Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 29, 2016, 01:43:40 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 290
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Democrats are the party of the rich (the Bloombourgeoisie) on: September 28, 2016, 09:37:40 pm
My social circle are households which are net worth ranging from around $5 mil to $20 million

.......
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama vetoes 9/11 bill on: September 28, 2016, 07:33:40 pm
FTR, while I don't like this legislation, I actually think the US divesting as much as possible from Saudi Arabia is a good (indeed, urgent) idea if only to get as far away as possible from the coming fall of the House of Saud and the calamity that will surely ensue (which was historically predictable because the Kingdom is essentially an agglomeration of various different family/kinship groups who were violently coerced into accepting the despotic rule of the House of Saud and its Wahhabi allies - both groups themselves being far from unified other than that they will ruthless put down any real or perceived threat to their rule). Basically, a century of  inter-and-intrafamily intrigue, manipulation, and even outright violence is coming to a head now and the fundamental instability and precarious nature of Saudi Arabia is being revealed for all to see ("heightening the contradictions" amirite).

The really frightening thing, however, is that because the Saudi-Wahhabi establishment have had little desire to cultivate any kind of civil society other than hopelessly dogmatic, backward, and pro-regime Wahhabist religious institutions, when the chickens come home to roost - as they are starting to now - the only alternatives to their rule will be, in all likelihood, a bunch of warring Al-Qaeda-style factions that will each be making claims to an Islamic State. Exit the House of Saud, enter the Islamic State (s) of the Arabian Peninsula. Not good!

I do find it curious, though, that the Iranian regime - which openly supports terrorism against the US and its allies as a matter of official policy - is somehow seen as the Lesser of Two Evils these days, because they fight ISIS or whatever. Granted, there's almost certainly less pro-terrorism-against-the-West sentiment among the Iranian population than among the Saudis....
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama vetoes 9/11 bill on: September 28, 2016, 12:01:37 pm
This is a terrible and ill-advised piece of legislation that is based on election-year considerations by politicians who are always anxious to prove that they're "tough on terrorism." There's no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution (as opposed to a handful of individual officials) knowingly assisted the 9/11 hijackers or Al-Qaeda itself - why would a draconian regime assist their sworn enemies anyway?

Plus, this bill was and is a bad idea because not only is it unlikely to be enforced, but it sets a terrible precedent because unlike the House of Saud re: 9/11, the US government HAS terrorized other countries as a matter of official policy (especially during the Cold War).

This is political theater.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How big a disaster will a Hillary Clinton presidency be? on: September 27, 2016, 12:06:06 pm
I just wanted to compare this to the other thread about Trump.  There seems to be an ant-GOP bias.

Well, the GOP has an anti-fact bias these days, so you can hardly blame those of us who call that out.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / "That's business" and "that's called being smart": Trump's gift to Clinton on: September 27, 2016, 12:00:31 pm
Hillary and her surrogates (Bill, the Obamas, Biden, and others) seriously need to take advantage of these statements, along with any others that demonstrate just how out-of-touch Trump is with the "little people."

Remember, one of the things that really hurt Romney (another "smart successful businessman" candidate) was the "47%" comment. This shows that American voters at heart, want a populist champion (whether real or perceived) of ordinary, working people and families - which is something that the Party of Business and Money has successfully exploited in recent decades.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the only two Democratic Presidents since Reagan were elected during economic recessions and where their Republican opponents were widely perceived to be out of touch on the domestic economy (John McCain's multiple houses and his statements like "the fundamentals of the economy are strong", George H.W. Bush being more concerned with foreign policy than with the economic distress of working and middle class Americans).

Not only is the economy (stupid) of paramount importance in presidential elections, but Democrats win when they can successfully capitalize on when Republicans seem (or are) unconcerned with the economic situation of the voting public. Not only does that feed into the classic image of the Republican Party as the Party of Business and Money, but - just as importantly - it gives the Democrats an opening to assert their populist, anti-elitist qualities (as demonstrated recently by Bill Clinton in both of his general election campaigns, President Obama in both of his general election campaigns, Bernie Sanders in this year's Democratic primaries, and yes, Hillary Clinton - increasingly, at least - in her campaign this year) and furthermore, disassociate themselves from the perception  of "elitism" that candidates like Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry contributed to (or even Walter Mondale in 1984, when he said "I will raise your taxes" - which is all that people needed to hear to conclude that Mondale was a big-government, tax-and-spend liberal or whatever).

Again, this is a gift to the Democrats. They would be wise to take advantage of it, and milk it for all it's worth.
6  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Hey, Santander: come and play! on: September 26, 2016, 04:29:40 pm
Alright guys, what is so bad about Santander?

the fact that he's a fiend
7  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Why is Minnesota so liberal? on: September 25, 2016, 06:16:55 pm
socially tolerant (well, at least in regard to other Protestants - though I suspect many of this state's residents were also ahead of the Northern Protestant curve re: tolerance and acceptance of Catholics and Jews)

This is generally a great post, but Minneapolis was actually regarded as the "capital of anti-semitism" in the US in the early 20th century.

Wow, I stand corrected. Thanks!
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie did worse to Hillary than what Nader did to Al Gore on: September 24, 2016, 02:11:49 pm
people who go bler bler bler 74 YEAR OLD SOCIALIST are missing the point. Bernie's campaign was incredibly effective at getting out a solid message. He was a strong challenger that would've gained traction regardless of who he ran against.

Sure, but it's still not a good sign that in a year in which a very large (and growing) number of Americans absolutely despise the Beltway Establishment of both parties, it's worrying for the liberal/Democratic side that not only is the Democratic nominee in many ways the epitome of Beltway status quo politics (and is widely perceived as that, in addition to the many other things that - justifiably or not - contribute to a negative public perception of her) but also, that the anti-Establishment Republican nominee - as disgusting  and deranged as he is - has a frighteningly large and enthusiastic following. And while voter enthusiasm isn't the be all end all of elections, it certainly plays a significant role in elections. While Trump does have a lower ceiling than Clinton, the cold reality is that many liberal/left-leaning voters - particularly Millennials, who already have notoriously unreliable turnout rates - don't like Clinton of trust her; and if that's true of many voters on the Left, it's even more true of more "centrist" and center-right voters. And I'm not at all confident that most anti-Trump Republicans don't hate both Clintons, Obama, and basically anyone else associated with the Democratic Party more than they hate Trump (remember, most of these types despise Trump because they see him - correctly - as not being a Reaganite conservative, and thus, not "authentically" conservative).

I say all this, of course, as someone who desperately wants Clinton to annihilate that a**hole come November and to see his white supremacist supporters driven back into fringe irrelevancy where they belong.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie did worse to Hillary than what Nader did to Al Gore on: September 24, 2016, 11:48:41 am
The fact that grassroosts left-wing political activist and outsider to the Democratic Party Bernie Sanders got as far as he did against Hillary Clinton - who had the full force of the Democratic Establishment, major donors, and universal name recognition behind her - is a troubling sign for thse of us who who want Donald Trump to go down in flames in November.

On the positive side, Sanders's campaign has demonstrated that there is strong popular demand for bottom-up, left-wing politics (or at the very least, left of the Democratic Party's view of politics) and that is a kind of victory in and of itself. Let's hope that that same energy is channeled into downballot races and aggressive organizing at the local level more broadly (which I believe Sanders and hs allies are trying to do already, which is a good sign).
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: US Intelligence investigating another Trump aide for secretive Kremlin ties on: September 23, 2016, 08:54:17 pm
Manchurian Candidate confirmed.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who will Dubya vote for? on: September 23, 2016, 09:17:12 am
Who knows? who cares?

I think the more puzzling question is why Dick Cheney endorsed Trump. They have nothing in common except for hating Hillary Clinton and loving tortu-wait...*puke*
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What is most concerning or upsetting to you about the current state of the U.S.? on: September 22, 2016, 11:14:40 am
Climate change, increased poverty and economic insecurity, extreme economic and racial inequality and the rollback of both the welfare state and civil rights gains, the growing divide in education between students from wealthy families and students from working class and poor families, the decline of social mobility, the state of American infrastructure, the privatization and hollowing out of public goods, gun violence, the utter vapidness of the mass media and a celebrity-obsessed culture, the fact that Donald Trump has a very real chance of becoming President and the implications thereof...
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Trump supporters and "RINOs" on: September 21, 2016, 10:19:18 am
I find it comically absurd that Trump's supporters can call people like Paul Ryan, John Kasich, the Bushes, even Ted Cruz "Republicans in Name Only." As if Donald Trump had any commitment (let alone loyalty) to the Republican Party.

Don't get me wrong, the GOP Establishment has a lot to answer for regarding their electoral/political strategy of recent decades - a strategy that clearly had a lot to do with Trump's rise. Yet still...the Trump phenomenon has made the Republican Party so toxic to so many people that even figures like George H.W. Bush are planning to vote for Hillary Clinton (or Gary Johnson in other cases). Yes, "Crooked Hillary" is getting the endorsement of many of the same people who have loathed her ever since she became a public figure. That demonstrates just how utterly bizarre this election is, and how all of the conventional wisdom has been thrown out the window.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Breaking: George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary on: September 20, 2016, 01:46:46 am
The fact that people like George HW Bush and Hillary Clinton (who for the record, are very different from each other on foreign policy) get called "neocons" is more proof that it's a generic term of abuse by the  neo-isolationists who somehow think it would be a good idea for the US to forfeit its international commitments and leadership (because obviously the world would be so much better if the only plausible alternatives  like Russia and China had more power and global influence than the US!)
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is Obama a Marxist? on: September 19, 2016, 04:38:03 pm
His public views flirt with Marxism (class warfare, collective vs. individual rights, individual vs. state responsibility, etc.) but stop short of it. I will continue to call him a Marxist, though.

Huh? When did Obama advocate abolishing the state? Not something I'd expect from a US President, you're gonna have to back this up.

I think he's referring to the young liberal technocrats - drawn largely from elite universities and quite often from upper-middle class backgrounds - who dominate the Obama administration, which clearly demonstrates how far the dictatorship of the proletariat has already come in taking over the US government.

And yes, the responsibilities of the President and the federal bureaucracy have grown under Obama's Presidency, just like how they grew under noted Marxists Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jill Stein would rather have incompetent Trump as President than Hillary on: September 19, 2016, 04:18:15 pm
The idea that Hillary Clinton won't have trouble moving things through a Republican Congress in 2017 could only come from someone who knows literally nothing about Hillary Clinton's history in politics (and thus, isn't qualified to comment on - let alone, criticize - anything she had ever said or done as a public figure.
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is Obama a Marxist? on: September 19, 2016, 10:41:34 am
I think he is at heart (look at the past ties), but has restrained himself from his true beliefs while president

Is Trump a Nazi?

I think he is at heart (look at his current ties), but he has "restrained" himself from his true beliefs while on the campaign trail.
18  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Do you want to have kids? on: September 19, 2016, 10:39:21 am
in my area the hip-'n'-trendy thing is to be 'childfree'.

Well there are certain regions of the US where people (particularly women) who aren't married with children (the horror!) by their late 20s (if not earlier!) are often looked upon with suspicion, at the very least.  Because only an unrepentant sinner wouldn't be in a heterosexual marriage with 3+ children by age 30.

Obviously I'm generalizing like hell, and thankfully attitudes like the above have been starting to change more recently, but still...
19  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: How do Portuguese Americans vote? on: September 17, 2016, 01:18:09 pm
Don't Portuguese-Americans continue to have a significant presence within Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts Democratic Party machine politics? I would assume that this, combined with the related facts of Portuguese-Americans (like other "hyphenated American" white ethnic groups in the Northeast) being heavily involved in the New Deal coalition and still being disproportionately working class - and furthermore, continuing to have a strong working class ethnic culture, which would influence the political behavior of even the more recent and less working class generations of Portuguese-Americans - would make them still heavily Democratic compared to other white ethnic groups.

FWIW, according to Wikipedia, the top 3 states with the largest percentage of Portuguese-Americans are Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Hawaii - all of which are strongly Democratic states.
20  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: How accurate is the Catholic vote? on: September 15, 2016, 04:58:54 pm
Define "Catholic."

EDIT: There's a pretty damn obvious reason for why Catholics in the Eastern US are much more Republican than Catholics in the West/Southwest...
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Political Dysfunction Crippling Economic Recovery on: September 15, 2016, 01:14:19 pm
If the GOP would just get out of the way the Dems would be running this country great.  For proof, look at all those cities that only elect Dems, they are doing great economically!  Baltimore, Detroit, Milwaukee, St Louis, the list goes on and on like this.

Large cities vote for the Democratic Party at all levels of government. Who knew?

Meanwhile, I'd love to live in such 21st century economic powerhouses as Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, or West Virginia. Great models for other states to follow!
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: How did your demographic vote? on: September 14, 2016, 06:48:15 pm
52% Dem at 57% turnout.

Looks like even in the People's Republic of California white guys aged 18-29 with Bachelor's degrees (without postgrad degrees) who vote Republican turn out at higher rates than their Democratic counterparts. Not good!

EDIT: And CA whites were 53% R in 2012. Curse you, Central Valley! Curse you, Inland Empire and large parts of Orange and San Diego Counties! Angry
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: How could Gerald Ford have won 1976? on: September 14, 2016, 12:03:21 pm
Had Ford kept Rockefeller instead of replacing him with Dole.



Ford: 274 Electoral Votes
Carter: 264 Electoral Votes

The problem with this is that Rockefeller was almost universally despised within the Republican Party - particularly the Reaganites, whose candidate came uncomfortably close to defeating Ford in the primaries -but also within the Ford White House itself.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Black vote in 1952 on: September 14, 2016, 11:55:30 am
Also, read up on the "Lily White" faction of the (still small and marginalized) Southern Republicans in the 1920s - the decade in which they were becoming dominant within the region's GOP.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Black vote in 1952 on: September 14, 2016, 11:48:55 am
(I'm not going to accept modern Democrats' assertion that supporting civil rights is a liberal thing to do, as that's an asinine thing to say.)

Quote
Both (Herbert Hoover and Al Smith) did their utmost to appeal to the anti-black sentiments of white voters. Hoover’s actions seemed the most reprehensible to many African Americans since they represented an attempt to eliminate blacks from the political life of the nation. Hoover’s “Lily White” strategy of restructuring the southern Republican Party on an exclusively white basis was an important component of Hoover’s campaign strategy. Hoover’s purge of African Americans from southern branches of his party would complete their banishment from the politics of the region. At the 1928 Republican National Convention, the Hoover-controlled credentials committee refused to seat Florida black delegates replacing them with “Lily White” candidates from that state. This scenario was repeated in state after state as black delegates from the south were replaced by white delegates. The Black and Tan delegates were replaced by members of the rival Lily White southern delegations. The increasing hostility of the Republican Party and continued hostility of the Democratic Party forced black political activists to consider alternatives. One activist, William “Gooseneck Bill” McDonald of Texas, disgusted by the racism of the 1928 Democratic convention, launched the National Negro Voters League, an organization to push for full black political rights and to take a critical look at the relationship of blacks within the Republican Party.

In the end, Hoover’s strategy paid off as he won seven southern states, and still managed to attract the majority of black northern votes. Nevertheless, in an ominous omen for the Republican Party, Northern Democrats received the strongest support from blacks in the party’s history in 1928.

http://www.blacksandpresidency.com/herberthoover.php

Quote
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, which was disproportionately disastrous for African Americans, the NAACP began to focus on economic justice. After years of tension with white labor unions, the Association cooperated with the newly formed Congress of Industrial Organizations in an effort to win jobs for black Americans. White, a friend and adviser to First Lady--and NAACP national board member--Eleanor Roosevelt, met with her often in attempts to convince President Franklin D. Roosevelt to outlaw job discrimination in the armed forces, defense industries and the agencies spawned by Roosevelt's New Deal legislation.

Roosevelt ultimately agreed to open thousands of jobs to black workers when labor leader A. Philip Randolph, in collaboration with the NAACP, threatened a national March on Washington movement in 1941. President Roosevelt also agreed to set up a Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to ensure compliance.

http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history

What, on Earth, is your point?  During the exact same time period, there were very liberal Democrats who swept civil rights under the rug (FDR) and very conservative Republicans who openly called for civil rights legislation (Coolidge), which is my point: you can't just put civil rights on a left-right axis.  It crossed party lines and ideological ones, as well.  You have just simply decided through any number of lazy rationalizations that supporting civil rights is "liberal" (I would guess some form of Blacks are liberals now, so liberals - regardless of party - must have been the only ones fighting for them or the comical conclusion that because you are a liberal and you would have supported civil rights that it must be an inherently liberal view).

There were liberals and conservatives who supported and opposed civil rights all throughout the movement's history; to decide supporting or opposing basic civil rights is liberal is PURE conjecture.  Period.

My point is that, while neither party was particularly interested in expanding civil rights for black Americans between 1876 and 1948, FDR (and Truman, for that matter) were far more responsive to black concerns than any President - Republican or Democrat - had been since the Grant administration. And it was the (Northern) liberal wing of the Democratic Party (including modern liberal icons like Eleanor Roosevelt and later, Hubert Humphrey)  who were pushing them - in spite of the Conservative Coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats in Congress doing their best to block most if not all of the New Deal (which for the Southern Democrats, included - but by no means was limited to - civil rights for black people).

For  information re: modern conservatism's relationship to anti-civil rights white Southerner , read my post in another thread here: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=244964.msg5254176#msg5254176

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 290


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines