Jump to content

Tuco

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tuco

  1. I don't think this is right. I think a lot of people are squeezing their perception of AI into preconceived concepts from SciFi, which depict cold, brutal logic. That's not what the current batch of AI does. It's not logical. It follows patterns from the data it is fed. If it is trained on data where the resource planning included mass killings (like the script of Avengers End Game), it might include that solution. If it trained on UN and think tank reports, it would probably produce something that looks like those. Maybe you go real deep and it trains on real world data, but generally in the real world, when there are massive population declines, it is associated with other negative metrics, like disease, crime, economic upheaval. But the big thing here is that there is no real logic here, just interpolation. As of a couple of years ago, AI models wouldn't even process large number addition consistently. That's probably been fixed, but it demonstrates the disconnect between real logic and pattern re-creation.
  2. Shit, they have Pritzker behind them. Pritzker, who'd loved to make inroads into Texas politics before a Presidential run. (I assume Texas has a shit ton of delegates and generous donors.) Nobody is sleeping on a couch.
  3. Sorry if this has been posted already, but I like this. I like this for how the Texas Democrats approach the nonsense.
  4. They believe in John 3:16. It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you say the magic words, you get into heaven. The rest of the Bible is irrelevant, except for when they want to judge someone else. I'm guessing Trump believes in heaven. To believe otherwise would be to accept his mortality.
  5. Ok, Bill Clinton vs. idiot Republican Congressmen should a pay-per-view event. The dude is old, and a scumbag, but is still much smarter than any of them.
  6. The two-party system is inevitable, given our political structure. Environment drives evolution. Our political environment is mostly driven by the structure of our government - namely the direct-ish election of the President and the power that position holds. I don't believe a third party has survived (been relevant) for more than two cycles because it just doesn't work for our structure. You see across world parliamentary systems where multiple parties survive and influence policy. That ain't us, not because the Democrats or Republicans, or the Electoral College, or gerrymandering. It's the environment we built and are very unlikely to unbuild without some major, painful event. Too many stakeholders with too much power for it to change. And given the current political environment, the idea of major constitutional changes scares the shit out of me. Absolutely. But the pushback would be for part of the reason I like it: it would dilute the small-state advantage for the electoral college. The other reason for the pushback is most Reps prefer being one of 435 to being one of 2000. A lot more power in the former. You'd need to get people to vote themselves out of their current job into one with less power and prestige. But I do love the idea that more, smaller elections would increase the relative power of boots on the ground, meeting the people directly, rather than large marketing campaigns. And, of course, neutering gerrymandering.
  7. If she had a dick, she might be in the White House.
  8. Tuco

    Israel

    I think what you do and who you target still matter even if a lack of a standing army affects how you do it. For example, I can see certainly see an argument for flying a commercial jet into the Pentagon. We would bomb enemy military headquarters and accept significant civilian casualties to do it. The difference is more about the "how you do it" vs "who you target", and we have more options that Al Qaeda. The Twin Towers is harder to rationalize, but I get that Al Qaeda sees Corporate America as part of the war. I'm not saying 9/11 is justified, but I don't think that argument comes down to how it was carried out. But targeting kids, no. Rape, no. Hamas doesn't get a pass for that. And Israel doesn't get a pass for targeting civilians just because Hamas targeted civilians. But, more to my point of the Algerian reference, I think ultimately it will cost they much more than it helps them. Bibi is making October 7th effective in its goal. I should give that a go. Thanks.
  9. Maybe avoiding state charges should fed charges evaporate.
  10. Tuco

    Israel

    I did some reading on the Algerian independence movement recently. Basically, the "bad guys" (the Algerians) had the strategy to do something terrible, which provoked the French into doing something terrible, which undermined the general support for the French (both in France and Algeria), which lead to the Algerian independence. The bad guys won by provoking the "good guys" to be just as terrible. I think Hamas was following a similar script and it might actually be effective. I mean, the UK may actually recognize Palestine as a country. To me the big difference between now and 60 years ago is whether general support can erode based on reporting, because of how fragmented news media is now. There has always been a segment of reporting sympathetic to the Palestinians and there will always be a segment willing to rationalize whatever Israel does. The atrocities may not really move the needle as much as they once did.
  11. Keep in mind people still love the Royal Family. In 2025. I don’t get it. But it’s worth acknowledging that for some fucked up reason a big percentage of people admire the ultra wealthy who didn’t do shit to earn it. I don’t think you’ll find political movement in going after random CEOs. I would love to be proven wrong.
  12. Maybe it would be helpful if you said specifically which Dem policies you have an issue with. “Culture War” is a very broad term.
  13. The biggest thing that will hurt Trump is an economic downturn. Even with all the Epstein shit lately, Trump's polling is better than when the stock market lost money during his initial tariff push. So, on a personal level, consider pushing off big purchases until there is a change. As far as the Dems go, they need to learn to communicate economic concerns better. The GOP did a great job of making 2024 seem like economic turmoil. Since Trump has been elected, the DJIA has risen less than 2% in six months, which is pretty lackluster. The USD has dropped 10% against the Euro, 7.4% against the Pound, and even 2% against the struggling Yuan. Unemployment has ticked up slightly (4.0% to 4.1%). There is plenty to work with here to communicate that Trump is bad (or at least not particularly good) for the economy. Yet the Democrats need to be pushing this. They need to break this perception that Republicans are better for the economy. As far breaking ties with billionaires, that is easier said than done. Politics is very expensive and keeps getting more expensive. If the Dems are ever in the position to effect policy changes that take money out of politics, they should definitely do so. But until then, they need every resource they can get. Many candidates have sworn off corporate donations, which already puts them at a disadvantage. I think Democrats need to change their messaging around corporations. I think people not in the corporate world underestimate the effect corporate propaganda has on millions of workers/voters. Most people want their corporation to make money. They perceive it as more money and more security for them. Pounding the podium and shouting "...just so corporations can make more money" is not the zinger a lot of politicians think it is, because that is exactly the goal that millions of workers have, because corporations have spent a lot money to drive that goal into their heads. I think less focus on the profits and more focus on the negative aspects (pollution, harm to citizens, whatever) is important. Also, this us vs. corporations is part of the reason why many voters think Republicans are better on the economy, despite all evidence to the contrary. I sound more centrist than I am. I'm trying to be pragmatic here because I am tired of losing to shitstains. But honestly, I think how (what media) Democrats communicate is probably a bigger issue than what they are communicating. The message is not hitting. Not sure how to solve that.
  14. Never underestimate the subtle beauty of a Cleveland winter. Extremely subtle.
  15. It also demonstrates the inability of the Democrats* to either identify an effective softspot or to get into people's social media feeds to exploit it. Admittedly, I didn't think this would be a surprise to anyone, but I am not paid to evaluate that kind of thing. *In this instance, "Democrats" means the consulting firms that the Democratic candidates frequently use.
  16. This is spot on. Someone was telling me the other day that Americans "believed in fairness" (while explaining why he thought some support for Trump would erode.) I had to chuckle. Go watch a football game in any sports bar and get back to me on how the fans viewed a controversial call. "Fairness" is quite flexible, depending on whether it helps or hurts your team.
  17. I was thinking about this. The same mindset that wouldn't let him admit to a mistake regarding a Hurricane hitting Alabama is probably the same thing that will keep him from releasing an unredacted Epstein file that would mention him, even if that mention isn't incriminating. There are no shades of grey.
  18. She and I have a mutual understanding; neither of us give a shit about the other. Although, I do eagerly await her ghost-written tell all book after Donald starts feeding the worms.
  19. I'm not sure the State Department is still real.
  20. Rural America can’t die fast enough. I have no interest in continuing to fund their failed culture and delusional politics. Fuck them. They think they’re capitalists? Cool, let the free market sort it out.
  21. Sure. But at the end of the day, their power is extremely limited. They are basically a lobby, but ultimately the candidates decide to run or not. The Party can help open some doors and make introductions, but Allred already has those. What rules do you think they can bend that significantly impacts a candidate's campaign? Who goes on a slate card? Who gets to speak at a meeting? I appreciate the blood-soaked feuds that go into that kind of shit that ultimately matters very little. One tweet from AOC drives more campaign cash than most state parties. The intraparty squabbling is annoying as shit, full of flawed people who get off on the little modicum of power they've scratched out. But you can get that same dynamic at any college student government. When you step back a couple of steps, it's more funny than sad.
  22. I know you think this all controlled by some cabal of the wealthy, but it's not. Candidates make these decisions. Does he have donors lined up? Sure, and better yet, he has call lists. There are candidates who view taking on a established incumbent as a two-cycle commitment, although honestly I am not convinced if second-runs have any better success than virgins.
  23. I'd be curious if they are using "assault" to include verbal assaults. I thought "battery" was the legal term for something physical.
  24. I think the Dems lose more they gain if they start backing off something like gay marriage. Again, this isn't the Dem leadership deciding how to change the world; the world changed and the Dems are reacting. Unless our culture shifts back enough, supporting gay rights will remain part of any path to winning. It's hard to imagine culture shifting back that much quickly, but, as they say, "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
  25. The left/right shifts are meaningless unless you are talking specific issues. In general, I think any shift to the left on any policy is attributed to the Dems, even if neither the main party nor a Presidential candidate pushes it. Where the dems have pulled to the right, it reflects a shift in the country or a push by a few dems or liberal groups. So, the Dems aren't setting the agenda in either situation. LBGTQIA+ (etc.) --The dems have definitely shifted left. In 2008, civil unions in lieu of gay marriage was the party line. Trans rights? Not even on the radar. The Dems shifted because it was the right position to have, and frankly America as a whole shifted. There is no shifting back, thankfully. Black Lives Matter (police brutality) - There really isn't a policy here and I think the Dem organization as a whole has ducked the issue. But, individual dems and affiliated groups have definitely signaled a willingness to reign in cops. So, it is frequently seen as a shift with the Democrats. DEI/race issues - Again, it's pretty light on policies. I think the Minority-Owned/Women-owned contractor policies have existed in federal contracting for a while, generally with bipartisan support. (That's a guess, since it doesn't typically get argued about.). The bigger shift left has been in corporate America, not anything driven by the Democratic Party. Gun Control - The dems have definitely shifted to the right. Shit, I remember when there was meaningful debate about controlling hand guns. Now, shooting trophies seems to be a benefit for being a VP nom. The Democrats have crumbled on this issue. Maybe that reflects the direction the country has gone, despite the frequent murder of children. Tax /Trade Policy - Yeah, shifted way right. Support for Israel - unchanged, maybe a bit to the right over the last 30 years. But there are enough individual Dems and associated groups that have pushed back on Israel, so it creates the appearance of a shift in the Dem party. Health Care - on the whole, not really changed since Hillary Clinton in the early 90s. The difference is that Obama actually got something set up. At this point, it seems like Dems are consolidating the support for Obamacare, but no wide-spread push for a better system.
×
×
  • Create New...