RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive26

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 22 March 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Bernie Sanders Poll[edit]

Not to intentionally shit on anyone's fandoming, but I should point out that head-to-head election polls 11 months out are meaningless and a single poll isn't really enough to make such a definitive statement, especially since there's been other head-to-head polls taken not that long ago that show Trump winning. Clinton, on the other hand, beats him consistently across many polls. You know, if head-to-head polls taken 11 months out with no head-to-head campaigning or debates are to be given any weight at all. Inquisitr is also a really clickbaitey source. Hentropy (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your point? Bernie Sanders is doing better in national polls than Obama was at this point in 2008. He's raised more money than Obama did, without Super PACs. His campaign contributions average less than $30, whereas a good deal of Clinton donors donate the maximum $2700, meaning more people donate to Bernie even if Hillary has raised more money. I don't think Sanders should be discounted at all. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really 'discounting' him totally as a candidate, I'm just saying that taking one favorable poll and proclaiming that Sanders is definitely the better candidate to go against Trump is like Trump bloviating at after every positive poll for him and claiming that it's inevitable he will be President. Especially since it's invoking "Statistics", that's not the way Presidential polling statistics work. No meaningful conclusion can be drawn from a single poll. Hentropy (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
1. opinion polls eleven months out really are meaningless, especially when there haven't even been any primaries yet. 2. WIGO elections is actually a thing that exists, for all election stuff. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 17:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Oregon Situation[edit]

Do we really need multiple WIGOs about this? Can we consolidate? AyzmoCheers 17:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone else get really excited at the headlines only to be disappointed by the story behind this? It would be interesting to watch the fed screw this one up like the ATF screwed up Waco; that'd be something to watch on the news. jrussellwrites (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Eh, just cut the water and power to the place, in the middle of winter. See how long they stay, the "pioneers" that they are.

Hillary Clinton: Alien Hunter[edit]

The headline here seems like a serious case of clickbait-y quote-mining: it was a Jimmy Kimmel interview. I'm wary of Hillary for several reasons, but this particular article doesn't seem appropriate for the page.173.72.6.153 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it wasn't just the Kimmel interview. That was an interview with Bill. The Hill is a political outlet, not a tabloid. It's reporting Hillary's responses to the "alien question."---Mona- (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)From the article:

[Hillary, asked by a news reporter] also noted that campaign chairman John Podesta, who served as White House chief of staff under Bill Clinton and in Barack Obama's White House, is a major fan of UFO theories.



"He has made me personally pledge we are going to get the information out," Clinton said. "One way or another. Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51.

---Mona- (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

American savings[edit]

The article about how Americans have so little money saved seems off. Have retirement savings not been counted? I move most of the money I save into an IRA account. Though I'm not really saving for retirement -- I will never be 65 years old -- it does help keep me judgment proof. I suspect that most Americans who do save, save in retirement accounts of various shapes. It also annoys me greatly that I'm forced to wager the savings in the financial markets rather than keep them in an insured interest bearing account, but that's neither here nor there. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You can click through to find the methodology. It's a Google consumer survey of ~5,000 people over the course of 2 days. Since it asked about a savings account alone it is unlikely to include investments, retirement savings or value of a primary residence (non-liquid savings). They asked a few questions for age, gender, and income. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Retirement accounts are rarely considered as "savings," but are, instead a separate category. If you read the article it provided a stat for the percentage of people who would have to take from their retirement accounts to pay for an emergency expense. And if you're putting that money into a Roth IRA be careful, if you take that money out prior to 65 you're gonna get hefty penalties on that money. AyzmoCheers 17:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I tend to just accumulate money in my checking account until there's enough to deposit in the retirement account. I keep some in a money market account, but don't have a savings account because right now there's little point in having one. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I should point out, Ayzmo, that there are some exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal tax, dependent on the type of account you have. These include total permanent disability (both 401(k) and IRA, Internal Revenue Code § 72(t)(2)(A)(iii)), health insurance premiums while unemployed (IRA-based only, IRC § 72(t)(2)(D)), getting a degree (if qualified, IRA-based only, IRC § 72(t)(2)(E)), buying a first house (if qualified, IRA-based only, up to $10K, IRC § 72(t)(2)(F)), unpaid bills to Uncle Sam (IRC § 72(t)(2)(A)(vii)), and so forth. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You have an Irish Republican Army account? O.o 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

WIGO:World vs WIGO:Elections[edit]

So Bicycle Wheel has moved a WIGO entry about Ted Cruz to the WIGO:Elections page. Meanwhile there are still numerous other recent WIGO entries about Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, plus recentish entries about elections in Saudi Arabia, France, Venezuela & Myanmar, all of which should theoretically be covered in the WIGO elections page. Seems a bit arbitrary to move one entry when not doing this with others. Either we let people use whichever of these WIGO pages they want to (as has been the de facto situation up till now), or we move all misplaced entries to the elections WIGO (as we usually do with blog/editorial stuff posted on WIGO:World), or else we acknowledge that WIGO:Elections hasn't really caught on & just let it die. I raised this on the WIGO:Elections talk page a month ago & nobody responded. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Let them put it where they want. I didn't care for that move.---Mona- (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
or maybe just have the elections one for the time when you get to vote for pres instead of the bit where you get to vote for who you get to vote for presAMassiveGay (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we get the elections one put up with the rest? I honestly didn't even know it existed until just now... AyzmoCheers 22:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Brazilian politician visits isreal[edit]

Seem more like a blog item at best, considering the amount of commentary rather than a straight up news piece AMassiveGay (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He didn't make any anti-Palestinian comment and he didn't support Netanyahu's government, he just expressed his support for a two state solution. --Gh1900 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
He's clearly a Zionist. I think we should write an article on him and why Brazil hates Palestinians.
Brasil does not hate Palestinians. --Gh1900 (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Please ignore the user that says "clearly a zionist". This person is a vandal and troll, and ought to be permabanned. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a news piece from a news site (that, among other things, publishes Snowden/NSA documents and revelations), and was explosive in Brazil, and to some extent internationally.---Mona- (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

SB16[edit]

I have no idea what's typical, but the link leads to a bill that has nothing to do with mariage but seems to be about students... Wrong SB16? --Irian (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's actually House Bill 16, not Senate. I could update it to reflect that, but I'm not sure what the etiquette on that is... it's not as egregious as the infamous Indiana law, as it only appears to apply to religious organizations and nonprofits, and not private businesses. Still probably worth opposing though... Hentropy (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
If an entry's factually incorrect, just update it - if anyone objects they'll do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Link has been updated Jeetkuen (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


'racist' Charlie Hebdo cartoon[edit]

Why is the word 'racist' in inverted commas? London Grump (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

being generous, I will its the headline on the beeb site, and this got them too. And probably something bout 'satire'. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't seem racist so much as good old fashioned being an asshole.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It's vulgar, it's in poor taste, but it's not racist, unless one wants to argue that regardless of intent, it is effectively racist. Charlie Hebdo is a nest of far-left, anti-neocon, pro-Palestinian, aggressive secularists who despise racism. The magazine serves a leftist readership. It has always satirized right-wingers and racism as well as all religious belief and religious figures in the most offensive and obnoxious manner. That kind of vulgar satire is a huge fail for me, but it's not racist.---Mona- (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know French and I've never read the thing and I don't have a broad enough understanding of its writer-base to really evaluate their entire being as a paper (and let's face it few people would care if not for the terrorist attack), but I'm just gonna drop in and say if any American (and I'm guessing UK as well) paper regardless of political affiliation published that they would be considered a hate group and I'm sure a more conservative French newspaper would be called Nazis for it, and probably rightfully so. I don't think they should be given a pass simply because they're left-wing, being left-wing does not and never has precluded someone or many people from being horribly bigoted. Is Charlie Hebdo racist/Islamophobic? I dunno, but that drawing sure as hell is. Putting the actual art style aside, the message it sends is one of division and fearmongering against Syrian refugees as if they're all just rapey baboons. Hentropy (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
its always seems to be satire until you don't like who is producing it AMassiveGay (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
with anything like this, intent plays second fiddle to how people actually interpret it. Its no good saying its satire if everyone say something else. 10:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Everyone? Personally, I thought the intent was to hold a mirror up to the people who believe that every male immigrant has to be a molester... If you want, you can interpret the drawing in a 'racist' way, but that probably tells more about yourself than the person who made it (which is, of course, also true if you interpret it in a non-racist way.) --Irian (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
really, what does it say about me? Not racist I would hope. As for 'everyone', no not 'everyone', it is a figure a speech. Clearly a mistake to use such things on the ever literal internet. Clearly a lot of people. How many, I can not say. The point remains, if enough say it is racist, then it racist, if the intent was otherwise, then it has failed AMassiveGay (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Racist? No. Or, at least, I doubt it. But I would guess it tells us that your first reflex is to interpret it in a mean-spirted, racist way. That's not a bad thing, recognizing racism is pretty important, but of course, it CAN go too far. Is this the case here? I don't know. Anyway, I personally think that it's too cheap to simply assume that CH wanted to make fun of a dead boy or something like this. Satire often can be interpreted in various ways, which makes it complicated. If you want simple gags, go to a comedian. --Irian (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The conflated moral panics about events in Cologne and the migrant crisis, together with the paranoia about Islamic terrorism, gives this a nasty edge beyond mere vulgarity. It legitimises racist attitudes. Remember, racism is not in the intent but in the effect.

Let's put it another way. Imagine a cartoon of an older Trayvon Martin mugging someone then eating watermelon. Still not racist? London Grump (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Imagine a cartoon of an older Trayvon Martin mugging someone then eating watermelon. Still not racist?" Not if it's run by an outlet known to be militantly anti-racist and with long history of satirizing racist attitudes. Charlie Hebdo's readership expects that sort of thing -- because it's what the magazine has always done -- and wouldn't support a literal meaning of the cartoon. For those Americans old enough to remember All in the Family, producer Norman Lear was leftwing and meant the series' main character, Archie Bunker, to be a racist idiot. However, many racists loved Archie and tuned in every week.---Mona- (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not familiar with Archie bunker, beyond being an Americanised Alf Garnett, whom I am familiar. I seem remember Warren Mitchell, the chap who played Alf, was often bemused by the amount of racists telling 'he's got a point'. Intent and and effect are not always the same, nor is a work in vacuum to be only viewed by it fans who will 'read it right', nor is it in a vacuum insulated from inflaming already an already tense situation. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
sorry didn't read the last sentence of your post, thus repeating what you already said. Though different conclusions. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow you never watched that show at all, have you? Archie wasn't a diehard racist, but was very much a product of his working class upbringing and his era; he himself rejects the Klan even when they threaten his life, claiming that he was part black (due to a blood transfusion). He had been tricked by the conservatives into constantly voting against his own interests, whether that would've been better working conditions or higher minimum wages. My favorite episode was when he has to fire one of his three employees. The black guy who never missed a day, the hispanic guy who produced the most, or the white guy who was useless but his best friend. So who should he fire? If he fires the black guy, all the other black guys will assume it's racism and beat the shit out of him. If he fires the white guy (reminder, his friend), all the other white guys will assume it's racism and beat the shit out of him. But the hispanic guy is the only hispanic there, so he's the only one that firing won't end up with Archie getting the shit beat out of him. Meathead thinks it's awful to fire anyone but the white guy, but HE isn't the one with his neck on the line. Meathead is just an awful person; sorry, when you live in someone else's house rent free (while fucking his daughter), you are wrong by default. CorruptUser (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
CorruptUser, you continue to amaze. Wow, just wow. All that, right after informing us in the Saloon that Martin Luther King was not all that because he had extramarital affairs. Again: Wow.---Mona- (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
You missed my point about MLK entirely. He had flaws. Those flaws get whitewashed when he's lionized, but he's far from a bad person. CorruptUser (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec)it should also noted, the Alf Garnett character was very much softened for 'in sickness and health' the sequel, and the writer was encouraged to drop the more racist language. What was acceptable once, in satire at least, was deemed racist and offensive in the 80s. Never incarnation, to my knowledge, have been re run. 'on the buses' gets repeated all the sucking time, and if that's not an argument against free speech, I dunno what is. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"but he's far from a bad person." I see.---Mona- (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
again, i know nothing of archie bunker, only of alf garnett, the less watered down character archie bunker was based on, and undeniably racist, homophobic, sexist, and what hæve you, but he really wasnt a bad person. Deeply flawed yes, but likeable. If he wasnt, he wouldnt have any räcist fans. Just dont get him started about 'them' AMassiveGay (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Here you go CorruptUser (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I cant seem to link to it on youtube, copy right i guess, but you should Check out 'till death us do part'. We did better and we did it first (waves union jack)AMassiveGay (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
of note, the scouse git is cherie blair's dadAMassiveGay (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

South Carolina Natural Marriage Defense Act[edit]

Anyone feel this [1] is newsworthy yet, or no? So far it's just been refered to a judiciary committee.

Even if it isn't, it make some seriously hilarious claims that are essentially all PRATTs when it refers to how heterosexual marriage is the only "natural marriage" and that same sex marriage "flies in the face of reality." As if marriage wasn't a legal construct and was actually tangible.

Also, being transgender in SC can be pretty frustrating when people fail to respect our Supreme Court's decisions and peoples basic liberties because it disagrees with their bigoted agenda. Derp cat (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Conservatives have been having a continuous shitfest since Obergefell. And yes, totally WIGOworthy AyzmoCheers 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Add it! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
"Natural" marriage. Hah. The Arctic Vixen [Get foxy with me ♥] 16:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I can only hope that the citizens and business of SC get as angry as they did here in IN when the RRFA tried to go through.jrussellwrites (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This could be plausible if we were talking about big business boycotts, like what happened in Indiana, because South Carolina has an even smaller economy and any closing of major business would totally fuck our economy. Furthermore, if people refused to tour South Carolina (which is actually even more likely, considering Charleston is probably the most liberal part of the state), we'd... Well, not even have an economy outside of agriculture.
Essentially, this is only likely if outside influences care enough, otherwise, only a few people would be upset. Derp cat (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I take it South Carolina has forgotten what happened the last time they attempted nullification? --65.101.119.25 (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
12,992 dead? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The rare intelligent person remembers the history lesson where Jackson sends federal troops into the state during the Nullification Crisis. Most people, however, don't remember or ever learn that messing with the union always ends up with bad consequences. Derp cat (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Terrace Terrorist[edit]

Personally I don't think this is the best example to hold up as a case of Islamophobia run amok. A boy saying he lives in a "terrorist house", even by mistake, is cause for concern by any school. When I was 9 I was interviewed by police for "drawing a guy with a gun" in school, never mind that what I was drawing was my own state's flag. I was admittedly bad at drawing, but I can see that in the age of Columbine people were much more sensitive about that. The choice of words is not only uncharacteristically mean for the WIGO, but also confusing, as I thought the boy was actually interviewed by pigs and I had to make sure I wasn't in a realistic dream. Hentropy (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the language. I was expecting it to be an Israel/Palestine post by a very angry pro-Palestinian poster. AyzmoCheers 20:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was reasonably sensible to at least follow up on the kid, under the logic that maybe the kid heard the word used a lot at home and reproduced it at school (although I don't know how many terrorists constantly refer to themselves as terrorists...), but mostly I figured they were just covering their back. The exact same media outlets (and individuals for that matter) who are piling on the cops for "interrogating a child over a spelling mistake" are the exact same people who, if there was any kind of terrorist related offence remotely connected to this kid within the next 10 years (like his uncle's girlfriend's ex boyfriend posted some pro-ISIS stuff on Twitter), would be all over the police for missing the "incredibly obvious signs" right now, I mean, the kid WROTE terrorist! How much more proof do you need!? The cops are kinda fucked either way in situations like this so they'd rather err on the side of caution I guess. X Stickman (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
this is not an isolated incident. Make of that what you will AMassiveGay (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I just checked the link on wigo and the guardian article ha been taken down pending an investigation AMassiveGay (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Preborn persons[edit]

I love how delightfully newspeak that phrase is. That is all. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This. My legislature loves newspeak. Derp cat (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh oh, men writing about abortion[edit]

I'm not exactly sure what the deal with this article is. It starts out by stating that "in stories about reproductive issues, 52 percent were written by men, 37 percent by women and 11 percent had no byline, the study states. In regard to quotes, 41 percent came from men in the stories, 33 percent from women and the rest were attributed to organizations or not identifiable by gender, the study shows" and then, based on this, gives us a quote saying women are "systematically stifled" when it comes to writing about this. Are you kidding me? How does one make the logical jump from a slight majority of articles on abortion being written by men, to saying that women are actively being prevented from doing so? What exactly is the solution anyway? Should male reporters just stop writing about it as their civic duty? Is this even a problem in the first place? Does being a man or woman change your ability to type facts about legislation onto a piece of paper?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's one of those corners of the debate that says that men lack the appropriate perspective and "standing" in the debate. Blacks say the same thing when whites try to talk about race issues that affect blacks. Any new policy or proposal when it comes to abortion is naturally going to affect women much more personally and significantly than it is going to affect men. Men commenting on it in general isn't unreasonable, but at least in some logic, women should be the drivers of the debate, not men. Most polls show a minority of women in the pro-life movement. However, when you apply to same standard to other issue, like guns, it becomes more murky. "Only gun owners should comment on guns" would be rejected even by most on the pro-gun side. But just like gun owners get steamed when someone who knows next to nothing about guns starts talking about restricting them, many women get upset when men moralize to them about what they should do with their bodies. Of course when they agree with you, it's not as objectionable... Hentropy (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Nicely put, Hentropy. I guess I don't object as much to men writing about abortion as much as men legislating about it. --Read-Write (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

$10 mandatory donation for the next person who adds a link with an autoplay video[edit]

It's evil! Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Trololololo! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Where is my $10? I thought I was getting money for this?!?!
Oh. Wait a minute... Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It is evil. However, addressing the problem directly, can't you turn them off by default (and then optionally keep a whitelist) in the browser you're using? 124.171.81.96 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Firefox lets you silence tabs (when a website plays any kind of sound, a speaker symbol appears at the right corner of the tab. If you click on it, it mute the tab.), but yes, we probably should add this to the link guidelines (are there such guidelines?).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

President Putin Possibly Poisoned a Person[edit]

Did it really surprise anyone that he may have signed off on the murder? I mean he's ex-KGB. jrussellwrites (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll actually say that I firmly believe the heads of most states routinely sign off on the killing of people as part of their day-to-day jobs with only a few exceptions. All that's really noteworthy here is that it's the assassination of a journalist in another country. Obama has personally signed off on the overt bombing of specific individuals on numerous occasions, given how we understand the details of the US military drone program to work. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a valid assumption to say that every head of state does this at one point or another. It almost doesn't seem newsworthy when it's shrugged off that nonchalantly. jrussellwrites (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
its not even secret - drones strike all the time AMassiveGay (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to hope that with our extra judicial killings, we could at least justify them with some kind of 'cler and present dänger' type of thingAMassiveGay (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but sometimes that "clear and present danger" is things like "posting recruitment videos online". It's a fuzzier line than I like to think about sometimes. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why any Russian official would kill Alexander Litvinenko because he was a major crank with some plausible conspiracy theories about the Russian Mafia and the KGB/FSB arming terrorists to the more insane false flag operations in the Beslan school shooting, Moscow theater hostage crisis, and Danish cartoon shooting.--Owlman (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Because regardless of truth or fiction, he was definitely critical of Putin. Putin absolutely dominates the press inside Russia, and I can absolutely see him being concerned about a nutball stirring up opposition. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised Trump hasn't praised Putin on this; I'm not sure if he hasn't. "What do you do to traitors? This guy, this guy, he was a traitor! He's a spy that turned! And then we're mad that Putin had him killed?! That's what you do to traitors! You kill 'em!" -Trump Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Out of pure curiosity, I did a Google search with "david trump on putin" and see, what it yielded:
Wowzers, Trump is endorsing a guy, who takes Russia further towards totalitarianism. And Trump is a rather still in the race towards becoming the Republican candidate. These goosebumps on my back are not due to low room temperature.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I wish there was a like button for all of this. I'm not surprised.jrussellwrites (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake hits Alaska after Palin endorses Trump[edit]

Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump a few days ago, and just a few hours ago a 7.1-magnitude earthquake struck Alaska. Coincidence? Reminds me of the hurricane that struck Florida at the same time as the GOP Convention in 2012. God has a sense of irony, and clearly he supports liberals. (sarcasm) In all seriousness, last time Sarah Palin endorsed a Republican for president, he lost. I wonder if Trump really is so stupid as to think that Palin's endorsement helps him in some way; most of Palin's fans probably already support Trump anyway. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

David Frum of all people wrote a rather smart article on the whole Trump-Palin thing over in the Blogosphere. Palin was Trump before Trump was Trump, they appeal to essentially the same people for the same reasons. Their opposition to the establishment has little to do with ideological or practical disagreements, but rather an abject hatred due to personal grievances. However, I do think the endorsement might draw some votes from Cruz to Trump, and in a close race that might actually matter. We have yet to see if endorsements by any politicians or newspapers actually make a difference this year, however. Hentropy (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It would have been more prominent if a majestik møøse landed on stage during the endorsement. Did you know møøse can be trained to mix concrete and sign complicated insurance forms? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

So girls really do lie about rape? No way.[edit]

Sounds like rape apology. DontBeIrrational (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In what world does "this person's allegations about rape were not true, and they caused an international incident" equal promoting rape? How many words do you have to put in someone's mouth for that to even begin to make sense.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The "lying about rape" part is probably the least important part of the story, given it was widely reported in order to provoke far-right opposition to the Syrian and Iraqi refugees (a sentiment which, in combination of the incident in Cologne on New Years, will continue to be used in far-right propaganda as a recruiting tool despite this incident being debunked).-- Forerunner (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This is the only story ever about rape lying. Well unless, you're a black football player being shaken down by a prostitute. [2] DontBeIrrational (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, there was a story posted on WIGO about how a girl was pressured into admitting she lied about rape only for the rapist to be caught with commemorative photos of the crime. Of course, seeing as the girl's cell phone records indicate her phone was at her friend's house during that time (and may have sent several texts during that time), that probably isn't the case here. Hertzy (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Indiana Idiotocracy[edit]

Here my state goes again pulling this anti-LGBT shit again. Why do I have a feeling they'll be able to actually pass it without anyone noticing this time? You know, it's prime time for everyone to pay attention to America's Next Top Candidate the Iowa Carcasses Caucuses. Politics suck. Does anyone think they'll ever learn to stop trying? jrussellwrites (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The only reason they gave it up last time was because businesses threatened to pull out. The calculus is largely the same this time for them, if the same amount of outrage can be stirred and businesses can start speaking up again, it will work directly against the Republican business-friendly message and force the Governor to cave... again. That's even if the bill manages to actually come up for a vote again. Hentropy (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The legalization of gay marriage was just a battle won, the war still rages on.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It's dealing with idiots like this who don't know when they've lost that makes me wish exile to another universe was an option. Thanos6 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Not knowing when they've lost is unfortunately a human quality more prevalent in ones opponents... Pizzameister (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Driving while black[edit]

Holy shit that Vox article represents everything wrong with statistics. 91.5% and 85.8% of people wearing seat belts are NOT close. People get ticketed for NOT wearing seat belts; it should be comparing .085 and .142. You'd expect black people to have 67% higher ticket rates to begin with. Of course this alone doesn't explain why it's 90% higher rather than 67%. Yes it's probably racism, but when you lie with statistics to help your point I have trouble listening to any arguments you make. StickySock (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The article already says all that... WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
But you have to read all the way to the second and third paragraph to find that out. MarmotHead (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Well maybe the seat belt number is wrong to begin with... I know from personal experience that most of the times people don't wear a seat belt it is on "short trips" or "just down to the grocery store" (which races the question why people take the car for such trips to begin with, but I digress). Now those trips are often within the neighborhood people live or work in. Given the high amount of segregation, it stands to believe that most white people not wearing seat belts simply goes undetected because no cop is in the white neighborhood to check stuff like that. Whereas black neighborhoods... Well, I don't need to tell you that... Pizzameister (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
4th paragraph and I missed it after being enraged by the infographic. Sorry bout that. StickySock (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I actually skipped the infographic thinking it was an ad. It certainly isn't a good representation of the data! MarmotHead (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Iowa Caucus Thread[edit]

The Iowa Caucuses have officially started and the results will come in soon. Polls close in a couple of hours. Here we go. Make predictions below and insert snarky commentary if desired. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Right now there is a tie. I predict, in the end, that Sanders will win with no more than two more delegates than Hillary..--Owlman (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the recent polls, it looks like Cruz might pull of a win. Rubio is also doing unusually well. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Cruz has officially won the Repub caucus with 27.7%, to Trumps 24.4, and Rubio's 23%.--Owlman (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

HAHAHA Martin O'Malley has suspended his campaign! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Almost feel bad for the guy, but you can't beat a guy who calls himself a socialist in the US.--Owlman (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh and Huckabee just fucked off too.--Owlman (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

OH Great!

It's a delegate tie in Iowa for the Democrats! Clinton 21, Bernie 21! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well that is boring, but that means there will be insanity after New Hampshire.--Owlman (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Great. Hillary now has one more delegate: 22 to 21. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No matter who actually wins hair more than the other in Iowa, it'll probably just go down in most people's minds as a tie. It's easy to chalk it up as a win and a loss for both sides. Sanders really needed a definitive win in Iowa by at least a point or two to propel his campaign, but on the other hand he has come a long way to get that far. Hillary perhaps had a stronger showing than some expected and disrupted the dialogue about the Sanders Surge, but she would have liked a more definitive win as well going into what is likely going to be a big win for Sanders in NH. As for the other side, in some ways I find myself rooting for Cruz because he will be easy to demolish in the general, and it's hard not to enjoy Trump under-performing as much as he did, it was an unequivocal loss for him. Some of his supporters might start jumping ship and finally he will start to decline. Hopefully. Hentropy (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There is still a small chance Bernie will "win" Iowa still, with only 95% reporting. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Iowa showed who among the "establishment" GOP candidatos has a shot. Apparently, those who dislike Trump should now bet on Marco Rubio 176.7.89.43 (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The New Hampshire polling right now has most of the "establishment" (if you can even call an organization with so little power 'the establishment') split. It'll be interesting to see what happens there, but since it's a primary and not a caucus, some of those voters will still stick by Bush or Kasich, who are both polling ahead of Rubio there. Rubio benefited greatly from the 15% threshold in Iowa, but Trump is probably still going to win NH unless there's some massive exodus away from him in the next week. Hentropy (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about you guys, but I definitely heard the collective sigh of relief as the GOP establishment realized that they won't have to back Trump against Cruz. Vulpius (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, where did that link go with Ted Cruz being anointed by his father to take control of society? It was right here not long ago

Just wait a few hours. Rafa makes messianic pronouncements about his son at least daily.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rafael-cruz-says-presence-holy-spirit-convinced-his-son-run-president
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rafael-cruz-ted-cruz-running-president-share-love-jesus-christ-every-person-america
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rafael-cruz-people-are-persecuting-my-son-because-he-s-telling-truth-just-jesus
Petey Plane (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK there was no 15% threshold in the Republican caucus... The Democrats had one, though. Pizzameister (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That would make sense. Luckily now that it's over we can all stop caring about this overly complex and archaic selection system for at least another four years. I can only hope I can say the same about the electoral college forever one day... Hentropy (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Well there are attempts to do that. And I fear the Iowa caucus will exist as long as there is corn. And corn will be subsidised as long as there is an Iowa caucus. Pizzameister (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I've advocated for that in my own state, although Delaware is so small it will hardly matter anyway. A faster and simpler way would be if Republicans won the popular vote but lost the general, then it would be changed in a matter of months. Hentropy (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
How many electoral votes does Delaware have? And remember, it only takes 270... Pizzameister (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Delaware is doomed to have 3 forever, I'm afraid, we've also been reliably blue. For the Popular Vote Compact to work, red states and swing states will have to sign on to it, and that's unlikely until Republicans actually manage to get screwed by the electoral college. Hentropy (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You won't need a single swing state. But you might need a few red states eventually... Pizzameister (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The Trump loss narrative[edit]

I'm a bit surprised that the Trump loss narrative seems to be the main story of GOP side for two reasons. First, it's an odd reversal of the "Oh, when we get to the actual voting, Trump will deflate"-line that has been so prevalent earlier in the coverage. Secondly, to call what's essentially a three way split between Cruz (28%), Trump (24%) and Rubio (23%) anything like a defeat for Trump seems to me to be more about how much the media has gotten wrapped up in its polling and Trump hype than any sort of overall evaluation of the actual results. To me, the main GOP stories are:

  1. Anti-establishment candidates are still riding high.
  2. Cruz's appeal to the evangelical vote remains strong (bye bye Huckabee and Santorum) and that Trump seems to make little headway with this demographic.
  3. Rubio has managed to get much of the establishment vote to congeal crystallise around him (though that may be due to the caucus format, so, take care of the hype and hold your breath for the more traditional primary voting formats in the upcoming states).

Seriously, half a year ago, who would call a Trump vote of 24% in Iowa placing him second and within a 4 point reach of the first spot anything but a pretty good start? ScepticWombat (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It does depend on your perspective. Obviously, if you told a pundit back in August that Trump would come in second in Iowa, it would be rather surprising to them. But they'd also be floored that neither Rubio nor Bush are the front runners nationally. However, expectations are set by polls prior to the caucus/primary. Not even a week before the caucus, Trump was averaging 33 points to Cruz's 27, a full six points ahead. His sudden collapse in the polls came in the last days, and it was pretty obvious that skipping the debate is at least partially to blame. But the last polls still showed him at least 4 points ahead, for him to finish four points down (and 9 points down from his height) is an unequivocal loss for him. It is important from a politio-wonky perspective, because it shows that polls might be favoring Trump heavily for any myriad of reasons. Some pundits were seriously considering the possibility that Trump could run the table in early states and coming around the idea that he could secure the nomination easily unless some earthquake happened. There's no doubt that Cruz's resilience is and should be a big narrative, he's been able to weather questions of electability, birtherism, what most pundits classified as a bad debate performance and more than one tantrum about debate questions, and even that last-day mailer controversy and come away largely unscathed. Hentropy (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Iowa, sort of expected?[edit]

On the Democratic side of the aisle, Bernie seems to have done far better than expected and basically hoovered up the entire "anyone but Hillary"-vote, with O'Malley dropping out confirming that it's going to be a Bernie/Hillary contest from now on, just as expected. Conversely, anything but a solid Bernie victory in New Hampshire will probably be seen as a de facto loss for him, likely postponing the actual decision to the subsequent primaries. If I was a betting man, my money would still be on Hillary winning the nomination (and probably the general election too), and I guess that these early primaries will be a split between Bernie riding high in Iowa and New Hampshire and Hillary in South Carolina and Nevada possibly being another closely fought contest, meaning that we'll get to Super Tuesday before anything really worthwhile can be said on whether Bernie's campaign can keep up its early momentum and make democratic voters "feel the Bern" (seriously, that tag line is sooo corny...). ScepticWombat (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In many ways Bernie really did overperform in Iowa and surprised a lot of people with a late surge. However, many Bernie fans have always overestimated his chances. Obama and Clinton in 08 was a division over style, there was no real debate about electability or policy, so it was easy for Clinton and other candidate's fans to jump on his bandwagon. Sanders has the bigger problem, trying to convince Democrats to the right of him, which is most of them, to roll the dice in an election that is rather vital for them to win. Sanders was able to take advantage of working the ground game for months before Iowa caucus and O'Malley supporters flocking to him (from the looks of it). Even if him bringing it to a tie in Iowa was rather impressive, he really needed a definite win there to convince enough fence-sitters to come over to his side. He still has a ways to go to start closing the gap nationally, and a much longer way to go close the gap in South Carolina and Nevada. The aforementioned policy and electability questions will likely mean Sanders will not be able to surge enough to pass Hillary. Before anyone calls me anti-Bernie, I do actually like him quite a bit and probably support him more on principle, but I'm also cynical about American politics and I really don't want to sit through 6+ months of Sanders being compared to Pol Pot. You thought the whole "Obama is a radical" thing was bad... I wish I could say the American people wouldn't fall for such tactics, but I'm just not confident of that, especially because of Trumpmania. Hentropy (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Wait a second, there were no questions about the electability of a black first term senator with hardly any experience who most people had never heard about? News to me. Pizzameister (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You think, they gonna demand Sander's or Clinton's birth certificate in the longer-than-long form?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think many people were doubting the electability of any Democrat in 2008. That was really the time to put in an unapologetic socialist, when they had a collapsing financial system with Republicans lost in the woods throwing a hail mary pass. Hentropy (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem with Clinton is that Republicans hate her breathing guts. Yes Faux Noice and all the others will scream "Socialist" at the top of their lungs if Bernie gets nominated, but they are already doing that. And they would finally shut the fuck up about Benghazi... Furthermore if Fivethirtyeight is to be believed, this election is really the Democrats to loose. Given the low turnout, I think Sanders is the better candidate because he will motivate a lot of people from the Obama coalition (young people, African Americans, Latinos) to vote like 2008 and 2012 instead of staying home like 2010 and 2014. And that's ultimately how you win elections as a Democrat. Turnout, turnout, turnout. No wonder the GOP proposes voter repression laws on a daily basis. Pizzameister (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The more they hate Clinton simply for being, the more rabid and unreasonable they will appear during a general election. If they choose to make the whole election about obsessing over Benghazi, emails, and even stuff that happened in the 90s, they will lose. The "socialist" thing for Obama only ever really caught on among the rightists, people who weren't going to vote for him anyway, but moderates never took it seriously. It's different when you have a proud socialist talking about raising taxes on the middle class, taking over entire sections of industry... that type of stuff is largely untested in national politics. Democrats blew everything that they gained in 2010 because of a "government takeover of healthcare", and I'm just not confident that someone promising to do exactly that will have wild success. All a more moderate candidate like Rubio will have to do is point to the wild non-success of the ACA and various other government scandals, bundle them with normal Republican talking points, and be able to swing it on moderates. Throw in that Rubio is a younger ethnic minority (scoff if you like, but it's true) compared to Bernie's old whiteness, and they can even claim the same "historic election" thing that Obama was able to take advantage of. Speaking on race, there's also little evidence that Bernie is popular among minorities generally, there hasn't been a wealth of polling on this issue but it appears his main appeal is among hard-left Democratic activists and young progressives, mostly white. Older Democrats, particularly women, along with the normal support from minorities is Hillary's domain and you don't need a broader coalition than that. People will see Hillary as a much more historic candidate than whoever the GOP puts up (unless Fiorina somehow gets in by magic). FiveThirtyEight is right in the sense that, right now, Democrats have both a demographic and geographic advantage in Presidential elections, the "Big Blue Wall" is much taller than the "Big Red Wall" but that's not reliable, things can change quickly and states we never thought would go Red, might. I never thought Obama could win North Carolina and Indiana, but it happened. Hentropy (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem with Bernie is there's so much to scare reasonable independents. He honeymooned in the Soviet Union, for God's sake. The wingnuts have nothing to do with it. Whoover (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Plus he old. Put him next to Rubio and it's Obama/McCain on steroids. Vulpius (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is this idea coming from that the electorate is a steady size in every election? Obama won as big as he did in 2008 because he made people who would never vote go to vote. The same could be true for Sanders. There's a lot of people who don't vote (maybe because they are working two jobs and cannot afford a Tuesday off). And if the polls in regard to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are any guide, they desperately want more of that, not less. Now answer me this: If you were living on five hundred bucks a month, working two jobs to make ends meet, would you vote for any of two candidates who wants to lower taxes for the richest of the rich? There is a very simple reason for the 2010 disaster (besides the beltway common wisdom of every Preisdent losing his first midterms) - turnout. Turnout among African Americans, young people, Latinos, poor people - in short the Obama coalition was much lower in 2010 than it was in 2008. Do you really think Hillary Clinton is going to generate a fraction of the enthusiasm among the Obama coalition that Obama did? Sanders has proven appeal among young people and among poor people. We are seeing a lot of the same people that turned out for Obama in 2008 campaigning for Sanders. And we are also seeing many people who were never involved with politics turn into rabid campaigners for Sanders. Can you imagine anything like that happen for Hillary? Honestly, where is all the Hillary enthusiasm? Now I somewhat agree that Rubio might make some inroads among minorities or people who are fooled by his last name. A candidate Rubio makes the "We're not racist" game much easier to play than a candidate Trump. But Rubio is Cuban. And Cubans are a special group of Latinos. Sure, they are concentrated in Florida, which is a key swing state (though Sanders might get the also crucial elderly Jewish vote there), but nationally other Latinos are much more important. Cubans mostly came to the US as political migrants and they mostly represent the (former) upper class of Cuba. That's a sharp contrast to other Latino groups where the economic migrants far outnumber the political migrants if the latter group even exists. Think of it this way: The cliché Cuban is an old Batista crony who harkens back to the days when he owned three casinos and four sugar farms, whereas the typical non-Cuban Latino is an average José from San something in the back of beyond of Latin America who heard of this magical place where you can actually work for more than two bucks a day. (Yes this may have been offensive). So in short, being Cuban is no guarantee for overall Latino support. Now one thing I give you is that Sanders has little appeal among ethnic minorities - yet. If the latest poll are any hint he is picking up among black South Carolinians and is also making progress with Latinos. Obama also had a difficult time getting black people to poll for him before he won Iowa. I predict that as the endorsements keep coming in (and quite a few notable African Americans have endorsed Sanders) and as New Hampshire solidifies Sanders' viability, more and more African Americans will become Sanders supporters. There's no law of nature that you have to be white to vote Socialist... Pizzameister (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You make some fair points, it's really hard to crystal ball this election. When it comes to turnout, while 2008 did see record turnout, 2012 saw a big contraction in turnout, and Obama still managed to win. Re-election turnouts tend to go down, we can probably see an uptick coming no matter what do to there being no incumbent. However, the Presidential election turnout will never be as low as mid-term turnout, and will favor the Democrats. It's true that many poorer Democrats and minorities simply don't show up for mid-terms and smaller state/local elections, and that's not likely to change with Bernie. Obama was able to appeal much more than just younger and minority voters- Democrats have had these groups solidly for decades and it hardly returns a win, ask McGovern. If you want to win elections, you have to convince the older voters, working people, and increasingly women. This is Hillary's domain, people who remember the 90s fondly, older women who have been wanting a female candidate to vote for for decades. To put it bluntly, Hillary can win on identity politics, and also motivate that way. That's her current appeal inside the party, and the reason she seems to be doing well in southern states and big blue states. Meanwhile, Bernie's biggest main support seems to be from areas that are very white and very liberal, somewhat of a rarity in the country at large. Trump cultists also make the repeated assurance that they are electable because there will be an explosion in turnout and people who have never voted before will turn out in droves and all vote for Trump. And like Bernie, that is certainly possible (and scary, in Trump's case), but it requires a whole lot of faith. Americans are much more cynical about politics than they were in 2008, and part of that is because Obama was not able to deliver all the nice things he promised in his campaign. They may or may not blame him entirely for that, but I am not convinced that Bernie will be able to convince them simply because he promises nicer things. Americans also just don't like their taxes being raised, it doesn't particularly matter how he defends that point, the GOP will be non-stop on it. Hillary will make sure to only promise to raise the taxes of the rich, and like in 2012 Republicans will rush to the defense of millionaires and hurt for it. I think the point is that Hillary will be able to more effectively exploit the Obama appeal compared to Sanders, who promises the government will take care of them after eight years of purely dysfunctional and scandal-ridden government. Hentropy (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Congress is dysfunctional. The executive has been doing fine... Pizzameister (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Gay Goat and Tiger[edit]

The gay goat and tiger story is a dupe of a WIGO clogs. Whoover (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Organic Farming news[edit]

So, umm, what's defined as "conventional" farming? Because GMO isn't conventional... CorruptUser (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pesticides. The study makes no mention of GMOs that I can see, and GMOs using those 'organic' farming methods would likely produce similar results with higher yield and lower cost. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 07:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, the study makes no mention of the shadow land costs. That is, the use of waste products from factory farms. I mean, it's great that that shit is being reused rather than just dumped into the rivers, but I wish the Organic people would be more honest about the reality. CorruptUser (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Chris Christie has exited the clown car. So has Carly Fiorina.[edit]

Shouldn't this be in WIGO:Elections, or if WIGO:Elections is not going to be used maybe delete WIGO:Elections altogether. 37.228.230.113 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it should, but we don't always enforce a strict entry policy fir the WIGOs.--Owlman (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Syrian ceasefire[edit]

Yeah I know . It's's not an actual ceasefire, but that. Sis what it will optimistically lead to. I am going to be quite pessimistic about the outcome of the 'end of hostilities'since the current peace talks were suspended after 2 days after being boycotted early; I doubt Assad will stop bombing Aleppo and the rebels in general since he seems to believe that he can break their will by capturing their capital and he's probably not wrong either. Assuming Assad attacks t. rebels and besieges Aleppo I believe the Russians will support him because they are already too invested in the Syrian conflict. Putin has absolutely no control over Assad and he hopes to restore Russia's superpower status which requires him to keep one of the only MidEast allies Russia still has; Syria contains the last overseas, Russian military base. I am not sure if Iran support him with their militias, but I know that even they can't usurp Assad. Even if all goes well and Assad doesn't decide to break the rebels Turkey will most likely invade in order to attack Assad; Erdogan refuses to allow Assad to stay and Turkey is just as invested in the Syrian civil war as Russia. Turkey, under Erdogan, will also not allow the Kurds to take control of its Southern borders. A Turkish intervention has become even more likely because the US has stop asking for Assad's immediate removal and has encouraged the Kurds to take Manbji and Jarabulus from ISIL and Russia's support for Kurdish autonomy. If you think this is insane remember we are talking about a leader who has invaded the Turkish Kurds land and renewed tensions with the PKK in order to win an election, banned social media sites after he was caught planning a false flag operation in order to invade Syria, has bombed Iraqi Kurdistan in order to attack the PKK, blew up a Russian fighter jet in order to protect Syrian Turkmen, and armed Al Nursa and ISIL in order to beat Assad. The worst part is the US won't dare try to control Turkey because they are the second largest army in NATO. So yeah this all seems pretty hopeless.--Owlman (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If a ceasefire does happen, it will probably occur when the north rebels realize they're screwed, which will be when they lose Aleppo. I doubt it would last long also. All other large ceasefire deals have failed. The only ones that have succeeded were about 4, and they were all on a small (single town) scale. Pessimistic me. Most likely Russia continues bombing and the government continues advancing. Not a bad outcome in the long run. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Really? The war doesn't end when Assad wins. ISIL will only grow stronger once whatever moderates are removed and the the Islamic Front is decimated. Even if we beat ISIL none of those ethnic groups will be able to live with each other; just look at what genocide and ethnic cleansing did to the Balkans. How are we even going to beat ISIL; the Saudi coalition will ultimately fail like Russia did in Afghanistan and the US has no real strategy besides a rinse and repeat bombing campaign (we all know that that worked so well in Viet Nam). Though none of this will come to pass because Erdogan's ego will likely get to the best of him and he will bomb Assad with or without an opposition.--Owlman (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"ISIL will only grow stronger once...moderates are removed" You're wrong. If rebels are defeated, the Syrian government will be able to focus all of its manpower and airpower on ISIS, Russia included. The army, battle-hardened and experienced in how to fight an insurgency, would steamroll ISIS in the course of a few years at most, especially with the US airstrikes. The rebels have net lost ground to ISIS over the whole war and the past year. On the contrary, a rebel defeat would be catastrophic for ISIS: all of their enemies are now totally united and not fighting each other anymore. With regards to ethnic tensions, sure the SAA will want to fight the Kurds, but only after ISIS has been defeated. Look: they're not fighting each other now, and they peacefully share multiple borders and cities. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, you say the US has no strategy. I disagree. The US has armed, trained, equipped, and provided close air support to multiple armies fighting ISIS. The Iraqi Arabs, the Iraqi Kurds, and the Syrian Kurds have all received guns, grenades, rockets, and daily airstrike support for their numerous offensives, and ISIS has net lost fighters and territory since the campaign began. It wont be long until ISIS suffers at least 1 shocking defeat in Iraq, and another in Syria. I predict the loss of a major city: either Mosul, Fallujah, Raqqah, or Tabqa. ISIS just isnt capable of mounting a serious defense of anything but their core strip along the Euphrates anymore. You will be surprised. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Baha'i number 2...[edit]

...is it that they are really more numerous or is that muslims and jews are under reporting? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's surprisingly difficult to find good religion data, but one page I found lists 0.13% Jewish, 0.14% Muslim and 0.16% "Eastern".--ZooGuard (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I cant point to any stats, but the article said baha'i followers were fearful to be open about their faith before, in a similar way i imagine muslims are today. Plus it just seems you'd hear more about Baha'i if they were growing significantly in number AMassiveGay (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Have they grown in number or have the other faiths declined. It didnt seem clear in the article. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
It would have been nice if they actually supported the assertion with some numbers - I didn't see any data when I skimmed the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

NPR Sanders free education[edit]

So While South Korean seem to have high tuition fees, Japan has about $6000 a year(by first link from google. Canada has about $4500(US Dollars) a year. Now I know some might be able to get colleges for that price in the US, but from all the talk, people seem to be stuck with $50-150 000 debt after college. Ok VERY shallow research from my part. But isn't the cost also part of it. While the article is not way anti Sanders, it does seem to be missing the price point. Technicaly speaking Norwegian univerities aren't free, There is a "maintains" fee of 900kr($100) pr semester. Also becuase of how it works. Most students end up with hundreds of thousands of kr in debt because naturaly they have to take up a loan to survive as few can study 100% and make ends meet with part time job. Norway as it's own goverment loan system for students, with good interests rates ect.

Gunfreak (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Gunfreak

Scalia Dead[edit]

It's on CNN now too, so I'm going to say this is true. (insert insincere condolences to whoever's relevant). This is potentially HUGE news. If there any way Obama will be able to get a replacement confirmed before he leaves office? What effect will this have on outstanding decisions? And what effect will it have over the next 8 years when Clinton is president? Wow. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, this is the first time I've ever got major breaking news from RW. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Obama certainly will get to choose the next appointee, even with complete Republican obstruction he could still do a recess appointment. All they need are three or so Republicans in the Senate to help confirm the nominee, so I don't think it will be TOO hard to get them through, provided he doesn't go off the deep end with his pick. It will prove to be an interesting political football, however. As for cases currently pending, a new nominee can conceivably participate in decisions, but they usually recuse themselves. This will likely mean some 4-4 decisions on the horizon, which will mean the lower court decision is upheld. While it's hard not to be a little excited that the court is finally going to have a liberal majority in all likelihood, Scalia was at least occasionally entertaining and had more personality than most on the court. If the founding fathers didn't want us turning people's deaths into political footballs, they would have given them term limits. Hentropy (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Well George Mason, along with Jefferson, did try to get term limits for the Senate and Presidency; anyways I find this news uplifting especially after he helped stay the Clean Power Plan. He was the court's biggest hypocrite and I generally viewed him as a joke. I doubt Obama will appoint a new nominee since the Repubs have halted so many of his nominees for all positions. I doubt Obama has the courage to go around the legislator because he hasn't done it before.--Owlman (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
He can't go around the Congress in this case, there's really no legal trick to pull out of the hat. But that doesn't mean the Democrats are just going to fold easily, this is as important to them as it is to Republicans. The blocking of recess appointments in previous years has been a small, insider issue, this will be a national issue. Maybe I'm just being too optimistic, the court hasn't been clearly liberal in my lifetime. Hentropy (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The possibility of Obama getting a replacement installed is nearly nil, considering the GOP is currently vowing total obstructionism.
It hasn't been liberal in mine either, but ever since Lewis Powell it has been heavily corporatist. I know that who ever Obama puts on SCOTUS will end up being more favorable towards corporations than individuals because many of the federal judges are corporate lawyers.--Owlman (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
This is an article on what usually happens with a tied SCOTUS.
The effect is that the next President is likely to replace 2-4 Justices in their next term.
Frankly, I almost want a bunch of SJW judges put on the court, just so I can gleefully watch various groups froth at the mouth till they enter convulsions. That would be hilarious. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
They can certainly try it by blocking recess appointments, but they're going to have to justify it as well during an election season. All you need is a few Republicans and many Senate Republicans will not want it to be the defining political fight of the fall. There are a lot of Republicans up for reelection in the fall due to the 2010 wave. Hentropy (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The best course of action for Obama would be to appoint a senator to the seat. Republicans may feel free to obstruct Obama's nominee, but they'll be much more reluctant if the nominee is a member of their club. They will also go much easier on that nominee.
I suggest Hillary Clinton.
I have no doubt that she has the intelligence and legal skill to do well at the job. It suits her skill set a lot better than the Presidency. And though her values seem wishy-washy, I have no doubt that she's solid on reproductive rights. And putting Hillary on the Supreme Court would allow the Democrats to either rally behind Sanders or field a dark horse candidate who isn't Hillary Clinton. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
That would be... fascinating actually since she had considered putting Obama on the court if elected and I think she actually would drop the campaign just to be a judge.--Owlman (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
And any Republican with a lick of political sense would welcome the chaos it would cause. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Well it would truly be a deal with the devil for all sides. Obama would get to end his presidency with a liberal court, Republicans would avoid the risk of losing the Senate and/or the House because they filibustered for month's, the Tea Party would have its bogeyman, progressive Dems would automatically get Sanders as the nominee, and the establishment Dems would get Hillary as a SCOTUS nominee, the Clinton name would survive history, and corporatist would get a friend on the court.--Owlman (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be awesome if Obama immediately put her on the high court by means of a recess appointment. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Well Cenk has put forth Larry Lessig who happened to be a clerk of Scalia and is the godfather of campaign finance reform. That would definitely be a massive change.--Owlman (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I remember a not entirely unlikely scenario on The West Wing once... There was a SCOTUS justice who died unexpectedly and he was clearly supposed to be based on Scalia. The Dems wanted to replace him with a centrist whom they knew they could get confirmed (well, maybe it was a different era after all) but they for some reason invite both a liberal woman and a young conservative judge to the white house. Amazingly they know each other and are rather friendly with each other and highly respect each others' legal brilliance. Someone (I think Toby) then comes up with a strategy that would nominate not the bland centrist (who interestingly nobody seems to either like or dislike enough for it to matter) but both the left wing and right wing person who clearly are of great benefit to the court (One of the arguments is the minority opinion that might be dug up at a later time). Of course this is TV and the real live Republicans would never accept something like that and furthermore there is the "small" question who would have to step down to create the second vacancy, but I still like the idea... Pizzameister (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If you need anymore evidence on how unlikely it is for Obama to get a SCOTUS nominee appointed apparently a Dem prez hasn't gotten one appointed past a Republican controlled Senate since Grover Cleveland.--Owlman (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That gap is because a mix of a Democratic President and Republican Senate (or Congress in general) is quite rare, only 12 years total (out of 123) since Cleveland has that been that case. Dems controlled the Senate for the vast majority of the 20th century, with virtually no opportunities for that scenario to play out. So while a fun fact, it's not really a meaningful fact.Hentropy (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:What_is_going_on_in_the_world%3F/Archive26&oldid=1644894"