|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 07 2016 21:28 Kickstart wrote:
Indeed, I think the people I know are probably just unique cases! Voted Rand Paul and profess to be libertarian (before they considered themselves just republicans) but in reality they are and were part of the evangelical right. I dunno, was just making some casual observation that being viewed as part of that demographic seems to be more unfavorable these days.
Well this election cycle has both liberals and conservatives twisting themselves into pretzels, so color me unsurprised 
|
On October 07 2016 21:28 Kickstart wrote:
Indeed, I think the people I know are probably just unique cases! Voted Rand Paul and profess to be libertarian (before they considered themselves just republicans) but in reality they are and were part of the evangelical right. I dunno, was just making some casual observation that being viewed as part of that demographic seems to be more unfavorable these days.
As a libertarian, I understand why most would align with republicans. Consesions that can be fought later (like drug legalization) are details compared with the huge welfare state, war troughtout the middle east (funny which party are the warmongers now) and demographic manipulation carried out by democrats.
|
Those evil democrats and their manipulation of demographics by listening to their concerns. Treating issues of race and gender like something that should be addressed, rather than mocked, disregarded or ignored. Damn them.
|
On October 07 2016 21:36 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 21:28 Kickstart wrote:
Indeed, I think the people I know are probably just unique cases! Voted Rand Paul and profess to be libertarian (before they considered themselves just republicans) but in reality they are and were part of the evangelical right. I dunno, was just making some casual observation that being viewed as part of that demographic seems to be more unfavorable these days. As a libertarian, I understand why most would align with republicans. Consesions that can be fought later (like drug legalization) are details compared with the huge welfare state, war troughtout the middle east (funny which party are the warmongers now) and demographic manipulation carried out by democrats.
This is where I don't understand this kind of partisanship. The fact of the matter is there has to be some sort of welfare systems in place. I mean most of the argument I want to make against what you just said can be summed up by the old utilitarian approach of "do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people". Social programs do way more than the traditional push points from the right, like military spending. The government has to prioritize what to allocate funds to, and while it should, in my opinion, do what is best for the largest number of people, it often does what is in the interest of those with the most lobbying power.
Also not sure what you mean with this demographic manipulation. It wasn't that long ago that the right employed what we now call 'the southern strategy'. I'm rather liberal/progressive in my politics, but the only people the right can blame for their only solid demographic being middle aged or older white people are themselves. The natural effect of stirring up fear and resentment towards segments of the population in order to get votes is that the people you demonize aren't going to vote for you. You can't have a history of being against every minority demographic and then be surprised that the other party gets the majority of all their votes.
|
http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510310/npr-politics-podcast
On top, the NPR’s most recent politics podcast talks about the shifting demographics in the US and how the Republicans are having a tough time holding many of their traditional voter blocks. That even Asian Americans, who traditionally leaned Republican, have over a 50% unfavorable view of the Republican party as a whole. And that the Republican may split the college educated white voter block with the Democrats for the first time in history.
Although I haven’t double checked, they also stated that in 2020, the majority of children (0-17 years) in the US will be non-white for the first time in history. And by 2040ish, those kids will all be at the age when they start voting.
|
Taking the demographic party leanings as they are now, if voter turnout were higher republicans wouldn't be winning anything. The problem is the democratic demographics turnout is abysmal compared to the traditional republican blocks.
|
On October 07 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 03:09 Plansix wrote:On October 07 2016 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 07 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
LOL that's awesome, buying ads on the weather channel. "Hurricanes suck ass, huh? Well the GOP has a long history of preventing aid relief for areas suffering from natural disaster" Plus all those Republicans who deny climate change... Putting them on blast for holding up disaster relief is good. I am glad Clinton is bring it up because they have done is since Obama has been in office. From floods to Zika, they have made a practice of holding up federal to score political points and attempt to blame it on Obama. The weird think is that they continue to think it will work, when he approval ratings are high and congresses are through the floor. I don't know if the Clinton's want to go there with Haiti in their baggage. I laughed so hard I snorted when Tim Kaine said the Clinton foundation has a higher rating than the red cross. Show nested quote +The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people. But the actual number of permanent homes the group has built in all of Haiti: six.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
The Clinton only has an A on charity watch website. There must be a scandal somewhere cuz HRC is evil.
|
On October 07 2016 21:36 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 21:28 Kickstart wrote:
Indeed, I think the people I know are probably just unique cases! Voted Rand Paul and profess to be libertarian (before they considered themselves just republicans) but in reality they are and were part of the evangelical right. I dunno, was just making some casual observation that being viewed as part of that demographic seems to be more unfavorable these days. As a libertarian, I understand why most would align with republicans. Consesions that can be fought later (like drug legalization) are details compared with the huge welfare state, war troughtout the middle east (funny which party are the warmongers now) and demographic manipulation carried out by democrats.
Let aside the fact that no, Ayn Rand is not a good start for building a political comprehensive view.
1. Republicans are not small government people. In fact they always ask to massively invest in the military.
2. The democrats would be the warmongers only because they have been in power in the last decade and the Republicans have not. As far as I know the Republicans started the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and recently opposed diplomatic solutions like the Iran nuclear deal. They have also been much more hawkish than the Democrats in the debates around Syria for example.
3. Demographic manipulations? What the hell does that even mean? That america is getting more diverse because of a big conspiracy from the liberals to stay in power?
Libertarianism doesn't make any sense, and only meets the modern Republican's agenda in that it wants to demolish the welfare state. Libertarians because they believe in voodoo economics and that without any state intervention everything would be fucking great (despite all the evidence of the world, but they don't seem to care much about evidences, facts and reality), the republicans because they work for a class of donors and that their whole agenda is to pull a reverse Robin Hood : take from the poor and give to the rich.
|
demographic manipulation? ref, they're scoring touchdowns, it's not fair!
republicans could easily gain a solid piece of the minority vote if they actually stopped with the dog whistles. seriously, drop the dumb stuff and become the party of smart regulation & budgeting/ if it ain't broke don't fix it
|
The party is still struggling to figure out how to do that while also keeping some of their (what is the term we are using now, deplorables?) demographics. If they just stop appeasing those demographics they would have a much wider appeal in the long term, and wouldn't lose many of their votes anyways(at least in the short term, with enough time to get the new demographics on board before anything would change) because that demographic isn't likely to vote democratic. Instead they are having something of an identity crisis.
|
They also have a donor class to appease.
|
The Dems gave up the Solid South. Seems like that sacrifice paid off.
I don't think the donor class (if we want to generalize, there are obviously exceptions) places much of a premium on culture. Guys like the Kochs care more about preserving and growing their wealth and not getting too much bad press.
|
|
|
On October 07 2016 23:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
The Dems gave up the Solid South. Seems like that sacrifice paid off.
I don't think the donor class (if we want to generalize, there are obviously exceptions) places much of a premium on culture. Guys like the Kochs care more about preserving and growing their wealth and not getting too much bad press.
Social issues are very incidental for many in the political elite; that's why someone like Hillary Clinton can flip flop on those issues without skipping a beat. The real problem is that the interests of the donor class run contrary to the interests of the working class so the Republican Party has to find a voter base willing to play to that contradiction. Taking a hard line on social issues that one dedicated (but often undereducated) group of voters really cares about is what they came up with.
|
Are we ever going to reach a point where blaming minorities for things will fall out of fashion? Things like that should be career suicide in any sane world. How the base that that nonsense plays too hasn't figured out that politicians are just playing on their prejudice induced fears for votes is beyond me.
|
|
|
Old tweet but serves as another look into the mind of the madman who may become president.
|
Did you mean to post a hurricane sandy tweet? Though for a minute you had me till I checked the date!
|
I recently had the delight of happening across “Way Back Home,” a 1949 warble by Bob Crosby, Bing’s less famous brother. In the song, Crosby laments leaving his family homestead, where “the pies are the crustiest, the songs the lustiest, the friends the trustiest.” Instead, he’s stuck in exile, presumably in some cold-hearted coastal city.
Americans have a complicated relationship with hometowns, particularly small ones. Sometimes they’re idealized, home to virtuous people with good values, who are unseduced by the allure of life in the big city. But just as valued in Americana is the urge to leave—to make your fortune in New York City, to get famous in Hollywood. Hometowns simultaneously repel and attract.
As it turns out, that odd magnetic quality might be playing a role in the 2016 race. How people plan to vote appears to correspond, albeit broadly, with whether they decided to move away from where they grew up. According to the just-released PRRI/The Atlantic poll, 40 percent of Donald Trump’s likely voters live in the community where they spent their youth, compared with just 29 percent of Hillary Clinton voters. And of the 71 percent of Clinton voters who have left their hometowns, most—almost 60 percent of that group—now live more than two hours away.*
The effect is even stronger among white voters, who already tend toward Trump. Even a bit of distance matters: Trump wins by 9 points among white likely voters who live within two hours of their childhood home, but by a whopping 26 percent among whites who live in their hometown proper.
“Whites who were born in their hometowns and never left are really strong Trump supporters,” said Daniel Cox, PRRI’s director of research. “If you’re raised in a more culturally conservative area and you never leave, chances are that you’re going to be a bit more insular. I think among those kind of folks, there’s an appeal that Trump is hearkening back.”
While Trump often talks about bringing manufacturing jobs back and restoring American dominance in the world, he paradoxically fares best among communities that haven’t yet been adversely affected by globalization. His supporters live in towns that are somewhat better off than average (Trump has more votes than Clinton does among people making between $50,000 and $100,000) and racially homogenous.
Many of Trump’s Supporters Never Left Their Hometowns
|
On October 07 2016 23:17 Kickstart wrote:
Are we ever going to reach a point where blaming minorities for things will fall out of fashion? Things like that should be career suicide in any sane world. How the base that that nonsense plays too hasn't figured out that politicians are just playing on their prejudice induced fears for votes is beyond me.
It has been a solid, winnable position for many years. Blaming a minority, whether its the jews or gypsies or irish or whoever, it is always in a government's best interest for the poor living situation of a populous to actually be something that gets you elected, rather than thrown out.
It it fascinating to realize that at some point down the road, it is likely that whites will be blamed for something and that it will be a popular interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
