A_Man_Who_Tries wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:00 am Giving yourself up as a youngster there.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 104176297/

Haha, well I predate that Ford/Carter election, so not really. It seems pretty arbitrary from what that article says.

jason from volo wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:01 am I think it was for alliteration, if I'm not mistaken. Red = Republican . Also works with Right

Also, my perception, at least in the USA, is that red isn't necessarily associated with left, but with communism.

Both of those things were alluded to in the article linked by FM AMWT, at one point networks using red as a negative because of it's association with communism.

ErickC wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:30 am Trouble is the Dakotas are too useful; the union needs their grain. Experience has taught me, of course, that even the Dakotas are too far south for quality wheat in these climatically-problematic days. Pretty much anything that isn't junk comes from Canada.

I'm being facetious, of course, I know there are plenty of areas in Texas that are fine, and obviously it's absurd and ethically horrendous to kick all of the right wingers onto libertarian reservations, but it's a nice thought to see what would actually happen if we gave them exactly what they say they wanted in a way that insulated the rest of the world from harm. You'd have a little socialist enclave within a couple of decades after things got really bad and they ended up eating each other.

Yeah, I knew you were, and I understand why. Every time I hear a Texan whine some bullshit about secession or whatever, I do kinda wish they’d figure out somewhere to carry out their little experiment.

Frankie99 wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 2:16 pm Every time I hear a Texan whine some bullshit about secession or whatever, I do kinda wish they’d figure out somewhere to carry out their little experiment.

They did - Grafton, NH. It's a cesspit now, as you can well imagine.

jason from volo wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 2:14 pm Another series of questions; predictions, really:

- Which party will win control of the US house in 2022? How about the senate?

Yeah, historically the party who holds the executive office tends to frequently take a beating during midterms. It would take so little for Republicans to control the Senate, and just a bit more the House. Our legislature seems doomed to be disfunctional indefinitely. It would be fascinating to see what 60 blue Senate seats would do, especially with Sanders pushing things left and a president keen on being an FDR style savior, but I don't think that's happening anytime soon.

jason from volo wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 2:14 pm - Will Biden run again in 2024? If not, who will be the democrat's nominee? How about the republican nominee? And who will end up winning?

I fear Biden will be hell bent on running again in 24, and he's not going to be in very good shape. Democrats are going to have to pull together and be smart about how they handle this, and Democrats haven't been very good at those things.

As for the Republicans, there's far too much chaos for me to really predict. One thing I'm starting to see is that Trump might just be the biggest liability to them, and they'd be better off if he'd be quiet and go away. I don't think he can win again as the percentage of moderates and independents that helped him edge out Clinton, seemed to have lost their taste for his shit. This is in contrast to whatever 30% of his base is a hardened cult that just might reject anyone who competes with him. He seems like he could harmfully divide the party.

American Gothic wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:57 pm

jason from volo wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:45 pm Who would you trust to treat Israel fairly, then?

No One except God, to be honest.

https://checkyourfact.com/2017/12/24/fa ... ut-israel/
https://unwatch.org/un-israel-key-statistics/

Check your fact?

Check Your Fact is an affiliate of The Daily Caller, the right-leaning news outlet co-founded by Fox News host Tucker Carlson....an enterprise that routinely promotes climate doubt.

Check Your Fact gave credence to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s claims that the Green New Deal would cost more than every dollar the federal government has spent in its history. The Kentucky Republican and Check Your Fact relied on a single study, produced by a conservative think tank, the American Action Forum.

Check Your Fact fact checked President Trump’s incorrect statement that wind turbines cause cancer. While the website labeled the claim as false it also quoted National Wind Watch....A spokesman for that group claimed the president was correct; he said turbines cause a lack of sleep and stress, which can lead to cancer.

UN Watch?

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency has described U.N. Watch as a pro-Israel organization.

UN Watch whose credibility is undermined by the organisation's failure to provide evidence that it has ever condemned 'manifest Israeli transgressions of the human rights of Palestinians

Sources:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04 ... mate-doubt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch

Not that I'm super amped to weigh in on politics over the internet at this point, but...

losthighway wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 5:26 pmAs for the Republicans, there's far too much chaos for me to really predict. One thing I'm starting to see is that Trump might just be the biggest liability to them, and they'd be better off if he'd be quiet and go away. I don't think he can win again...

You might be right. Trump would have way more baggage and a poor track record counting against him this time, plus his age. Barring a scandal, I would put money on the GOP going with a younger proxy-Trump like Ron DeSantis. He's the governor of my state and a willfully moronic crypto-fascist who will easily win over scared white conservatives.

American Gothic wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:23 pm

Curry Pervert wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:27 pm Sources:

every Source: is biased

does the word "Science" give it more credibility?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci

"Wikipedia"
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikiped ... ly-biased/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger

Yes, every source is biased. But not every source is equally biased, honest or substantial. The Sanger article includes his criticism that the LGBTQ Adoption article in Wikipedia isn't fair and balanced because it doesn't talk about the down side of LGBTQ adoption rights. That's clearly coming from someone looking for some socially conservative support from wikipedia.

Worse still is the Joshua Caleb network. People don't tune in to videos like that to learn about Israel. They tune in to find damning examples to argue against a free Palestine. They cater to a cult of Christians who love Israel so they can set up their eschatalogical wet dream with the second coming of Christ, rivers of blood etc.

American Gothic wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:23 pm every Source: is biased

Get better sources.

American Gothic wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 10:00 pm I do - looks like beautiful country.
Most tune into Media for entertainment, first and foremost. Maybe some self affirmation as well.
Love for Israel is better than hating.

Quotes are Edit-able if one doesn't want to see everything again.

But you're either being coy, or immune to the reality that your favorite youtube channel is Zionist. That doesn't mean loving Israel, it means hating Palestine.

You're not here for discussion, you're sharing propaganda. If you want to discuss Israel, as in discuss difficult questions where the participants aren't already convinced they know all of the answers think of harder points.

Instead of "Trying to fight Israel is dumb" (or however you put it), just tweak that a little: Has Hamas's strategies recently been more helpful or harmful to the Palestinian people?

Or here's a good one: Israel is often said to be a democratic nation for the Jewish people. Many have said that it cannot ever be both, only one or the other. Can a theocracy be a democracy? How can a nation centered on the religion of a majority ever truly be inclusive to the other 20% of its citizens?