Originally Posted by marypoza

Eric's charts are fine the DNC is cheating. Plz note Bernie took all of NY except for NYC, where all the action went down, esp in Brooklyn. Gawd forbid Bernie should tske his home town

Ah, you might want to know that NYC has around 2/3's of NY state's population.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Gun control is not going to happen. It's amazing that people believe that the right to bear arms is even more important than the right to contraception and abortion, to same-sex rights, to the use of pornography, to the right to be a member of an exotic religion, or even to travel. There's much paranoia about firearms being taken away as a basic right.

The Right knows how to attach itself to visceral fears, and when anyone even mentions the words gun and control in the same sentence the NRA scares such people as sport hunters (the people least likely to lose the right to bear arms) that the Feds are contemplating taking away all firearms. There's much money to be made by selling guns and ammunition to people stocking up for the apocalypse that begins when the zombie Vladimir Lenin comes back to destroy the American way of life.

Yes, the unreasoned fears are the most dangerous. Extremists know well how to exploit those. Of course the extremists are practically all on the Right. Think of all the fear that they exploited about homosexuality, and before that, race. Those fears are not gone. We can deride all those fears, but some people seem to have not gotten out of the mental stage in which they fear monsters lurking under the bed.

I don't begrudge people being afraid of losing the 2nd. The only real difference in our Bill of Rights vs the UK and Australia is one of form not spirit. Ours is actually written. All of us at one time had an unchallenged right to bear arms. Now only the US does.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, you might want to know that NYC has around 2/3's of NY state's population.

H-m-m-m. The 5 boroughs are roughly 8 of the states 20 Million: 40%. If you add Nassau and Suffolk Counties, you get to 11 Million, but still well below 2/3. That, and the flavor on LI is distinctly GOP.

A belated comment ...

Originally Posted by B Butler

... It seems the central legal point in the case is focused on the advertising for the weapon. Bushmaster put out adds that glorify their product. The plaintiffs argue that the Bushmaster advertising contributed towards the mental disturbances of the shooter, thus Bushmaster’s advertising department is in part responsible for the murders. If one can establish that the shooter saw the adds, and that these adds are significantly more responsible for his mental instability than other factors, there is a plausible argument. At any rate, the lawyers are going after the advertisements rather than the weapon as this is a new not tried before approach to not getting their case tossed immediately by PLCAA.

Shifting to automobiles, if some teen age driver gets killed in a high speed crash on his way home from a James Bond movie, and the movie contained lots of high speed high risk auto chase scenes, can his parents sue the studio, the screenwriter and the estate of Ian Fleming? There is a plausible link there. Making this style of suit a routine part of the legal system would be a new thing. Lots of new precedents to work out. The result might be to force self censorship. Arms retailers and movie executives alike would have to become aware of how they glorify violence in their presentations to the public. This could result in a return to the violence censorship of the awakening era, where the writers of western TV shows found themselves with a quota of shots fired and people killed per episode...

Sorry, but you can't insert violent films into the argument, since third parties are not the issue. The correct corollary for the Bushmaster case, translated to the world of automobiles, would be advertising by the automobile manufacturer that implied bad behavior was a feature not a bug. I suspect that suit would have standing and meet the preponderance of evidence criterion.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sorry, but you can't insert violent films into the argument, since third parties are not the issue.

Why can they not be made part of an issue? If a shooter had seen many many violent films, and seen a few gun adds, why are the gun companies more culpable than the film companies?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The correct corollary for the Bushmaster case, translated to the world of automobiles, would be advertising by the automobile manufacturer that implied bad behavior was a feature not a bug. I suspect that suit would have standing and meet the preponderance of evidence criterion.

So if an automobile manufacture's adds portray and glorify high risk potentially lethal illegal activities such as speeding, you think they can be sued? Have you watched many car adds featuring professional drivers on a closed course lately? Do you suppose the small print disclaimers are a good legal shield, will stop kids from wanting to be cool?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

A belated comment ...



Sorry, but you can't insert violent films into the argument, since third parties are not the issue. The correct corollary for the Bushmaster case, translated to the world of automobiles, would be advertising by the automobile manufacturer that implied bad behavior was a feature not a bug. I suspect that suit would have standing and meet the preponderance of evidence criterion.

People can also see violent films and find the violence appalling. Show consequences of violence (people mourning loss and ending up ruined), show how senseless predatory behavior is, and show that evil and violent people get their is the end... and people might get the idea that imitating Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker isn't so romantic.

How many people saw Schindler's List and thought that they wanted to be like Amon Goeth?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. The 5 boroughs are roughly 8 of the states 20 Million: 40%. If you add Nassau and Suffolk Counties, you get to 11 Million, but still well below 2/3. That, and the flavor on LI is distinctly GOP.

The 2010 US Census has the City at 40% and the City's SMSA at 64%. Give that population growth is pretty much stagnate outside of the City, I'm pretty sure those percentages have grown in the last 6 years so 2/3 for the SMSA is reasonable. But yea, the 40%+ number is more applicable here. If you add Buffalo and Rochester, where Clinton also won, we get to 45%+ of the population.

But it's all silly. The meaningful number is she won over 60% of the vote and Bernie less than 40%. She got 30 more delegates than Bernie which way more erased his slight narrowing of his gap with her after all the big hoopla over his winning 7 of 8 states - momentum my butt. The rest of April is going to be even less kind to The Bern.

I don't mind him going all the way to the convention, and don't believe he can hurt her (Trump doesn't need anyone to instruct him on this). What will be interesting is if he's actually interested in a Progressive movement or just grandizing himself. If it's the former, he needs to pivot to using his funding machine to getting a Progressive Congresso elected. If he leads that, he would likely do more for a Progressive agenda than being in the WH.

Bernie did beat my projection for how he would do in NY by 8 delegates, but according to my projections, he needed to get 17 more at least to pass Clinton in pledged delegates by June 14 (last primary in DC).

According to my count, Hillary Clinton now has 1446, and my projection is for her to get 726 more, for a total of 2172. Sanders has 1205, and I project another 674, for 1879. So he needs to beat my projections by about 150 just to tie and pass Hillary, which at most puts him in the game at the convention. This is how it looks in more detail now, so enjoy if you are an election stat fan like me.

DATE STATE CLINTON (proj.) SANDERS (proj.) SANDERS NEEDS:
4/26 MD 60 35 +12
4/26 DE 13 8 +5
4/26 CT 30 25 +10
4/26 RI 10 14 +6
4/26 PA 100 89 +10
5/3 IN 43 40 +7
5/7 GUAM 4 3 +2
5/10 WV 15 14 +6
5/17 OR 20 41 +5
5/17 KY 28 27 +6
6/4 VI 4 3 +2
6/5 PR 35 25 +15
6/7 CA 255 220 +45
6/7 MT 4 17 +1
6/7 NJ 70 56 +12
6/7 NM 17 17 +3
6/7 ND 3 15 --
6/7 SD 5 15 +2
6/14 DC 10 10 +3


Basically, Bernie has to bern every state from now on, except MD, and almost ignite MD too. But he should at least do a bit better the rest of the way than he did on Hillary's turf in NY (or should I say her concrete), except maybe in MD and DE.

More basic info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...rimaries,_2016
statewide results and polls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statew...rimaries,_2016

He is already campaigning for other congressional candidates; I know, I get the email pitches. Bernie is not a self-grandizer; he's a "stand up" honest guy sincerely interested in the people. That's why he's popular and attracts crowds of young people. It comes through, and he's a good speaker and energetic campaigner too. He is cosmically endowed, especially now if you've been following my info on that. Yes he can do a lot for the progressive movement, win OR lose the WH.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Bernie did beat my projection for how he would do in NY by 8 delegates, but according to my projections, he needed to get 17 more at least to pass Clinton in pledged delegates by June 14 (last primary in DC).

-- they're counting the provisional ballots so he should pick up a few more

He is already campaigning for other congressional candidates; I know, I get the email pitches. Bernie is not a self-grandizer; he's a "stand up" honest guy sincerely interested in the people. That's why he's popular and attracts crowds of young people. It comes through, and he's a good speaker and energetic campaigner too. He is cosmically endowed, especially now if you've been following my info on that. Yes he can do a lot for the progressive movement, win OR lose the WH.

-- Bern baby Bern

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. The 5 boroughs are roughly 8 of the states 20 Million: 40%. If you add Nassau and Suffolk Counties, you get to 11 Million, but still well below 2/3. That, and the flavor on LI is distinctly GOP.

-- she picks up red states, red counties, & the FBI's on her ass to boot. WTF does the DNC want with that kind of nominee?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes he can do a lot for the progressive movement, win OR lose the WH.

If his followers stay home in the general or vote 3rd party, and enable a President Trump, his progressive movement will be footnote in the history books noting that it caused a conservative SCOTUS that negatively impacted the kids and grandkids of the enabling morons.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- she picks up red states, red counties, & the FBI's on her ass to boot. WTF does the DNC want with that kind of nominee?

First, I would say that Long Island is no longer GOP leaning, but votes Democratic now, although not by a large margin. Those two counties both voted for Obama twice by about the same close margin (and, I add, for Kerry, Gore and Clinton by even larger margins). Of course, Kings and Queens counties are also on Long Island, and vote very strongly Democratic.

Second, regarding who wins where in this primary, the situation is about equal. Hillary wins in southern states with lots of black voters. Bernie wins in mountain, small west coast and plains states with lots of rural white voters. Neither of these areas will vote for either one of them in the Fall. Bernie and Hillary split the vote in the true blue states. That's the pattern! It's not "Hillary picks up red states and counties and Bernie doesn't."

I would vote for Bernie over Hillary in the primary if I could. But the GOP is such anathema, that Hillary as likely nominee should be supported. The email fiasco is a non-issue; it's too bad the Republicans have tarred her image so much, but she was popular a year ago. She can be again. She has her limits, but marypoza, you are not going to agree with me apparently, when I say that Bernie's campaign will have its best effect in pushing Hillary toward our issues and the kind of appointments we want her to make, so that she won't be filling Bill's third term. Bill has moved left too, but not enough; so that's a concern. If Bernie's revolution can result in a more progressive congress and a more-progressive President Hillary, then it will have been worth it.

My concern now is that Bernie gets enough delegates to pass her, but is NOT nominated, that will be too much for Bernie supporters to swallow, and his voters will follow your lead in swing states and vote for some other candidate. We cannot afford even 10 seconds of a Republican in the White House. We cannot afford yet another Republican Supreme Court. Hell, we can't even afford our gerrymandered congress. Any "revolution" in the USA MUST start with dumping the goddam Republicraps.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- she picks up red states, red counties, & the FBI's on her ass to boot. WTF does the DNC want with that kind of nominee?

That's some pretty silly shXt.

She won Florida, Ohio and Virginia - the three most important swing states, by far, in the general. Add in, North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona and Iowa, that she also won and that are the most likely additional swing states, she's got a huge advantage over Sanders in the general. Sanders wins are either states firmly behind either the Dem "wall" (WA, VT,) or the GOP "kneewall" (ID, OK).

As to "FBI on her ass:" funny how so-called Progressives of a certain stripe suck up GOP talking points. You sure you wouldn't be more comfortable on the Right as a t-bagger? You got their style down pat.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

First, I would say that Long Island is no longer GOP leaning, but votes Democratic now, although not by a large margin. Those two counties both voted for Obama twice by about the same close margin. Of course, Kings and Queens counties are also on Long Island, and vote very strongly Democratic.

Second, regarding who wins where in this primary, the situation is about equal. Hillary wins in southern states with lots of black voters. Bernie wins in mountain, small west coast and plains states with lots of rural white voters. Neither of these areas will vote for either one of them in the Fall. Bernie and Hillary split the vote in the true blue states. That's the pattern! It's not "Hillary picks up red states and counties and Bernie doesn't."

I would vote for Bernie over Hillary in the primary if I could. But the GOP is such anathema, that Hillary as likely nominee should be supported. The email fiasco is a non-issue; it's too bad the Republicans have tarred her image so much, but she was popular a year ago. She can be again. She has her limits, but marypoza, you are not going to agree with me apparently, when I say that Bernie's campaign will have its best effect in pushing Hillary toward our issues and the kind of appointments we want her to make, so that she won't be filling Bill's third term. Bill has moved left too, but not enough; so that's a concern. If Bernie's revolution can result in a more progressive congress and a more-progressive President Hillary, then it will have been worth it.

My concern now is that Bernie gets enough delegates to pass her, but is NOT nominated, that will be too much for Bernie supporters to swallow, and his voters will follow your lead in swing states and vote for some other candidate. We cannot afford even 10 seconds of a Republican in the White House. We cannot afford yet another Republican Supreme Court. Hell, we can't even afford our gerrymandered congress. Any "revolution" in the USA MUST start with dumping the goddam Republicraps.

--- Eric if the FBI hands her ass to her it's over. I just wish the DNC would back a better candidate. Not necessarily Bernie, but he would be my choice, just a better one. And I wish they'd stop the cheating. That's why I'm not voting for the Dem nominee if it's not Bernie. I don't approve of the DNC's tactics so I'm not gonna award them my vote

Originally Posted by marypoza

--- Eric if the FBI hands her ass to her it's over. I just wish the DNC would back a better candidate. Not necessarily Bernie, but he would be my choice, just a better one. And I wish they'd stop the cheating. That's why I'm not voting for the Dem nominee if it's not Bernie. I don't approve of the DNC's tactics so I'm not gonna award them my vote

Please do look at your downticket candidates, regardless of your presidential choice.

Originally Posted by annla899

Please do look at your downticket candidates, regardless of your presidential choice.

-- oh definitely. If nothing else I'll vote down ticket

You selfish boomers took away my generations rights. While 9/11 was probably not preventable, the clusterfuck that followed it was. Afghanistan and Iraq would have occurred very differently if it wasn't for your moronic generation holding the leash. We would have went into Afghanistan and Iraq mongol-style, mass executions of entire villages would have been commonplace, we would have bayoneted babies and brandished the bayonets into the air while grinning in front of the weeping women. The invasion of Iran would have taken place also. You selfish boomer sacks of feces prevented my generations coming into their own moment; by imposing blockers and "safeguards" that is what makes you guys TYRANNICAL. Instead because of you we had some "humanitarian" clusterfuck with the objective of "spreading democracy" and then we pulled out because of your generations "war weariness". The Iranian hostage takers in 79, Bin Laden, The present governments of Iran and North Korea, and Finally Russia and China under Putin and Xi Jinping, all of these have came to the correct assessment of your generation. You all are indeed a bunch of pathetic weaklings you do nothing when pushed around, are more afraid of your own kids than our external adversaries, finally you whine and preach about nonsensical "human rights" even though no one cares what nonsense you spout and really just want you the go away and allow people who are clued into the real world to make decisions.

It is much more productive to come together to sort out issues not play the blame game. While I also think boomers have been awful politicians it is not productive to play the blame game, but to think of a better strategy to fix what needs fixing. It can be done.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

You selfish boomers took away my generations rights. While 9/11 was probably not preventable, the clusterfuck that followed it was.

9/11 would have never happened had Dubya heeded intelligence reports.

Afghanistan and Iraq would have occurred very differently if it wasn't for your moronic generation holding the leash. We would have went into Afghanistan and Iraq mongol-style, mass executions of entire villages would have been commonplace, we would have bayoneted babies and brandished the bayonets into the air while grinning in front of the weeping women.

... Unspeakable!

Such fascist thuggery would have occurred in front older children who would be about old enough to take revenge. Thus America would endure a rash of suicide bombings in honor of younger siblings that Americans murdered.

It is not enough to win wars. We must give those who have been defeated and their progeny no cause for striking back.

The invasion of Iran would have taken place also. You selfish boomer sacks of feces prevented my generations coming into their own moment; by imposing blockers and "safeguards" that is what makes you guys TYRANNICAL. Instead because of you we had some "humanitarian" clusterfuck with the objective of "spreading democracy" and then we pulled out because of your generations "war weariness". The Iranian hostage takers in 79, Bin Laden, The present governments of Iran and North Korea, and Finally Russia and China under Putin and Xi Jinping, all of these have came to the correct assessment of your generation. You all are indeed a bunch of pathetic weaklings you do nothing when pushed around, are more afraid of your own kids than our external adversaries, finally you whine and preach about nonsensical "human rights" even though no one cares what nonsense you spout and really just want you the go away and allow people who are clued into the real world to make decisions.

Iran is a big country.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

You selfish boomers took away my generations rights. While 9/11 was probably not preventable, the clusterfuck that followed it was. Afghanistan and Iraq would have occurred very differently if it wasn't for your moronic generation holding the leash.

NO, Justice Scalia was not a boomer.

Without his vote in Dec.2000, for sure we would not have had George Dubya. And thus 6800 American soldiers dead for no reason, with blood squarely on his hands and those of the 4 others-- especially non-boomer swing justice Sandra Day O'Connor. And without Justice Scalia, we would not have had congressmen wasting 4 hours a day dialing for dollars instead of doing their jobs. It is truly tragic what Scalia did to this country, and what Reagan did by appointing 3 of those guys, and what America did by electing Reagan and voting for Dubya. Back to back stories on 60 Minutes tonight reminded me of Scalia's legacy for us all.

And the Cat is upset at me because I was not upset that Scalia died? No, sorry Prince, but that's not so princely.

We would have went into Afghanistan and Iraq mongol-style, mass executions of entire villages would have been commonplace, we would have bayoneted babies and brandished the bayonets into the air while grinning in front of the weeping women. The invasion of Iran would have taken place also. You selfish boomer sacks of feces prevented my generations coming into their own moment; by imposing blockers and "safeguards" that is what makes you guys TYRANNICAL. Instead because of you we had some "humanitarian" clusterfuck with the objective of "spreading democracy" and then we pulled out because of your generations "war weariness". The Iranian hostage takers in 79, Bin Laden, The present governments of Iran and North Korea, and Finally Russia and China under Putin and Xi Jinping, all of these have came to the correct assessment of your generation. You all are indeed a bunch of pathetic weaklings you do nothing when pushed around, are more afraid of your own kids than our external adversaries, finally you whine and preach about nonsensical "human rights" even though no one cares what nonsense you spout and really just want you to go away and allow people who are clued into the real world to make decisions.

lol You really are living in this world 3000 years too late.

As the late great Mr. Spock would say (who lived 500 years in the future): fascinating.


Boomer speaks for Cynic Nero. "Our country has to toughen up folks; we have to toughen up"
https://youtu.be/qiA7x1z3uwo?t=7m30s

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

You selfish boomers took away my generations rights. While 9/11 was probably not preventable, the clusterfuck that followed it was. Afghanistan and Iraq would have occurred very differently if it wasn't for your moronic generation holding the leash. We would have went into Afghanistan and Iraq mongol-style, mass executions of entire villages would have been commonplace, we would have bayoneted babies and brandished the bayonets into the air while grinning in front of the weeping women. The invasion of Iran would have taken place also. You selfish boomer sacks of feces prevented my generations coming into their own moment; by imposing blockers and "safeguards" that is what makes you guys TYRANNICAL. Instead because of you we had some "humanitarian" clusterfuck with the objective of "spreading democracy" and then we pulled out because of your generations "war weariness". The Iranian hostage takers in 79, Bin Laden, The present governments of Iran and North Korea, and Finally Russia and China under Putin and Xi Jinping, all of these have came to the correct assessment of your generation. You all are indeed a bunch of pathetic weaklings you do nothing when pushed around, are more afraid of your own kids than our external adversaries, finally you whine and preach about nonsensical "human rights" even though no one cares what nonsense you spout and really just want you the go away and allow people who are clued into the real world to make decisions.

--wtf??!!!!!??

Originally Posted by marypoza

--wtf??!!!!!??

Our token fan of Genghis Kahn.

I normally don't think much of his vile stereotype of boomers, but I think he got one sort of right here. I for one don't think he has a right to bayonet babies, and all boomers I know that have spoken on that issue agree with me, not that I've spoken to a statistically significant sample on that issue. I'm curious that he thinks other generations favor bayonetting babies?

I did hear one boomer speak in favor of turning the Middle East into a glass parking lot, but this was on September 11th, 2001. Emotions were running high.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

You selfish boomers took away my generations rights. While 9/11 was probably not preventable, the clusterfuck that followed it was. Afghanistan and Iraq would have occurred very differently if it wasn't for your moronic generation holding the leash. We would have went into Afghanistan and Iraq mongol-style, mass executions of entire villages would have been commonplace, we would have bayoneted babies and brandished the bayonets into the air while grinning in front of the weeping women. The invasion of Iran would have taken place also. You selfish boomer sacks of feces prevented my generations coming into their own moment; by imposing blockers and "safeguards" that is what makes you guys TYRANNICAL. Instead because of you we had some "humanitarian" clusterfuck with the objective of "spreading democracy" and then we pulled out because of your generations "war weariness". The Iranian hostage takers in 79, Bin Laden, The present governments of Iran and North Korea, and Finally Russia and China under Putin and Xi Jinping, all of these have came to the correct assessment of your generation. You all are indeed a bunch of pathetic weaklings you do nothing when pushed around, are more afraid of your own kids than our external adversaries, finally you whine and preach about nonsensical "human rights" even though no one cares what nonsense you spout and really just want you the go away and allow people who are clued into the real world to make decisions.

Cynic Hero, which of these three do you most identify with -

Viserys



Joffrey



Ramsey


- Just wondering.

You do seem a tad more than just repressed, like total Id, so that could suggest Ramsey.
But you're kind of an angry adolescent, so maybe Joffrey.
Then again, you're totally impotent so bang-on Viserys.

Difficult to choose; any insights?

Originally Posted by B Butler

Our token fan of Genghis Kahn.

I normally don't think much of his vile stereotype of boomers, but I think he got one sort of right here. I for one don't think he has a right to bayonet babies, and all boomers I know that have spoken on that issue agree with me, not that I've spoken to a statistically significant sample on that issue. I'm curious that he thinks other generations favor bayonetting babies?

-- token fan whatever I'm thinking mebbe he needs to be hospitalized

I did hear one boomer speak in favor of turning the Middle East into a glass parking lot, but this was on September 11th, 2001. Emotions were running high.

-- that boomer was a douchebag too

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

You selfish boomers took away my generations rights. While 9/11 was probably not preventable, the clusterfuck that followed it was. Afghanistan and Iraq would have occurred very differently if it wasn't for your moronic generation holding the leash. We would have went into Afghanistan and Iraq mongol-style, mass executions of entire villages would have been commonplace, we would have bayoneted babies and brandished the bayonets into the air while grinning in front of the weeping women. The invasion of Iran would have taken place also. You selfish boomer sacks of feces prevented my generations coming into their own moment; by imposing blockers and "safeguards" that is what makes you guys TYRANNICAL.

Waaah I wanted to bayonet babies! Waaah you took away my rights to bayonet a baby! You TYRANNICAL meanies!

Yeah, taking on defenseless babies makes you a real man, huh? Coward.