Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 04, 2016, 01:17:47 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 293
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Transition Team/Cabinet Thread on: December 02, 2016, 12:55:32 am
Ken Thomas ‏@KThomasDC
Trump/Pence mtgs on Friday: Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga.; FL AG Pam Bondi; Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-ND; Amb John Bolton; Ret. Adm. Jay Cohen.

Hmmmm

Guess she doesn't feel very good about her re-election chances.

She's also basically a generic Republican on energy/environmental policy. Which makes her a Democrat in North Dakota politics.

Would be a brilliant move by Trump if it happened, and not just because it would be one less Democrat in the Senate, but also because the Republican who would be most likely to replace her is the guy who wrote Trump's energy policy and was an early endorser of his during the campaign.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump and United Technologies reach agreement to keep Carrier jobs in Indiana on: November 30, 2016, 12:38:04 pm
The moral of this story is that companies are perfectly fine with keeping jobs in the US so long as they get all kinds of sweet taxpayer-funded perks and other "incentives."

3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: 'White working-class' vote in 1964 on: November 30, 2016, 12:20:24 pm
lol
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Ohio State Attack on: November 30, 2016, 12:17:39 pm
White supremacists lecturing others about excusing or finding justifications for violence. Welcome to Trump's America.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Texas: state government to require burial or cremation of fetal remains on: November 30, 2016, 12:12:14 pm
Quote
AUSTIN, TX Rules requiring the cremation or burial of fetal remains regardless of their period of gestation are scheduled to take effect on Dec. 19.

The final Texas Department of State Health Services rules were filed with the secretary of state's office on Monday. In submitting the new rules, health officials noted the new requirement does not apply to miscarriages or abortions occurring at home. Instead, the rules apply to abortion clinics, hospitals and health care facilities in preventing them from disposing of fetal remains in sanitary landfills.

http://patch.com/texas/downtownaustin/texas-enacts-stringent-new-rules-requiring-burial-or-cremation-fetal-remains

Smiley Small government Smiley in action, folks! Smiley
6  General Politics / International General Discussion / Plane crash in Colombia kills 75+, including much of Chapecoense soccer team on: November 29, 2016, 11:46:10 am
Very sad.

Quote
The Avro RJ85 was en route Monday night from Santa Cruz, Bolivia, to Medellin when it crashed near Rionegro, Colombia, with 72 passengers and nine crew members on board, civil aviation officials said.

At least 75 people were killed, officials said. Six people survived. Players, coaches and invited guests from Brazil's Chapecoense soccer team were onboard the charter flight. So were more than 20 journalists on the way to cover what was supposed to be a heartwarming chapter in a Cinderella story for a team of unlikely champions.

The soccer club, which has risen the ranks in Brazilian soccer and now has a devoted national fan base, was set to play in the first leg of the South American Cup finals Wednesday.

Now authorities are investigating what caused the crash, searching the remote site for victims, survivors and evidence.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/americas/colombia-plane-accident/
7  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: on: November 29, 2016, 11:39:20 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words
8  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: when will reilgous influence die on a politcal level? on: November 25, 2016, 12:17:53 pm
Religious influence will never completely die out, but in the  sense you mean it, probably in the next 20-30 years.

I'm a spiritual person, but it disgusts me how religion tries to influence government policy in a regressive way.

So I am allowed to have ethics so long as I don't allow it to influence society? Good to know.

Well in an American context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

Though admittedly "society" and "the state" are not the same thing, but it's undeniable that certain religious groups in the US do their best to get state-sanctioned power on their side (and are often, successful - particularly at the state and local levels).

9  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Alabama vs. Mississippi on: November 23, 2016, 12:50:55 pm
Alabama is whiter and has more large cities and more affluent (and thus, more hardcore Republican, at all levels of government - remember, this is the Deep South) suburbs, but on the other hand, Alabama also is more unionized (unusual for the South) and more industrial than Mississippi.
10  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Why can moderate republicans win in red states but not the other way around? on: November 23, 2016, 12:43:12 pm
As bore said, the premise is mostly false. The only states where I can see it being true are all in the Deep South - which is obviously very racially polarized so very few Democrats can ever win statewide nowadays.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who is most responsible for Clinton's loss? on: November 22, 2016, 03:36:57 pm
Other: the disgusting media outlets who gave Trump all that free exposure (which made billions of dollars for said media outlets, naturally) and who utterly failed to hold Trump accountable for his criminality (i.e. the endless amounts of corruption, fraud, and sexual assaults that had been meticulously documented and corroborated thanks to the efforts of a handful of actual journalists) to nearly the same extent that they harped on and on about Clinton's "damn emails."
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Do we know what % of voters switched party support in each election? on: November 21, 2016, 01:13:57 pm
Take this with a grain of salt, since I don't remember which poll measured this, but I recall reading in 2012 that for every two Obama 08 voters that he lost, Obama gained one McCain voter.

Who would those have been? They couldn't have all been PUMA's.

Presumably more fiscally conservative voters who saw that Obama was actually very moderate and didn't appreciate the direction that the Tea Party was taking the GOP.

In 2008, it was still seen as acceptable for well-educated people to support the Republicans.  A great deal of damage was done to the party's credibility with the rise of birtherism and the rhetoric that the GOP used in the lead up to 2012.

You guys really do have an amusing view of your coalition.  Educated people voted GOP in 2014, did they not?

Postgrads voted for Dems 53-44, according to this: http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/race/house/#exit-polls

Republicans won (non-postgrad) college grads 54-44, some college voters 54-44, and high school grads 53-44,  but Dems won voters without a high school diploma 54-44 (a category which I strongly suspect is disproportionately non-white).

But remember that while the Dems continue to win the lowest-income voters - regardless of education - by substantial margins, their performance among lower and middle income white voters (broadly speaking) has had a considerable decline in recent decades, especially in the last few presidential and congressional elections.  Meanwhile,  Democrats' advantage among postgrads has only grown (though obviously much of this can be attributed to the rapid growth of women and minorities as a share of this demographic).

The income and education correlations with voting and ideology (both of which have also become more correlated in recent years) can be summed up with the observation that high-income voters with only (or not even!) a high school education or "some college" are the most conservative/Republican, while low-income postgrads have become one of the most reliably liberal demographics (and thus, reliably Democratic - though this group also does very well with candidates like Ralph Nader in 2000 and this year, Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries). Furthermore, less-educated (white) middle and upper income voters have moved far to the Right in their voting habits, while conversely, more-educated lower and middle income voters have moved far to the Left.

All of that being said, the Democrats continue to draw much of their strength among lower and middle income voters (particularly minorities) while the Republicans continue to draw much of their strength among (white) middle and upper income voters. The fact that lower income voters are considerably less reliable in elections (particularly in the midterms) than middle and especially upper income voters  - when combined with the fact that the segment of college-educated/postgrad voters who are the most Dem are highly concentrated in the major metro areas of safely Democratic states - goes a long way toward explaining the Democrats' geographic and structural problems these days.
13  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Why are white Manhattanites more liberal than others in NYC on: November 21, 2016, 12:36:06 pm
Lots of young, single, college/graduate school-educated people whom are, uh, "rootless cosmopolitans" (note that this is not necessarily a Jewish thing, by any means Tongue) and thus, make Manhattan a far more transient place than...well, most places, including the rest of NYC.

What I mean is that Manhattan clearly epitomizes New York Values: socially liberal with a focus on money and the media. Duh.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It's still His Turn on: November 21, 2016, 12:30:15 pm
TBH, Obama is pretty low energy for a President.

He's a cerebral man for sure, but low energy?  Certainly not.

Obama on the campaign trail this year was one of the better aspects of the run-up to this election.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Based on IQ, have we moved from the dumbest president ever, to the smartest? on: November 21, 2016, 12:28:26 pm
2/10 trolling imo
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It's still His Turn on: November 18, 2016, 11:27:31 am
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which of these Republicans would Clinton have beaten? on: November 17, 2016, 05:11:38 pm
Cruz and Rubio for sure. Kasich, maybe.

A lot of you folks don't seem to understand that college-educated middle-class whites in the suburbs do not decide elections. This isn't the 1990s (something that those of us who had supported Hillary Clinton really should have taken into consideration). As an illustration of this point, Clinton won Colorado and Virginia - by narrow margins (particularly in the latter's case) in spite of the fact that she crushed Trump in both metro Denver and NoVA.

Furthermore, on a demographic level, notice how broad Trump's support was, and how he won in every educational cohort, but he decimated all of the other candidates among voters without degrees - who, as it turns out, are a not-insignificant part of the Republican primary electorate.

Moreover, while Cruz and Rubio were trying to run up the margins with wealthy evangelicals and Kasich was positioning himself to win the "moderate" (but really only comparatively) Republicans who were not Severely Conservative, Trump - again - won every ideological category, but he destroyed the others with the more "moderate", heterodox, non-ideological/not ideologically consistent, "low-information", and weak partisans/self-identified "Independents"; and he even brought some white Democrats into the fold as well!

These things should have been warning signs that Trump would be much stronger in the GE then most of us had initially assumed. After all, the cohorts of voters that Trump ran away with during the Republican primaries were also the same cohorts that are usually fall into one or more of the following categories: weak partisans (of either party), true Independents/"swing" voters, low-info general election voters, and people who don't usually vote and are otherwise disengaged from the whole process. As it happens, these groups collectively make up a vast chunk of the American electorate. And, at least among white voters (who are the ones that mattered in the Rust Belt counties that Clinton lost - often badly -, and thus, decided the outcome of the election) these groups broke for Trump.
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Does Stephen Bannon Hate or Dislike Jews? on: November 17, 2016, 03:28:13 pm
Breitbart was a Jew, Kushner is a Jew.....he seems fine with them.  Who knows.

some of my best friends are jews
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NBC: Hate crimes spike following the Election on: November 14, 2016, 01:42:22 pm
Yes going the route of Neville Chamberlain really works! Smiley

By the way, a Trump supporter talking about "reaching out" is just the most adorable thing. But I suppose even Nazis have something to contribute. Smiley

On a serious note, I'm not running for political office, so no, I don't have to "reach out."

20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NBC: Hate crimes spike following the Election on: November 14, 2016, 01:26:06 pm
Lot of deplorables in this thread. But what else can you expect from a forum that consists 99% of white boys?

All of my friends who are not white, or are women, or who are immigrants, or are Muslims, or are LGBT, or are disabled, or are young people like me whose immediate future is the Sociopathic Reality Star-in-Chief and his literal white supremacist and fascist supporters (both here and abroad - the global Far Right are the only people outside the US actually cheering this madness. Well, that and noted autocrat whose domestic opponents mysteriously turn up dead on a routine basis  Vladimir Putin. Oh, and ISIS. Can't forget ISIS) - all of them are scared. Genuinely scared. Some are fearful for their own lives, and those of their families.

But continue to gloat about the fact that you normalized fascism and political candidates who sexually harass and assault women (including minors) in America. You're really brave!
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / If Trump is not a racist and misogynist... on: November 14, 2016, 12:16:25 pm
...then why has he spent his entire career saying deeply and shamelessly racist and misogynistic things?

Lest we forget, this is the guy who made Birtherism mainstream. And all of these things that he has said as a matter of campaign strategy he has said in public, on a national stage, as part of a successful major-party presidential campaign. And he doesn't have a problem with all of this - quite the contrary. He actively embraces it.

I absolutely believe Trump and his supporters when they say he's "authentic." He's not bulls****ting; this is what he really believes. And he will be the next President of the United States of America. Think about that for a moment.


22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / The Democrats don't have much of a bench do they on: November 13, 2016, 11:54:51 am
And much of the Democratic bench that does exist is concentrated in states (and especially, the major metro areas of said states) where the party already dominates.

Latinos and young liberals will definitely (continue to) help Democrats in the Sun Belt, but affluent college educated suburban whites aren't quite as reliable as we thought - and this was in an election in which noted vulgar right-wing populist Donald Trump (a man with no government experience and is the scourge of the bipartisan political establishment) was at the top of the Republican ticket! And yes, Democrats do need to stop the bleeding in the Rust Belt - which kinda, uh, hurt them in this election. You're not gonna do that with gross corporate candidates like (*gag*) Gavin Newsom or (*gag gag*) Cory Booker, that's for damn sure.

Not completely dire by any means, but definitely concerning.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: To Sanders voters: you were right, I was wrong on: November 13, 2016, 11:42:21 am
There's too much emphasis on white working class voters. Yes, their swing was the story of the election, but they're only about a third of the electorate. I doubt Sanders would have done as well as Clinton among minorities and college educated voters.

Unfortunately for Democrats, minorities and college educated voters (at least, college educated Democratic voters) are concentrated in states that are either solidly Democratic in presidential elections or at the very least, seem to be on their way to that status (see: Colorado).
24  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Chelsea Clinton groomed for Congress run in NY17 on: November 12, 2016, 02:04:45 pm
I guess no one cares about George P. Bush huh.

Let Chelsea run if she wants to. It's not like the Democratic Party establishment has any credibility left with voters. Well, outside of rich liberal neighborhoods.

25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: To Sanders voters: you were right, I was wrong on: November 11, 2016, 06:02:50 pm
My question is:  Why did the Democratic Party clear the deck for Hillary Clinton, knowing that she had the baggage she had?  Was the Democratic Party really required to step aside en masse because Hillary made nice with Obama in 2008?  Did the Democratic Party really think that she was that great a candidate?  

I remember the standing Hillary had in the polls in the pre-primary season, and pre-Sanders.  Given the performance of the pollsters this year, her inflated early stock seems to have been an incredible illusion that disappeared once folks brought up any of her negative past.

I say this because the Democratic Party has no lack of capable officeholders.  There was VP Biden, Sen. Klobuchar, Gillibrand, McCaskill, Brown, as well as Sanders and Warren.  Did they have to fold in favor of Hillary?  If Hillary had to slug it out, why wouldn't that process have revealed her flaws to the point where a more electable nominee could have been chosen?

The Democratic Party paid a debt to Hillary they didn't owe.  It cost them the White House.

Because Clinton was the clear favorite and they were all greedily scrambling for jobs/career advancement from the new Clinton administration

That, and the fact that they spent their most if not all of their time staying in the liberal bubbles which just so happen to be the sorts of areas that have benefited the most - by far - from the globalized economy. And somehow, calling economically struggling and culturally alienated people who live in the countryside a bunch of illiterate, ignorant, uneducated, and racist rubes from your Ivy League, Wall Street, Hollywood, or (in my case) Silicon Valley safe space isn't a good look. I guess while we were tweeting sick burns against Trump and sharing Huffington Post articles or whatever we forgot that those uneducated rubes vote.

For people who pride themselves on being educated and empirically driven, we liberals can be awfully myopic and close-minded ourselves, seeing what we want to see and dismissing contrary opinions as inherently incorrect, "uneducated", or worse, morally suspect. And our inability to understand this is why our hubris and yes, outright elitism continues to cost us the votes of people who "vote against their interests (those who represent their interests being, of course, the smart liberals who banked so much on Wall Street's favorite Democratic candidate, who embraced the liberalism, feminism, and "diversity" of the corporate boardroom and the public relations campaigns of the 1% of Americans who have benefited oh-so-much from the income inequality that we claim to condemn).

It's hard to get people to hear you out when they - correctly - suspect that, to the extent you care about them at all, you just care about getting their votes.  Hardly a mystery that people who aren't respected don't want to listen to you.

PS: In the spirit of being Fair and Balanced, I would add that the same criticism - though phrased differently in some ways, of course - applies to Republicans in relation to black, Latino, Asian, and other Not White voters, as well as in relation to Trump voters for that matter. This is a bipartisan issue.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 293


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines