Geoff > Status Update

Ah, must be one of the things I've blocked since the new layout. Cheers.

I'm guessing there'll be a lot of votes for Harry Potter characters.

There's even a picture of Harry Potter characters. Bingo.

howl of minerva wrote: "How come no-one's compared Zizek-Trump to Heidegger-Hitler or Plato at Syracuse or Dylan going electric yet? Guess we're waiting for Trump to win for that. Gee the biographers are gonna have a fiel..."

I lost all respect for Leibniz when I heard of how he'd strut shamelessly about the House of Brunswick like a common knave. I'm boycotting calculus as a result.

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "And since gr is asking If you could nominate a fictional book character as president, who would you pick? I'll have to say I'd nominate William Frederick Kohler. The man even brings his own party."

HA

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "And since gr is asking If you could nominate a fictional book character as president, who would you pick? I'll have to say I'd nominate William Frederick Kohler. The man even brings his own party."
Gaddis' JR seems like a solid choice. He's a man of vision with a bulldog jaw.

James wrote: "Gaddis' JR seems like a solid choice. He's a man of vision with a bulldog jaw. "

How's about Uncle Sam from The Public Burning? Or Nixon maybe. Although my favorite's gotta likely be the Cat from A Political Fable.

David wrote: "I lost all respect for Leibniz when I heard of how he'd strut shamelessly about the House of Brunswick like a common knave. I'm boycotting calculus as a result. ..."

This might be my favorite comment of 2016.

"Trump is the saviour of this universe. Trump is universally acceptable to all."

This was posted by a Hindu right winger from India on my friend's FB feed.

I followed it up with: "Hallelujah! Hail the arrival of the Messiah!"

It seemed the appropriate response.

Speaking of the messiah, I was reading Ecclesiastes last night (the Old Testament is always a great method of navigating insomnia) and man, how are them Evangelicals supporting the dude the bible pretty much warns them against just about every other clause??

Anyway, how y'all feeling out there on the eve of these great events?

Geoff wrote: "Speaking of the messiah, I was reading Ecclesiastes last night (the Old Testament is always a great method of navigating insomnia) and man, how are them Evangelicals supporting the dude the bible p..."

Totally makes sense. If you recognize that a large portion of Evangelicals are pagans in truth. God Guns and Country!! [if not pagans, then gnostics]

Actually yeah - the gnostic analysis rings true

y'all feeling out there on the eve of these great events?

Annoyed by maps that use red and blue to denote things other than Rep/Dem support. Like early voting turnout. It's as if Americans are so consumed by the election that they have forgotten that other shades exist.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...

We the people.... People, we ....

I have been getting distracted by our Brexit fun and games here - not least the front pages of the Daily Mail et al recently. For those of you not keeping up - https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/bre...

The only fun has been watching pro-Brexit types twist themselves in knots trying to explain why a decision which respects the nature of our democracy and the role of parliament in it is such a bad thing, particularly as their primary argument for leaving the EU was because it did not respect our democracy or parliamentary sovereignty.

I suspect you are all going to have to face months and months of similar press hysteria regardless of the outcome of the election.

Since I know you've all been waiting for my updated thoughts on the election, I still don't think you're going to wake up on Nov 9th with 'disastrous' news.

My prediction is as follows:

60% weighting
1) Hillary wins the popular vote by ~2%
2) Hillary wins EC by no more than 3 states.

40% weighting
1) Hillary wins popular vote by <2%
2) Trump sweeps swing states and adds NH and ME2 for the victory

Also, I think the absolute last thing you'll have to worry about, in the event of a Trump victory, is war with another country. Hillary is FAR more hawkish than Trump is. You may, however, have a civil war! lol

Regardless of who wins, there's at least a do-over in 4 years, whereupon you'd think we'll have learned our lesson and nominated better candidates. The same can't be said of Brexit (which contrary to what you may have guessed, I was EXTREMELY against).

ME2? Trump taking over small enclaves of south east england too? Oh dear. Though he'd probably get a better reception in the home counties than near his Scottish golf course.

(Sorry, "jokes" about typos are lame.
But that, it turns out on looking it up, is a very tory / ukip area of the Thames Estuary. If anywhere was going to like him...)

I would have guessed you were against actually - You are not someone I think of as being remotely xenophobic, nor do I see you as someone blind to economic realities. I would also think that, as someone who reads translated literature, you would recognise how important the EU is (what with all those grants and organisations etc).

Also, regarding Brexit, and just as a little bit of anecdotal evidence, I have a good friend who works with an NGO on projects in rural south and East Africa helping AIDS orphans and other extremely important things, and they are already feeling the effect of Brexit on their funding and running into serious difficulties.

One of the reasons for supporting Hillary from my perspective is that I think a Trump presidency would have similar negative effects on some of the work done by NGOs in areas I think are vital - the only way his economic plans could get through is if there were dramatic cuts in such "unnecessary" spending. Hillary at least had a good track record for giving a crap about this sort of work.

The only fun has been watching pro-Brexit types twist themselves in knots trying to explain why a decision which respects the nature of our democracy and the role of parliament in it is such a bad thing, particularly as their primary argument for leaving the EU was because it did not respect our democracy or parliamentary sovereignty.

Well, most of it's ranting rather than explaining. Some of it has logic though, in that they don't want elites such as judges and MPs getting in the way of a plebiscite which they feel must be final. Not many sources were telling them the referendum was advisory and subject to parliamentary sovereignty, as the whole thing was terribly badly organised with many people not getting basic info like that, because Cameron never seriously expected to lose.

Jonathan wrote: "I would have guessed you were against actually - You are not someone I think of as being remotely xenophobic, nor do I see you as someone blind to economic realities. I would also think that, as so..."

Given that my profession is in finance, I cannot afford to be blind to economic realities!

Apart from all the other reasons for rejecting Brexit, to ignore the economic ones alone was pure insanity.

Most of my dad's side of the family is in London, so I'm fairly up-to-speed on its already disastrous consequences.

Also, it's hard to be xenophobic when I'm a dual citizen myself!

Antonomasia wrote: "Not many sources were telling them the referendum was advisory and subject to parliamentary sovereignty,"

Was it? The Tories made clear that the referendum was binding and the government would go with whatever the people chose.* What would become of the democratic will of the people if the parliament blocks it or puts so many conditions to slow it down to a farcical snail's pace? Or if it passes the Commons but gets stuck in Lords? There you've a crisis staring in the eye and a loss of legitimacy for Ms May. Perhaps you need a new general elections where the Tories can compete on the hard Brexit platform vs the Corbyn's soft Brexit programme that would give Britain some time to get its act together? Either way, a reversal of the referendum result should be off the table or else the mother of all democracies itself will be needing a lesson in democratic politics. And did I mention how dangerous it would be for the country...More alienation, more lack of faith in the system, more fuel to the nationalistic little englanders...


*It was a foolish, ill-advised, and ill-planned referendum to take place without any of the major political parties backing the Yes and just presuming that the majority of ordinary voters would vote the obvious: to remain!

That is indeed what many Leave voters and sections of the press are saying. A great many inaccurate things were said during that campaign, like the famous £350m per week for the NHS if the UK left. However the formal status of the referendum, like the 1971 equivalent that took Britain into the EU, was always advisory even if millions of people didn't realise.

If it were disregarded as reckless, that would almost certainly lead to unrest of some sort, although IMO not as much as some like to say; far more probably to a massive surge in the number of UKIP MPs whenever there was another general election and a major realignment in UK party politics. (I seriously doubt there will be a general election before 2020, regardlesss of this court case.)

WHEN THE HELL DID THIS TURN INTO SOME EUROTRASH GOSSIP THREAD?! just kidding carry on

Jibran: the government made clear that the government would consider itself bound by the referendum. But there was nothing in the bill that bound Parliament to the referendum. This was key. The court found that, absent Parliament specifically giving up its sovereignty, it remained sovereign. Also, notably, some previous referendums DID include such language (such as the AV vote), so the presumption is that Parliament intentionally did not do so on this occasion.

Really, the judges' decision was the only sane one possible. We're looking at a) overturning an Act of Parliament, and b) removing rights granted to citizens by Parliament. And the government wants this to be done:
- on the basis of Royal Prerogative alone;
- without the consent of either House
- without even meaningful consultation with either House
- under the cover of a referendum that did not ask the question in question (yes, people voted for brexit, but they did not vote for the manner or nature of brexit that May wants, whatver that is, or for its timing; leading Brexit campaigners actually oppose May on this) and that was only ever advisory in nature
- without even necessarily having the support even of the governing party (if May goes, as she's secretly promised Nissan, for a soft Brexit that doesn't really change much, then she may well not be able to carry her own party)
- by a Prime Minister who was never elected as Prime Minister
- and who nobody thought, at the time they were voting, had the remotest chance of being Prime Minister right now [people weren't sure Cameron would really hold the referendum; they thought he'd win; they thought that he'd try to stay in power even if he lost; they thought that Johnson was the natural successor if he was ousted; nobody casting their ballot thought they were voting for a May premiership]
- and who is significantly changing the direction of the party away from that of the party that won the last election
- and whose party only "won" the election in the sense of 2/3rds of voters voting against them.


It seems pretty clear, as I see it, that anybody genuinely concerned for democracy, the rule of law, or parliamentary sovereignty should absolutely support the court's ruling.

Unfortunately, now we have to wait to see whether the Supreme Court can withstand the immense corrupting pressures now placed on it from inside and outside the political system (literally outside - apparently Farrage will be leading a screaming mob of a hundred thousand enemies to besiege the judges will they make their decision and wait to greet them to share their views when they emerge).


[Which character should be President? Carrot, of course, with Vetinari as Chief of Staff. But sadly, he would not run. Also sadly, he's fictional.]

Wastrel wrote: "Jibran: the government made clear that the government would consider itself bound by the referendum. But there was nothing in the bill that bound Parliament to the referendum. This was key. The cou..."

Wonderfully, and clearly, put as ever Wastrel.

It needs to go to Parliament and they need to obey the will of the electorate and vote leave, it is that simple. There is no question of overturning the decision to leave, just that it sets a dangerous precedent for such things to happen without the correct parliamentary procedure being followed.

Geoff wrote: "WHEN THE HELL DID THIS TURN INTO SOME EUROTRASH GOSSIP THREAD?! just kidding carry on"

Analogies man, analogies.

There's no way he wins. Shilldog has been ordained for 18 months.

Wastrel, thanks for the detailed reply. The court decision isn't the bone of contention as such (although the tabloids have made it so). The whole point is that May government will dig its own grave if it fails to get it through the either house. What are the chances that the Brexit will be blocked or slowed down to the point that it is practically blocked? I don't know.

Jibran wrote: "what are the chances that Brexit will be blocked or slowed down to the point that it is practically blocked?."

Zero.

This is way too much of a hot potato, and the "will of the people" has been clearlyy demonstrated. Certain MPs may take the opportunity to do some big speeches but there is absolutely no chance of the process being slowed or blocked. The system here just does not work like that.

The hysteria in the press, and from those sections of the population who listen to that press, is completely unfounded. No one is remotely considering anything other than Brexit.

How the actual exit works once Article 50 has been invoked is anyone's guess, but our European brethren have made it clear they want it done fast. The only thing that may actually slow the process is the big mess everyone is going to get into trying to work out how to untangle everything.

Brexit won't be blocked, and shouldn't be (at this stage, at least*).

The issue is: what sort of Brexit and how will it be decided? May wants [unknown outcome] decided purely by her personal preference. MPs want everything from collapse-the-channel-tunnel to ok-lets-just-rename-the-eu-so-we-can-say-we've-technically-left-it, and they want a process that involves lots of votes and committees and public discussion. It's not really the Article 50 that's in question - it's the negotiation process after that. But an A50 debate may be a bargaining chip in the big fight.

To get to these objectives, May will set out her plan and say that anyone disagreeing is blocking Brexit. Her rivals will set out their plan and say that May can have Brexit whenever she wants, on their terms. Everyone will claim the referendum supports their position. Nobody will be willing to entirely call the other side's bluff and trigger a showdown, because nobody dares actually stop the process - either politically or personally (let's not forget, a leading anti-Brexit MP was brutally murdered just a few months ago, and now the Daily Mail is printing names and faces of "enemies of the people" and the Express is claiming that because democracy has ended the country "needs you" to take things into your own hands to ensure Brexit goes ahead; people aren't talking about it, but I bet there's an undercover of personal fear now). But each side will try to gesture in that direction to force concessions.

The key here may be Brexit hardliners. Softs will find it hard to stand in front of the train, but hards can plausibly say that they're on the side of 'real' Brexit and that it's May who is betraying the revolution. If May goes for too soft a route, it may be that hards will feel strong enough to threaten to hold the process up to make sure that a 'real' Brexit is delivered. And once those debates happen, or committee oversight or whatever they get, everyone gets to chime in. Their negotiation position is strengthened by the fact that they're nutters, so who knows when they're bluffing.

The bigger issue for May, though, may just be screen time. Debates in Parliament, let alone any sort of oversight process, mean that instead of burying the issue in secret negotiations for the next two years, she may end up having everything she wants to do in her premiership overshadowed by the latest Brexit squabble.


*I do think that in order for the decision to be democratic, there needs to be popular consultation on the final terms of negotiation - either in the form of a referendum or in the form of an election with those terms in the manifesto. At that point, cancelling Brexit should be an option. Although the EU may not permit that even if we want it by then.

My prayer for this Election Day 2016 - may we all awake from our dogmatic dreams.

Good luck everyone. Not long to go till we know.

Today's gonna feel like one looong, unanesthetized tooth extraction.

Our long national nightmare is over (sorry, someone had to say it). I'm feeling good about Florida to Clinton. I'm a little queasy about Michigan and Wisconsin, but I think she holds those states unless some epic failure occurs. I'm pissed off that the NC republicans are openly bragging about suppressing the African American vote there. Ohio seems like it's going to be closer than the polls day. I think Clinton gets 322 EV and they call it but midnight. I think Democrats net four in the Senate too, but every one of those races are close.

James wrote: "I'm pissed off that the NC republicans are openly bragging about suppressing the African American vote there. "

I live in NC and have seen/heard of absolutely no suppressing. If it happened, I'm sure it's an isolated incident with little to no effect.

Worse than this are the vote trading apps - far more devastating and pathetic than some 'intimidation.'

I'm fairly confident Trump takes NC. Or to clarify, I think his chances are far greater than polls/fivethirtyeight suggest.

Nick wrote: "James wrote: "I'm pissed off that the NC republicans are openly bragging about suppressing the African American vote there. "

I live in NC and have seen/heard of absolutely no suppressing. If it h..."
I was referring to legal voter suppression where you drop early voting sites in African-American dominated areas down from sixteen to one. African-American early voting is down compared to neighboring states. Some of that is due to the hurricane, but some of it's also due to less early voting opportunities.

If your purpose is to limit voting then you're engaging in voter suppression in my opinion. They need to renew the VRA back to its original strength. We should make voting as easy as possible for eligible voters.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.co...

James wrote: "Nick wrote: "James wrote: "I'm pissed off that the NC republicans are openly bragging about suppressing the African American vote there. "

I live in NC and have seen/heard of absolutely no suppres..."

While you're right about fewer early voting places, AA vote is down across the board in nearly every single state. Though this had to be expected given Obama's appeal in the AA community vs. Hillary.

From what I've seen/encountered, early voting lines were significantly longer than election day lines. I voted early and waited 45 min (which was considered very short). My wife voted this morning and waited 30 min. Net, net, I don't think longer lines are preventing anyone from actually voting, but rather enthusiasm over the candidate is the bigger factor.

The African American vote was much more sharply decreased there than in other early voting areas though. Why should the black people of NC feel so much more demotivated by the absence of Obama on the ballot than those of other states?

Geoff wrote: "Today's gonna feel like one looong, unanesthetized tooth extraction."

Haha! You sit still now, this gonna hurt.

Nick though, for real, it's pretty much established Republican protocol to attempt to suppress minority voting. C'mon man.

Antonomasia wrote: "The African American vote was much more sharply decreased there than in other early voting areas though. Why should the black people of NC feel so much more demotivated by the absence of Obama on t..."
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but it actually went up in Florida, Georgia and Louisiana. The only southern state it decreased in was North Carolina. The more people we have voting the better.


https://twitter.com/ElectProject/stat...

Geoff wrote: "Nick though, for real, it's pretty much established Republican protocol to attempt to suppress minority voting. C'mon man."

Not denying that, though I don't personally support the thought process. I'm far more concerned about those who aren't allowed to vote than those who are.

I hate the games both sides play (voter suppression / illegal voters).

I haven't heard anyone mention the pardons McAullife gave to 60,000 felons (with plans for an additional 140k) in VA... also a swing state.

Or the anti-trump vote swapping apps

Or illegals being encouraged to vote

Both sides are guilty (though I'd argue one is a far worse offender than the other), and I can't stand any of it.

No matter what happens, folks, we gon' be alright
https://youtu.be/Z-48u_uWMHY

What on earth is wrong with vote-swapping apps? They make vote swapping (i.e. democracy) a lot easier, I would think.


Of course, all the voter suppression talk overlooks the greatest burden it imposes: on English election watchers.

Time after time, I'm positively irritated by the fact that both UK and US election results come in at the same unreasonable hours, despite the fact that there's a huge time difference between our two countries. In the UK, the Sunderland returns come in around 11PM, followed by a few other early constituencies, then a big number around 1AM, with further results filtering in between 1AM and 5AM (and then the particularly difficult states filtering in over the next day but by then it's all over). On that schedule, US results should be here some time mostly around 6AM (quick-counting eastern states) to 2PM (slow-counting western states), with maybe a few cliffhanger results coming in right around prime time tomorrow. In other words, some leisurely viewing through the morning and lunchtime, with the potential for an evening showdown.

Instead, it STILL all happens in the middle of the night. Some projections will come in shortly after midnight, but the election won't be called until after 4AM.

And why? Because of America's bizarre reluctance to actually let people vote. Almost all the polls close by 8pm local time, most by 7pm, and some even by 6pm. And in a few places they don't even open until 10 or 11 AM!

The three inevitable results of this are a) lower turnout, with more people unable to find a time to vote that doesn't interfere with their work habits, b) insanely long lines being de rigeur (yes, occasionally people have to wait a few hours to vote somewhere in the UK, but that's exceptional and gets a lot of attention; in the US, it seems like queueing for hours is normal; descriptions this year have included "six hours" and "half a mile", and of course this decreases turnout*), and, most importantly, c) makes the results come in too early for international audiences.

Come on, all the other big sports take the international audience into account. Even the World Cup! So surely some sort of letting-black-people-vote would just be good marketing common sense?

*no but seriously, this is what merits national media attention as a long queue in the UK.

A few days late, but this is from an interview with Gass and Silverblatt from The Ear’s Mouth Must Move — Essential Interviews of William H. Gass . It's also on you tube since it was produced by the Lannan Foundation.

Gass: Yes, that’s another parallel. One of the problems that has bothered philosophers for a long time, especially Rationalists, is that sophistication doesn’t redeem. I’ve heard many a humanist say, “Well, the humanities make people better!” It makes them craftier, maybe. That was one of the reasons I was interested in the problem of Hitler’s Germany. It just raised to a higher level the problem that there wasn’t any redeeming profession. Or anything that you could say, “Well, because he was a druggist, he was OK….” People were, of course, resistant to the fascism of Germany. But you couldn’t find them anywhere. And then there were people who weren’t resistant, you could find them anywhere. We know, of course, there are many, many great artists who are awful people. Not just crude, bumbling, stupid, but really nasty people. And the connection between that has always fascinated me. Because these great creations of the human spirit, some of the highest forms of the things we’ve achieved, they sort of rise up as our great things. And yet the people who made them are in… hell.

James wrote: "A few days late, but this is from an interview with Gass and Silverblatt from The Ear’s Mouth Must Move — Essential Interviews of William H. Gass . It's also on you tube since it wa..."

Sad but true often enough.

Simon wrote: "James wrote: "A few days late, but this is from an interview with Gass and Silverblatt from The Ear’s Mouth Must Move — Essential Interviews of William H. Gass . It's also on you tu..."
In the you tube version he mentions Wagner and Knut Hamsun as examples, but I think the online transcript is edited. He could have also done that elsewhere and I'm just confused.

Trump is already contesting the election results.

EDIT: also interesting that apparently people are now advised to bring pens, because there aren't enough pens in the polling stations (that don't use machines, or where the machines have broken down, which is apparently very common).

This mirrors the "vote in pen!" panic in the brexit referendum, where people were also (by conspiracy theorists) told to bring pens. Because in the UK we just vote with pencils.

[the more you read about US elections, the more grateful you are not to live there. It's like a place where all the conspiracy theories are true. Did you know that in the US in many places there are 'inspectors' sent by each party in every polling station because neither party trusts the integrity of the elections otherwise? So weird!]

Is this the Nevada supermarket, or something new?

Just found out my dad voted for the first time since 1972 (he voted for Nixon). That's at least one old white guy who isn't crawling out of the woodwork to vote for Trump.

James wrote: "Is this the Nevada supermarket, or something new?"

It's Nevada, but now he's actually filed a lawsuit.