Back on 16 November, not long after losing his election bid against Ted Cruz, Robert Francis O'Rourke met with former President Barack Obama; the two discussed Mr. O'Rourke's future political career. The 2020 campaign season has already begun and, tuthfully, I consider RFO to be the current the Democratic front-runner. Some people who could enter that race are too old (Sanders, Biden, Warren), don't have the name recognition that O'Rourke does (Harris, Landrieu, Booker, Castro), or are damaged goods who should be avoided (Clinton).
Why is Elizabeth Warren too old? If she were elected, she'd be 71, a year older than Trump at the time of his inauguration and 2 years younger than Reagan was at the start of his second term. If 70 and 73 year old men can be elected to the Presidency, why not a 71 year old woman?
It's a long way from 2020 let's focus on the mess at hand, the Trump administration, before declaring Trump's challenger for 2020.
I agree that 2020 is a long way off; however, the unofficial 2020 campaign season has already started. Recall that Obama began campaigning more than 1.5 years before the election. I am looking ahead because, in my opinion, if Trump tries to run in 2020 he will lose.
Why is Elizabeth Warren too old? If she were elected, she'd be 71, a year older than Trump at the time of his inauguration and 2 years younger than Reagan was at the start of his second term. If 70 and 73 year old men can be elected to the Presidency, why not a 71 year old woman?
That is not *my* assessment of Ms. Warren; rather, it is a concern which has been expressed in other news stories I have read, often by younger voters (no surprise there). She should most definitely throw her hat in the ring when that time comes.
Back on 16 November, not long after losing his election bid against Ted Cruz, Robert Francis O'Rourke met with former President Barack Obama; the two discussed Mr. O'Rourke's future political career. The 2020 campaign season has already begun and, tuthfully, I consider RFO to be the current the Democratic front-runner. Some people who could enter that race are too old (Sanders, Biden, Warren), don't have the name recognition that O'Rourke does (Harris, Landrieu, Booker, Castro), or are damaged goods who should be avoided (Clinton).
Why is Elizabeth Warren too old? If she were elected, she'd be 71, a year older than Trump at the time of his inauguration and 2 years younger than Reagan was at the start of his second term. If 70 and 73 year old men can be elected to the Presidency, why not a 71 year old woman?
Well Regan was suffering from dementia in his second term and really should not have been president. God bless Nancy though.
This funeral coverage is starting to jump the shark. I can understand a night or two of dissecting his Presidency. I can understand covering the lying in state in the Capitol. I can certainly understand televising the funeral. But then I turn on the TV today, the morning AFTER the funeral, and now we have another prayer service being televised. It seems like it may be possible to cover the death of a President without televising every single moment until he is put into the ground. It's starting to feel less like a tribute and more like a canonization.
Keep in mind, this is not, strictly speaking, "voter fraud". Voter fraud would be the act on single individuals voting multiple times. It not only rarely ever happens, but is a ridiculously inefficient (and maybe impossible) way to steal and election. What seems to have happened in NC is election fraud, a systematic attempt to negate or inflate large swaths of votes.
Wait, they are accused of ballot harvesting? That may be illegal in that state, and any violation of state law should be prosecuted, especially given the fact that this is an unfair advantage, but California legalized this and this practice is benign. Ballot harvesting just means delivering someone's vote to the polling stations. It is not a voter suppression or voter fraud tool in any way. It is supposed to make voting easier.
Using an illegal method to win more votes than your opponent is scum behavior, but ballot harvesting is a good thing provided the votes delivered are verified.
They were picking up unfinished ballots as well, and filling them out. And Democrats who handed over their ballots, some of their ballots never made it to the polling places. One person (don't remember who, saw this on the news several days ago) that the person collecting the blank ballot said the worker would fill it out and hand it in for her.
Wait, they are accused of ballot harvesting? That may be illegal in that state, and any violation of state law should be prosecuted, especially given the fact that this is an unfair advantage, but California legalized this and this practice is benign. Ballot harvesting just means delivering someone's vote to the polling stations. It is not a voter suppression or voter fraud tool in any way. It is supposed to make voting easier.
Using an illegal method to win more votes than your opponent is scum behavior, but ballot harvesting is a good thing provided the votes delivered are verified.
I dont think the crux of the issue is that someone was picking up Absentee ballots (although on its face, that's potentially very suspect. I wasnt aware this was a legitimate practice elsewhere). It's more of the 70+ percent of the voting population "requesting" absentee ballots, when the average is closer to 3% - followed by the unlawful handling of them (unsealed ballots, etc) that may have been tampered.
It also turns out that Harris apparently had some idea this was going on, as his Pastor (who I guess ran for some political position) said that Harris personally recommended the questionable character to him.
Sooo - yeah. Very likely electoral fraud. Aparently even if it wasnt enough to sway the election, NC law has the right to ask for a new election. If they go that route, it sounds like Harris would be on the ballot again. The only way Harris can come off the ballot is if they start the whole system from scratch and hold primaries.
Why is Elizabeth Warren too old? If she were elected, she'd be 71, a year older than Trump at the time of his inauguration and 2 years younger than Reagan was at the start of his second term. If 70 and 73 year old men can be elected to the Presidency, why not a 71 year old woman?
In fairness, I dont want her to run (or rather, to win. She should run if she wants to) - and part of that relates to age. Same with Bernie. I like both of them well enough, but I dont necessarily think they're good fits for the white house - and there's a better than average chance that if one of them got elected, it might only be for a single term.
I think younger politicians have less baggage, and unfortunately - in a highly polarized environment that we live in today, baggage can be a bigger negative than experience is a positive. I'd much rather see someone like Kamala Harris win the Democratic primary.
Back on 16 November, not long after losing his election bid against Ted Cruz, Robert Francis O'Rourke met with former President Barack Obama; the two discussed Mr. O'Rourke's future political career. The 2020 campaign season has already begun and, tuthfully, I consider RFO to be the current the Democratic front-runner. Some people who could enter that race are too old (Sanders, Biden, Warren), don't have the name recognition that O'Rourke does (Harris, Landrieu, Booker, Castro), or are damaged goods who should be avoided (Clinton).
I think Beto is a front runner. I dont know that his name recognition is significantly larger than Harris or Booker's.
I also dont love his politics. He ran as someone who was an unabashed progressive, but his voting record considerably less progressive than he is letting on.
Still, I'd certainly be fine with him as a nominee.
This funeral coverage is starting to jump the shark. I can understand a night or two of dissecting his Presidency. I can understand covering the lying in state in the Capitol. I can certainly understand televising the funeral. But then I turn on the TV today, the morning AFTER the funeral, and now we have another prayer service being televised. It seems like it may be possible to cover the death of a President without televising every single moment until he is put into the ground. It's starting to feel less like a tribute and more like a canonization.
They even had the AF jets flyover on the radio (???) on my drive home. Yeah, it was riveting to listen to...
There's been a suggestion that there might be a new election if the fraud could be proven to have changed the outcome. I think this is too high of a barrier, because you can always say, "Well, we don't know for sure that it changed the outcome." I think we merely need a reasonable level of doubt in the validity of the outcome, because elections are something we should be certain about. I don't want to have a government that was "probably" elected by the people.
If you want to know if the fraud changed the outcome, the only way to know for certain is to hold a new election.
I think Beto is a front runner. I dont know that his name recognition is significantly larger than Harris or Booker's.
I also dont love his politics. He ran as someone who was an unabashed progressive, but his voting record considerably less progressive than he is letting on.
Still, I'd certainly be fine with him as a nominee.
Conduct a nonscientific poll by asking people if they know who "Kamala" is then if they know who "Beto" is. I am curious what responses you will receive.
Robert Francis (no, I don't call him Beto) is only progressive when compared to Ted Cruz.
There's been a suggestion that there might be a new election if the fraud could be proven to have changed the outcome. I think this is too high of a barrier, because you can always say, "Well, we don't know for sure that it changed the outcome." I think we merely need a reasonable level of doubt in the validity of the outcome, because elections are something we should be certain about. I don't want to have a government that was "probably" elected by the people.
If you want to know if the fraud changed the outcome, the only way to know for certain is to hold a new election.
(4) here seems open ended enough that this could lead to a new election. Especially when the same irregularity apparently occurred during the NC09-R primary, which Harris won modestly (and was a challenger IIRC, so it was a pretty big upset that he won in the first place).
Conduct a nonscientific poll by asking people if they know who "Kamala" is then if they know who "Beto" is. I am curious what responses you will receive.
Robert Francis (no, I don't call him Beto) is only progressive when compared to Ted Cruz.
I suspect you're right, but then - Hillary Clinton would have been a much (much) more well known name than Barack Obama leading into 2008's primary. My point is only that while Beto's got some name recognition right now, he's not a particularly well understood politician (people have little or no information on his policies). Some of the other names being run out there as front-runners for 2020 are more staked out (Sanders, Warren, Harris, Booker, etc).
About Beto: He's not very progressive, but he also isnt a blue-dog Democrat. He's solidly in the middle. Probably a little to the right of Campaign Obama and maybe a little to the left of President Obama.
We're all familiar with the idea that you name countries or agencies the exact opposite of their nature - like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Traditionally that's been a practice of authoritarian governments though. I wonder what it means that the Environmental Protection Agency seems so determined to ruin the environment?
Heather Nauert will be the next ambassador to the UN.
Scanning her Wikipedia page I can't find a single item in her previous work history before she joined this Administration that would indicate she is qualified for this position. She worked at FOX News and has had some minor acting roles. Yet another example of casting important policy positions like an episode of "The Apprentice".
Scanning her Wikipedia page I can't find a single item in her previous work history before she joined this Administration that would indicate she is qualified for this position. She worked at FOX News and has had some minor acting roles. Yet another example of casting important policy positions like an episode of "The Apprentice".
If I had to guess, the Trump administration doesnt want an actual diplomat for the post. They'd rather have a spokesperson who's good at towing the line. Sounds like a media personality from Fox is the ideal fit (for them).
Edit - Looks like the CNN New York headquarters has been evacuated after a bomb threat.
So CNN got another bomb threat at their NY Offices. Alarm bells went off around 10:30, and shortly afterwards, the offices were evacuated (in the middle of a live show by Don Lemon).
This funeral coverage is starting to jump the shark. I can understand a night or two of dissecting his Presidency. I can understand covering the lying in state in the Capitol. I can certainly understand televising the funeral. But then I turn on the TV today, the morning AFTER the funeral, and now we have another prayer service being televised. It seems like it may be possible to cover the death of a President without televising every single moment until he is put into the ground. It's starting to feel less like a tribute and more like a canonization.
A few days of dwelling on the death of a marginally competent president is a vacation from thinking about our current president.
@smeagolheart I'm saying that the tribe living isolated that long is IMPOSSIBLE without outside contact. The inbreediing would have led to CRIPPLING defects within more than a few generations.
How do you know this?
See they don't have a large enough population to have the required genetic diversity to survive for that long without intermingling with other people. Also, see @semiticgod 's comment above.
TLDR; SCIENCE.
That's what you keep saying, but how do you know how large their population is and how large a population is required, i.e. actual science. Your "science" is just saying stuff.
Or you could, you know, do some basic research yourself. Its not like I'm sitting on some secret cabal information. A cursory look into genetics should suffice.
Robert Francis (no, I don't call him Beto) is only progressive when compared to Ted Cruz.
Why do you call Beto O'Rourke "Robert Francis" and then call Rafael Cruz "Ted"?
Theodore is reserved for Roosevelt's?
No lol.
In the same sentence that he stood on principles (or something) and refused to call "Robert Francis" by his long time preferred name of 'Beto' right after that he called "Rafael Cruz" his preferred name of 'Ted'.
@smeagolheart I'm saying that the tribe living isolated that long is IMPOSSIBLE without outside contact. The inbreediing would have led to CRIPPLING defects within more than a few generations.
How do you know this?
See they don't have a large enough population to have the required genetic diversity to survive for that long without intermingling with other people. Also, see @semiticgod 's comment above.
TLDR; SCIENCE.
That's what you keep saying, but how do you know how large their population is and how large a population is required, i.e. actual science. Your "science" is just saying stuff.
Or you could, you know, do some basic research yourself. Its not like I'm sitting on some secret cabal information. A cursory look into genetics should suffice.
Okay.
"The question of what is the minimum population to have a healthy avoidance of inbreeding is a well-understood problem, one which comes up in husbandry and growing (and selling) laboratory animals. This number is as low as 10-20 pairs, if you diligently randomize mating patterns (such as rotational mating). This is sometimes referred to as "outbred stock"."
@FinneousPJ Hmmm okay. "probably enough", that sounds decisive. If I recall correctly, the population of the natives is less than "50-100" pairs. Unless we have some evidence that the tribe has the genetics know how to intentional rotate "mating pairs" in the specific way necessary to survive with about 20 pairs. This also assumes ideal circumstances where no one is dying. So practical real life application of this is sketchy AT BEST.
With some more digging, it looks like the smallest generally accepted number of paris needed for a healthy sustanined population is around 500 pairs, with higher numbers being more reliable. So again, MUCH LARGER than the population of these natives.
So, looks like we were both wrong in our estimates of the numbers required, but I'm still right that the current population is non-sustainable in the long term.
A shortened name is more convenient, and it's more clear if most people know the figure by the shortened name. Beto is the standard name for O'Rourke; Ted Cruz is the standard name for Rafael Cruz. Fewer people would know what you were talking about if you said Robert Francis O'Rourke or Rafael Cruz.
@FinneousPJ Hmmm okay. "probably enough", that sounds decisive. If I recall correctly, the population of the natives is less than "50-100" pairs. Unless we have some evidence that the tribe has the genetics know how to intentional rotate "mating pairs" in the specific way necessary to survive with about 20 pairs. This also assumes ideal circumstances where no one is dying. So practical real life application of this is sketchy AT BEST.
With some more digging, it looks like the smallest generally accepted number of paris needed for a healthy sustanined population is around 500 pairs, with higher numbers being more reliable. So again, MUCH LARGER than the population of these natives.
So, looks like we were both wrong in our estimates of the numbers required, but I'm still right that the current population is non-sustainable in the long term.
How did you manage to figure out the population? Why do you require evidence for my claim but no evidence for you own claim?
Also I never made any estimates, and I still haven't seen the evidence and sources for your claim. I made the effort of provide a source. Why aren't you?
A shortened name is more convenient, and it's more clear if most people know the figure by the shortened name. Beto is the standard name for O'Rourke; Ted Cruz is the standard name for Rafael Cruz. Fewer people would know what you were talking about if you said Robert Francis O'Rourke or Rafael Cruz.
Those names are awesome! Robert Francis O'Rourke sounds like the name of a chaplain on M.A.S.H. and Rafael Cruz sounds like the name of a Spanish Conquistador. No wonder they use nicknames...
@FinneousPJ Hmmm okay. "probably enough", that sounds decisive. If I recall correctly, the population of the natives is less than "50-100" pairs. Unless we have some evidence that the tribe has the genetics know how to intentional rotate "mating pairs" in the specific way necessary to survive with about 20 pairs. This also assumes ideal circumstances where no one is dying. So practical real life application of this is sketchy AT BEST.
With some more digging, it looks like the smallest generally accepted number of paris needed for a healthy sustanined population is around 500 pairs, with higher numbers being more reliable. So again, MUCH LARGER than the population of these natives.
So, looks like we were both wrong in our estimates of the numbers required, but I'm still right that the current population is non-sustainable in the long term.
I agree that the minimum population to avoid serious genetic problems is very small - less than 100. This study looked at the population needed to guarantee survival during a space trip of hundreds of generations to another star and concluded 98 was the magic figure. Much lower population figures gave a significant chance of survival though.
However, small populations are vulnerable to environmental impacts and such impacts are more likely on Earth than a space ship. The Sentinelese population is thus certainly endangered, but I don't think there's any evidence that it's doomed - even in the long run.
@FinneousPJ Hmmm okay. "probably enough", that sounds decisive. If I recall correctly, the population of the natives is less than "50-100" pairs. Unless we have some evidence that the tribe has the genetics know how to intentional rotate "mating pairs" in the specific way necessary to survive with about 20 pairs. This also assumes ideal circumstances where no one is dying. So practical real life application of this is sketchy AT BEST.
With some more digging, it looks like the smallest generally accepted number of paris needed for a healthy sustanined population is around 500 pairs, with higher numbers being more reliable. So again, MUCH LARGER than the population of these natives.
So, looks like we were both wrong in our estimates of the numbers required, but I'm still right that the current population is non-sustainable in the long term.
How did you manage to figure out the population? Why do you require evidence for my claim but no evidence for you own claim?
Also I never made any estimates, and I still haven't seen the evidence and sources for your claim. I made the effort of provide a source. Why aren't you?
Um, dude? Their population was mentioned earlier in the thread. I would put more sourcing into my responses if I at all thought you were arguing in good faith.
@FinneousPJ Hmmm okay. "probably enough", that sounds decisive. If I recall correctly, the population of the natives is less than "50-100" pairs. Unless we have some evidence that the tribe has the genetics know how to intentional rotate "mating pairs" in the specific way necessary to survive with about 20 pairs. This also assumes ideal circumstances where no one is dying. So practical real life application of this is sketchy AT BEST.
With some more digging, it looks like the smallest generally accepted number of paris needed for a healthy sustanined population is around 500 pairs, with higher numbers being more reliable. So again, MUCH LARGER than the population of these natives.
So, looks like we were both wrong in our estimates of the numbers required, but I'm still right that the current population is non-sustainable in the long term.
How did you manage to figure out the population? Why do you require evidence for my claim but no evidence for you own claim?
Also I never made any estimates, and I still haven't seen the evidence and sources for your claim. I made the effort of provide a source. Why aren't you?
Um, dude? Their population was mentioned earlier in the thread. I would put more sourcing into my responses if I at all thought you were arguing in good faith.
I didn't realize I have to read every post out of over 4 000 to participate in the discussion. According to wikipedia though "actual population is highly uncertain" so do you have better information? I feel like your argument rests on that.
1. A population size of X is required to sustain a healthy population. 2. The population size of North Sentinel is less than X. 3. Therefore, the population of NS is at risk.
Evidence is required to support the premises 1-2. I'm haven't made a counterargument, I'm asking for this evidence.
Comments
And Trump... ya.
It also turns out that Harris apparently had some idea this was going on, as his Pastor (who I guess ran for some political position) said that Harris personally recommended the questionable character to him.
Sooo - yeah. Very likely electoral fraud. Aparently even if it wasnt enough to sway the election, NC law has the right to ask for a new election. If they go that route, it sounds like Harris would be on the ballot again. The only way Harris can come off the ballot is if they start the whole system from scratch and hold primaries. In fairness, I dont want her to run (or rather, to win. She should run if she wants to) - and part of that relates to age. Same with Bernie. I like both of them well enough, but I dont necessarily think they're good fits for the white house - and there's a better than average chance that if one of them got elected, it might only be for a single term.
I think younger politicians have less baggage, and unfortunately - in a highly polarized environment that we live in today, baggage can be a bigger negative than experience is a positive. I'd much rather see someone like Kamala Harris win the Democratic primary. I think Beto is a front runner. I dont know that his name recognition is significantly larger than Harris or Booker's.
I also dont love his politics. He ran as someone who was an unabashed progressive, but his voting record considerably less progressive than he is letting on.
Still, I'd certainly be fine with him as a nominee.
If you want to know if the fraud changed the outcome, the only way to know for certain is to hold a new election.
Robert Francis (no, I don't call him Beto) is only progressive when compared to Ted Cruz.
(4) here seems open ended enough that this could lead to a new election. Especially when the same irregularity apparently occurred during the NC09-R primary, which Harris won modestly (and was a challenger IIRC, so it was a pretty big upset that he won in the first place). I suspect you're right, but then - Hillary Clinton would have been a much (much) more well known name than Barack Obama leading into 2008's primary. My point is only that while Beto's got some name recognition right now, he's not a particularly well understood politician (people have little or no information on his policies). Some of the other names being run out there as front-runners for 2020 are more staked out (Sanders, Warren, Harris, Booker, etc).
About Beto: He's not very progressive, but he also isnt a blue-dog Democrat. He's solidly in the middle. Probably a little to the right of Campaign Obama and maybe a little to the left of President Obama.
Why the Cherokee Nation’s rebuke of Elizabeth Warren matters
Why Many Native Americans Are Angry With Elizabeth Warren
Heather Nauert will be the next ambassador to the UN.
Edit - Looks like the CNN New York headquarters has been evacuated after a bomb threat.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4738860/cnn-evacuated-bomb-threat/?utm_source=notification/
This is what our nation has become: a subset of man-babies taking out their anger at the world by making bomb threats, actual bombs and gun violence.
In the same sentence that he stood on principles (or something) and refused to call "Robert Francis" by his long time preferred name of 'Beto' right after that he called "Rafael Cruz" his preferred name of 'Ted'.
"The question of what is the minimum population to have a healthy avoidance of inbreeding is a well-understood problem, one which comes up in husbandry and growing (and selling) laboratory animals. This number is as low as 10-20 pairs, if you diligently randomize mating patterns (such as rotational mating). This is sometimes referred to as "outbred stock"."
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-minimum-number-of-people-necessary-to-repopulate-the-earth-without-interbreeding-issues
Looks like you might be wrong
With some more digging, it looks like the smallest generally accepted number of paris needed for a healthy sustanined population is around 500 pairs, with higher numbers being more reliable. So again, MUCH LARGER than the population of these natives.
So, looks like we were both wrong in our estimates of the numbers required, but I'm still right that the current population is non-sustainable in the long term.
Also I never made any estimates, and I still haven't seen the evidence and sources for your claim. I made the effort of provide a source. Why aren't you?
However, small populations are vulnerable to environmental impacts and such impacts are more likely on Earth than a space ship. The Sentinelese population is thus certainly endangered, but I don't think there's any evidence that it's doomed - even in the long run.
1. A population size of X is required to sustain a healthy population.
2. The population size of North Sentinel is less than X.
3. Therefore, the population of NS is at risk.
Evidence is required to support the premises 1-2. I'm haven't made a counterargument, I'm asking for this evidence.