@johnfabian's banner p

johnfabian


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 14:31:18 UTC

				

User ID: 859

johnfabian


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 14:31:18 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 859

There's a perception that Democratic politicians are particularly fringe or loony with respect to trans issues or immigration and in general they're not. The problem is that the people who are extreme are uniformly Democrats, and that gets projected on to the rest of the party. It doesn't help that these people tend to, by their nature, be the most motivated, loudest, and most likely to get signal-boosted by their political opponents.

I think the equivalent trend for Republicans is something like racism. Most Republican politicians are not racist, certainly not in the good ol' boy kind of way. But for Americans who personally know racists or look on social media and see examples of politicians who are overtly racist it's uniformly Republicans.

The story is an hour old, give it some time. Obviously CNN has a bias but they also don't want to fuck this up too bad.

You know they've got $$$ in their eyes knowing they can run on this for the next month.

I wonder how those Jewish scientists all ended up in America. Presumably some elaborate conspiracy.

I'm going to abandon this one because the topic is genuinely infuriating to me for whatever reason. I find it hard to not be insulting and that's just not great.

It takes great patience and forbearance in trying to be a pro-cycling activist because my natural urge is to call everyone who opposes me fat. In my experience of real-life community meetings about bike lanes it is almost always the case that the concerned party is some flavour of overweight if not obese.

How young would the girl have to be before the immorality of the age difference overwhelmed the immorality of the casual sex? You've established an adult man having sex with a 12 year old is morally superior to casual sex with another consenting adult woman. What about a 9 year old? A 6 year old?

Currently reading Prit Buttar's two-part history of the siege of Leningrad. I now have many tragic anecdotes about people starving to death. Also have several very funny anecdotes about people starving to death.

Following in the footsteps of the other famous American driven to be an outlaw by healthcare costs.

Germany's war on Poland provides no justification for England and France to ally with the Soviet Union in a catastrophic war aim of unconditional surrender on Germany.

This is the second time you've made this comment. I know you're not a complete fucking mongoloid, but obviously you think the rest of us are. So tell me again: how did the Soviet Union end up allying with the UK? Did Germany, say, do anything to the USSR that made them break their alliance?

It’s hard not to view this as just the latest in a long string of people lighting their credibility on fire for a tiny chance of stopping bad orange man. It seems to run contrary to every other piece of evidence: polls, registration, early voting, “vibes.”

A Trump blowout still seems like the most likely scenario to me. There is just too much going in Trump’s favor relative to the very close 2020 election.

We've only got a few days to wait so we'll see. But how willing are you to consider that rather than your ideological opponents willfully blinding themselves, it is perhaps you?

I've got no horse in this race; I suppose I would prefer Harris wins but it would certainly be funnier if Trump does. Seems like this pollster has a sterling track record. I'm not sure why your initial response would be blanket denial.

I've been reading Richard Gwyn's two-part biography of Sir John A recently and it's interesting to see how many direct parallels there are. Confederation was essentially premised on economic rationales in order for the British North American colonies to be able to compete against American tariffs, and much of the post-Confederation work of Macdonald was to try and cobble together a semblance of national identity and acquire the rest of British North America as a way to forestall American annexation. We've been in tough times before. The problem is I don't know if there's any politician of that caliber around today. The people who would be that kind of leader generally aren't in politics to begin with.

You are pretending like their hands were tied, when they could have remained neutral or even allied with Germany against the Soviet Union. Hitler pleaded for either of those two options, offering to pull out of France for peace with Britain. But Britain wanted to restrain Germany from becoming the greatest European power, so they allied with the Soviet Union and destroyed Europe to make it happen.

So after Germany has conquered Poland, France, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, and tried to conquer the UK, you think they should have made common cause with Hitler. I'm shocked they refused to.

The only worthy response came from Churchill:

However matters may go in France or with the French Government, or other French Governments, we in this Island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people. If we are now called upon to endure what they have been suffering, we shall emulate their courage, and if final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gains, aye, and freedom shall be restored to all. We abate nothing of our just demands; not one jot or tittle do we recede. Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians have joined their causes to our own. All these shall be restored. What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

The number of Chinese civilians that were murdered and needlessly starved under Mao was probably greater than the total number of deaths in World War II and the Holocaust from all causes, on all sides, civilian and military combined [source].

I would note that this is both a very high number (almost certainly an overestimate) for Mao's body count and similarly a rather large undercount of WWII's, which is pretty conventionally estimated at ~70-75 million.

I think it would be worth softening the language here.

I think it is highly probable such programs are already well underway in secret. Certainly it makes little sense for Russia to sink so much money and effort into building its new generation nuclear weapons and delivery systems (that are very obviously meant to be a counter to a missile shield) unless they think there is serious potential the United States might actually realize it. And this work has been going on for a while now, such that they've even been able to test some of them against Ukraine (the new hypersonic ballistic missiles)

Probably the most egregious: at the beginning of Wacht Am Rhein, the Germans had designated 1 SS Panzer Corps as the key breakthrough unit on the northern flank of the Ardennes offensive. It was the most fabulously and extravagantly equipped formation in the Wehrmacht at the time by far: 2 SS panzer divisions, 2 Volksgrenadier divisions, a parachute division, as well as two additional armoured battlegroups. It had been the chief beneficiary of Germany's last great spurt of industrial production (contrary to intuition, German war production peaked in 1944). It was the force meant to spearhead the charge through Allied lines and seize Antwerp. Facing it was only a single American infantry division that was brand new to the ETO and only had five of its 9 infantry battalions. It had been placed in this part of the line because it was thought to be safe from attack.

The German attack failed. The Volksgrenadier divisions didn't get anywhere on the first day, so on the second the panzer divisions (which were being held for the breakthrough) were added in, but they didn't make any progress either. And then by that time reinforcements were flowing in and the next week of fighting ended in stalemate. It's kind of amusing to me that some people try to play the "what if?" game with the Battle of the Bulge because never had a German attack had such a local superiority in force and failed so spectacularly, and right at the start of the offensive too.

I am the resident Civ 5 multiplayer expert, so if people are interested the links to the most recent multiplayer map/mod versions are always here.

My gut impression, with very little in terms of analysis to back this up:

  • Comfortable victory in the popular vote for Harris, maybe 6-8% margin
  • Superficially large spread in EC votes in favour of Harris; like maybe in the 310s or 20s
  • Actual margins will still be very close with fewer than 200,000 votes being the difference across the swing states between a Harris victory and a Trump victory

Generally whenever possible you would try to make the larger jumps within daylight so that you could see any potential bad weather coming. Obviously the Romans didn't stay off the nearest coast the whole way to Alexandria but the actual sailing routes tried to practically limit the time spent in open ocean.

yeah it's nice to get a taste of it every now and then. On the rest of social media it's all degenerate lefties, I need to see some degenerate cons to keep me in balance

Partly it has to do with what /u/Rov_Scam pointed out, but I don't think that's the heart of it. Mickelson had long been a fan favourite, the second biggest golfer of the Tiger years, and was playing decently well into his 50s... even won his sixth major in 2021. So for him to jump ship from the tour that had made him a big star felt like a betrayal for people. Especially considering the money involved for his depreciating talent. It's one thing for an up-and-comer to take the big payout; sports careers are unpredictable, you could get a career-ending injury at any time, and lots of golfers simply lose their mojo for no explicable reason. He was also a big instigator of the scheme (he needed to be: big gambling debts!). For a fading older golfer to schism the world of pro golf for his own benefit after decades of being well-loved by the fans and by the prize purses... yeah, people didn't like it.

edit: The other thing to consider is that LIV as a product is just bad. This might all be forgiven if it were equal to or an improvement to the PGA tour in entertainment. It's not. All the changes that have been made to the format (teams, 54 holes, shotgun starts, music, etc.) have made it at various times annoying, crude, stupid, and boring. The talent is there but the players are not competitive. And the viewership as a result is practically non-existent. It exists only as long as the Saudis keep feeling happy about pouring billions of dollars into it per year.

The big potential difference is on immigration. The Bloc (besides the PPC) is the only federal party that is immigration-skeptic.

I've just watched episodes 3 and 4 last night. I don't think season 2 has been as strong, but I'm still enjoying it and it's generating lots of discussion.

One of the bigger gripes I do have with the season so far is that I think the hard narrative cut between Episode 3 and Episode 4 was weird, but the quality of the episodes have been great in my opinion.

A friend of mine thinks there might be some period of time chronologically between the end of episode 3 and episode 4 that will be filled in with future episodes. He might be right, this has been a narrative trick the show has used previously. Because it is very jarring.

The amount of votes you need to form a representative sample is smaller than a lot of people think. So once you have the first few thousand votes counted in any given county, you have a very very good sense of how the rest of that vote in the county will be distributed with a relatively small margin of error. Based on that, after a certain number of counties start reporting results, you can often quickly reach a point in some of the more lopsided states where regardless of the distribution of votes in future counties the vote is already effectively decided. And on closer states like the swing states once all the areas are reporting and have a large enough sample of results, even what seem like relatively small margins (like 51% to 48%) can give you the confidence to call a final result on the more-or-less ironclad assumption that the rest of the votes to be counted will have very similar distribution.

It's really only on the very very close races that it might take more than a day, or multiple days, to arrive at a result.

why would you pick his sons over Ivanka? It's not like she's popular or anything but at least to me she appears much more mentally with it than either of his adult sons.

Something that had been consistently found in polls was the general perception that both Trump and Biden were weak candidates, and only by virtue of being pitted against each other via inertia were their flaws masked in the predicted election outcomes.

The Democrats were smart (or more accurately, lucky that Biden had such a disastrous performance at the debate) to force their unpopular candidate out first.

Does this mean it would be bigger than Texas? How many Canadas fit into Texas?