|
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 November 08 2016 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 10:03 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2016 09:46 Probe1 wrote:Well, this thread has gone places after I objected to the term mansplaining. In other news the Clinton rally (which gets far less coverage than Trump rallys on account that they're usually not violent) is supposedly 40,000 strong in Philly tonight. ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cwsrnm_XgAQrg2L.jpg) Is it the lighting or is that crowd really white for Philly (especially a Democratic rally)? The city is almost half black. Hillary needs ~500k votes out of Philly tomorrow. I'm guessing she's banking on the white vote in Philly though based on the concert performers. EDIT: Live video of the rally I gotta be honest you don't see that many black people at political rallys unless it's Obama at the rally. As well, it's Monday night. Most people don't live the kinda life that they can go out till midnight. So young college age whites are probably more represented than minorities. Obama is there, but points taken. I suspect pretty rough results out of Philly though still. Shouldn't be enough to lose unless white male turnout is being underestimated though.
Fair point. What I was thinking wasn't what I was writing. An Obama rally for Clinton has a different feel than a Clinton rally with Obama. It's not hard for me to say black folks have never had an experience like a President that looks like them and when he throws a rally, they are gonna go. When he's a guest at a rally it doesn't have that same power.
|
Excuse the double post. I forgot I had just posted after thinking about those polls.
Ha, all those Clinton votes for Florida. Look I don't know how many of us are Floridian in this thread. This is a big state. But Trumps doing quite well here. If Clinton wins, it's gonna be tight. Or else there's going to be absolutely unprecedented voter turnout that will shock me.
|
On November 08 2016 10:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 10:01 TheDwf wrote:Can you please learn to think before posting instead of editing 40 times after you've posted? First it will improve the quality of your posts, which is much needed, and second it will make it possible to actually answer you without checking 5 times if you've not added content. It's my 6th time now and you AGAIN added stuff. On November 08 2016 09:28 WhiteDog wrote:
The category black is ABSOLUTLY APPROPRIATE because you have ton of ACTUAL DATA to show that it is not just a nominal category : there are experience that all black people, whatever their socio economic background, will live (in regards to incarceration, employment, living condition, etc.). The category white is entirely nominal. [WhiteDog] But but but... there are billionnaire Blacks who don't experience this! The idea that all Blacks belong to the same statistical category, have the same behavior and the same experience infuriates me considering the number of rich Black people that exist in the US [/WhiteDog] Well, there are common experiences for white people too: not suffering racism; not being seen as a savage animal or an inferior being; not being seen as a terrorist despite behaving so (see recent stuff in Oregon (?), ask regular posters from this thread); not being told to “go back home/to your country”; not having your legitimacy as a citizen questioned or your rights denied; having more chances to get such job or such position because others are discriminated; etc., etc. Thing is, if it's a disadvantage for people of color, it's relatively an advantage for whites. Don't see what's so hard in conceptualizing this... The common experience for white people is that society is built for and around them. They are the norm, and it can be shown in every domain (arts, culture, politics, ...). How is that “entirely nominal”?! I don't know why I care talking with people who caricature reality ("marxist" crap) and who have very little knowledge on the actual knowledge they talk about. That's quite rich coming from you. No idea why you're mad at marxist, it's not an insult as far as I'm concerned. No I'm not : I'm openly questionning the idea that all white, whatever their age or socioeconomic background, have easy relations with the police. Again, no one said that. What was said is: on average it's worse for people of color (so conversely... it's better for white). User was warned for this post You don't seem to understand that black people, of all socio economic background, suffer specific discrimination or are more prone to suffer specific discrimination than others at the same socio economic background. I took the time to show you that white do not have less chance to suffer specific discrimination than latinos or asian for all socio economic background. What it mean is that the caracteristic "black" has a definite social specificity, objectified in statistic. The category "white" has not. If you disagree, show me statistics that prove me that poor white have more / less chance to benefit / suffer anything than latinos / asian / non white and non black. If the society is "built around them" it should be a pretty easy thing to do.
I'd be very surprised if there was no difference between a poor white man and a poor latino man in the US. I don't have any specific argument to back that up though, I'd love to be informed.
As per the difference between poor asian men and poor white men, it's mostly that poor white men are allowed to be there. The immigration policy of the US has favoured asian immigrants who are already well off and who have skills that they can easily translate to the job market since the immigration act of 1965. That's why you see asians overperform in a lot of statistics in the US: cause the people who would bring those statistics down are mostly not present.
|
On November 08 2016 10:26 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2016 10:03 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2016 09:46 Probe1 wrote:Well, this thread has gone places after I objected to the term mansplaining. In other news the Clinton rally (which gets far less coverage than Trump rallys on account that they're usually not violent) is supposedly 40,000 strong in Philly tonight. Is it the lighting or is that crowd really white for Philly (especially a Democratic rally)? The city is almost half black. Hillary needs ~500k votes out of Philly tomorrow. I'm guessing she's banking on the white vote in Philly though based on the concert performers. EDIT: Live video of the rally I gotta be honest you don't see that many black people at political rallys unless it's Obama at the rally. As well, it's Monday night. Most people don't live the kinda life that they can go out till midnight. So young college age whites are probably more represented than minorities. Obama is there, but points taken. I suspect pretty rough results out of Philly though still. Shouldn't be enough to lose unless white male turnout is being underestimated though. Fair point. What I was thinking wasn't what I was writing. An Obama rally for Clinton has a different feel than a Clinton rally with Obama. It's not hard for me to say black folks have never had an experience like a President that looks like them and when he throws a rally, they are gonna go. When he's a guest at a rally it doesn't have that same power.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying we're probably going to see something similar with turnout for voting. Probably less pronounced than this rally though.
|
On November 08 2016 10:30 Probe1 wrote:
Ha, all those Clinton votes for Florida. Look I don't know how many of us are Floridian in this thread. This is a big state. But Trumps doing quite well here. If Clinton wins, it's gonna be tight. Or else there's going to be absolutely unprecedented voter turnout that will shock me.
According to Anderson Cooper, there are already more early votes in Florida than there were total votes in 2012. At least I think that's what he said.
|
United States44203 Posts
If Clinton can take Nevada there is almost no path to victory for Trump.
|
On November 08 2016 10:31 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 10:30 Probe1 wrote:
Ha, all those Clinton votes for Florida. Look I don't know how many of us are Floridian in this thread. This is a big state. But Trumps doing quite well here. If Clinton wins, it's gonna be tight. Or else there's going to be absolutely unprecedented voter turnout that will shock me. According to Anderson Cooper, there are already more early votes than there were total votes in 2012. At least I think that's what he said.
A few factors in the Dem's favor
-lot of dixiecrats finally switched registration away from dem, so while dem registrations went down a bit, more of the remainder are voting dem
-huge latino turnout, typically low propensity
-republicans likely cannibalizing their ED vote in EV
-republican crossover might** be significant
|
On November 08 2016 10:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 10:14 WhiteDog wrote:On November 08 2016 10:01 TheDwf wrote:Can you please learn to think before posting instead of editing 40 times after you've posted? First it will improve the quality of your posts, which is much needed, and second it will make it possible to actually answer you without checking 5 times if you've not added content. It's my 6th time now and you AGAIN added stuff. On November 08 2016 09:28 WhiteDog wrote:
The category black is ABSOLUTLY APPROPRIATE because you have ton of ACTUAL DATA to show that it is not just a nominal category : there are experience that all black people, whatever their socio economic background, will live (in regards to incarceration, employment, living condition, etc.). The category white is entirely nominal. [WhiteDog] But but but... there are billionnaire Blacks who don't experience this! The idea that all Blacks belong to the same statistical category, have the same behavior and the same experience infuriates me considering the number of rich Black people that exist in the US [/WhiteDog] Well, there are common experiences for white people too: not suffering racism; not being seen as a savage animal or an inferior being; not being seen as a terrorist despite behaving so (see recent stuff in Oregon (?), ask regular posters from this thread); not being told to “go back home/to your country”; not having your legitimacy as a citizen questioned or your rights denied; having more chances to get such job or such position because others are discriminated; etc., etc. Thing is, if it's a disadvantage for people of color, it's relatively an advantage for whites. Don't see what's so hard in conceptualizing this... The common experience for white people is that society is built for and around them. They are the norm, and it can be shown in every domain (arts, culture, politics, ...). How is that “entirely nominal”?! I don't know why I care talking with people who caricature reality ("marxist" crap) and who have very little knowledge on the actual knowledge they talk about. That's quite rich coming from you. No idea why you're mad at marxist, it's not an insult as far as I'm concerned. No I'm not : I'm openly questionning the idea that all white, whatever their age or socioeconomic background, have easy relations with the police. Again, no one said that. What was said is: on average it's worse for people of color (so conversely... it's better for white). User was warned for this post You don't seem to understand that black people, of all socio economic background, suffer specific discrimination or are more prone to suffer specific discrimination than others at the same socio economic background. I took the time to show you that white do not have less chance to suffer specific discrimination than latinos or asian for all socio economic background. What it mean is that the caracteristic "black" has a definite social specificity, objectified in statistic. The category "white" has not. If you disagree, show me statistics that prove me that poor white have more / less chance to benefit / suffer anything than latinos / asian / non white and non black. If the society is "built around them" it should be a pretty easy thing to do. I'd be very surprised if there was no difference between a poor white man and a poor latino man in the US. I don't have any specific argument to back that up though, I'd love to be informed. As per the difference between poor asian men and poor white men, it's mostly that poor white men are allowed to be there. The immigration policy of the US has favoured asian immigrants who are already well off and who have skills that they can easily translate to the job market since the immigration act of 1965. That's why you see asians overperform in a lot of statistics in the US: cause the people who would bring those statistics down are mostly not present.
I didn't write a book on it so I don't have actual data on everything, but I linked the incarceration rate of latinos, black and white like two page ago and you see that white college drop out have higher chance to be incarcerated than latinos college drop out (altho the difference is not that significative - incarceration rate for black college drop out is way higher). I also know, by reading Angus Deaton's work (nobel prize winner in economy), that death rates are rising for white men and not latinos in the US, to the point where it is actually higher for white men than latinos (altho death rates are very complicated, hard to analyse).
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html?_r=0
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078
Abstract from the article :
This paper documents a marked increase in the all-cause mortality of middle-aged white non-Hispanic men and women in the United States between 1999 and 2013. This change reversed decades of progress in mortality and was unique to the United States; no other rich country saw a similar turnaround. The midlife mortality reversal was confined to white non-Hispanics; black non-Hispanics and Hispanics at midlife, and those aged 65 and above in every racial and ethnic group, continued to see mortality rates fall. This increase for whites was largely accounted for by increasing death rates from drug and alcohol poisonings, suicide, and chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis. Although all education groups saw increases in mortality from suicide and poisonings, and an overall increase in external cause mortality, those with less education saw the most marked increases. Rising midlife mortality rates of white non-Hispanics were paralleled by increases in midlife morbidity. Self-reported declines in health, mental health, and ability to conduct activities of daily living, and increases in chronic pain and inability to work, as well as clinically measured deteriorations in liver function, all point to growing distress in this population. We comment on potential economic causes and consequences of this deterioration.
I agree with you. But just to clarify, I never argued asian had "privilege" or anything, just that "white" is not pertinent.
|
Heads up Michelle Obamas speaking
(she's as good of a speaker as her husband, def worth hearing)
http://6abc.com/live/23387/
On November 08 2016 10:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 10:26 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2016 10:03 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2016 09:46 Probe1 wrote:Well, this thread has gone places after I objected to the term mansplaining. In other news the Clinton rally (which gets far less coverage than Trump rallys on account that they're usually not violent) is supposedly 40,000 strong in Philly tonight. Is it the lighting or is that crowd really white for Philly (especially a Democratic rally)? The city is almost half black. Hillary needs ~500k votes out of Philly tomorrow. I'm guessing she's banking on the white vote in Philly though based on the concert performers. EDIT: Live video of the rally I gotta be honest you don't see that many black people at political rallys unless it's Obama at the rally. As well, it's Monday night. Most people don't live the kinda life that they can go out till midnight. So young college age whites are probably more represented than minorities. Obama is there, but points taken. I suspect pretty rough results out of Philly though still. Shouldn't be enough to lose unless white male turnout is being underestimated though. Fair point. What I was thinking wasn't what I was writing. An Obama rally for Clinton has a different feel than a Clinton rally with Obama. It's not hard for me to say black folks have never had an experience like a President that looks like them and when he throws a rally, they are gonna go. When he's a guest at a rally it doesn't have that same power. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying we're probably going to see something similar with turnout for voting. Probably less pronounced than this rally though.
I'm with you on that.
On November 08 2016 10:31 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 10:30 Probe1 wrote:
Ha, all those Clinton votes for Florida. Look I don't know how many of us are Floridian in this thread. This is a big state. But Trumps doing quite well here. If Clinton wins, it's gonna be tight. Or else there's going to be absolutely unprecedented voter turnout that will shock me. According to Anderson Cooper, there are already more early votes in Florida than there were total votes in 2012. At least I think that's what he said.
But who are they voting for, we won't know. Republicans can and do vote early as well.
|
So in complete hypothetical-land, lets say that Obama gives the best speech of all time and then tomorrow he wins 270 EV's+ based off write-ins alone. What happens?
EDIT: assume that this write in thing is real and it's not the illuminati or voter fraud
|
On November 08 2016 10:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
So in complete hypothetical-land, lets say that Obama gives the best speech of all time and then tomorrow he wins 270 EV's+ based off write-ins alone. What happens?
Er, nothing, as he wouldn't even be a viable write-in candidate in most states
|
United States44203 Posts
On November 08 2016 10:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
So in complete hypothetical-land, lets say that Obama gives the best speech of all time and then tomorrow he wins 270 EV's+ based off write-ins alone. What happens?
He can't be elected to a third term in office so I guess it'd be voided and the house would have to choose from the eligible candidates who achieved >1 vote. At which point GH's Washington faithless elector who wrote in "John Ewards" becomes the hero we all need as they scour the country looking for the most qualified John Ewards they can find.
|
The conspiracy theorists were saying at some point a few years ago that Obama would be declaring martial law and there wouldn't be any election after the 2012 one.
If that's his plan, now is as good a time as ever. He'd probably have the support of the people on that one given the alternatives.
|
On November 08 2016 10:26 KwarK wrote:
I added a bunch of polls for people if they wanna predict the outcomes, where the firewall breaks etc. Ignore my inconsistent use of < to mean less than and + to mean greater than or equal to.
Trump wins in a landslide! Jk it looks tough and this closet Trump support better come out in full force.
|
|
|
United States44203 Posts
On November 08 2016 10:50 LegalLord wrote:
The conspiracy theorists were saying at some point a few years ago that Obama would be declaring martial law and there wouldn't be any election after the 2012 one.
If that's his plan, now is as good a time as ever. He'd probably have the support of the people on that one given the alternatives.
That was before the Texas National Guard stopped him from taking over the government of the nation and the Bundy militia aborted his plans to set up an Islamic Caliphate in the national parks.
But yeah, I'd absolutely support more Obama if it were an option. Even though he's been a pretty big disappointment on a number of key liberal issues. I genuinely believe he did the best job he could and that given a more supportive political climate he would have gone further.
|
I don't really understand the huge support for Obama but disappointment with Clinton. They're very close on policy issues and Clinton is arguably less aloof and better connected in Washington. Sure Obama was a charismatic guy but if you liked him you should be at least enthusiastic about Clinton.
|
United States44203 Posts
On November 08 2016 10:52 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 10:26 KwarK wrote:
I added a bunch of polls for people if they wanna predict the outcomes, where the firewall breaks etc. Ignore my inconsistent use of < to mean less than and + to mean greater than or equal to. Trump wins in a landslide! Jk it looks tough and this closet Trump support better come out in full force.
It's been a rollercoaster. If I'd known it would turn out like this I'd have grouped NH with the 6 key swing states but if I go back to when I started talking about them there were only 5, AZ was assumed to be safe. It's pretty incredible that AZ and NH were pushed into swing states.
|
On November 08 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand the huge support for Obama but disappointment with Clinton. They're very close on policy issues and Clinton is arguably less aloof and better connected in Washington. Sure Obama was a charismatic guy but if you liked him you should be at least enthusiastic about Clinton.
There is a thread of distrust around the Clintons in the states regarding their tendency to not be very transparent/seem shady. It's part of why the email thing was such a protracted issue throughout the election cycle. Which is honestly weird, because some of the same people saying "oh emails blah" are the same people saying "Bill was the best president we've had in 20 years!" so I'm not sure where the cognitive disconnect is there.
|
United States44203 Posts
Ooooh, fun idea for a poll, suggest some options.
2020 candidates, D and R.
Clinton and Kaine are obvious options, as are Ryan, Rubio and Cruz. Who else wants the job?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
