|
computer parts posted:Remember that white millennials are a much smaller portion of the whole than before. That is true. However its still 57% of the cohort dispersed fairly wide geographically which makes them more potent as a bloc than minority groups that are concentrated in states that vote democrat already.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Neither is the culture war. While true, I suppose what I was getting at is that, while the culture war will continue, Republican strength will likely successfully shift to economic (EDIT: and defense; the meme is so entrenched that Democrats will never be known as strong on the military no matter how many ISIS-held hillsides Obama or Hillary bomb) issues to stay relevant as a national party so long as public opinion on major hot-button culture war issues other than abortion keeps swinging to the left. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
It depends on what you mean by culture war. LGBT issues, particularly same sex marriage, has a huge support in the under 40 generation. But abortion and gun control issues are not polling anywhere close to support of same sex marriage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
baw posted:Gay rights is becoming the hill that the Evangelical wing is going to take their stand on. I think you overestimate gay rights' ability to command single-issue voters among the Right, baw sure the republican base loves oppressing gays, but they also love opposing abortion, crushing blacks with regressive fiscal policy and increasingly-stealthy forms of segregation, blowing up brown people and various other things, probably a bit more. Gay rights isn't nearly the kind of party-killing fracture point that civil rights was for the democrats in the 60s/70s. There isn't the same visceral fear and urgency, for one thing, gays being fewer in number and not identifiable by sight. I don't think John in Norfolk and Raylene in Columbia lie awake at night, fearful that a gay horde will at any moment batter down their doors and ravish their spouses, whereas white folks absolutely felt and continue to feel that way about blacks. They may love to mock and belittle and complain about gays, but, excepting some people who are fringe-y even among the evangelical bloc, probably don't perceive them as a constant and aggressive existential threat. To the baseline cryptoconservative mindset, gay are just one symptom of general societal decadence. Racism will always be bigger in conservative american politics than homophobia. I fully expect the Republicans to find some way to continue their oppression of blacks/latinos/indians while at least appearing to be pro-gay within the near future. i.e. by becoming increasingly libertarianized.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:Gay rights isn't nearly the kind of party-killing fracture point that civil rights was for the democrats in the 60s/70s. There isn't the same visceral fear and urgency, for one thing, gays being fewer in number and not identifiable by sight. You should read the Freep thread or listen to Rush. It's a battle for the heart of America to the conservative faithful. Gay rights is one of many focal points that the GOP could rip itself apart over, but I'm optimistic that it will be a major contributing factor to their destruction. Not only is it a deeply important and binary issue to a large chunk of their base, but it's also a stance that turns off a lot of younger people. Roe v Wade was decided and the Evangelical wing was built largely as a response to it. They will not be able to do that for Obergefell v. Hodges et al. It's politics of course, and anything can happen, but they really seem to have painted themselves into a corner here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:It depends on what you mean by culture war. LGBT issues, particularly same sex marriage, has a huge support in the under 40 generation. But abortion and gun control issues are not polling anywhere close to support of same sex marriage. Abortion yes, gun control, on the other hand, is a weird beast. While you're right that, generally speaking, that's not gonna change, those calling for stricter gun laws have made a plurality of voters except for a short period from 2010-2011, and on issues other than banning handguns, polls typically find support for concrete gun reforms like magazine restrictions, the assault weapons ban or expanded background checks in the 60s or higher. In other words, gun control has been politicized much as Obamacare has. As long as you don't call it what it is, people are generally for it. EDIT: Hell, even banning armor-piercing bullets has strong support, but because it's easier to lose votes by tying it to gun control than to win votes from passing it, the ATF backs down. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
baw posted:You should read the Freep thread or listen to Rush. It's a battle for the heart of America to the conservative faithful. I don't need to do those things, baw. I live in a deeply conservative state and am surrounded by conservatives all the time. And I can tell you that conservatives will say to themselves "pfft, I don't care about queers, let 'em do what they want" long, long before they will ever agree to try and construct a more equitable economic system or show tolerance to nonwhites. And that's the regular blue-collar voters: John P. Harvard the wall-street shark who writes all the bills already don't care. There's a reason the gay culture wars have produced a stereotypical gay image constructed around white affluence. Everyone understands that these things are the key to acceptance. American conservatism will ebb and flow and adjust its rhetoric and tactics, but it is not going to implode anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'm looking for somebody to reassure me. Today The Guardian had a big old article about how congressional Republicans are gearing up to sink Obama's deal with Iran by any means necessary. Congressional Republicans are, as per norm, being short sighted idiots on the matter. The deal is between Russia, China, France, Germany, The UK, The US, and Iran. If an agreement is reached and Iran keeps their end up, even if Republicans successfully throw a temper tantrum and keep the US from keeping up their end, Sanctions are effectively dead. Sanctions don't work if there's only 1 country doing it. The big thing from the US that Iran needs is that we don't go shooting missiles at Iran or look the other way if Israel does so. Which no matter how much the Republicans hold their breath Obama isn't going to do. So all the Republicans can really do is make the country look like a bunch of simpering, hate filled, idiots while Iran and the rest of the world abide by the agreement. Though it will have repercussions on future deals by the US that Republicans might be more in favor of. Iran isn't the only nation that ended up reading Senator Birthday Cake's letter, nor will they be ignorant of Congressional refusal to honor a deal. Edit: The only way Republicans can actually gently caress it all up is if they succeed in being giant enough douches that Iran overplays it's hand at the table and the whole deal falls through. This seems fairly unlikely and Iran will probably just end up with a more favorable deal than it would have instead. Gyges fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:American conservatism will ebb and flow and adjust its rhetoric and tactics, but it is not going to implode anytime soon. I won't be so bold as to say that it definitely will, but I think it becomes increasingly more likely with each presidential and with SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage soon it's going to be out in the open at a critical time in the primaries. Of course, anything can happen. We'll see. edit: also you mentioned race and one thing that makes me optimistic is that there are a half dozen different issues that could rend the GOP in half, gay rights just being the most prominent at this moment. there is always the inevitable demographic changes that will make their appeals to latent racism a liability rather than an asset. baw fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:That is true. However its still 57% of the cohort dispersed fairly wide geographically which makes them more potent as a bloc than minority groups that are concentrated in states that vote democrat already. Hispanics are dispersed fairly widely geographically, they just also have large numbers of people in the largest states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:While true, I suppose what I was getting at is that, while the culture war will continue, Republican strength will likely successfully shift to economic (EDIT: and defense; the meme is so entrenched that Democrats will never be known as strong on the military no matter how many ISIS-held hillsides Obama or Hillary bomb) issues to stay relevant as a national party so long as public opinion on major hot-button culture war issues other than abortion keeps swinging to the left. I have faith that we'll be able to invent new culture war issues because unlike you I believe in America. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:"I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative" is a super common political position in the Middle, particularly among suburbanites, professionals and the white youth (though these might not articulate their position as such). The GoP can drastically increase its appeal among these people if it moderates its social platform. The thing is, the right wing isn't fiscally conservative, either. I think the left needs something to counter Big Government. "I'm for working government."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Also fiscal conservatism by default is aimed at depriving minorities and other underrepresented groups from receiving their fair share so there really isn't a distinction, it's just a way to say you think rich white people should continue to get richer off the backs of poor people but you aren't openly bigoted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:While true, I suppose what I was getting at is that, while the culture war will continue, Republican strength will likely successfully shift to economic (EDIT: and defense; the meme is so entrenched that Democrats will never be known as strong on the military no matter how many ISIS-held hillsides Obama or Hillary bomb) issues to stay relevant as a national party so long as public opinion on major hot-button culture war issues other than abortion keeps swinging to the left. It's pretty sad. I looked up voter perceptions of both parties. http://www.pollingreport.com/dvsr.htm CBS news poll showed Republicans are viewed as better at dealing with terrorism among adults nationwide. A 51 to 28 lead in Feb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Their idea of dealing with terrorism is bombs and bullets instead of, you know, addressing the root causes to prevent that stuff from happens in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Americans just want to shoot the problem and make it go away. From this perspective the Republicans are the better choice because everyone and their racist uncle knows those fuckers are crazy and will kill whoever it takes to get the job done. Unfortunately the realities of terrorism are complex, nuanced, and not solveable by just killing the right people. But good luck explaining that to most Americans (including many on the left) readingatwork fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
To be fair, Obama's strategy includes a lot of bombs alongside the humanitarian aid and coalition-building. Though I don't think that, if a Republican administration were in office, one of their officials would say this: quote:That’s the trap ISIS has set for Washington. Given the white-hot rhetoric that Republicans regularly hurl at Obama, it could work. “Too often, what’s missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective,” Susan Rice, the national security adviser, said Friday. The threat ISIS and groups like it pose “are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or during the Cold War,” she said. “We cannot afford to be buffeted by alarmism in a nearly instantaneous news cycle.” http://time.com/3700152/isis-obama-pentagon-jordan-coalition/
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Sorus posted:Their idea of dealing with terrorism is bombs and bullets instead of, you know, addressing the root causes to prevent that stuff from happens in the first place. Haha, yes this is much different than Obama, who massively expanded the drone bombing program beyond Bush's wildest dreams.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Also fiscal conservatism by default is aimed at depriving minorities and other underrepresented groups from receiving their fair share so there really isn't a distinction, it's just a way to say you think rich white people should continue to get richer off the backs of poor people but you aren't openly bigoted. Most people who say they're socially liberal but fiscally conservative don't actually know what fiscal conservatism is. The Right has been very successful at getting the public to believe that debt will crush us all and those that survive will be slaves to China because they've got our debt. They see a budget that isn't balanced and think that it should be, and given personal control over the nation the vast majority of these people wouldn't just cut taxes and think they're done. They'd raise taxes and probably cut Defense spending because when the Army says they don't want a jet they wouldn't force them to buy 50. In their minds being fiscally conservative means not spending more than you're making. And Republicans use that to trick people into supporting them through unfunded tax cuts and crying about national debt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
William Bear posted:The threat ISIS and groups like it pose “are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or during the Cold War,” she said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Depends if you're asking the German-American Bund or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:This might be a stupid question, but was WW2 an existential threat to the US? Not in the sense that the Jews were facing an existential threat but perhaps in the sense that the UK was facing an existential threat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:This might be a stupid question, but was WW2 an existential threat to the US? Not from Japan, debatably from Germany given what Hitler had to say in his second, unpublished book about the inevitability of a fight to the death with the US once he'd gotten that pesky Soviet problem dealt with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
William Bear posted:It's pretty sad. I looked up voter perceptions of both parties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I thought I'd drop a little local shenanigans here. Ernie Chambers is north Omaha's Senator, and has been since 1971. He was big in the north Omaha community prior to that, and did a lot to champion civil rights for black Nebraskans. A few weeks ago, in some committee meeting he said "my ISIS is the police," in response to someone who said, no poo poo, ISIS is a reason to expand gun carry rights in Nebraska. Chambers' response was characteristically Chambers. quote:My ISIS is the police. And you know what the county attorney said, Don Kleine: If the officer makes a mistake, if he's wrong but he had reason to think that he was right, then he's clear. I cannot get away with that and shoot you and say, well, I thought he was going to do something. They say, uh-uh, buddy, that doesn't work. Well, now we presume that these officers are trained. To show how little their training means and how they hide behind it, some guy out east was fired because he was dealing with a guy who had a mental problem and wound up...he was on duty, shot the guy 14 times, and he was fired. Now he's trying to get his job back. And you know what the lawyer is arguing? And he's justified in view of the not finding any fault in what these cops are doing. He said, yes, he shot the man 14 times, but it was within his training. So now, if the police are trained to shoot somebody in the back, then the cop who shoots in the back says, it was pursuant to my training, and he's home free. That's what's happening. I would tell young people: If you tell somebody to go across the world to fight for ISIS, they can put you in jail if you just talk about it. If you want to fight injustice, don't...you don't have to go around the world to find the ISIS mentality. Your ISIS is in America and you're likely to die over there, one way or the other. So if you're going to die, die making your home safe. My home is not threatened by ISIS. Mine is threatened by the police. The police are licensed to kill us, children, old people. They showed a guy on a highway. The highway trooper, he had this elderly black woman down on the ground, just beating the stew out of her, and nothing was done to him. That's what I see. Now suppose somebody told me somebody from ISIS did that. Then everybody is up in arms: See what cowards they are? They beat women in broad daylight. But when a cop does it, it's all right. I don't feel that way. And if I were going to do something--but I'm not a man of violence--I wouldn't go to Syria, I wouldn't go to Iraq, I wouldn't go to Afghanistan, I wouldn't go to Yemen, I wouldn't go to Tunisia, I wouldn't go to Lebanon, I wouldn't go to Jordan. I would do it right here. Nobody from ISIS ever terrorized us as a people, as the police do daily. And they get away with it and they've been given the license now. And people don't like me to say this. Then you rein in your cops. And you know what they say, the racism of the cops is merely reflective of the racism in this society and they accept the existence of racism to excuse the cop. But then when I say there is racism in the society, they say, you're playing the race card, you're talking about it makes it happen. But when they want to justify the cop, they say, he's merely reflective of the community where there is white racism. And that's what I look...you don't have to deal with that. You're privileged. You're free of that. You don't have to think about it every day. If I was going to carry a weapon, it wouldn't be against you, it wouldn't be against these people who come here that I might have a dispute with. Mine would be for the police. And if I carried a gun, I'd want to shoot him first and then ask questions later, like they say the cop ought to do. He has, if you may gather, not apologized, and in fact doubled down. There's now a ton of weird procedural slapfights going on over this, and I would just recommend the Nebraska Republicans drop it because if anyone knows the legislative arcana, it's Ernie Chambers who is probably going to try to make everyone's lives a living hell until they stop their mad crusade to get him to apologize for something he is clearly never going to apologize for (he in fact just sang in front of the Unicameral and delayed a bunch of bills in retaliation for retaliation against him). Local politics 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:This might be a stupid question, but was WW2 an existential threat to the US? I don't think there's ever been an actual existential threat to the US except maybe the civil war. Germany in the 40s couldn't get enough ships together to invade England, let alone cross the atlantic and invade the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Ernie Chambers is a state treasure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
baw posted:At this point they cannot afford to lose the Evangelical vote, and those groups built their influence by being vocal. They will not go quietly. They've got it covered, it's called Interstate Crosscheck. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/29/1340115/-GOP-to-Kick-7-Million-from-Voter-Rolls-in-27-States Doesn't matter if poor/minority population increases when they can't vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Branis posted:I don't think there's ever been an actual existential threat to the US except maybe the civil war. Germany in the 40s couldn't get enough ships together to invade England, let alone cross the atlantic and invade the US. 1812 seemed pretty legit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Branis posted:I don't think there's ever been an actual existential threat to the US except maybe the civil war. Germany in the 40s couldn't get enough ships together to invade England, let alone cross the atlantic and invade the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
The real existential threat to the US is clearly Obama how do you not all see it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Joementum, how can Schwarzenager become President?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:1812 seemed pretty legit. More specifically, Tecumseh's involvement brought it from "slapfight about the Atlantic and extremely optimistic invasion of Canada" to "actually vaguely concerning re: establishing a viable, semi-hostile native state". And now, we face a new threat from the Commonwealth: Rafael Cruz, Canadian sleeper agent. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Joementum, how can Schwarzenager become President? By using his terminator time travel powers to go back in time and rewrite the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Joementum, how can Schwarzenager become President? The 61st Amendment, so we've got a ways to go on that front.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Ernie Chambers is a state treasure. They can include him and Malcolm X while they're at it 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:By using his terminator time travel powers to go back in time and rewrite the constitution. Obama will add an exception once he finishes his 5th term as Emperor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Joementum, how can Schwarzenager become President? Get back with Maria and run her as a Lurleen Wallace style candidate. I look forward to America's new foreign relations doctrine: "If it bleeds, we can kill it."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Get back with Maria and run her as a Lurleen Wallace style candidate. But that's what we have been do...oh...
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you assume you can invest money and get, say, a 3% return then given the choice between $100 now and $100 one year from now, you'd pick the $100 now. Because you could invest it and have $103 in a year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:44
|
|
