|
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. |
United States41989 Posts
On August 06 2017 05:46 Six.Strings wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong on this point, but from the outside it looks completely transparent that Democrats want more immigrants because immigrants are more prone to be welfare dependent, so they'll vote Democrat, and Republicans don't want them because of the opposite reason.
You're wrong. Firstly, the immigrants are generally highly religious and socially conservative. Secondly, Republicans are generally more dependent upon welfare than Democrats, lack of education, rural poverty, conservatism and dependence upon welfare pretty much come as a package. Thirdly, immigrants can neither vote nor get welfare unless they enter legally and go through an incredibly complex and expensive process that I am extremely familiar with.
The whole idea just doesn't make sense. It's a conspiracy theory that relies upon one side offering welfare that can never be given in exchange for the other promising votes that can never be given.
|
Party demographics cam shift quite quickly, while demographic shifts take longer. That was the case with the democratic party abandoning the dixiecrats and adopting the black vote. This last election we saw trump take a large chunk of the poor white vote from the democrats. So such political maneuvering to try to swing the long run demographics I'm favor of one party doesn't make much sense given that the political parties can rebalance the game within am election cycle or two.
|
On August 06 2017 10:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 05:46 Six.Strings wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong on this point, but from the outside it looks completely transparent that Democrats want more immigrants because immigrants are more prone to be welfare dependent, so they'll vote Democrat, and Republicans don't want them because of the opposite reason. You're wrong. Firstly, the immigrants are generally highly religious and socially conservative. Secondly, Republicans are generally more dependent upon welfare than Democrats, lack of education, rural poverty, conservatism and dependence upon welfare pretty much come as a package. Thirdly, immigrants can neither vote nor get welfare unless they enter legally and go through an incredibly complex and expensive process that I am extremely familiar with. The whole idea just doesn't make sense. It's a conspiracy theory that relies upon one side offering welfare that can never be given in exchange for the other promising votes that can never be given.
Is much of your first paragraph even true? Even assuming it is, it's entirely misleading because I'm fairly certain recent immigrants that can vote do vote heavily Democratic.
Trump voters were on average more educated and had higher income than Clinton voters. I provided a link for that 10 pages back or so. That alone makes me skeptical they're more welfare dependent than Democrats.
There's an obvious Democratic political advantage in a theoretical path to citizenship as well, so I'm not sure how you're denying potential political self-interest there. And it would also give them access to welfare.
|
On August 06 2017 13:15 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 10:29 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2017 05:46 Six.Strings wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong on this point, but from the outside it looks completely transparent that Democrats want more immigrants because immigrants are more prone to be welfare dependent, so they'll vote Democrat, and Republicans don't want them because of the opposite reason. You're wrong. Firstly, the immigrants are generally highly religious and socially conservative. Secondly, Republicans are generally more dependent upon welfare than Democrats, lack of education, rural poverty, conservatism and dependence upon welfare pretty much come as a package. Thirdly, immigrants can neither vote nor get welfare unless they enter legally and go through an incredibly complex and expensive process that I am extremely familiar with. The whole idea just doesn't make sense. It's a conspiracy theory that relies upon one side offering welfare that can never be given in exchange for the other promising votes that can never be given. Is much of your first paragraph even true? Even assuming it is, it's entirely misleading because I'm fairly certain recent immigrants that can vote do vote heavily Democratic. Trump voters were on average more educated and had higher income than Clinton voters. I provided a link for that 10 pages back or so. That alone makes me skeptical they're more welfare dependent than Democrats. There's an obvious Democratic political advantage in a theoretical path to citizenship as well, so I'm not sure how you're denying potential political self-interest there. And it would also give them access to welfare.
That seems slightly unlikely considering college graduated voted for Clinton by a 52-43 margin (I literally checked before posting). So if she won the vote of the higher educated population how can you then argue that her voters were the poorly educated.
Edit: Just as a note those without a college degree backed Trump 53-44 so unless we are going to argue a college degree is not higher educated her voters were better educated.
|
White voters without college degrees have been a Republican demographic for a very long time. Democrats have done well with voters with college degrees, with one exception. White males with college degrees have consistently gone for Republican for like 20+ years. This has been the political dynamic for as long as I have been alive, with tiny fluctuations here and there. Some folks believe in this aspirational version of the demographics that vote for the republican party, rather than the one that really exists.
|
Those at the very lowest of income levels vote Democrat. I think the problem is though that most of them don't vote. The second to lowest level of poverty went heavily republican. There's some truth in what Kwark said just look at how West Virginia voted and things like food stamps and percentage on medicaid. I know in Northern California they literally have to lie about medicaid expansion and name it after the insurance company because people don't want government assistance (well that and they don't want anything to do with Obama). There was also NPR article where this lady complained about how expensive her insurance was and NPR ran an explanation at the bottom saying that she had done something to not renew her subsidies so it was her own fault.
Could be slightly off but that's the gist of it.
|
On August 06 2017 13:18 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 13:15 mozoku wrote:On August 06 2017 10:29 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2017 05:46 Six.Strings wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong on this point, but from the outside it looks completely transparent that Democrats want more immigrants because immigrants are more prone to be welfare dependent, so they'll vote Democrat, and Republicans don't want them because of the opposite reason. You're wrong. Firstly, the immigrants are generally highly religious and socially conservative. Secondly, Republicans are generally more dependent upon welfare than Democrats, lack of education, rural poverty, conservatism and dependence upon welfare pretty much come as a package. Thirdly, immigrants can neither vote nor get welfare unless they enter legally and go through an incredibly complex and expensive process that I am extremely familiar with. The whole idea just doesn't make sense. It's a conspiracy theory that relies upon one side offering welfare that can never be given in exchange for the other promising votes that can never be given. Is much of your first paragraph even true? Even assuming it is, it's entirely misleading because I'm fairly certain recent immigrants that can vote do vote heavily Democratic. Trump voters were on average more educated and had higher income than Clinton voters. I provided a link for that 10 pages back or so. That alone makes me skeptical they're more welfare dependent than Democrats. There's an obvious Democratic political advantage in a theoretical path to citizenship as well, so I'm not sure how you're denying potential political self-interest there. And it would also give them access to welfare. That seems slightly unlikely considering college graduated voted for Clinton by a 52-43 margin (I literally checked before posting). So if she won the vote of the higher educated population how can you then argue that her voters were the poorly educated. Edit: Just as a note those without a college degree backed Trump 53-44 so unless we are going to argue a college degree is not higher educated her voters were better educated.
Yeah, I misremembered the article I was quoting. Trump voters are more educated than the general populace, but less educated than HRC voters.
Regardless though, Trump voters do earn more than HRC's, which makes KwarK's claim that they are more reliant on welfare pretty dubious until a source is provided.
|
On August 06 2017 14:12 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 13:18 Adreme wrote:On August 06 2017 13:15 mozoku wrote:On August 06 2017 10:29 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2017 05:46 Six.Strings wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong on this point, but from the outside it looks completely transparent that Democrats want more immigrants because immigrants are more prone to be welfare dependent, so they'll vote Democrat, and Republicans don't want them because of the opposite reason. You're wrong. Firstly, the immigrants are generally highly religious and socially conservative. Secondly, Republicans are generally more dependent upon welfare than Democrats, lack of education, rural poverty, conservatism and dependence upon welfare pretty much come as a package. Thirdly, immigrants can neither vote nor get welfare unless they enter legally and go through an incredibly complex and expensive process that I am extremely familiar with. The whole idea just doesn't make sense. It's a conspiracy theory that relies upon one side offering welfare that can never be given in exchange for the other promising votes that can never be given. Is much of your first paragraph even true? Even assuming it is, it's entirely misleading because I'm fairly certain recent immigrants that can vote do vote heavily Democratic. Trump voters were on average more educated and had higher income than Clinton voters. I provided a link for that 10 pages back or so. That alone makes me skeptical they're more welfare dependent than Democrats. There's an obvious Democratic political advantage in a theoretical path to citizenship as well, so I'm not sure how you're denying potential political self-interest there. And it would also give them access to welfare. That seems slightly unlikely considering college graduated voted for Clinton by a 52-43 margin (I literally checked before posting). So if she won the vote of the higher educated population how can you then argue that her voters were the poorly educated. Edit: Just as a note those without a college degree backed Trump 53-44 so unless we are going to argue a college degree is not higher educated her voters were better educated. Yeah, I misremembered the article I was quoting. Trump voters are more educated than the general populace, but less educated than HRC voters. Regardless though, Trump voters do earn more than HRC's, which makes KwarK's claim that they are more reliant on welfare pretty dubious until a source is provided.
Relevant:
www.washingtonpost.com
White, Christians, living in the countryside, basacally Trump's support was not too different from what any republican would get.
The big question, though, will he and the party lose some of this support?
|
On August 06 2017 09:29 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 09:23 Plansix wrote:
There are literally photos of him golfing exactly that when that posted. Yep: There's a couple more tweets related to the staff issues he's been having : And does he have a point here? I didn't think he changed anything, but I haven't been following the isis effort closely:
Would not be surprised if we've made gains under trump although they're probably taking credit for stuff initiated under Obama too. Trump has done some things that the military was asking for for a while under obama, like increased leeway for local commanders to conduct operations. It is probably safe to say that trump has gotten more aggressive than Obama.
|
Well, that happens. Obama also got credit for Bush's accomplishments such as Iraq (ISIS), the housing crisis, etc.
It's only fair.
|
I've never heard any left leaning person say anything but blame republicans and bush for ISIS and the houseing crisis.
What trump won that was special in the last election wasn't just non college white men but the union white male vote. My cousins have been bleeding blue for a good couple generations but went trump which gave him Wisconsion and Michigan. They're commonly refered to as "Reagan democrats"
|
On August 07 2017 01:52 Sermokala wrote:
I've never heard any left leaning person say anything but blame republicans and bush for ISIS and the houseing crisis.
What trump won that was special in the last election wasn't just non college white men but the union white male vote. My cousins have been bleeding blue for a good couple generations but went trump which gave him Wisconsion and Michigan. They're commonly refered to as "Reagan democrats"
really? I'd have thought you'd hear some far-left people blaming the dems as well for some of those, at least in part.
|
On August 07 2017 01:54 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2017 01:52 Sermokala wrote:
I've never heard any left leaning person say anything but blame republicans and bush for ISIS and the houseing crisis.
What trump won that was special in the last election wasn't just non college white men but the union white male vote. My cousins have been bleeding blue for a good couple generations but went trump which gave him Wisconsion and Michigan. They're commonly refered to as "Reagan democrats" really? I'd have thought you'd hear some far-left people blaming the dems as well for some of those, at least in part.
In Minnesota we usually just passive-aggressively ignore the fringe people and not talk about/to them. Michele "are they pro america or anti america?" Bachman had her district cut up so she wouldn't win another election. This was done by republicans in the state.
|
again no credit. Pretty sure before he took office or immediately after they had shown that ISIS had lost 70 percent of their fighting force. Mosul offensive was planned last year and all the happened was it finally fell. The plan that the generals made for him is still being ignored.
It wasn't in the headlines much but through the end of last year there were a few articles about progress in the middle east (they just didn't get a lot of attention).
at least i haven't read anything that indicates anything is being done differently that would have accelerated it.
|
On August 07 2017 04:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
again no credit. Pretty sure before he took office or immediately after they had shown that ISIS had lost 70 percent of their fighting force. Mosul offensive was planned last year and all the happened was it finally fell. The plan that the generals made for him is still being ignored.
It wasn't in the headlines much but through the end of last year there were a few articles about progress in the middle east (they just didn't get a lot of attention).
Indeed, ISIS broke a while ago. It just takes time and resources to root out their strongholds.
Also I'm still of the opinion that the US lack of action was not a blunder but clever strategy. Just think of all the resources, both in money and in bodies, that 'radical islam' burned through in the entire conflict, both in ISIS and in varies rebel groups.
Those are resources not spend attacking the West. The US could have swooped in and destroyed ISIS as a state in short order but then you just drive them underground and make them launch terrorist attacks instead. Its better for your enemy to out in the open being bled dry by slowplaying the conflict.
|
United States41989 Posts
The current pushes against ISIS are the ones Trump was criticizing during the debates as being pointless because they lacked the most important thing in modern warfare, the element of surprise. He said the generals behind them were all idiots and the attacks were only being done because Obama was trying to make Hillary look better in the campaign. I commend Trump's continuation of Obama's pro Hillary agenda.
|
It happened yesterday but we haven't really talked about it, another Fox News host, Eric Bolling, is suspended pending an investigation into allegations that he sent dick pics to random women at Fox, with a dozen sources confirming it. It's pretty clear the culture there was worse than what even the most ridiculous liberal conspiracy would have thought.
First story that spurred fox to suspend him :
Eric Bolling, a longtime Fox News host, sent an unsolicited photo of male genitalia via text message to at least two colleagues at Fox Business and one colleague at Fox News, a dozen sources told HuffPost.
www.huffingtonpost.com
Eric Bolling has been suspended pending the results of an investigation, which is currently underway.
Then a woman came forward publicly with different allegations against him on facebook
The text of her post :
Fox News just suspended Eric Bolling pending allegations that he sent photos of his genitalia to female colleagues. My only surprise is that it took this long for people to come forward about Bolling's behavior, which has been wildly inappropriate for years. I did hundreds of appearances on Fox and Fox Business from 2008 - 2011, and had multiple experiences with Bolling that caused grave concern to my friends and family. Bolling referred to me as "Dr. McHottie" on air on four different occasions, and called me “smart, beautiful, and wrong” on air twice. I pushed back with “Mr. McSexist,” but I shouldn't have had to. This on-air behavior was perfectly acceptable to Fox executives at the time. Bolling would also contact me via phone and text after shows, sometimes to apologize for his behavior (and then do it again), and sometimes just to talk. He said he wanted to fly me out to New York for in-studio hits and to have “fun.” He asked me to have meals with him on several occasions, but I found excuses not to go. Once, he took me up to his office in New York, showed me his baseball jerseys, and in the brief time I was there, let me know that his office was his favorite place to have sex. I know other women have had similar experiences with Bolling, which means that lots of folks at Fox knew about his behavior well before 2017. Bolling was one of three men from whom I experienced sexual harassment and gender discrimination (the others being Bill O’Reilly and Woody Fraser). O’Reilly was creepy in person; told me “when I was in college, professors didn’t look like you”; then called me “hysterical” during a show, edited the interview, and retaliated by never having me on his show again. http://www.msnbc.com/…/3-accusers-on-trump-s-defense-of-o-r…Fraser took me under his wing as a mentor; constantly pressured me for a relationship and sex; took an idea for a show that would become The Five (I emailed Fraser a treatment that is remarkably similar to The Five, right down to some of the hosts, a year before The Five aired); dangled a contributorship and a hosting position for a sexual relationship; then stopped my appearances when I didn’t acquiesce to his advances. http://www.motherjones.com/…/fox-news-sexual-harassment-he…/Fox News guests are also a problem. In 2010, I consoled a make-up artist (who no longer works for Fox) after Gene Simmons sexually harassed her, and this was not his first time doing so. On March 20, 2011, Lenny Dykstra persistently asked me to a party and told me that he gets “sexually aroused when I talk politics.” He also harassed the make-up artist who was curling my hair at the time. Make-up artists at Fox are contract workers, so many are fearful of speaking up because they simply won’t be hired again. If any Fox executives are reading this, please include make-up artists in your assessment of the environment. They see and hear a lot, and are sometimes the target of harassment from hosts and guests. There are a lot of great people working at Fox, many of whom I admire and respect to this day, but there is also a culture of sexual harassment that has not fully been addressed. I have faith that, given recent decisions to fire and suspend perpetrators, the new management will effectively shift this culture.
|
Nobody you're not already with wants to see your dick pics. How is this hard to understand.
|
On August 07 2017 05:50 semantics wrote:
Nobody you're not already with wants to see your dick pics. How is this hard to understand.
How many women really want to see anyone's dick pics?
|
On August 07 2017 05:50 semantics wrote:
Nobody you're not already with wants to see your dick pics. How is this hard to understand.
She just doesn't know she wants it yet. A few quick pics will change her mind though  )))
So apparently Trump retweeted a supposed supporter who is a black woman. Funny thing about that, she's a bot who was using a stock image of a pretty black girl. Now people are going through and finding a bunch of bot accounts that use stock photo minorities with photoshopped Trump swag like shirts. God bless the internet.
On August 07 2017 06:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2017 05:50 semantics wrote:
Nobody you're not already with wants to see your dick pics. How is this hard to understand. How many women really want to see anyone's dick pics?
Ask any woman if they actually find dicks attractive. No one wants to see that shit, they're fucking gross and awful. It's like Elaine said on Seinfeld. The female body is a work of art, the male body is utilitarian.It's for getting around, It's like a jeep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
