Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

What is irrelevant is that you are talking about past elections. And I am talking about a possible scenario in the future. Those factors are all relevant data when interpreting an election-- whether you're just some guy or a Labour functionary. I didn't say "look at these past results, there lies the strength of my argument", I said (paraphrasing) "you're interpreting the possible results of a future election in which Keith loses with just one single measurement and idea when there are many more to be considered".

Ah, so sheer speculation. You have no data or info to suggest this would be the outcome of such a vote, but it might, so whatever. Strong stuff! More fool me for thinking that when you invoked voteshare and turnout you had anything to show for it beyond a wish.

The possibility of Keith losing because the left rebels from the extortion and backs another party instead of continuing an abusive relationship with Tories painted red. It would probably take some organizing. Novel things often do. And you're literally calling it a novel scenario, why would it be confined to extensions of existing trends, especially ones measured in past elections? There are factors militating in that direction, of course, but also naturally against. In the 'for' column there is the fact that, despite your characterization of Keith's manifesto, there are plenty of reasons for the left to despise him and for others to recognize that they have cause, or indeed that they should join in despising him and Conservative "Labour".

It needn't be confined to existing trends. But to have credibility, it needs to be based in something substantial. You're generally disconnected and reductionist about non-American politics, so this isn't unexpected-- but if all observable data points in one direction, it's not wise to put your hopes in a wizard granting your wish in the opposite direction.

Observable data suggests strongly that the Tories being in power for eons shifts the political window-- and Labour-- to the right, not the left. Observable data suggests that a third manifesto in a row promising nationalisation losing to a continuation of hard-right austerity will send exactly the opposite message than you want. Observable data suggests that avowed socialists in the UK have torpedoed their own political relevance through being so incredibly unreliable as voters, and that we're a small enough constituency to begin with.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Ah, so sheer speculation.

What do you think a novel scenario even is? Are you really this stupid?

Observable data suggests that a third manifesto in a row promising nationalisation losing to a continuation of hard-right austerity

There was an example of Labour promoting hard-right austerity to the right of the Tories in the very post you're quoting.

 

[Silvanus]

What do you think a novel scenario even is? Are you really this stupid?

Jesus, are you? You think novel political scenarios just manifest themselves from pixie dust, so the wish in itself is enough to completely disregard all contrary evidence? Novel political scenarios can occur. They result from pressures and actions and factors and people. They don't just spontaneously pop into being, and a wish doesn't make them so.

There was an example of Labour promoting hard-right austerity to the right of the Tories in the very post you're quoting.

Yes. That's right. Labour out of power, as the Tories hold power, lurches to the right.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Jesus, are you? You think novel political scenarios just manifest themselves from pixie dust, so the wish in itself is enough to completely disregard all contrary evidence? Novel political scenarios can occur. They result from pressures and actions and factors and people. They don't just spontaneously pop into being, and a wish doesn't make them so.

Just one problem with your reasoning there: I have made no comment on whether the novel scenario will happen.

Yes. That's right. Labour out of power, as the Tories hold power, lurches to the right.

This was a choice made by someone who lied about his politics in order to get himself power over a nominal left party, not some inevitable consequence of being out of power. Your oversimplification, sir.

 

[Silvanus]

Just one problem with your reasoning there: I have made no comment on whether the novel scenario will happen.

Yes, but adults base their voting decisions on credible possibilities. Sunak revealing himself as Lenin reincarnated would be a novel scenario, but its not one I really take into consideration.

This was a choice made by someone who lied about his politics in order to get himself power over a nominal left party, not some inevitable consequence of being out of power. Your oversimplification, sir.

Reducing the direction of a party as a whole to the cynical decisions of one man is the biggest simplification here.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Water bosses caught colluding with Labour in bid to avoid nationalisation

morningstaronline.co.uk

Yes, but adults base their voting decisions on credible possibilities. Sunak revealing himself as Lenin reincarnated would be a novel scenario, but its not one I really take into consideration.

I expect you and the rest of your benighted country will keep spinning around the toilet, then.

Reducing the direction of a party as a whole to the cynical decisions of one man is the biggest simplification here.

He's the leader of the party. And has been directing purges, deciding shadow cabinet positions, denying the whip to certain people, and so forth. To say he's responsible is just a principle of monocratic bureaucracy, and is much more tenable than bEing ouT Of pOWer neCeSsaRiLy caUses A LurcH riGHt.

 

[Silvanus]

I expect you and the rest of your benighted country will keep spinning around the toilet, then.

I expect so, yes, a fact that's quite unlikely to change in either of our voting scenarios. Of the two available speeds, I'm just less eager to opt for the one that sends us down the U-bend quicker and with more pain.

I always enjoy the sneery "your country" stuff about Britain, BTW, coming from a country in an even more contemptible political sewer (and a gloriously Americentric attitude in general).

He's the leader of the party. And has been directing purges, deciding shadow cabinet positions, denying the whip to certain people, and so forth. To say he's responsible is just a principle of monocratic bureaucracy, and is much more tenable than bEing ouT Of pOWer neCeSsaRiLy caUses A LurcH riGHt.

It doesn't necessarily. But it does often. And the only meaningful initiatives of public ownership we've ever had-- such as the NHS-- have occurred with Labour in power. That didn't even come off the back of a manifesto promise, remember: so if we'd gone your route, we would have had only private healthcare for the last half century and change.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I expect you and the rest of your benighted country will keep spinning around the toilet, then.

Yes. That's certainly what is going to happen. That is why people keep voting for the lesser evil, because there's no option that isn't evil.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Well no, they wouldn't need to define it. They could just use the definition.

You'd have to charge with being an insurrectionist...

Hillary crawled out of her hole to remind everyone why she lost her big election to Donald Trump of all people.



Literally the same interview "Think about the future, you fucking moron kids who hate genocide."

Last time Hilary campaigned against Trump it didn't go too well for her.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

 

[Silvanus]

You'd have to charge with being an insurrectionist...

That's not a constitutional requirement. You said this was objective.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That's not a constitutional requirement. You said this was objective.

Just because it doesn't 100% specify something doesn't mean law can be applied willy-nilly. If the constitution said jaywalkers can't run for office, you'd have to be convicted of jaywalking.

And all these people chanted "death to America" can't run for office I guess...

Group that held Dearborn rally says 'Death to America' chants were wrongful

The group that held a controversial protest in Dearborn on April 5 has issued a statement in response to criticism from local Arab American leaders.

www.freep.com

 

[Silvanus]

Just because it doesn't 100% specify something doesn't mean law can be applied willy-nilly.

That's true. Hence courts weigh up arguments for certain interpretations of the law based on legal principles and precedence, which was my point. But you said it was objective.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That's true. Hence courts weigh up arguments for certain interpretations of the law based on legal principles and precedence, which was my point. But you said it was objective.

And objectively, you can't be considered an insurrectionist if you aren't charged and convicted as such.

 

[Silvanus]

And objectively, you can't be considered an insurrectionist if you aren't charged and convicted as such.

Lol, that's bollocks.

 

[Trunkage]

Trump spends a lot of time doing the exact same thing - insulting young voters

 

[Schadrach]

That's not a constitutional requirement. You said this was objective.

Every person it's been applied to to date has fallen into one of two groups:

1. A public official of the Confederacy.
2. Convicted of a relevant crime. This includes one case of someone convicted for Jan 6 being disqualified in this fashion.

To date it's never been used to disqualify someone based only on the accusation, however likely or obvious that it's true.

Trump spends a lot of time doing the exact same thing - insulting young voters

Yeah, but young voters not voting actually benefits Trump. So long as he doesn't insult them enough to animate them to vote against him.

 

[Silvanus]

Every person it's been applied to to date has fallen into one of two groups:

1. A public official of the Confederacy.
2. Convicted of a relevant crime. This includes one case of someone convicted for Jan 6 being disqualified in this fashion.

To date it's never been used to disqualify someone based only on the accusation, however likely or obvious that it's true.

This would be an appeal to precedent, as determined in a court. Which supports what I'm saying-- Phoenix was arguing its objectively set in Constitutional law that it cannot be applied to Trump.

 

[Ag3ma]

To date it's never been used to disqualify someone based only on the accusation, however likely or obvious that it's true.

The act of disqualification (or attempting to disqualify) would almost necessarily involve an assessment of the accusation to a certain standard. Under the basic electoral law in many states this could be political more than legal, but there would have to be an assumption that a disqualification would end in a court for anyone determined to challenge such a decision - as occurred. Thereby necessitating a legal assessment of the disqualification, leading to a ruling on what the legal standard expected was.

One can cite precedent, but this is potentially a sort of black swan fallacy. Precedent only determines answers to situations that have previously occurred. Anything outside the boundaries of previous precedent cannot be answered by it.

 

[Gergar12]

College is just like houses. People's opinion change before, and after they get them. That said we should build more housing, and enroll more kids in elite public colleges.