|
AmiYumi posted:What about age limits, rather than term limits? Bonus points if it's pegged to the average life expectancy of a black male in their district. Nonsense posted:Ageism is probably the most widespread reasoning after "they're all crooks".
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Right, I've known that, but with people more educated today (at least in most areas The real answer is because it takes a lot of effort to get rid of the EC and effectively it is already gone (faithless electors are rarely a thing).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 20:43
|
|
) why is it still this way?
|
Joementum posted:Thomas writes a majority opinion that districts are unconstitutional as there's no mention of them in the document and we get proportional representation in 2016 Something that was also technically legal until the 91st Congress. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/2c
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
max4me posted:The vietnamese in Westminster are hard republicans because SMASH COMMUNISM...I agree that if the GOP could tell the racist to go gently caress themselves, they could peel alot alot of minority votes Asians are 5% of the population and only half of that percentage in the voting population. Even if all of them suddenly decided to vote for Romney it probably wouldn't do much (especially since very few of them live in battleground states).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:This basically, unemployment is 6% but the jobs that have replaced the old ones pay less. Not to mention all the people who stopped looking for work. U6 is the lowest it's been since September of 2008 also.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:There are tons of Hispanics here who can vote now and aren't. They need GOTV spending. Yep, Hispanics now are about 7-8% of the voting population and are about 17% of the general population. Even with non-citizens or non-eligible people removed there's significantly more people that can show up that aren't. In Texas it's worse - about 26% of the state are "voting eligible Hispanics" but only 20% of voters in the 2008 election (there's no data for the 2012 election sadly), and something like only 38% of eligible Hispanics came out to vote.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Edit: Actually, I take it back the thing the TDP needs to do is exist on the local level. "Running Hispanic candidates for statewide positions" might also help too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Besides, if Texas turns purple anytime soon, they're going to elect "blue dogs" which the left-wing hates. Remember, most hispanic candidates in Texas are pro-life. That's not really what a Blue Dog is, and even if it was there's not been significant legislation about abortion for a long while (and Hispanic politicians wouldn't ally with Republicans on that issue for obvious reasons).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You mean the abortion legislation that Davis filibustered that was co-sponsored by the Democrats representing the valley? Sorry, federal legislation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Panetta takes tiny little Panetta-sized dump on Obama admin in memoir: Well that sort of throws a wrench in the "Obama was really a warmonger and Iraq forced us out" narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Question to Texas goons, why is Keep Austin Weird racist? I haven't really heard that. It's not racist in the "Those people that want to change Austin are minorities" sense. If anything's along those lines, it's that the people saying it are white people and don't want it to change from the (segregated, unfair political distribution) state it's currently in.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So its affluent white people trying to stop reverse gentrification. Ehh, sort of but not really. A lot of people in Austin are trying to to fight outside influence in general ("Keep Austin Weird" is/was actually a "support your local small business" campaign) but unlike anti-immigrant groups, the primary targets are other white people. Affluent Californians in particular are a major source of bitching (as they are in many other states in the Western US).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:My street was mostly white when I was 4 years old, and by the time I graduated from high school I could count the number of white households on one hand. My elementary school didn't have any black children when I went there but now a significant (though not majority) of them are Somalian refugees (which, because this is Idaho is probably one of the largest concentrations of black people in the state).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Boise dweller: every time I run into an actual African - American I get a little weirded out because it's so uncommon. But flat out refugees/immigrants from Africa? All the time. It's cool because my French is actually useful on occasion. Yeah, back when I was there it was mostly Bosnian refugees and they were pretty chill, the variation in phenotype was especially interesting because one guy looked white as snow and another girl looked basically Italian/Greek (which isn't surprising based on the geographic area).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Nah, there is definitely a new angle to it as well. People are identifying themselves by the media consume and thus any criticism of that media is a criticism of them. It is a level of brand identification/ in group-outgroup thinking that didn't pop up until the late 90s. It's not just internet pissants either, look at the way creationism, geocentricism, and antivaxxers spikes in polling when a Democrat is in office. People knee jerk to certain beliefs to say "I am not like them" and criticizing those beliefs, even when they agree with those criticisms when their "side" is in power, is now a criticism of them, rather than of the statement. And it is met with the level of vitriol as a result. "When those guys do it then it's wrong but when we do it it's right" is definitely not a new thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I think they do on at least some level; it gives their hobby legitimacy and makes them look inclusive. They just don't want them to speak up or lead or help define the culture. Like republicans. A major issue is that women don't like the same games as men. There's been an outcry for almost a decade now about how "hardcore" games (read: shooters, stuff that appeals to 17 year olds) are going to go away because companies are going to target "casuals" (read: women and older people) because there's so much more of them now. It's the same line of logic as the "is gaming Art?" argument - people want their hobby to be recognized as something socially acceptable, but they also don't want it to change in any way whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Isn't that a logical outgrowth of the splintering of media? When there are fewer choices, people are better exposed to the views of others. Right now when I'm talking to a conservative, it is like I am talking to someone from Space. We do not occupy the same umwelt. In a closed echo-chamber like that, maintaining group cohesion and excluding outsiders is going to get ratcheted up since crazy people talking crazy talk should be ostracized for being crazy. There's never really been "cohesive" media (except arguably a few decades during the post WW2 era). Before the Telegraph you had massive decentralization for news where people could spin stuff, and even up into the 20th Century you had massive media empires that literally forced the US to go to war to achieve colonialist ambitions. If anything, what we're seeing now is a return to the status quo, where there's heavy in-group tendencies, although in earlier times they would be divided by regions, whereas today it's less geographically divided.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Not really. Pre-WWII advertising wasn't as developed a science and you had other forces acting as a vehicle for identity. Plus, there was a lot less travel and a lot less mass media. There is a geographic divide though, it's just not (eg) "the South versus the North", it's urban areas versus rural areas, regardless of where in the US they are. That has been a factor for a long time (in the late 19th century the Democrats were the farmers' party and the Republicans were the urban big business party). The main difference now is the demographics of that urban rural split.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:If you don't think that this won't be projected onto Democrats as a whole (even if the numbers aren't as bad as that poll) you are pretty naïve at this politics thing. And the shutdown will doom Republicans from winning the Senate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:For me it's questions like "what kind of jobs do they have" The Real Estate business is the second largest in the state (after government jobs).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:Add in a bunch of white people Incidentally this can't really be overstated:  They're second highest in white people to Maine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:Dude, I grew up in Wooster and spent all my free time in Cleveland. I know from Cleveland's roads. Michigan roads are still worse than you can imagine. The best example is taking 75 into Ohio. As soon as you cross the state line, you go from your car shaking itself apart to a smooth, quiet, civilized freeway. The contrast is pretty stark. I had the same thing happen when I drove from West Texas into New Mexico, it was quite odd.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Texas roads are strange. The warm climate here means that they don't have the same suspension killing potholes but the hot dry/wet cycles and soil often causes the roadbeds to shift. The roads are never ever "fixed" because maintenance consists of two trucks driving by every 10 years or so: one spraying tar and one spreading gravel. I've gone down roads not 10 miles outside of Austin that look like something post earthquake with giant cracks and large sections 6" to a foot lower than the main road or have been "paved" with gravel the size of grapes. Yeah, around this part of Texas at least the issue is swelling clays - basically the earth swells with heavy rainfall, and contracts when it's dry, similar to the normal "heat expands, cold contracts" cycle. The only way to fix it is to get rid of the top 10 feet of soil or so, put a concrete bed in, and fill it in with soil from somewhere else, but that's obviously way too expensive, even if you look at the long term benefits.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:How's the series? I haven't read it, only saw the TV show on Netflix awhile back, and I'm looking for a new series to read through after having finished with the Riftwar cycle and Kingkiller books, and finishing the second Starlight Archives book now. "The bird let out a slow chicken cackle. It sounded like a chicken, but in her heart she knew it wasn't. In that instant, she completely understood the concept of a chicken that was not a chicken. This looked like a chicken, like most of the Mud People's chickens. But this was no chicken. This was evil manifest."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Even if it isn't exactly an out group, I've definitely sighed in disdain and futility at family or neighbors who are living white-trash stereotypes. I can only imagine how angry it must make folks from actual out groups. You aren't part of that group.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So Obama beat Romney's own goal of reaching 6% UE by two years: It's also important to note that labor participation peaked around 2000 so it's not like declining labor participation is solely due to the recession.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Isn't the general D&D consensus that the main young guys with political ambitions (Castro, Booker) are still too young? Castro will be 42 if Hillary taps him for VP and 50 if they serve two terms together. He'd be older than Obama was in 2008 if that happened.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Why has it been declining all this time exactly? Tl;dr - a combination of factors, including the fact that large numbers of Boomers are retiring right now, a reduced fertility rate (which means that there are fewer workers), and that 16-22 year olds are not going to work (because of increased college participation rates or just "not dropping out of high school").
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:This is a terrible slog of an article written by the most sheltered individual I've ever even heard of. "Oh, you don't really care about anyone who is actually oppressed, you're really just trying to score "Blue Team" Points". "Conservatives aren't really racist, misogynist, creationist, islamophobic, homophobic assholes, they just don't like the "Blue Team" those people are aligned with". "Intolerance of my intolerance is intolerance." Funny that he predicted all of those responses and even said "I'm doing the same thing because I'm not criticizing my actual in group (Jews, in this case)".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Predicting responses doesn't invalidate anything. My "In group" is my goddamn family. I grew up and became an rear end in a top hat of a Republican until about 2006. So yes, I'm aware of what and how they think and I can be embarrassed at the racist, homophobic and worst of all woefully wrong chain letter bullshit that they will believe from just about any source. When it's people you care about saying these things, yes, it does effect you. But your smug "hah ha, take that liberals" bullshit is just that. You are more the exception that proves the rule, though - most people in the "Blue Tribe" do not come from conservative backgrounds or families. There are geographical isolations (e.g., living in a city versus a rural environment) but also social ones such as your choice of church (or lack thereof) or which social circles you choose to permeate. Even in a majority conservative area (like a red state) it's fairly easy to isolate yourself from the vast majority of influence that the other tribe has, at least in local matters. Additionally, your in-group may be your family, and what you feel is indeed what he touches on with confronting the problems of your in-group (blood boiling at the thought, etc), but that doesn't extend to any random member of the "Red Tribe". You said it yourself - you're "embarrassed at the woefully wrong...bullshit" your family says, but if random Joe Conservative says it, you'll openly mock them and call them an idiot (at least as "openly" as the internet allows). This is fine, and in most cases probably what should happen, but it shows that you don't really associate yourself with those sorts of people. The main issue, I think, is the definition of "in-group". You're using it in the "150 people you care about" sense, whereas the author is using it in the "larger social group you identify with" sense. With the latter case in mind, it's clear you identify as being "liberal" in the American sense (i.e., not conservative). It's criticism of this group that provokes a hostile response - the idea that liberals have some tolerance issue (especially relating to class signifiers) is incredibly offensive to the point of you just wanting to shut down the conversation with "intolerance of my intolerance is intolerance" memes. Ultimately, the issue is due to a false dichotomy - "Good" people (i.e., those I identify with) must be entirely good, if they're not then they must be on the Bad Team (this is especially true in modern American liberal thought - The Catholic Church being supportive of the poor and not supportive of Gay Marriage is Bad, and equally so is the neoliberal "Gays are okay but let's make everyone poor" theory). Ultimately what you have to do is confront the issues with your team/tribe/whatever and move beyond it. That's very very hard for a wide variety of reasons, and I don't blame you for not trying, true self criticism is very demeaning, and takes a long time to build off of, especially if you don't have a relevant role model to follow. And I'll be perfectly honest - I have no idea what my in-group (the social class) is but I would probably do what you did if it was actually confronted. computer parts fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Why is it always doctors who say dumb poo poo like this? Maybe doctors become politicians more than other science types? If you think of "rich privileged rear end in a top hat" who do you think of after Wall Street executives?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:I'm not optimistic about Texas going the same route as Kansas and maybe kicking out the GOP. The right is just going to double down with Patrick and find new ways to keep Mexicans from ever voting. It'll happen, just farther down the line. The main problem isn't "GOP holding down Mexicans", it's the fact that the state Democratic party is incredibly incompetent.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:
It is at certain levels but the Texas Dems are not yet competent enough to reach those levels. Castro (either of them) is an example of how you can still make a significant difference even if you're being held down by
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Bush II was more like Nixon, were domestic policy doesn't matter as much on a national level and can be processed by local Rockefeller-esque thugs on the ground. Only because his efforts to privatize social security were shot down by anyone with a pulse.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Can I get you to expand on that? I'm guessing something to do with the fact that a large part of the Houston economy is based on oil refinement so when that is no longer A Thing then Houston will have to deal with a massively reduced tax base. That or something dumb about White Flight and crime.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:But it's not about race because it's never about race Of course not, Hispanic isn't a race, it's an ethnicity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Did you go to school in the south? Even in the large cities, you'd get strung up by the school board if you even mentioned condoms to a student. Nope, my sex ed was prefaced with "abstinence is the only surefire way" but much was said about actual forms of birth control.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Statistically, how many students get that kind of sex and how many get the kind me and Dr Butts got? Depends on the timeframe you're looking at I imagine. I wouldn't really doubt my school was teaching the "gross out" type of sex ed 30-ish years ago and I wouldn't really doubt that some schools people ITT went to don't do that anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
mastervj posted:Sadly, as a foreighner, sex-ed chat it really helps me understand the political climate and culture of the USA. Again, you're looking at a snapshot that most likely coincides with the mid-late 90s into the early 2000s, not stuff in AD 2014.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:The stuff in AD 2014 has gotten a lot worse, so don't take this as any sort of encouragement. Any links to back this up? Specifically comparisons between sex ed 15-20 years ago and now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 21:30
|
|