Hot, Bad & Unpopular Takes

[wxtransit]

Rainy days are better than sunny days, and colder climates are better than warmer ones.

[YE]

The suburban Democratic trend is temporary. A more diverse U.S. will force the Republican Party to move back to the center socially, and along with that, the suburbs will shift Republican. Especially with the growth of democratic socialism within the Democratic Party.

I mean I see what you’re saying but suburbs, many of whom have become quite diverse, is a vaugue term in this context so I’m not sure what to make of it. Replace suburbs with wealthy whites in general? Yes but not till Trump is long gone.

[RINO Tom]

The suburban Democratic trend is temporary. A more diverse U.S. will force the Republican Party to move back to the center socially, and along with that, the suburbs will shift Republican. Especially with the growth of democratic socialism within the Democratic Party.

America is suburbanizing in general though. Where would Democrats derive their electoral power? You'd have to be more specific. If Republicans controlled rural areas and suburbs in general, that wouldn't leave a whole lot else outside of urban cores.

Not to mention that suburbs are becoming less white and the GOP has no interest in appealing to non-whites..

Southern Democratic machines eventually started aggressively courting Black voters after disenfranchising them was no longer an option, no?  My point is that the GOP might someday have no choice but to appeal to non-Whites.  They'll adapt or die.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The suburban Democratic trend is temporary. A more diverse U.S. will force the Republican Party to move back to the center socially, and along with that, the suburbs will shift Republican. Especially with the growth of democratic socialism within the Democratic Party.

America is suburbanizing in general though. Where would Democrats derive their electoral power? You'd have to be more specific. If Republicans controlled rural areas and suburbs in general, that wouldn't leave a whole lot else outside of urban cores.

Not to mention that suburbs are becoming less white and the GOP has no interest in appealing to non-whites..

Southern Democratic machines eventually started aggressively courting Black voters after disenfranchising them was no longer an option, no?  My point is that the GOP might someday have no choice but to appeal to non-Whites.  They'll adapt or die.

My point was in response to Admiral President.

SOCK?

[Lord Admirale]

The suburban Democratic trend is temporary. A more diverse U.S. will force the Republican Party to move back to the center socially, and along with that, the suburbs will shift Republican. Especially with the growth of democratic socialism within the Democratic Party.

America is suburbanizing in general though. Where would Democrats derive their electoral power? You'd have to be more specific. If Republicans controlled rural areas and suburbs in general, that wouldn't leave a whole lot else outside of urban cores.

Honestly I think the south will return to its Democratic roots, albeit very different than the solid south was half a century ago. Places like Georgia, Mississippi, are on their way to become majority black in the coming decades, while other southern states are quickly diversifying. Texas is turning purple and could be a huge source of power for the Dems in coming elections. I could see rural areas also shifting Democratic, depending on how well-received the Democrats are by rural and poor whites.

What I meant by "suburban" is affluent, middle-to-upper class places that became significantly more Democratic under Bill Clinton.

[RINO Tom]

The suburban Democratic trend is temporary. A more diverse U.S. will force the Republican Party to move back to the center socially, and along with that, the suburbs will shift Republican. Especially with the growth of democratic socialism within the Democratic Party.

America is suburbanizing in general though. Where would Democrats derive their electoral power? You'd have to be more specific. If Republicans controlled rural areas and suburbs in general, that wouldn't leave a whole lot else outside of urban cores.

Not to mention that suburbs are becoming less white and the GOP has no interest in appealing to non-whites..

Southern Democratic machines eventually started aggressively courting Black voters after disenfranchising them was no longer an option, no?  My point is that the GOP might someday have no choice but to appeal to non-Whites.  They'll adapt or die.

My point was in response to Admiral President.

SOCK?

LOL, what?  You said the GOP has no interest in appealing to non-Whites, and I was trying to make the point that eventually they might just have to even if they don’t like it...?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The suburban Democratic trend is temporary. A more diverse U.S. will force the Republican Party to move back to the center socially, and along with that, the suburbs will shift Republican. Especially with the growth of democratic socialism within the Democratic Party.

America is suburbanizing in general though. Where would Democrats derive their electoral power? You'd have to be more specific. If Republicans controlled rural areas and suburbs in general, that wouldn't leave a whole lot else outside of urban cores.

Not to mention that suburbs are becoming less white and the GOP has no interest in appealing to non-whites..

Southern Democratic machines eventually started aggressively courting Black voters after disenfranchising them was no longer an option, no?  My point is that the GOP might someday have no choice but to appeal to non-Whites.  They'll adapt or die.

My point was in response to Admiral President.

SOCK?

LOL, what?  You said the GOP has no interest in appealing to non-Whites, and I was trying to make the point that eventually they might just have to even if they don’t like it...?

But I wasn't... nevermind.

As far as the GOP appealing to minority voters, I'll believe it when I see it.  There is no law that says a party must do anything, and right now the GOP is heavily skewed toward white voters and not much else.  It will take at least a generation to erase the stains of Donald Trump.

[Lord Admirale]

The suburban Democratic trend is temporary. A more diverse U.S. will force the Republican Party to move back to the center socially, and along with that, the suburbs will shift Republican. Especially with the growth of democratic socialism within the Democratic Party.

America is suburbanizing in general though. Where would Democrats derive their electoral power? You'd have to be more specific. If Republicans controlled rural areas and suburbs in general, that wouldn't leave a whole lot else outside of urban cores.

Not to mention that suburbs are becoming less white and the GOP has no interest in appealing to non-whites..

Southern Democratic machines eventually started aggressively courting Black voters after disenfranchising them was no longer an option, no?  My point is that the GOP might someday have no choice but to appeal to non-Whites.  They'll adapt or die.

My point was in response to Admiral President.

SOCK?

LOL, what?  You said the GOP has no interest in appealing to non-Whites, and I was trying to make the point that eventually they might just have to even if they don’t like it...?

But I wasn't... nevermind.

As far as the GOP appealing to minority voters, I'll believe it when I see it.  There is no law that says a party must do anything, and right now the GOP is heavily skewed toward white voters and not much else.  It will take at least a generation to erase the stains of Donald Trump.

Then I guess the GOP will lose every presidential election and eventually fade into obscurity

[Goldwater]

Having security cameras in public places is not a violation of privacy.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Scientists heavily overestimate the potential negative effects towards the ecosystem that would result from many different species of parasites going extinct.

There is no risk involved in planned extinction of all species of Ticks, for example, other than the possibility that it might not work, that the Ticks might survive, and it would just be a lot of wasted resources and effort for nothing.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Movies are pushing feminism down are throats and that's a bad thing as it distracts us from good entertainment.

Did I mention that modern feminism is an evil idea that has no place in modern American society? That too.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Movies are pushing feminism down are throats and that's a bad thing as it distracts us from good entertainment.

Did I mention that modern feminism is an evil idea that has no place in modern American society? That too.

This profile should change its name

[HillGoose]

Anti-vax parents whose children who die of a vaccine-preventable illness should be charged with manslaughter and child abuse.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Anti-vax parents whose children who die of a vaccine-preventable illness should be charged with manslaughter and child abuse.

Child abuse yes, manslaughter no.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I’m sick and tired of the “your ancestors were immigrants tooz” argument. My only recent immigrant ancestor in my entire family came here from Sicily in the early 1900s. Italy was a respected, stable country at that time as it is now. He wasn’t fleeing crime or repression, as Italy wasn’t one of the sh*thole countries at the time. It’s like watching The Godfather II’s opening scene and assuming it is real life. My great-grandfather actually has something to offer this country when he arrived.

The rest of my family have been here since the days of New Amsterdam.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Having security cameras in public places is not a violation of privacy.

I prefer to be given a written consent form for me to sign prior to being involved in any photography at all.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I’m sick and tired of the “your ancestors were immigrants tooz” argument. My only recent immigrant ancestor in my entire family came here from Sicily in the early 1900s. Italy was a respected, stable country at that time as it is now. He wasn’t fleeing crime or repression, as Italy wasn’t one of the sh*thole countries at the time. It’s like watching The Godfather II’s opening scene and assuming it is real life. My great-grandfather actually has something to offer this country when he arrived.

The rest of my family have been here since the days of New Amsterdam.

Regardless of one's immigrant past (mine are slightly more recent, though not by much... I think between the 1860's and 1910's), there is a much more glaring cognitive error: people like to use that snarky comment about Native Americans letting undocumented immigrants into America as a way to somehow defuse anti-immigration arguments. The example of what Europeans did to this continent's indigenous inhabitants is by no means an argument in favor of migration.

[Politician]

Unrestricted free trade is bad.

[YE]

Red avatars on Atlas somehow seem to underestimate the effects of money in politics. It should be one of the most discussed issues here honestly yet I can count on my hands the number of threads we have had on it in the last year.

Open borders is a horrible idea unless you want to suppress wages further of already low paying jobs since it often increases the low skilled labor force.

The way the establishment frames issues is horrific. They assume the interests of a large businessman is the same of that of a common man, which often leads to one leading to the conclusion that the problem with the country is that corporations are taxed too high for instance. They also assume that a large government is somehow a bad thing. A number of viewpoints seem to largely get ignored as well. Do people realize with for profit health insurance, the government is literally trying to profit of off your illness? Or that economic growth is meaningless if the middle class shrinks? Or how no one ever tries to debunk the idea that social security is going broke when in reality it was designed for you to pay out your parents and grandparents social security rather than just your own? Or how the national debt really doesn't matter?

I'll just say this broadly because it's hard to go into specifics on this but there's too much focus on individualism in politics. If you're failing, it's easy for society now to blame it on you the individual rather than nationwide policies.

Do people realize if they'd repeal the 2nd amendment or even do an assault weapons ban in this age of polarization, a black market for guns would form and you have a second war on drugs on our hands?

An 100% tax on the billionaire class is something that's likely not necessary outside of a war time but the partisan side of me really loves watching right wingers get triggered over it like that one person needs a billion dollars to survive and somehow they'll go hungry.

An 100% estate tax on the very rich, however, is not a bad idea and it somewhat prevents people from becoming wealthy without working a day of their life.

It rubs me the wrong way, even if there's some truth to it, when Democrats talk about how diversity is a strength.

Expanding social security for seniors is not really something that should prioritized. Gimme single payer, free college, paid family leave, paid vacation time by law, universal pre-K, universal daycare first. If we still have such gap between rich and poor, then we'll talk.  

I don't like the idea of UBI and would much more prefer it if people just worked for fewer hours rather than paying people to sit on their ass all day.

Fundamentally I'm not a fan of worker co-ops and while strongly supportive of unions, am not a fan of workplace democracy.

Do people realize with a public option the price gouging middle men known as the for profit health insurance companies?

I don't understand how people could think Bernie Sanders is a divisive figure. It's not like he's a cuck who regularly obstructs passage of Democratic legislation.

The Dakotas will eventually start splitting their tickets again. The Democrats had a historic downballot low period in the Obama era downballot and once polarization dies down, you'll see ticket splitting occurring again in many places it use to occur.  

What people overlook in the WWC vs suburbs argument (and I didn't figure this out until recently) that occurs on here is that the percentage of non-college educated whites is going down. For many millennials (I guess I sort of count as one?), a college degree is worth what a high school degree was worth for the GI generation, so in many ways, college education whites who are being screwed over right now in the next Dem realignment will serve somewhat of a backbone to the new coalition much like high school educated WWC GI's served as a backbone to the New Deal realignment.

I wish the Democrats were red and Republicans were blue IRL.

There were too many Democratic debates in the 2008 primary election cycle.

Fuzzy Bear is as much of a RINO if not more so than RINO Tom. Both are to the right of Badger, though on balance.

The gap in leftwingness between Arizona and Nevada will shrink in the next decade or so.

Places like Idaho and Wyoming will eventually become overrun with educated liberals and/or Hispanics by mid century.

Almost all posts on The Atlas section of this board are worthless.

[Virginiá]

Red avatars on Atlas somehow seem to underestimate the effects of money in politics. It should be one of the most discussed issues here honestly yet I can count on my hands the number of threads we have had on it in the last year.

When I joined, I cared a lot about this, but over time I've had to think it over. The effect of money on high profile races is definitely limited, and I think 2016 was a reasonable example of that. When the country is already intimately aware of the candidates, you can't just paper that over with tens of millions in ads. In fact, ads are probably the least effective way to do things, especially months away from the election. The best investment is a sustained GOTV effort that engages in persuasion but mostly base turnout. But again, it's really hard to make a dent on a national scale, and when people just don't want to vote, it doesn't matter how many canvassers you send to their house. The national mood matters a lot in this regard. However, money does matter more the further you go down ballot, where candidates are less known and thus voters are more open to persuasion about them. But even with this there are still limits. Republicans having a cash advantage in some races post-2016 does not seem to be guaranteeing any wins. I think there have been a few notable cases of a big spending discrepancy not really mattering at all.

What I do fear about money in politics is its ability to corrupt the candidates who gobble it up like crazy. It bothers me that these people take millions in checks only to blow it on some useless campaign ads, and then they walk away indebted to those donors for something that probably didn't help one bit. That makes everything so depressing. These people are willing to sell out completely just for a chance. Not even a guarantee. And they really have no idea what works, and I doubt they really care, because that's what expensive campaign consultants are for, right?

It would make me feel a little better if the stuff they spent all that money on actually helped. At least then it wouldn't feel so pointless when they get into office and suddenly lose the will to make good on promises to voters but have no problem pushing donor priorities.

Almost all posts on The Atlas section of this board are worthless.

100% agreed.

It's not like we haven't told users that we don't care about petitions, but it never seems to stop. Plus, think about it like this, even if Moderators did focus on those petitions, the sheer volume of BS on that board kind of cheapens the whole process. If these petitions were less prevalent and only created when a user really does something to deserve it, they might be worth paying attention to, but I don't think that'll ever be the case.

As it stands now, the only petitions that have ever led somewhere was when a user brought up a ton of (new) evidence and/or unacceptable posts that people didn't notice before, and posted about it in the thread. OTOH, you don't need to make a petition for that.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Mods on this board are actually very cool and doing a good job, although I there are a couPle i Think could be better.

[YE]

Red avatars on Atlas somehow seem to underestimate the effects of money in politics. It should be one of the most discussed issues here honestly yet I can count on my hands the number of threads we have had on it in the last year.

When I joined, I cared a lot about this, but over time I've had to think it over. The effect of money on high profile races is definitely limited, and I think 2016 was a reasonable example of that. When the country is already intimately aware of the candidates, you can't just paper that over with tens of millions in ads. In fact, ads are probably the least effective way to do things, especially months away from the election. The best investment is a sustained GOTV effort that engages in persuasion but mostly base turnout. But again, it's really hard to make a dent on a national scale, and when people just don't want to vote, it doesn't matter how many canvassers you send to their house. The national mood matters a lot in this regard. However, money does matter more the further you go down ballot, where candidates are less known and thus voters are more open to persuasion about them. But even with this there are still limits. Republicans having a cash advantage in some races post-2016 does not seem to be guaranteeing any wins. I think there have been a few notable cases of a big spending discrepancy not really mattering at all.

What I do fear about money in politics is its ability to corrupt the candidates who gobble it up like crazy. It bothers me that these people take millions in checks only to blow it on some useless campaign ads, and then they walk away indebted to those donors for something that probably didn't help one bit. That makes everything so depressing. These people are willing to sell out completely just for a chance. Not even a guarantee. And they really have no idea what works, and I doubt they really care, because that's what expensive campaign consultants are for, right?

It would make me feel a little better if the stuff they spent all that money on actually helped. At least then it wouldn't feel so pointless when they get into office and suddenly lose the will to make good on promises to voters but have no problem pushing donor priorities.

When I discuss the problem of money in politics, I mean less when it comes to individual elections and more of how it affects the voting record or thought process of policy makers when it comes to actual policy. At this point, with our trust in institutions at an all time low, it's somewhat easier for a populist grassroots funded (and I think Bernie's sucess in 2016 was proof of that) but the Democrats desire to go after big money donors since the 80s has corrupted their politics and is why they're more willing to move left on social/cultural issues since those issues affect their donor base much less, if at all, than economic issues. The influence of money is the biggest reason why we don't have the welfare state that Europe has, where AFAIK they generally have clean elections with tight campaign seasons and spending rules.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

There are only two genders.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I don't like it when an extremist or someone who is a terrible person says something I agree with.

[Alabama_Indy10]

There are only two genders.

I consider that more of a fact than a "hot take."