USPOL Nov: I would've preferred Huckabee have said nothing at all

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Nov: I would've preferred Huckabee have said nothing at all

Alligator Horse: Mar 23, 2013

Absurd Alhazred posted:

The KKK list has dropped. Anyone seem familiar?

Edit: List looks sparse. May be partial or not quite the thing. Apologies.

Members of weird pro-life orgs, heads of orgs like the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Jared Taylor is on the list, LOL.

edit: none of these are particularly surprising, really. I don't think this list "outs" anybody who wasn't already an out and proud racist.

Alligator Horse fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Nov 1, 2015

# ¿ Nov 1, 2015 14:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 03:38

Alligator Horse: Mar 23, 2013

ReidRansom posted:

That sums up my thoughts on it as well, and better than I started to do earlier but then walked away to do work and forgot about.

November 5th is the date they are going to do a full release according to their Twitter, so I guess we have to wait until then to see.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2015 14:09

Alligator Horse: Mar 23, 2013

OpKKK release is here now http://pastebin.com/wbvP95wg

# ¿ Nov 5, 2015 22:33

Alligator Horse: Mar 23, 2013

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

So the culmination of the 'report' is...finding facebook pages. Anon strikes again!

Yeah this is as weak as the initial release, which consisted almost entirely of known KKK leaders and members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2015 22:49

Alligator Horse: Mar 23, 2013

Peven Stan posted:

The new narrative of the SJW using the BLACK as muscle is funny as hell.

The Left has always been tricking Black folk, dontchaknow.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2015 22:01

Alligator Horse: Mar 23, 2013

An attempt to un-poo poo this thread a bit: Recent veterans are probably voting more Republican than veterans have historically. I'll excerpt the good stuff for y'all:

quote:

Recent exit polls suggest that veterans tilt Republican, but that does not tell the whole story.

In recent decades, most veterans did identify and vote more with the Republican Party than did non-veterans�but that�s because they were older, whiter, and almost all male, not because of their time in the military. Older white men are more Republican, so to say that veterans skewed to the right was to say that older white men skew right.

During the 2004 presidential election, veterans turned away from Vietnam veteran John Kerry immediately after the infamous Swift Boat ad�but by Election Day, veterans voted no differently than did the overall electorate, controlling for demographics (and Latino veterans were particularly likely to support Kerry).

But that might be changing. Recent work by Jonathan Klingler and Tyson Chatagnier shows that by 2006, veterans held more conservative political views and tilted toward the GOP. Why? What can explain changes to veterans� attitudes?

To try to get an answer, we analyzed the 2008 and 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study surveys...

We found that military service did move the needle to the right, even after controlling for age and other demographic factors. Veterans in general were more likely to vote for John McCain and Mitt Romney, more likely to call themselves Republicans, more likely to hold conservative positions on the �Don�t Ask, Don�t Tell� repeal, and more likely to dislike Obamacare. About half of non-veteran men voted for Obama, but only about 35 percent of male veterans voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

We do not believe the candidates� military biographies explain this recent veteran tendency to vote for and identify with the Republican Party.

A closer look at which veterans exhibit distinctive attitudes reveals that recent, younger veterans are more likely to be Republicans and vote for GOP candidates. We ran a statistical model that examined veteran attitudes and vote choice for each decade of age. While veterans in their 20s are not numerous�only about 6 percent of American men this age served�they are particularly likely to prefer and identify with Republicans.

Speculation as to why and warnings about taking their research as definitive in the article, as well as some examples and graphics I cut. Would be interesting to see the data after the 2016 elections; if their conclusions are further borne out there is a lot of room for sociological study of veterans' orgs' and current-service institutions' political affiliation and proselytizing.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2015 16:49

Alligator Horse: Mar 23, 2013

greatn posted:

Veterans are from the military which is now just jam packed full of right wingers, doesn't seem that complicated.

Plenty of recent vets serve because of family ties to the military though, and that covers all kinds of spectra--especially for people with parents who served in Vietnam/grandparents in WWII. I know a handful personally who have fairly Left views relative to what I expect is the norm. The authors speculate some of it has to do with increasing party polarity, yes, but that doesn't seem an adequate explanation. Perhaps in the absence of a Just War narrative to ride off, current service is pared down to people who serve on account of "duty," stripped of any kind of geopolitical context; and people who would otherwise serve due to family history self-select out or even are told by their forebears not to participate.

evilweasel posted:

My immediate suspicion is that the most recent wars have been so politicized that the bias is in who enrolls in the military. The article notes that as a possibility but dismisses it for reasons I don't consider compelling - "Young men (and women) join the armed forces for many personal, career, financial, and civic reasons beyond ideology or politics." Sure, it's not the only reason people join but you only need a bias - and once you get that bias it can be self-reinforcing.

Yeah, I think the authors dismiss political bias too readily for the sake of the relevancy of their own research. Still would be interesting to find out what marginal changes in the experience between enlistment and discharge further drive this (possibly existing) trend.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2015 17:11

Alligator Horse: Mar 23, 2013

Typical Pubbie posted:

The military is disproportionately represented by white men from the Midwest and Southeast. The military doesn't make people conservative (I was conservative when I joined and well on my way to becoming liberal when I got out), military service is self-selecting.

They controlled for old 'n white in the study but I don't know if they compared veteran voting trends with some kind of geographical cross-tab.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2015 17:29

Alligator Horse: Mar 23, 2013

Gecnan posted:

http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2013-Demographics-Report.pdf

Latinos are combined into the 69 % white active duty stat.

I'm 10 years Navy and never once heard anyone ask to go shoot Muslims. I've heard lots of talk justifying profiling but no crusaders exist as far as I've witnessed.

But hey generalize the military.

I know you aren't replying to me but just to make clear, I posted the original article not to say 'lol Republican warmongers' but out of genuine wonder as to what factors--besides the obvious--color the politics of current and former members of the military.

I wonder how hard it is for researchers to check on individuals' political affiliation (via voter registration). I feel like they could just check to see whether a statistically significant number of persons go from D reg. pre-enlistment to R reg. post-service to determine whether or not the actual institution affects change in political consciousness.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2015 18:20

Alligator Horse: Mar 23, 2013

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I think pardoning grossly unhealthy Turkey's is a really dumb.

Agreed. We should be lardoning them.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 16:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 03:38

Alligator Horse: Mar 23, 2013

evilweasel posted:

Yes, but you're still missing the point. The pressure does not get alleviated one bit by shifting to a more accurate measurement. Hell, it would probably get even worse because then you can't even comfort yourself as much by perhaps the measurement is wrong.

This is true, but at least the smart people who test badly (there are not a few of them) will understand the shift in metrics benefits them and in general better captures the efficacy of schooling. You're right though in that the policy change won't necessarily alleviate stress for kids and may very well--certainly in the interim years--heighten it.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 16:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Nov: I would've preferred Huckabee have said nothing at all