Taylor Swift's Instagram Post

[MathOfInsects]

3 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:

Would it be even possible - and I can hear the outcry from the industry now - to label programs as we do cigarettes, gmo, or what have you.  When the talking heads are telling us how we should think and feel about the events of the day OPINION appears on the corner of the screen.  It obviously disappears on journalistic segments.   Print magazines and papers don’t seem to have any trouble labeling opinion.   (Of course the opinion shows would remain the most popular because clearly that’s what many prefer.   But at least the owners/management are forced to admit the programs are BS).   

I have actually mused that what we need is the opposite--or rather, the absurd extreme: I feel the GOP and the DNC should have their own channels. I know the obvious joke about this, that they already do (cough-cough FOX and MSNBC). But I think it would help both parts of the equation--the parties and the putative news networks--to just give the parties complete access to the airwaves and let them do their thing however they want. That takes some pressure off the don't-call-them-surrogate stations to please any "base," and maybe they would nudge back over toward reporting again. At the very least, it would clearly identify the partisan stations as the source of any information that was shared. That would be a massive step forward in its own right. 

[Anderton]

Limit the RNC/DNC channels to existing for only one month prior to the election, and count me in!

 

[ElmerJFudd]

2 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

I have actually mused that what we need is the opposite--or rather, the absurd extreme: I feel the GOP and the DNC should have their own channels. I know the obvious joke about this, that they already do (cough-cough FOX and MSNBC). But I think it would help both parts of the equation--the parties and the putative news networks--to just give the parties complete access to the airwaves and let them do their thing however they want. That takes some pressure off the don't-call-them-surrogate stations to please any "base," and maybe they would nudge back over toward reporting again. At the very least, it would clearly identify the partisan stations as the source of any information that was shared. That would be a massive step forward in its own right. 

Also a simple solution for transparency.  I wonder if people would watch it if it was that obvious?  It’s almost like many of our fellow citizens enjoy the weak facade and being told what they want to hear.  They seem to love being outraged.  🤷‍♂️ 

 

The other problem is of course the influence of money and power on the less extreme outlets (starting but of course not limited to the major networks).   But that I fear is impossible.  

[ProfD]

Taylor Swift has become like Waldo. She's gone from selling out concerts to an NFL fixture at Kansas City Chiefs games to endorsing a political candidate. I'm waiting for her to show up with Mayhem in Allstate car commercials.😎

[Anderton]

I think the real scandal is that no news channel used the Baha Men "Who Let the Dogs Out" as intro music for the latest WTF du jour. It's the...leash they could do 😆

[nursers]

12 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

It seems completely clear that ranked choice is a superior system for the places it's been tried. The question is whether it could ever make its way through the gauntlet of "Those With The Most To Lose From It," for our federal system ever to convert to it.

 

What we discovered recently is that our Democracy is only as strong as our agreements around it. We have a lot of ceremony built in to our cultural agreements. We've learned lately that all is takes is someone literally simply deciding not to agree, for the system to teeter. 

 

I'll be curious to see what comes, retrospectively, from this era in our development as a nation. 

 

I agree it's probably too late for the US to implement preferential voting, or compulsory voting, more's the shame. I voted in elections over the weekend here. Less than 5% of people didn't vote or voted informally. 

 

 

[Stokely]

17 hours ago, Anderton said:

Limit the RNC/DNC channels to existing for only one month prior to the election, and count me in!

 

Which also brings up something else that I've heard lately--limit the length of the campaigns.  I don't know of any other country that does these years-long things.   We obviously see with Harris that being relatively (for the US) new as a candidate isn't really a handicap--I'd argue it's a benefit.

Obviously, that's going to cut into all the $$$ being made and spent, just like simplifying the health insurance system would cut into layers and layers of profit and they'll fight tooth and nail against it.

And yeah a lot of people are addicted to getting riled up.  I got that way myself and ditched cable news (10 years ago) and unmoderated social media (8 years ago) as a result.  My stress levels were better.   I know a couple people that listen to am talk radio or podcasts all day and they are basically itching for a fight after hours of that.  I won't engage them, they also happen to be rife with conspiracy nonsense.  The entire purpose of any of those things is to anger people and get them tuning back in and they'll say anything.   This latest dangerous lying nonsense about the pet eating being a notable example.

[analogika]

40 minutes ago, Stokely said:

Which also brings up something else that I've heard lately--limit the length of the campaigns.  I don't know of any other country that does these years-long things.  

 

YES. Apart from the utter annoyance of having to constantly pander to bite-sized media bullshit, these people need to get time to DO THEIR FUCKING JOB. 

Every day spent on a stupid rally, spending millions of dollars on getting people riled up is a day politicians aren't in the office doing the work they're actually being paid for. 

[Anderton]

6 minutes ago, analogika said:

Every day spent on a stupid rally, spending millions of dollars on getting people riled up is a day politicians aren't in the office doing the work they're actually being paid for. 

 

The only problem is if one of the candidates is an uncumbent and should be doing their job, and the other person is simply running for office and doesn't owe the voters anything yet. A short campaign doesn't solve that problem, but it would be a major improvement that would have other benefits. Like not driving me crazy with never-ending political ads that say the other side is the spawn of Satan.

[MathOfInsects]

5 minutes ago, Anderton said:

 

The only problem is if one of the candidates is an uncumbent and should be doing their job, and the other person is simply running for office and doesn't owe the voters anything yet. A short campaign doesn't solve that problem, but it would be a major improvement that would have other benefits. Like not driving me crazy with never-ending political ads that say the other side is the spawn of Satan.

The other issue is that the membrane between "doing your job" and "campaigning" is v-e-r-r-r-r-r-y thin when you are an incumbent. Name recognition alone gives a nearly insurmountable advantage that only the worst, most criminal, and oldest-seeming of our incumbents have failed to overcome. So it would take some nuance to craft an appropriate run-up arrangement that gives a challenger a shot, given the privilege of position the incumbent always enjoys. 

That "immunity" decision of last month greatly complicates this issue as well. (NYT has some sobering reporting about this this week. Safe to say the time for SCOTUS reform is more than overdue.)

 

I think the primary system might be where the greatest possibility of reform might exist. But I also think there is no incentive for Those Already In Charge ever to make a decision that would threaten their position.

[ElmerJFudd]

11 hours ago, nursers said:

 

I agree it's probably too late for the US to implement preferential voting, or compulsory voting, more's the shame. I voted in elections over the weekend here. Less than 5% of people didn't vote or voted informally. 

 

 

I’m under the impression and my information might be wrong, but is it true that in Australia they have already implemented online voting?  If that is the case is participation very high? and is confidence in security and accuracy also strong? 

[analogika]

2 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

The only problem is if one of the candidates is an uncumbent and should be doing their job, and the other person is simply running for office and doesn't owe the voters anything yet. A short campaign doesn't solve that problem

 

It's rare to have a candidate whose primary occupation is golfing and grifting. Most candidates for high political office tend to already occupy some kind of office that their campaigning takes away from. 

[David Emm]

17 hours ago, Anderton said:

I think the real scandal is that no news channel used the Baha Men "Who Let the Dogs Out" as intro music for the latest WTF du jour. It's the...leash they could do 😆

 

Holy bleep, Craig, that one was so bad, my t-shirt unraveled all at once!

 

I wasn't going to risk bumping into the politics rule, but since we've gone there (and pet-loving members showed up in droves elsewhere recently), I have to share this thing of real beauty. YouTube sputters a bit when I click it, but its a winner. One serious way to confront absurdity is to laugh in its face. Here we go....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BrCvZmSnKA&t=122s

[Stokely]

I kinda wonder how ugly things are going to get at some of our gigs honestly.

As the hired help, I just stay away (even if that means walking away) from the political and sometimes racist people that get in our faces at at certain spots.   People seem to be ratcheting up lately as we near the election.

We just canceled a gig at a club for a few reasons, one of which was big political banners hanging (from their own FB site you can see the vids).  They also allow motorcycle gang colors (yikes), and also have one of those dumb policies that if you play at the other club in this podunk town you can't play there (and vice versa).  Not sure why they asked us to play there, knowing that we've been at the other one quite a bit, but we declined anyway.   

Ugh.  

We have somewhat of a loyal, if small, group of followers and I stay away from them on breaks now because lately they've been getting into some politics (loudly).   It's still so hot that I often head to my car and blast the AC, also gives my ears a break, so I'll just do more of that.

[David Emm]

5 hours ago, Anderton said:

The only problem is if one of the candidates is an uncumbent and should be doing their job, and the other person is simply running for office and doesn't owe the voters anything yet. A short campaign doesn't solve that problem, but it would be a major improvement that would have other benefits. Like not driving me crazy with never-ending political ads that say the other side is the spawn of Satan.

 

In his book "V For Vendetta," Alan Moore referred to politicians as "Liars, lunatics, embezzlers and frauds. But who put them in those positions? It was you. Only you." 🤨

 

The problem is always that "we the people" resist being fully informed. The drive is to seek familiar comfort over the challenge of learning more and perhaps eventually being led to the sometimes-difficult act of changing. "Satan's" very best tool is your willful ignorance. Once you learn enough, its amazing how easy it can be to walk away and leave the loonies sputtering in the wind. I buy a new TV remote when the political season heats up. I always mash the MUTE button until I break it. 😛

[ElmerJFudd]

2 hours ago, David Emm said:

 

In his book "V For Vendetta," Alan Moore referred to politicians as "Liars, lunatics, embezzlers and frauds. But who put them in those positions? It was you. Only you." 🤨

 

The problem is always that "we the people" resist being fully informed. The drive is to seek familiar comfort over the challenge of learning more and perhaps eventually being led to the sometimes-difficult act of changing. "Satan's" very best tool is your willful ignorance. Once you learn enough, its amazing how easy it can be to walk away and leave the loonies sputtering in the wind. I buy a new TV remote when the political season heats up. I always mash the MUTE button until I break it. 😛

There are always winners, losers and sometimes those unaffected by change when systems get reworked.  No one wants to be the loser.    

[nursers]

11 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:

I’m under the impression and my information might be wrong, but is it true that in Australia they have already implemented online voting?  If that is the case is participation very high? and is confidence in security and accuracy also strong? 

Hiya - no. no online voting here   One of the arguable strengths of the system here is that the ballot papers are all still paper-based. Results are certainly aggregated on computer etc at end of the day but any recount involves a physical re-count of the ballot papers. Less than 30 million people though so more doable although our neighbour to the north (Indonesia) has a somewhat similar approach and they are closer to the size of the US

[Jeff Leites]

https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/just-in-taylor-swift-endorsement-hurts-kamala-new-poll-finds-cmc/?utm_source=goose

[Stokely]

What's weird (though not surprising) is that the same survey or poll was in various news articles and some of them said the exact opposite.

Surveys in particular are weird.  10% of people if asked if they'd eat their children raw will answer "Yes" either because they don't understand the question or just want to be trolls.

Just saw one poll where more than half of Republicans asked believe Haitians are eating pets, case in point.  I prefer to believe polls are just whackadoodle for my own sanity, people really couldn't be that dumb, right? (don't answer that)

I've never been polled, or at least haven't bothered to answer any random request via cell or email or in person.

Her endorsement hurting Harris makes no sense to me--who is going to change their vote, or get out to vote when they weren't planning to, based on that?  But I could also it it meaning nothing in the end.

Going to be a wild ride, buckle up Mr. Toad.

[MathOfInsects]

11 hours ago, nursers said:

Hiya - no. no online voting here   One of the arguable strengths of the system here is that the ballot papers are all still paper-based. Results are certainly aggregated on computer etc at end of the day but any recount involves a physical re-count of the ballot papers. Less than 30 million people though so more doable although our neighbour to the north (Indonesia) has a somewhat similar approach and they are closer to the size of the US

We don't have online voting here either (at least in federal elections); no idea if some local elections in various places allow it. However I think we're only one biometric generation away from turning online voting into the most accurate means of ballot access. We don't make Election Day a holiday here (for mysterious and also, sadly, not-so-mysterious reasons), so there is a real need to ensure access for those who can't get the day off or can't get to the polls. 

[Stokely]

We should be making it as easy as possible for people everywhere to vote.   As you say, it's not a mystery why that doesn't happen in certain places.

Nothing is more un-American than trying to limit people voting.

All that said--I wouldn't trust the government (or more to the point, the contractors they hire) to securely manage online voting.  

[MathOfInsects]

11 minutes ago, Stokely said:

What's weird (though not surprising) is that the same survey or poll was in various news articles and some of them said the exact opposite.

Surveys in particular are weird.  10% of people if asked if they'd eat their children raw will answer "Yes" either because they don't understand the question or just want to be trolls.

Just saw one poll where more than half of Republicans asked believe Haitians are eating pets, case in point.  I prefer to believe polls are just whackadoodle for my own sanity, people really couldn't be that dumb, right? (don't answer that)

Her endorsement hurting Harris makes no sense to me--who is going to change their vote, or get out to vote when they weren't planning to, based on that?  But I could also it it meaning nothing in the end.

Going to be a wild ride, buckle up Mr. Toad.

I couldn't click that link, but the URL made me think it was perhaps not as reliable a source as might be hoped. There are a few polls out about this now. The one(s) I read yesterday said that only 8% might vote a certain way as a result of it. But in this election, 8% is the Golden Ticket, Willie Wonka Grand Prize of electorate subsections, so I think that number would be terrifying the GOP right now. Any future "I HATE ___ ___ " posts will surely be met with amputation. 

[cphollis]

Late to the discussion,  but I think the Bee had the best take on this -- as they usually do ...

https://babylonbee.com/news/woman-who-made-career-singing-about-her-bad-decisions-endorses-kamala

 

[Anderton]

I checked the link, yet there was nothing in the article that supported the headline, which was clearly just click bait. A more accurate headline would have been "Swift Endorsement Expected to Have Little Impact Overall." Some of the results actually contradict the headline.

 

In Swift's case, she gave her reasons why she supports Harris. She didn't say people should vote for Harris. She said people should do their own research and make their own choice. That seems pretty non-controversial. 

 

But to quote Andy Warhol's favorite phrase, "so what?" No one should vote for someone because someone else does. They should vote based on a rigorous study of a candidate's past record and agenda for the future, then choose the candidate that most closely aligns with their beliefs and opinions. Seems straightforward to me.

[Anderton]

2 hours ago, cphollis said:

Late to the discussion,  but I think the Bee had the best take on this -- as they usually do ...

 

I'm a big fan of satirical websites, thanks for the link - we can always use a little humor. The made-up quotes were hilarious  

 

I immediately asked ChatGPT if the Onion had written anything, but apparently they haven't yet. Bee 1, Onion 0. 

[Anderton]

If I was running the Republican campaign, I would have posted "We'd like to thank Taylor Swift for urging people to their own research and vote, because if they do their own research, we're sure they'll vote for our candidate." Simple, effective, non-combative, and doesn't open the door to a comeback.

 

 

[AnotherScott]

6 minutes ago, Anderton said:

If I was running the Republican campaign, I would have posted "We'd like to thank Taylor Swift for urging people to their own research and vote, because if they do their own research, we're sure they'll vote for our candidate." Simple, effective, non-combative, and doesn't open the door to a comeback.

 

Yes... now, when Taylor Swift fans do their own research, one of the first things they may see is that Trump hates Taylor Swift. Brilliant strategy there.

[analogika]

10 minutes ago, Anderton said:

If I was running the Republican campaign, I would have posted "We'd like to thank Taylor Swift for urging people to their own research and vote, because if they do their own research, we're sure they'll vote for our candidate." Simple, effective, non-combative, and doesn't open the door to a comeback.

 

 

…have you seen their current front-runner?

[Stokely]

34 minutes ago, Anderton said:

 

I'm a big fan of satirical websites, thanks for the link - we can always use a little humor. The made-up quotes were hilarious  

 

I immediately asked ChatGPT if the Onion had written anything, but apparently they haven't yet. Bee 1, Onion 0. 

I'm frankly amazed that satirical websites can even keep up anymore.

I'll read a transcript from certain politicians and have to check to see if it's real, that's how weird things have gotten.   The sharks and electric boat motor speech was one such.   

I mean who knew that South American sanitariums being emptied out was going to cause a dire emergency here!  (psst, citation needed for any and all of that)   I feel like someone has handed the reins of reality to a bearded-Spock other-reality copy of Monty Python.

[MathOfInsects]

They're eating the dogs!!

They're eating the cats!!!!!

They're eating the pets of the people who live there!!!!!!!!!!