploring the little details and specifics (such as in the example that @Huckleberry provided). Be wary of personal biases and histories while reading not just about people, but the words themselves. I have extreme blind spots but one thing I liked and have continued to like is that Surly posters will unabashedly call out inaccuracies or biases (sure, sometimes with a few insults tucked in there), but good faith discussions are there for those who are willing to support their ideas with facts or other supportive arguments and reason. If one is not, then I guess I ignore them. It's the internet.

 

So, are you implying that candidate Harris is 'left' and 'left' is somehow not a good thing? Why not? If someone is 'right' (stop and think about the meaning of that word and its use for a moment----first known use was 12 century but the Latins and Greeks were the origin ), how far right is not a good thing? IOW, what are you getting at here? Instead, consider examining a specific policy and stop and think about it. No, really. What are the consequences in the short term? The long term? Are there things that would make it better? Worse? What is the short term cost? Long term? Benefits to implement? What happens if it is ignored? Who is advantaged by this? Who is disadvantaged? Who is left (!) out completely?

 

Just asking questions here.....

 

 

If that's a dig at people who ask questions, then okay. I don't think it's the worst thing ever to ask questions, and you must be made fun of (which is fucking weird) for doing so.

I never said it was bad or good, but where she is on the graph by govtrack. I actually think she's more authoritarian based on how she treated prisoners, her treatment of people for truancy. Also with Huck's post about "maybe," hell then maybe throw out my whole post and his whole post since maybe were both wrong and right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

You don’t get made fun of for asking questions. You get made fun of for asking ridiculously asinine questions based on false premises derived from incredibly unreliable sources. 

Thank you. That was my point.

Otherwise, being that this forum is not face-to-face it is incredibly difficult to discern tone and sometimes intent.

@workswithseed if you have a question  please do spend some time considering the point you're trying to make (unless it's just a snappy comeback), otherwise it is easy for folks like me to believe it is coming from bad faith. The explanation you gave in response--"I actually think...." gives more info and thus is easier to begin to understand what you are trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that how far "left" or "right" a legislator is can be quantified based on their voting record is hilarious. How often you vote with other people on the "left" or on the "right" just barely begins to capture a resemblance of something substantive. The same goes for judges and how they decide cases. Anyone trying to use these types of statistics to tell you something about a legislator or a judge is someone who shouldn't be taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The idea that how far "left" or "right" a legislator is can be quantified based on their voting record is hilarious. How often you vote with other people on the "left" or on the "right" just barely begins to capture a resemblance of something substantive. The same goes for judges and how they decide cases. Anyone trying to use these types of statistics to tell you something about a legislator or a judge is someone who shouldn't be taken seriously.

Agree. Last year when I sat for hours and read the testimony and questioning by the HPSCI during it's closed door meetings and then later when some of that was used during the actual House Hearings, it quickly became evident who was being the more open and honest and who was not. Most folks don't have time for that unless they make sacrifices elsewhere. That is baked into some of what goes on in the world today and unfortunately there is a movement to make it cemented in place through lack of equal opportunity in education, technology, transparency,  and the world at large. You can't know what you can't know. Entering a second dark age seems plausible. Ok, that was a bit hypersonic hydraulic hyperbolic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

You know, the most amusing aspect of this is seeing the right wing lie machine get hoisted on their own petard.  After 12 years (yes, 12 -- remember, birther bullshit) of spewing lies and hot garbage stories that effectively never turned out to be true......they are now freaking out because nobody other than their cultists will listen to them.

That's exactly what happens when you take your credibility, douse it with gasoline, burn it to ashes, then turn on a giant leafblower to scatter the ashes for miles.  It really is the simple "boy who cried wolf" problem.  It worked on their base (and it still does).  And it worked on a fair percentage of a public that hadn't yet grown jaded and numb to their insane tales.  But it doesn't work on those folks anymore.  I mean, your leader has said over and over for the past two months (let's be clear, for the past 4 years) that he had a "big, beautiful plan" for healthcare, that would protect pre-existing conditions, provide more coverage, and be cheaper.  Everyone knows that he's a psychotic liar on that point.  EVERYONE KNOWS.  So...NOW he's screaming and whining about something else, and implores "why won't you people believe me?!?!?!"

Because you're a psychotic liar, Donnie.  And so are your cronies like Rudy.

For most people on this planet, Trump could tell them at noon that it's daylight outside, and we'd go outside to check to make sure there wasn't an eclipse occurring.  We won't take him at his word about....anything.  Not only is his word meaningless, when he says something, sane people assume that the opposite is true.

Lying liars who lie end up in this place.  Fuck 'em.

Quoting this because I just now read it and it’s so great it needs to be read again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samuel Johnson brisket is right!

Nobody outside the right wing lie machine believes the right wing lie machine’s bullshit because the right wing lie machine’s credibility is on the level of if a cow turd magically came to life and started talking to you about hunter Biden. 
 

You would be like, you’re just a cow turd, Why should I believe you? And the cow turd would respond but you wouldn’t even hear a word it says because who talks to, much less listens to a cow turd? 
 

Just trying to put all the arguments from trolls like ebchubben in the proper context. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Samuel Johnson brisket is right!

Nobody outside the right wing lie machine believes the right wing lie machine’s bullshit because the right wing lie machine’s credibility is on the level of if a cow turd magically came to life and started talking to you about hunter Biden. 
 

You would be like, you’re just a cow turd, Why should I believe you? And the cow turd would respond but you wouldn’t even hear a word it says because who talks to, much less listens to a cow turd? 
 

Just trying to put all the arguments from trolls like ebchubben in the proper context. 

tone deafness and hypocrisy is the brand.  it's a feature, not a bug.

yelling and screaming about all sorts of crazy shit for a decade then throwing a spaz when they're not taken seriously is not just enjoyable, it's absolutely earned status.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yelling and screaming about all sorts of crazy shit for a decade then throwing a spaz when they're not taken seriously is not just enjoyable, it's absolutely earned status.

This is why just laughing at them is the best thing you can do. They want so badly to be taken seriously by the 60-70% of the country that hasn't lost their mind. And they won't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Anyone who claims "zero" after the Mueller report is a dishonest partisan hack.

The Mueller Report was damning, loaded with incriminating evidence, and a thorough indictment of the corruption of this administration.

 

Even the republican consensus was that the Mueller report was creditable, it just wasn’t impeachment-worthy. So even the opposition agreed with the claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

Denver be honest

Is what TTom has been rambling about for the last two days that absolutely nobody cares about your big "this week" bombshell?

one would think if a bombshell was to be dropped, you'd do it before 80mm people voted.  but that's me, and i have my own outlandish opinions about bombshell drop timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

one would think if a bombshell was to be dropped, you'd do it before 80mm people voted.  but that's me, and i have my own outlandish opinions about bombshell drop timing.

Not when those 80mm votes are thrown out because they're all in jail for molesting children

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

Something tells me this Hunter story has nothing to do with this election anymore since even Cruz says it has no traction. It is the thorn they want to own on Biden's side moving forward.

Edited by DanTheHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Something tells me this Hunter story has nothing to do with this election anymore since even Cruz says it has no traction. It is the thorn they want to own on Biden side moving forward.

I agree with this take. It’s a win either way. If works in the election, great, if not they have something to continually throw at from the get-go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2020 at 1:47 PM, workswithseed said:

Eh, I was wrong. Point stand that a lot of y'all believed it to be true. 

 

Okay, I just reread your original post addressing me, and I thought you were talking about the tapes, not the impeachment accusations. 

You need to sit out the next few plays.  You seem concussed.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...