zompist bboard

a congress of convoluted conworldery
It is currently Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:33 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:37 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 2454
At the same time, I think it is fair to observe that immigrants from countries other than Mexico and Central America are a bit naïve about the whole situation. They quite often have a know-it-all attitude, thinking it's all just rhetoric. Many of them see parallels in their home countries, where despotic assholes were saying harsh things and putting belt-tightening policies in place, but nonetheless getting shit done. Many of them even accept that there is an ethnic hierarchy, but believe that as long as they mind their own business and don't try to upset it, they'll succeed in their endeavors anyway.

In Michigan, for instance, the Chaldean community were big supporters of Trump, thinking he would improve their lives both here and in Iraq. Then they were shocked when ICE came in and raided their community in Detroit, and rounded up over 100 legal, permanent residents for deportation-- to Iraq, of all places.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:43 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2087
Location: Austin, TX, USA
tiramisu wrote:
There have been a few stories about the deportation of American citizens

That's all I said, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:42 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 2454
Not really, though. You were clearly implying it's a real problem to be concerned about. The people you were quoting are right, though. The government isn't going to start deporting American citizens. You can't just point to a few exceptions to the rule and say it's something to be concerned about. In fact, this insignificant number of illegal deportations has been going on regularly for quite a while, and if there's been any spike during the Trump era, it's probably because ICE has been conducting more raids, not because of any concerted effort to deport American citizens of certain backgrounds, and combined with a specific suspicion towards latinos, not towards all immigrants.

They are right. American citizens can't be deported, except in exceptional circumstances. They are safe.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:49 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2087
Location: Austin, TX, USA
I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me otherwise, either. I think it's a serious problem; you don't. Agree to disagree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:19 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 2507
“I think the entirety of mankind should be annihilated in a thermonuclear explosion, you think it shouldn't. Let's agree to disagree.”

_________________
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:38 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:12 pm
Posts: 1206
Vijay wrote:
I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me otherwise, either.


This is a profoundly anti-intellectual statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:41 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2087
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Well, that escalated quickly.
Pole, the wrote:
“I think the entirety of mankind should be annihilated in a thermonuclear explosion, you think it shouldn't. Let's agree to disagree.”

Because not deporting citizens is totally comparable to the annihilation of mankind.
cromulant wrote:
Vijay wrote:
I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me otherwise, either.


This is a profoundly anti-intellectual statement.

No, it's not. It's just an acknowledgment that this particular argument between him and me is going nowhere. Haven't you heard the expression "pick your battles"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:41 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am
Posts: 2507
Vijay wrote:
Pole, the wrote:
“I think the entirety of mankind should be annihilated in a thermonuclear explosion, you think it shouldn't. Let's agree to disagree.”

Because not deporting citizens is totally comparable to the annihilation of mankind.

I wasn't comparing one to the other…

(I should've made it more clear I'm ranting at the “agree to disagree” concept, not the particular case of you using it.)

_________________
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:04 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 2454
Wait... what are we even agreeing to disagree about? My argument is that you're deliberately exaggerating the facts of the situation, not that deporting American citizens isn't a big deal. This is in the context of you implying that Indian Americans with US citizenship are wrong not to be worried about their own deportation. Except... pray tell, how many Indian American with US citizenship have been deported who weren't legally denaturalized? I have a feeling that you'll be hard pressed to find even 1.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:39 pm 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:43 pm
Posts: 15
Location: Campinia
tiramisu wrote:
Howl wrote:
They are backing away from identity politics. With someone like Trump in the room, there is not much more democrats need to do to motivate those voters.


Are they? Because I'm not seeing it. In fact, just a couple weeks ago, Democrats ran an attack ad on Ed Gillespie with a white dude (representing Gillespie's supporters) chasing after latinos in his truck. If anything, Trumpism bringing identity politics into the GOP mainstream helps the Democrats peddle its own identity politics.

No, it was not ''Democrats". The group that put out the pickup truck ad is called 'Latino Victory Project'. As the name implies, their interests on this issue are a little different from the Democratic Party.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:26 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 2454
One of the several benefits of a PAC is that they can have a very close relationship with a political party or a political campaign and not bear their name. You can have no doubt that the Latino Victory Project ran the ad either at the commission of or subject to the approval of the DNC, and likely even with the approval of Northam's campaign. In fact, if you simply look at the leadership of the Latino Victory Project, you'll see many of them are DNC insiders.

You'd really have to jump through a lot of hoops to try to distance the ad from "Democrats." Because the group behind the ad are not only undeniably Democratic activists, they're also undeniably party hacks.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:08 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 4707
Location: Réunion
tiramisu wrote:
Not really. There have been a few stories about the deportation of American citizens, but... the reason they make the newspaper is because they happen so rarely. Most commonly, this happens when people actually don't know that they're US citizens -- eg, being born in the US to people who immigrated illegally -- and thus make no effort to prove it when ICE comes around. Sometimes US citizens are deported simply because ICE ends up doing a lazy job investigating a specific case, but it's both illegal and very rare. Including the number of US citizens deported because they aren't even aware they're US citizens, this only amounts to a couple hundred per year max. That's quite statistically insignificant considering some 40+ million immigrants. I think it's fair to add that almost every one of those US citizens deported are nearly always of Mexican or Central American descent. You'd be hard-pressed to find an Indian-American US citizen who was deported.

I get that's statistically insignificant, but it's still significantly more than I expected.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:30 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 2454
I don't think we're in disagreement.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:46 am 
Šriftom
Šriftom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:43 pm
Posts: 7884
Location: Three of them
Just over one year on. Are there any parts of Trump's plans to Make America Great Again which you were worried about but which have *not* in fact come to pass?

_________________
"Taste our powers!!!" Unarguably Thespia's finest manifestation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:04 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2087
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Yep. I was afraid we Indians would be targeted more because "well gee, we can't tell the difference between y'all and Arabs," but no, instead, he's chosen to (occasionally) appeal to the other stereotype about us, namely "nah, y'all are good 'cause you're all doctors and computer nerds."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:46 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Posts: 17210
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston
alice wrote:
Just over one year on. Are there any parts of Trump's plans to Make America Great Again which you were worried about but which have *not* in fact come to pass?

I thought the Republicans in Congress would manage to repeal the ACA outright. They may still have created enough uncertainty through their actions to cause its failure, but for now it's still the law of the land and a subset of them are even working with Democrats to draught revisions.

I thought we might be out of NAFTA at this point. Again, that's still a possibility, but for now the agreement holds.

I thought there was a greater possibility of an ill-advised punitive strike on some random country. For now, though, he seems content to see more people die by inaction than action.

I expected an investigation of Clinton's supposed crimes would have been underway well before now. Backpedaling on his oft-repeated promise to prosecute her was the first pleasant surprise of his presidency.

That's about it. In most other areas he's been as bad as I was expecting or worse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:53 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:01 pm
Posts: 415
Quote:
I expected an investigation of Clinton's supposed crimes would have been underway well before now.


What? Why? How? That was so obviously just a campaign slogan with no substance. But then again, if any president would actually be weird enough to follow through on something that was never intended to be actually done, it would be Trump, so I can kind of see your point. Maybe he thinks than when he pardons a turkey in a couple weeks he has to call the governor of Virginia to get it legalized.

The biggest surprise for me so far is that I thought the Trump-Congress pecking order would be more firmly established. My assumption was that within a year either Trump would bully Ryan and McConnel into submission by never leaving the campaign trail, or he would get so fed up with going to work every day that Congress would more or less take over the entire process of governance. But it's still unclear whether the dog wags the tail or the tail wags the dog.

_________________
"I'm sorry, when you have all As in every class in every semester, it's not easy to treat the idea that your views are fundamentally incoherent as a serious proposition."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:13 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:15 pm
Posts: 320
Hydroeccentricity wrote:
But it's still unclear whether the dog wags the tail or the tail wags the dog.


The problem may instead be that there's an awful lot of dogs and an awful lot of tails, and it's not really clear which belongs to which.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:45 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 11235
Location: Lake Tašpa
I agree, politicians dont eat their own. Same reason why Jeff Sessions was overwhelmingly elected to the AG position: the ones voting on it were the other Senators, and whatever their beliefs, they stick by their fellow Senators.


---

Dems did surprisingly good in the recent election, and Im surprised nobody's really talking about it here. I had had a reply written out to some of the posts from the last page where I contrasted the good performance of Dems in CO & VA with bad performance in what used to be solidly blue states like most of the Midwest (not just the Rust Belt). VA & CO both have booming economies with a reliable and ongoing immigration of new residents from other parts of the USA seeking higher incomes and a better lifestyle. Massachusetts is another example. Even though it was already blue, it resisted New England's shift rightward in 2016 (RI moved slightly right, the others markedly right), and was the only New England state in which every county went for Clinton. (No, not even Vermont.) Im not sure that can translate into good advice ... "just get rich and win" isnt really good advice ... but Dems seem to be averse to contrasting the success stories of the big blue money states to the poor quality of life in Kansas, Kentucky, etc which are right nearby and are 100% Republican.

The rest of the post was replies to things that were from the last page so I'll just sumarize it all by saying that

1) No, the Bernie progressives didnt win, and I'd say theyre pretty much dormant right now. Perez fired most of them off of the DNC and the DNC is doing its best to lock them out of primaries in the upcoming midterms in any way possible, just as they handicapped Bernie in 2016. Obamacare's resilience isnt something the progressive wing can claim as their own because Obamacare was a product of the entire Democratic Party. There was no pool of centrist Democrats who had been in favor of Trump's repeal bill all along but were just recently won over to the preservationist camp by more leftist Democrats.

2) black voter turnout has been essentially identical with white turnout for the past few decades (and rose above white turnout when Obama was on the ballot). Theres really no more water you can squeeze out of that rock. Yeah, you can slowly idle and wait for the popilation of minorities to increase, but then youre back to running solely on identity politics, and ignoring ideology. You run on that, and even if you win, you turn into Alabama.

Quote:
Demographics is like climate change. It happens so slowly, it's almost unnoticeable. But it does happen. Every 4 years, the electorate is becoming 1% more non-white. Proposition 187 was in 1994. It still took more than a decade after that before Republicans were no longer competitive in California.

Therefore my answer to this post from the last page is still the same as the post I wrote before that ... sure, you got California, but what about all those Southern states? Due to restrictive voter laws, the deep South had a >90% white electorate until a few decades ago. Now, most of the they are all heavily black and/or Hispanic , but still red as blood. Why? Because people in the South are now voting along racial lines instead of according to their ideology.

Also, unlike those other states, California has a significant population of white Democrats ... I'd be willing to bet at least 30% of the white population of California is registered Democrat. If the whites of California voted like the whites of the Deep South, even today California would be a swing state or even leaning red.

3)Gerrymandering is worth talking about, but gerrymandering cannot affect the totals of any statewide vote, nor the popular vote even if districts are tallied separately. All of these show a marked shift to the right in recent years and cannot be blamed on gerrymandering as I already detailed in the previous post.

_________________
Image
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says: Please forgive my horrible typing, it's hard to press the keys with my tongue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:41 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 2430
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Soap wrote:
I'd say they're pretty much dormant right now. Perez fired most of them off of the DNC and the DNC is doing its best to lock them out of primaries in the upcoming midterms in any way possible, just as they handicapped Bernie in 2016.
I haven't heard about this. Can anyone go into detail on this? Keith Ellison and Elizabeth Warren are even on the Democrat's official website's front page's background. I tried reading some articles, but they were inconsistent with each other: some painted it as a giant purge, others as a regular action that is to be expected when a new chairman is elected. Some only mentioned Keith Ellison supporters being told to resign, while others mentioned Hillary supporters leaving. I tend to believe that it was not directed against Ellison because of the sheer scope: most of the staff was told to resign, not a small subgroup. And most of the staffers of the DNC as a whole were Clinton supporters, so by the logic used in the anti-Perez articles he's purging the DNC of all of the experienced members f his own faction in exchange for a lot of newcomers who don't have much loyalty to any intraparty factions at all.
Soap wrote:
black voter turnout has been essentially identical with white turnout for the past few decades (and rose above white turnout when Obama was on the ballot)
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
No it hasn't.
Soap wrote:
Theres really no more water you can squeeze out of that rock.
Well, if black people had the same income security, security from violence and laws that don't overwhelmingly affect their community (like felon disfranchisement and Voter ID laws), then one could squeeze much more. Also if you could find a candidate that is actually appealing to black people.
Soap wrote:
identity politics, and ignoring ideology
What if the ideology is that minorities are getting thoroughly screwed and that it is the moral duty of everyone, including non-minorities, to fight for equality? What if the ideology is that good race relations and lower crime rates can be achieved by giving non-white people the resources to assist them in their empowerment?
Soap wrote:
Now, most of the they are all heavily black and/or Hispanic , but still red as blood. Why? Because people in the South are now voting along racial lines instead of according to their ideology.
Between 60 and 50% of the population in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina are non-Hispanic White, both individually and as a whole. And in much of Alabama, racial lines correspond to ideological lines, because the ideological line that best suits black people is what they vote for, while the white vote is actually split between Democrats (smaller part, mostly urban) and Republicans (supermajority). The split within the white voting demographic is almost entirely on ideological grounds.

_________________
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:20 am 
Boardlord
Boardlord

Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Posts: 10421
Location: In the den
Soap wrote:
Dems did surprisingly good in the recent election, and Im surprised nobody's really talking about it here.


I thought about it, but it's hard not to make it sound insufferable. To try to put it neutrally: it's good news for the Dems; it's not good news for the Trump GOP. And it's not just the governor's race: a 30% jump in the VA House of Delegates should make the GOP just a little anxious about 2018.

Quote:
No, the Bernie progressives didnt win, and I'd say theyre pretty much dormant right now.


Curious, because my leftist friends were entirely jazzed over the election. The Democratic Socialists won a bunch of seats in various places, and there was a lot of praise for Tom Perriello helping to get Northam elected. My own across-the-aisle advice: never count on the Other Side's divisions being very good for your party.

Quote:
Because people in the South are now voting along racial lines instead of according to their ideology.


Trying not to be snarky, but "identity politics" is a weasel term for "politics I don't care about." And no one says you have to, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors making your analysis depend on this sort of fake dichotomy. I could amuse myself for hours talking about how Republicans don't really believe in anything, but all I'd have is a bunch of zingers, not a political analysis.

Quote:
3)Gerrymandering is worth talking about, but gerrymandering cannot affect the totals of any statewide vote, nor the popular vote even if districts are tallied separately.


I don't really understand your point here, but gerrymandering matters a lot to the GOP because it depends on it. E.g., 53% of Virginia voters went for a Democratic state delegate, and with that they may not even get a majority of seats. And the GOP controls a lot of state houses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:35 am 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 11522
Location: the Imperial Corridor
Soap wrote:
Dems seem to be averse to contrasting the success stories of the big blue money states to the poor quality of life in Kansas, Kentucky, etc which are right nearby and are 100% Republican.

Think about how much of an opening that would leave if the Republicans were actually competent.

It's not that Democrats bring about success; it's that successful people vote Democrat. Why is that? Class mobility is down, and even a lot of people who went to Ivy League colleges will admit this. I was talking to someone from Princeton a few days ago, who said that, yes, the economy is completely two-track now, and ever interacting with the regular economy (e.g. high school summer jobs) is a serious mistake for success in the mandarinate: the time you spend flipping burgers would be better spent on something that appeals to the certification committees that decide who to admit to the mandarinate. This accords with what I see from my Facebook feed and so on: there are a lot of smart people who... never interact with the job-creating economy at all. Nobody goes into anything that smells even faintly of business, with the exception of tech -- everyone I know who isn't in tech is in humanities grad school or some such place. In the extreme end, one of the people I knew from the "really good at taking standardized tests" circuit has found a job as a... classical music reviewer in a print newspaper, supported by some foundation or other -- as in, doing something that there isn't even a real market for, propped up by some rich people with a special interest. What the hell?

The flip side of that is that, if you don't make it into the mandarinate... well, you might end up making good money: I could be pulling in $80k/yr or so if I put in ten more years at my company and got a few promotions. And I don't think this is riskier than shooting for a spot in the mandarinate, except you need a (four-year, I think) college degree to get those promotions (which I already have, but which would substantially add to the cost in both money and time of the career track for high school students weighing their options) -- which is a completely unnecessary requirement, since it doesn't matter what the degree is in. But there's money and then there's status, and everyone knows that if you pull in $80k/yr managing a factory or a McDonald's or whatever, the people making $20k/yr with $200k in debt will look at you like you're a shit-covered Elbonian peasant. What gives?

Now, the company that I work for benefits from certain things that I won't detail here for privacy reasons but don't generalize, and the prospects are probably dimmer at McDonald's or similar companies, i.e. the economy isn't growing as fast as one would like, so interacting with it looks less attractive relative to instead joining the mandarinate -- so the size of the mandarinate correlates inversely with the health of the economy.

The mandarinate, of course, is a system that is capable of responding to incentives, so we can imagine a sort of Laffer Curve: if the economy isn't good enough, it can absorb less of the shock of having a mandarinate, but if the economy is too good, mandarinate careers are less attractive, and the status of the mandarinate is threatened. I don't know where on the curve we are, but do you see anyone in the mandarinate arguing that we need a stronger economy so that we can support more artists and so on? I don't.

And, of course, mandarins are expected to vote Democrat.

So, depending on how far the Republicans decide they want to take this, they have a list of options of increasing severity with which to mount a response:
1) It's not that Democratic governance brings success; it's just that the (urban) rich to vote Democrat.
2) It's not just that the urban rich tend to vote Democrat; it's that the process of joining the ranks of the urban rich involves a heavy dose of pro-Democrat propaganda.
3) It's not just that joining the ranks of the urban rich involves a heavy dose of pro-Democrat propaganda; it's that the strength of this propaganda and the appeal of a career track in this section of the urban rich are inversely correlated with the strength of the economy, i.e. the American economy is in a much sorrier state than you think, and it's been getting worse since, oh, let's say the '60s. (and meanwhile the Democrats are running on "America is already great" and culture-war nonsense with very little relevance to anyone who has a stake in the state of the actual economy)
4) It's not just that the American economy is in a much sorrier state than you think; it's that the pro-Democrat propaganda (which of course is bad for the economy) is deliberate. Democrats, or at least a powerful faction within the Democratic Party; want to decrease class mobility and/or weaken the economy.

You can, of course, derive 4) from class analysis, especially if you want to be a big-time heresiarch and fuse pseudo-Marxist class analysis with ethnic-conflict analysis. It would be entirely possible to construct a reading of American history wherein the big story of the 20th century is the building of an alliance between America's mostly-WASP bourgeoisie and the black mostly-lumpenproletariat against the "white ethnic" mostly-proletariat. So, contrary to the standard leftist narrative whereby Catholics and Jews assimilated into WASPdom by distinguishing themselves from blacks, you get a narrative where WASPs use blacks as a weapon against Catholics and Jews (and the savvier Jews respond by assimilating into WASPdom and being insecure about it and trying to out-WASP the WASPs, which is how you get the triple-parentheses stuff, Moldbug has a bit about how German Jews tried to out-German the Germans and I wouldn't be surprised; if nothing else, there's a line somewhere about empathy for the sorts of people you have social ties to and who's more likely to have uncles in Nebraska, Reuben or Bob?) and the Catholics and Jews respond by sort-of-assimilating into the ethnic group that the WASPs already hated and that's how the religious conflict actually ends, it's transmuted into "Reagan: Y/N?"

Like, it was in fact a Big Thing that the Religious Right was "three Catholics and a Jew", and you could make the case that the assimilation went the other way more than anything else, especially now that "reflective sorts gradually drifting right and ending up converting to Catholicism/getting less unserious about Judaism" is a pattern that exists, even with twentysomethings

And if you travel in counterculture circles, as I do, it's all Jews, Catholics, and Southerners, what's up with that

_________________
R.Rusanov wrote:
immediately grandchild! an yogurt

Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Last edited by Nortaneous on Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:37 am 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 11522
Location: the Imperial Corridor
And the natural next step for the Republican Party is "shit man, how do we peel off more white ethnics?" and look at how many of their rising stars are Catholic, look at the states they flipped, there was serious talk of trying to turn Massachusetts but the pro-business Republicans of course weren't and won't be willing to do the needful

(there's also the issue that deregulation would have the same effect on mandarins as the fall of Communism did on professors of Marxism-Leninism, at least lower-level [e.g. healthcare] mandarins, and those are, you know, solid middle-class jobs that are available and who really wants to see them fall)

_________________
R.Rusanov wrote:
immediately grandchild! an yogurt

Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:47 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 2454
zompist wrote:
To try to put it neutrally: it's good news for the Dems; it's not good news for the Trump GOP.

While I agree with you that it does demonstrate a reaction against Trumpism, I don't think it would be neutral to say "it's good news for the Dems; it's not good news for the Trump GOP." Trump supporters (and Trump himself) are spinning it as evidence of the dissatisfaction of "the establishment" and using it as a message for Republicans to get behind him or get the fuck out. Their logic is not sound, but the narrative is effective for any Republican audience unwilling to research the elections in Virginia themselves.

In other words, it's good news for the Dems; it's not good news for the GOP; it's not good news externally for the Trump GOP; it's good news internally for the Trump GOP.

What would be "not good news" for the Trump GOP is if Roy Moore had lost the election in Alabama, before the allegations appeared. That would be the first clear and well-broadcasted case of dissatisfaction at the polls with the Trump GOP. That was looking unlikely, although the elections last Tuesday should have energized Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans in Alabama, and the same elections also pointed to the likelihood that Republican voters might in fact be over-represented in the polls.

The allegations are actually working out all too perfectly for the Trumpists, however. Now, even if the seat is lost to a Democrat, it can be blamed on the situation rather than on the dissatisfaction with Trumpism.

Moreover, although Roy Moore is considered to be in the rank of the Trump GOP, let's not forget that Trump himself endorsed his opponent in the primary. That was, in fact, a loss for him in the debate over whether he commands popular support, or his abrasiveness. I'm not sure yet what Roy Moore not becoming Senator means as a Trump victory, but I think it is one. I definitely think it can be branded as another instance of "Get behind me, or get the fuck out," if they choose to go that route.

More importantly, the pressure is mounting for Jeff Sessions to leave the DOJ and reclaim his seat as a write-in candidate. I will be quite surprised if he doesn't do so. The Trumpists have been wanting Sessions out of the DOJ for a while, and this is the perfect opportunity to get him out.

If Jeff Sessions wins back his own seat in a last minute write-in campaign, that's going to be great for the Trump GOP.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:29 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 406
Location: the Peyron Apartments
i apologize for the partial reply but my internet situation is limited and i know i cant keep apologizing for that but i want to get in this post before i go:

http://www.electproject.org/home/voter- ... mographics
1) @meþru: No, thats the same graph I was looking at. It clearly shows black & white voter turnout at about the same over th last 30 yrs, with black turnout higher when Obama was on the ballot. the gap was ~10 points during '92 & '96, but it was lower back in the 80s when Reagan was in power so I dont think the oddly large gap during CLinton's reign was indicative of the years preceding it.

2) J sessions wanted AG and he is not going to give it up even to bail out a fellow republican. he wouldnt be running as a writein anyway, AFAIK, but as an appointed senator by the gov of Alabama.

3)trump's endorsement of luther strange was likely to due a deal with mcconnell and trump had no foreknowledge of the fact that Roy Moore's camping was going to blow up. Roy Moore was his favorite all along and the base knows this. he even slipped up at a conference where he was supposed to endorse L Strange.

_________________
[alternbatew account of Soap with slighty better ttyping skillsd


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group