|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Canada11350 Posts
I'm actually rather curious about those ethnic wage gap numbers. It's median household income and as far as I can tell, the PEW research has that adjusted as a household of 3 (given that a household of four that makes more will be more financially restrained from a household of two that makes a little less.) But I wonder what the median individual income is as well. Because average household of three can mean very different things depending on what it is comprised of. For instance dual-income and one child vs single parent and two children.
So for example, the median income in Canada in 2013 was $76,000, but the individual median income was $27,600. (Or in my individual case, I suppose my 'household' is over $100,000, but it's because there are three of us living together and we all work- one at minimum wage and so he is definitely below the individual median income. Interestingly, in Canada while there is a gap for ethnicity, but it's pretty close: national median annual income for full-time worker: $50,699, for visible-minority $45,128, and First Nations $41,684.
I guess I'm just curious on what some of the other numbers look to get a full picture of what's going on in the US.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wealthiest-1-earn-10-times-more-than-average-canadian-1.1703017
|
I've decided that from now on I'm going to vote for whoever the guy next door to me doesn't vote for. I hate that guy, he's so smug. The other day he woke me up at 12:30am slamming his door. No way I'm voting for the person he votes for.
Its a shame because I'm going to have to change my vote, but I guess that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes.
|
You should look at regional numbers, rather than the US as a whole. The national average of any specific demographic nation wide isn't helpful given the wide variance of economic environments across the US. Tennessee is not New York. Hell, New Hampshire and Maine are not even close to Massachusetts, even though we are right next to each-other.
It would be nice if we could have an economic study on how best divide and discuss regions of the US economically.
|
|
|
I can't see what's so odd about hunts' reasoning. If you get screwed over by someone, it's quite natural to want to return in kind. Not very commendable or valiant but a natural reaction.
|
On July 25 2018 01:39 Longshank wrote:
I can't see what's so odd about hunts' reasoning. If you get screwed over by someone, it's quite natural to want to return in kind. Not very commendable or valiant but a natural reaction.
I can walk you through the problems in reasoning if you like..
1: Some people on the internet said they wouldn't vote for Hilary because they don't like her or her policies.
2: The minority of those people are on the hard left, the vast, vast majority are on the right.
3: I'm going to vote on the right if there's a hard left candidate to spite the people on the left who didn't vote for Hilary, but not to spite the people on the right who didn't vote for Hilary.
|
On July 25 2018 01:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 01:07 hunts wrote:On July 25 2018 01:01 Nebuchad wrote:On July 25 2018 00:42 hunts wrote:
Yes I would consider bernie far left, and because of people like some of the posters here, and all of the never hillary bernie bros I've seen, I, a person of jewish descent who has had relatives die in concentration camps, would very seriously consider voting for a literal neo nazi over bernie. The far left never hillary people wanted to start a war within the democratic party, they wanted to show that they are ok with letting trump burn down the country just so they can pat themselves on the back. They falsly believed that the democrats would have to join them and vote for their far left populist but that they (the minority) did not have to join the democrats and vote for a reasonable candidate. They can reap what they sow, and know that the majority who are not happy with their abrasive and unhelpful rhetoric can play the same game. I am 100% serious in that I will not vote for a far left candidate, not until they and their supporters apologize for the fighting they have started, and apologize for letting trump win by not voting, and I know that will never happen.
edit: I have put quite a bit of time into what I believe, thanks for that disguised insult. What I believe happens to not align with the radical far left, but does align with the reasonable center left. Although with the way things are going, I may find myself more aligned with the center right than what the far left populists want to make of the democratic party. I don't think the insult was disguised. The attitude of other people should not impact your political beliefs, and if they do, that's an incredibly shallow reason for that to happen. You can look at neonazis and leftists and decide that you'd rather vote for the second that the first but if you do I'd expect you make that choice based on policy, not on which particular group happened to be mean to you while you were online. You either misunderstood my post or misinterpreted it on purpose. I don't give a shit about people "being mean to me online." I care about the people who let trump happen because they wanted to pat themselves on the back over not voting for Hillary. There is a difference, and I sincerely hope you can tell that difference but simply chose to ignore it. And the point is exactly that if people want to not vote for someone in their own party because they aren't an extremist, then they better be prepared for the normal people in that party not to vote for their extremists. The distinction that you create here is without difference, it's still people's attitudes over policies. Neonazis don't become more acceptable because leftists have tactics that you disagree with. The acceptability of their beliefs and policies doesn't change because of the tactics of their opponents. If you don't want to vote for a leftist because of ideological reasons, that's fine. I don't think any leftist that encountered you on this forum ever expected you would.
Some people are always searching for reasons / justifications to vote for rightwing parties, because they know it’s “wrong” on some level. That is why you see all these pieces about The Left Made Me Vote For Trump, or the stuff about you have no choice but to support fascism because of political correctness or because a liberal was rude to you once on a forum.
|
|
|
People shouldn't discount the power of the culture wars that have been stoked by the likes of Fox News and Breitbart. And lately our President. Its drives people to the polls and makes them unwilling to fully consider their political options.
|
On July 25 2018 01:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 00:42 hunts wrote:
Yes I would consider bernie far left, and because of people like some of the posters here, and all of the never hillary bernie bros I've seen, I, a person of jewish descent who has had relatives die in concentration camps, would very seriously consider voting for a literal neo nazi over bernie. The far left never hillary people wanted to start a war within the democratic party, they wanted to show that they are ok with letting trump burn down the country just so they can pat themselves on the back. They falsly believed that the democrats would have to join them and vote for their far left populist but that they (the minority) did not have to join the democrats and vote for a reasonable candidate. They can reap what they sow, and know that the majority who are not happy with their abrasive and unhelpful rhetoric can play the same game. I am 100% serious in that I will not vote for a far left candidate, not until they and their supporters apologize for the fighting they have started, and apologize for letting trump win by not voting, and I know that will never happen.
edit: I have put quite a bit of time into what I believe, thanks for that disguised insult. What I believe happens to not align with the radical far left, but does align with the reasonable center left. Although with the way things are going, I may find myself more aligned with the center right than what the far left populists want to make of the democratic party. I just feel obligated to mention that Bernie himself was very clear in that his supporters should vote Clinton and that Trump was wholly unacceptable. Its the followers that are the problem. Not the politicians themselves (necessarily).
personally, I hold bernie moderately responsible for his followers being like that.
I agree it's good that bernie himself said to support clinton. but I'm not fond of bernie's revolutionary rhetoric;
the way I see it, bernie stirs up an angry mob, then lost control of it. and that's bad, and leaves an angry destructive mob.
an angry mob that you can control and get to vote in a certain way is a powerful and useful force; an angry mob that gets away from you isn't.
thus the part I hold bernie somewhat responsible for is stirring up things then losing control over it.
|
On July 25 2018 01:44 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 01:39 Longshank wrote:
I can't see what's so odd about hunts' reasoning. If you get screwed over by someone, it's quite natural to want to return in kind. Not very commendable or valiant but a natural reaction. I can walk you through the problems in reasoning if you like.. 1: Some people on the internet said they wouldn't vote for Hilary because they don't like her or her policies. 2: The minority of those people are on the hard left, the vast, vast majority are on the right. 3: I'm going to vote on the right if there's a hard left candidate to spite the people on the left who didn't vote for Hilary, but not to spite the people on the right who didn't vote for Hilary.
That makes perfect sense if you take humanity out of the equation. However, being stabbed in the back by a friend or a loved one stings a whole lot more than being defeated by an opponent in one-on-one combat. They are both -50 MMR, but one has the feeling of betrayal and the other one doesn't.
|
Except that analysis changes dramatically when one recognizes that we aren't talking about individuals, rather large, nebulous groups of people who may or may not fit labels affixed to them.
|
On July 25 2018 02:06 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 01:09 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2018 00:42 hunts wrote:
Yes I would consider bernie far left, and because of people like some of the posters here, and all of the never hillary bernie bros I've seen, I, a person of jewish descent who has had relatives die in concentration camps, would very seriously consider voting for a literal neo nazi over bernie. The far left never hillary people wanted to start a war within the democratic party, they wanted to show that they are ok with letting trump burn down the country just so they can pat themselves on the back. They falsly believed that the democrats would have to join them and vote for their far left populist but that they (the minority) did not have to join the democrats and vote for a reasonable candidate. They can reap what they sow, and know that the majority who are not happy with their abrasive and unhelpful rhetoric can play the same game. I am 100% serious in that I will not vote for a far left candidate, not until they and their supporters apologize for the fighting they have started, and apologize for letting trump win by not voting, and I know that will never happen.
edit: I have put quite a bit of time into what I believe, thanks for that disguised insult. What I believe happens to not align with the radical far left, but does align with the reasonable center left. Although with the way things are going, I may find myself more aligned with the center right than what the far left populists want to make of the democratic party. I just feel obligated to mention that Bernie himself was very clear in that his supporters should vote Clinton and that Trump was wholly unacceptable. Its the followers that are the problem. Not the politicians themselves (necessarily). personally, I hold bernie moderately responsible for his followers being like that. I agree it's good that bernie himself said to support clinton. but I'm not fond of bernie's revolutionary rhetoric; the way I see it, bernie stirs up an angry mob, then lost control of it. and that's bad, and leaves an angry destructive mob. an angry mob that you can control and get to vote in a certain way is a powerful and useful force; an angry mob that gets away from you isn't. thus the part I hold bernie somewhat responsible for is stirring up things then losing control over it.
Did Bernie stir up a mob and make people angry, or did a bunch of angry people attach themselves to Bernie?
I would suggest that people on the left were angry long before Bernie.
|
So you guys know, Bernie was the compromise, even he knew better than to think he could tell his supporters what to do. He didn't "lose control" over a "mob".
More of his supporters went on to support Hillary than Hillary's did Obama and far more of her supporters went on to vote for McCain.
Before Bernie Obama was the "too far left" and "too focused on race" so much so that people basically completely forgot Hillary was so against conceding to Obama that she brought up the RFK assassination as a reason she should stay in the race.
The whole construction zlefin's put forward is one of imagination.
Ultimately 25 percent of these Clinton primary voters cast a ballot for McCain in the general
election.
sites.duke.edu
|
On July 25 2018 02:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 02:06 zlefin wrote:On July 25 2018 01:09 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2018 00:42 hunts wrote:
Yes I would consider bernie far left, and because of people like some of the posters here, and all of the never hillary bernie bros I've seen, I, a person of jewish descent who has had relatives die in concentration camps, would very seriously consider voting for a literal neo nazi over bernie. The far left never hillary people wanted to start a war within the democratic party, they wanted to show that they are ok with letting trump burn down the country just so they can pat themselves on the back. They falsly believed that the democrats would have to join them and vote for their far left populist but that they (the minority) did not have to join the democrats and vote for a reasonable candidate. They can reap what they sow, and know that the majority who are not happy with their abrasive and unhelpful rhetoric can play the same game. I am 100% serious in that I will not vote for a far left candidate, not until they and their supporters apologize for the fighting they have started, and apologize for letting trump win by not voting, and I know that will never happen.
edit: I have put quite a bit of time into what I believe, thanks for that disguised insult. What I believe happens to not align with the radical far left, but does align with the reasonable center left. Although with the way things are going, I may find myself more aligned with the center right than what the far left populists want to make of the democratic party. I just feel obligated to mention that Bernie himself was very clear in that his supporters should vote Clinton and that Trump was wholly unacceptable. Its the followers that are the problem. Not the politicians themselves (necessarily). personally, I hold bernie moderately responsible for his followers being like that. I agree it's good that bernie himself said to support clinton. but I'm not fond of bernie's revolutionary rhetoric; the way I see it, bernie stirs up an angry mob, then lost control of it. and that's bad, and leaves an angry destructive mob. an angry mob that you can control and get to vote in a certain way is a powerful and useful force; an angry mob that gets away from you isn't. thus the part I hold bernie somewhat responsible for is stirring up things then losing control over it. Did Bernie stir up a mob and make people angry, or did a bunch of angry people attach themselves to Bernie? I would suggest that people on the left were angry long before Bernie.
some of both. causation on these things is usually a partial feedback loop.
there's always SOME angry people; but the number of them and the amount of anger varies.
if you have any statistical data that would help better measure the matter that'd be nice to read.
|
On July 25 2018 00:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 00:42 hunts wrote:
Yes I would consider bernie far left, and because of people like some of the posters here, and all of the never hillary bernie bros I've seen, I, a person of jewish descent who has had relatives die in concentration camps, would very seriously consider voting for a literal neo nazi over bernie. The far left never hillary people wanted to start a war within the democratic party, they wanted to show that they are ok with letting trump burn down the country just so they can pat themselves on the back. They falsly believed that the democrats would have to join them and vote for their far left populist but that they (the minority) did not have to join the democrats and vote for a reasonable candidate. They can reap what they sow, and know that the majority who are not happy with their abrasive and unhelpful rhetoric can play the same game. I am 100% serious in that I will not vote for a far left candidate, not until they and their supporters apologize for the fighting they have started, and apologize for letting trump win by not voting, and I know that will never happen.
edit: I have put quite a bit of time into what I believe, thanks for that disguised insult. What I believe happens to not align with the radical far left, but does align with the reasonable center left. Although with the way things are going, I may find myself more aligned with the center right than what the far left populists want to make of the democratic party. And to think that the whole problem could be avoided by having a multi-party system. Then the far left people could vote for their far-left party, and the center-left people could vote for their center-left party, and in the end the thing that matters is which parties have the most votes, and what coalitions they build out of that. But in a two-party system, both the center-left and the far-left feel way more threatened by the other left than even by nazis or trumps. And rightfully so, because in a two-party system there is always only the left and the right, there is no nuance. And if the left is not your left, it sucks to be you, because your choice is that left or the far right.
You say that as if the same doesn't happen in multi-party systems.
The social democrats try to get votes from the socialist parties, never from the Christian democrats or whatever you happen to have slightly to the right of the social democrats in your country. The in-fighting on the left has led to various failures to form coalitions when they arguably could have, but the socialists assert that the social-democrats betrayed "the left" by governing with neo-liberals in a previous coalition, and any negotiations break down before they even start (partially because the left is 4-5 different parties ranging from borderline anarcho-communists through green hippies to industry-promoting social democrats, all of which hate each other). Meanwhile the right, consisting of 2-3 parties tend to be far more pragmatic in their alliances: even if they exclude the far right from any coalition they still manage to broker a coaltion. often with the social democrats as a minority partner, leading to further hollowing out of the left.
|
On July 25 2018 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:So you guys know, Bernie was the compromise, even he knew better than to think he could tell his supporters what to do. He didn't "lose control" over a "mob". More of his supporters went on to support Hillary than Hillary's did Obama and far more of her supporters went on to vote for McCain. Before Bernie Obama was the "too far left" and "too focused on race" so much so that people basically completely forgot Hillary was so against conceding to Obama that she brought up the RFK assassination as a reason she should stay in the race. The whole construction zlefin's put forward is one of imagination. Show nested quote +Ultimately 25 percent of these Clinton primary voters cast a ballot for McCain in the general
election. sites.duke.edu
but bernie didn't take black lives matter seriously enough, right? clinton crushed bernie amongst black voters.
|
He also called Planned Parenthood part of the establishment and problem in Washington. That cost him a lot of support with any of the women I work with.
|
On July 25 2018 02:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2018 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:So you guys know, Bernie was the compromise, even he knew better than to think he could tell his supporters what to do. He didn't "lose control" over a "mob". More of his supporters went on to support Hillary than Hillary's did Obama and far more of her supporters went on to vote for McCain. Before Bernie Obama was the "too far left" and "too focused on race" so much so that people basically completely forgot Hillary was so against conceding to Obama that she brought up the RFK assassination as a reason she should stay in the race. The whole construction zlefin's put forward is one of imagination. Ultimately 25 percent of these Clinton primary voters cast a ballot for McCain in the general
election. sites.duke.edu but bernie didn't take black lives matter seriously enough, right? clinton crushed bernie amongst black voters.
Don't forget that Toni Morrison dubbed Bill Clinton the first black president. Bernie can't hope to compete with that.
|
Minnesota's bonkers going into this cycle and the next. Both senators are up for election (but amy klobishar would need to kill someone to make her election competitive) and the rest of the state went mad.
On the red side you have Tim pawlenty who the national party likes and has reserved a lot of airtime in the fall in the event he wins. However the local party had a convention and elected a different guy in Jeff Johnson. So easy win for team blue right?
Nope while a normally competitive primary season was well underway when at the last moment the attorney general fresh off a landmark case filed for the governor race and tacked on a house rep as her LT governor candidate. Didn't even tell the rest of the party that she was doing it because it was at the last minute. This throws everything into a hizzy as people play magical chairs for the open spots. Keith elison fils for the AG opening his seat (which is as blue as it gets) for a scramble convention (that 3 of the 5 decided to even attend) and a tizzy of a primary. The current frontrunner for this seat is Ilhan Omar which would make her the first Somali immigrant elected to office and the first female muslim elected to federal office in the US. Now lets even get back to the seat vacated by Al frenken because we've got shit brewing up in there as Richard Painter is running to fill that seat. Why is that sending every donkey in the state into a tizzy? Because he was the ethics cheif for George W bush and is running now as a democrat for the seat. Is he a GOP plant? is he just running blue to get elected? Does the W relation hurt him or help him? Turn in next week for Minnesota ball Z.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
