Occasional Reader 2/12/2020 4:30:46 AM

1

Occasional Reader 2/12/2020 4:32:38 AM

2

lucius septimius 2/12/2020 5:54:00 AM

3

vxbush 2/12/2020 5:54:51 AM

4

In #2 Occasional Reader said: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democratic-contest-looks-like-catastrophic-mess-of-1972

That would seem to suggest that parties go through cycles of approximately 48-50 years. I wonder if that holds up going backwards in time. 

Morning, campers. 

lucius septimius 2/12/2020 5:55:01 AM

5

Reply to Occasional Reader in 2:

That's what I've been saying all along.  Trump is a much more successful Nixon up against a party that simply can't stop from being stupid.

buzzsawmonkey 2/12/2020 6:17:48 AM

6

In #3 lucius septimius said: Pursuant to Buzz's comment last night, I read this morning that LGBQUWERTY types are criticizing Buttplug for not being "gay enough."  

Preemptive flanking protection---and perfectly timed.  

Buttigieg is surging, snapping at Bernie's heels, and the Democrats want to take out Bernie, which would leave Buttigieg the front-runner master of the field.   If his associations or connections with the gay-rights movement, and/or his opinions on the movement's activities and positions are a potential problem---and they are---what better way to dodge questions about them than to have one or more such organizations attack him for not being "down with them" enough?

Instead of actually answering or addressing such questions (assuming that any mainstream news organization will even ask them), he can point to these attacks as "proof" that he's not "extreme" or "radical" in this area---Heavens, no---because otherwise they wouldn't attack him.  Even if the questions aren't asked, he can be asked about the attacks, and show that he's reasonable and mainstream because of them---and that therefore anyone actually questioning anything about his positions is merely "homophobic" and bigoted.  

It's basically the same dodge that Obama and his campaign used to deflect any criticism or disagreement with his positions as "racist."

lucius septimius 2/12/2020 6:54:05 AM

7

In #6 buzzsawmonkey said: Buttigieg is surging, snapping at Bernie's heels, and the Democrats want to take out Bernie, which would leave Buttigieg the front-runner master of the field.   If his associations or connections with the gay-rights movement, and/or his opinions on the movement's activities and positions are a potential problem---and they are---what better way to dodge questions about them than to have one or more such organizations attack him for not being "down with them" enough?

While I agree with the first part, this latest criticism does not seem to me part of any plan.  Rather (and applying Ockham's Razor here) it strikes me as another example of how far out the left really is.  They want a gay candidate, but only if that gay candidate is their sort of gay.  Buttplug succeeds by presenting himself as "moderate."  He's no moderate when it comes to policies -- he's among the most radical -- but his haircut, his mode of dress, his well-thought-out presentation as a "man from middle America" allows him to claim the "moderate" label.  But the hard wing of the party, and particularly the queer activists, cannot be satisfied with that look.  The millennial gay activists are either Sanders or Warren supporters because both are more outspokenly radical.  By presenting himself as "normal" Buttplug betrays the radicals who would prefer a feather-boa wearing queen as their candidate.  Failing that, they go for the Old Communist.

buzzsawmonkey 2/12/2020 8:20:00 AM

8

Reply to lucius septimius in 7:

Your point is certainly valid for a great many of the more-extreme members of the demographic, but I think that both your point and mine can, and do, coexist.  

buzzsawmonkey 2/12/2020 8:42:24 AM

9

By the way, I believe I heard someone on the radio before the New Hampshire vote talking about how heavily Bernie was trending there, and passed it off as his being nearly on "home turf," since New Hampshire is next to Vermont and therefore Bernie had some kind of "familiarity advantage."

I want to say that it was Warren, or someone related to her campaign, but I can't swear to it.  In any event, seeing as how Massachusetts is also contiguous with New Hampshire,  the "contiguity" argument for Sanders' performance seems pretty silly in light of Warren's own dismal showing there.

revobob 2/12/2020 8:50:18 AM

10

The link I attempted to post last night was to a DOJ document about charges against a Harvard Chem/ Biology prof and some of his assistants. He was apparently taking bribes from a ChiCom university and misusing US grant money- $15,000,000 worth. One of the assistants was carrying 'biologically sensitive material' when he attempted to flee. One is also an officer in the PRA. The research 'shared' apparently also involves nanotech.

The university? Wait for it... in Wutan.

If this is old news I'll let it go, otherwise I'll try to get it on here.

doppelganglander 2/12/2020 10:16:28 AM

11

Reply to revobob in 10:

That adds to my suspicion that the coronavirus is a biological weapon released (presumably) by accident. 

revobob 2/12/2020 10:54:32 AM

12

In #11 doppelganglander said:

Seems kind of likely, doesn't it?

revobob 2/12/2020 10:56:01 AM

13

In #11 doppelganglander said:

Seems kind of likely, doesn't it?

vxbush 2/12/2020 11:41:21 AM

14

In #13 revobob said: Seems kind of likely, doesn't it?

It just seemed there were too many coincidences with Wuhan with SARS, MERS, etc. It's not China has a CDC or NIH that would make them clean up a site like this, but it just seemed too convenient for all these illnesses to come from the same place. 

vxbush 2/12/2020 11:43:58 AM

15

Speaking of coronavirus: This page of statistics seems very useful and is updated seemingly frequently. 

Look at the growth factor chart. That is good news, because it seems to indicate the number of infections is going down. 

PaladinPhil 2/12/2020 12:19:35 PM

16

Reply to vxbush in 15:

I wouldn't trust the infections going down since it's China controlling the information. Remember they aren't counting infected people with no symptoms as infected. 

vxbush 2/12/2020 1:41:48 PM

17

In #16 PaladinPhil said: I wouldn't trust the infections going down since it's China controlling the information. Remember they aren't counting infected people with no symptoms as infected. 

True, but faulty data is marginally better than no data at all. I don't trust China, but I have to assess a risk factor here and this page provides a better solution than most I've seen--and with more useful interpretations of the data, as poor as the data is.