PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crab said:
Or put another way: you are deeply sexist and actively enabling the continued domestic abuse of millions of women by resisting one of the few redresses to their suffering. So much for the progressives!
Click to expand...

Actually a better redress would be to help the battered spouse financially to leave the relationship since financial control is the leading cause of battered spouses not leaving abusers. Also prison for the abuser.

This metaphor has crossed from dumb to shameful. Also, my racist dad was an abuser as well so I'm unlikely to be swayed by this argument that he was really just worried about his job security.
 
Le Pen is about to get dunked by Macron, AdD is polling at like 6% and Geert Wilders just massively underperformed his goals. Doesn't this mean the Western European far right is doing much worse (in countries whiter than the US) than here? Sweden Democrats have a low amount of seats even though it's the European country that's seen the highest net migration.
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
Le Pen is about to get dunked by Macron, AdD is polling at like 6% and Geert Wilders just massively underperformed his goals. Doesn't this mean the Western European far right is doing much worse (in countries whiter than the US) than here? Sweden Democrats have a low amount of seats even though it's the European country that's seen the highest net migration.
Click to expand...

All of the Euro far right parties started sliding once Trump was elected and then took office. His clownish government has taken the wind out of their sails.
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
Le Pen is about to get dunked by Macron, AdD is polling at like 6% and Geert Wilders just massively underperformed his goals. Doesn't this mean the Western European far right is doing much worse (in countries whiter than the US) than here? Sweden Democrats have a low amount of seats even though it's the European country that's seen the highest net migration.
Click to expand...

Wilders' polls started tanking after people in the Netherlands saw that far right populists are stupid as fuck, we are the example.

AfD is in Germany and Germany hates Nazis more than any other western nation. Their polls also dropped after they got to see Trump.

Le Pen is at 40% (in the second round) with no support from the conservative establishment, Trump got to 46% with the support of the entire conservative establishment... Those are very good numbers from Le Pen actually.
 
This again? Ditching minority issues (or only talking about them at black churches or whatever) and running on a pure economics platform not only wouldn't get us 10% of Trump voters, it wouldn't even get us 1%, and would cost us votes elsewhere in the process. The truth is that any program meant to help the working class will be spun as "those people stealing your hard-earned money" by Republicans and racists will buy it, just as they have for the past half century (even longer really).

Now, let me be perfectly clear. I do think we could improve our economic messaging compared to we saw in 2016. Clinton spent too much time attacking Trump relative to putting her own vision forward, and she had some issues with being perceived as credible on such issues relating to having spent a long time in the public eye (and being attacked during that time). But we really need to ditch the fantasy that we can just focus on the white working class and win a bunch of those votes back while not losing minority votes in the process (an attempt to focus on the WWC will likely accomplish neither).

Likewise, I think we should do what we can to help people in dying communities because it's the right thing to do, but we should acknowledge that doing so isn't going to pay big electoral dividends and the issues these people are facing do not have easy solutions. West Virginians, by and large, does not want to hear about retraining or infrastructure projects. This is especially true as long as one party is willing to lie to them and say they're bringing the coal jobs back. The coal industry can't be saved, and frankly given the externalities, we shouldn't even try to slow its decline. So what's your winning message to a population that wants to preserve/bring back that way of life? On some level you need to deliver that message, but it's going to fall on mostly deaf ears.
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
Le Pen is about to get dunked by Macron, AdD is polling at like 6% and Geert Wilders just massively underperformed his goals. Doesn't this mean the Western European far right is doing much worse (in countries whiter than the US) than here? Sweden Democrats have a low amount of seats even though it's the European country that's seen the highest net migration.
Click to expand...

I hope Macron can make it to the secound round, I'm still anxious about a potential late surge from Fillon.

The rolling polling by Ifop gives me hope :

C8f98bvXkAEJ0ON.jpg


That crooked Fillon could be overtaken by Mélenchon if it keeps going like this, that'd be amazing.
 
BoogieWoogie said:
Imagine if Trump fucks up his SC pick and then Tax Reform.
Click to expand...

Starting to think they'll just do a temporary tax cut. If Ryan wants to die on a hill with the border tax...they aren't going to get the Freedom Caucus. But then again will the WH let Ryan run the show again? Will Trump be more heavily involved? Lots of questions.
 
Cesare Borgia said:
Starting to think they'll just do a temporary tax cut. If Ryan wants to die on a hill with the border tax...they aren't going to get the Freedom Caucus. But then again will the WH let Ryan run the show again? Will Trump be more heavily involved? Lots of questions.
Click to expand...

Are the freedom caucus just going to let Ryan blow up the deficit for tax cuts without spending cuts?

Because that would also go up against their core principles. Such as they are.
 
Armaros said:
Are the freedom caucus just going to let Ryan blow up the deficit for tax cuts without spending cuts?

Because that would also go up against their core principles. Such as they are.
Click to expand...

Mark Meadows, who's the FC chair and was opposed to the AHCA, said that that wouldn't be a problem. I think their core principles are more about redistribution than deficits.
 
rokkerkory said:
Man all the O'Rielly fall out is just incredible. What a punk ass of a man picking on women verbally and sexually.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ly-an-awful-awful-man/?utm_term=.f756b61ff85d
Click to expand...

Yeah this is not going to go away. Plus another reporter came out today.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/03/media/julie-roginsky-lawsuit-fox-news-roger-ailes/


In the lawsuit, Julie Roginsky alleges that Ailes advised her to "engaged in sexual relationships with 'older, married, conservative men' because 'they may stray but they always come back because they're loyal.'" During meetings, according to the complaint, Ailes "repeatedly insisted on a kiss 'hello' requiring Roginsky to bend down to kiss him."
Roginsky, one of Fox's liberal contributors, said that Ailes led her to "believe that she would receive a permanent position as a host on 'The Five,'" the network's highly rated evening panel show. The promise was withdrawn after she resisted his advances, according to the complaint.
"Roginsky refused to engage in a sexual relationship with Ailes. As a result, Fox News and Ailes retaliated," the lawsuit said.
 
Armaros said:
Are the freedom caucus just going to let Ryan blow up the deficit for tax cuts without spending cuts?

Because that would also go up against their core principles. Such as they are.
Click to expand...

they've said they will, yes

paygo is just a scheme to stop democratic progress. they don't care when republicans are in power
 
Crab said:
A party build solely on the votes of minorities and white people who are solely motivated by the plight of minorities doesn't win elections, though. That's the whole point we've just discussed.
Click to expand...

Crab said:
Ish. It's a campaign issue when campaigning for the minority vote, it's not a campaign issue when not campaigning for the minority vote. Knowing your audience, basically - same reason you wouldn't campaign on white suburban issues in an audience of black Americans. But this is a relatively minor part.
Click to expand...

I'll cut a lot of stuff that should really be obvious to you by now and basically just ask why you bothered suggesting that I was unfair to you by saying you want the Democrats to give up on white supremacy.

I don't believe the Obama coalition can't win elections. I don't actually think there is any evidence to support that claim. And no, racist WWC voters weren't a core part of that coalition.
 
We talked about this yet?

A former Breitbart News writer alleged the site was acting as an illegal influence operation for its Washington, D.C. landlord, an obscure Egyptian politician cited this week by a Capitol Hill media association that denied Breitbart press credentials.

Two sources with direct knowledge, including one former Breitbart writer, say a reporter for the pro-Trump news organization was behind a complaint to the Department of Justice implicating then-chairman Steve Bannon and Moustafa El-Gindy, an Egyptian businessman and former legislator and the owner of Breitbart’s Washington office.
Click to expand...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/29/ex-writer-breitbart-broke-the-law.html
 
The Technomancer said:
We're supposed to fight to support people, to ensure that no-one is left behind, and to ensure that no-one is wanting of necessities, while making people happier if we can. There's nothing specific about a certain class of job in there. A labor optional future is one that I see ahead of us, one that's within grasp if we can manage to grab it, and one that's far preferable to propping up industries that a.) aren't needed and b.)are actively dangerous
Click to expand...

you poor poor soul.
 
I think Crab is wrong to suggest that Democrats should actively downplay racial issues.

I don't, however, think it should be so controversial to suggest that a non-trivial minority of Trump voters, mostly Obama/Trump voters, are if not "not racist," sufficiently soft in their racism that it is possible to win their votes without pandering to said racism.

Like, *if* the only choices available to Democrats really are to write off all Trump voters as irredeemably racist or start pandering to racists, I'd choose the former over the latter, but I have yet to be convinced that that's the case.
 
Box of Kittens said:
This again? Ditching minority issues (or only talking about them at black churches or whatever) and running on a pure economics platform not only wouldn't get us 10% of Trump voters, it wouldn't even get us 1%, and would cost us votes elsewhere in the process. The truth is that any program meant to help the working class will be spun as "those people stealing your hard-earned money" by Republicans and racists will buy it, just as they have for the past half century (even longer really).

Now, let me be perfectly clear. I do think we could improve our economic messaging compared to we saw in 2016. Clinton spent too much time attacking Trump relative to putting her own vision forward, and she had some issues with being perceived as credible on such issues relating to having spent a long time in the public eye (and being attacked during that time). But we really need to ditch the fantasy that we can just focus on the white working class and win a bunch of those votes back while not losing minority votes in the process (an attempt to focus on the WWC will likely accomplish neither).

Likewise, I think we should do what we can to help people in dying communities because it's the right thing to do, but we should acknowledge that doing so isn't going to pay big electoral dividends and the issues these people are facing do not have easy solutions. West Virginians, by and large, does not want to hear about retraining or infrastructure projects. This is especially true as long as one party is willing to lie to them and say they're bringing the coal jobs back. The coal industry can't be saved, and frankly given the externalities, we shouldn't even try to slow its decline. So what's your winning message to a population that wants to preserve/bring back that way of life? On some level you need to deliver that message, but it's going to fall on mostly deaf ears.
Click to expand...

Father_Brain said:
I think Crab is wrong to suggest that Democrats should actively downplay racial issues.

I don't, however, think it should be so controversial to suggest that a non-trivial minority of Trump voters, mostly Obama/Trump voters, are if not "not racist," sufficiently soft in their racism that it is possible to win their votes without pandering to said racism.

Like, *if* the only choices available to Democrats really are to write off all Trump voters as irredeemably racist or start pandering to racists, I'd choose the former over the latter, but I have yet to be convinced that that's the case.
Click to expand...
Good posts.
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
b) I'm not sure white people in cities are so much more woke in greater numbers than those outside of cities. Cook County went 74-28 for Hillary and is about 55% white. If we assume that most of the nonwhite people in Cook County went for Hillary (let's say 80%), that means about 36% of white people there went for Hillary. Nearby Kenosha went 47.2-46.9 Trump/Hillary. Kenosha County is 88% white, so if we make the same assumption about nonwhite voters breaking about 80-20 for Hillary, that means about 37% of white voters broke for Hillary there. Are white people in Chicago just less woke than they are in other cities?
Click to expand...

Looking at the precinct maps you can see that whites in Chicago voted for Clinton (since it is unfortunately a rather segregated city). Lakeview is over 80% white and gave over 80% of the vote to Clinton. Lincoln Park is also over 80% white and "only" gave about 77% of the vote to Clinton. North Center, which is "only" 77% white, gave over 80% of the vote to Clinton. The only community area in Chicago that Trump won was Mount Greenwood (probably due to having a high population of police officers).

Actually, as I'm typing up this post it occurs to me that your math is off. Let's assume that the demographics of voters in Cook County match those of the population (likely false but let's see what happens if that were true). Let's also try to specifically estimate the non-Hispanic white vote in Cook County, which accounts for roughly 44% of the population according to the 2010 Census. Clinton won Cook County 74-21. If we allocate the other 56% of the voters 80% to Clinton and 20% to Trump+others, we get 45% of the total vote for Clinton from there. The other 29% of the vote needs to come from the 44% of non-Hispanic whites, which brings us to Clinton getting 66% of the non-Hispanic white vote in Chicago, under these assumptions. If Clinton had only won 36% of the white vote (even just the non-Hispanic white vote), you wouldn't even be able to get her to 74% by allocating every single remaining vote to her. I'm not sure where your error is.
 
First he sent a letter to then President-elect Donald Trump asking to let him drug test state residents who apply for food assistance. Now Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is gearing up to persuade the Trump administration to let him drug test those who need help affording health insurance.

The failure of the Republican repeal and replace bill for Obamacare means that governors who want to change Medicaid requirements have to ask the federal government for permission. Walker is readying a request to let his state screen Medicaid applicants for drug use, which he plans to make public on April 19 and then send to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by the end of May.

If Walker succeeds, Wisconsin would be the first state to drug test Medicaid applicants.
Click to expand...

Stop the world, I want fucking off.

the federal government already takes into account drug and alcohol abuse if is a direct cause of you being found disabled, and SSA can refuse to consider you disabled in that case.

This is just sadistic.
 
Father_Brain said:
I think Crab is wrong to suggest that Democrats should actively downplay racial issues.

I don't, however, think it should be so controversial to suggest that a non-trivial minority of Trump voters, mostly Obama/Trump voters, are if not "not racist," sufficiently soft in their racism that it is possible to win their votes without pandering to said racism.
Click to expand...

I mean, sure, I guess. I don't trust those people since they voted for a white supremacist and that's kind of a key issue for me. But maybe they can feel bad about it and repent.

Here are some things I believe:

1. Social justice and economic justice are not opposed, they're linked. We should be arguing for both without leaving either behind. Call it solidarity or intersectionality, it doesn't matter. Basically just run Jesse Jackson.
2. Some people are worried the Democrats will go soft on economic justice (or already have) and some people are worried the Democrats will go soft on social justice (or already have). These people tend to view each other as opposing the two issues, which creates conflict. It doesn't help that there are people in both camps who do actually oppose the two, but I think not the majority in either. But, you know, it's a good idea to be clear that you are advocating for both, rather than just one.
3. Clinton did not lose resoundingly. She lost an extremely close election. It was close enough that weather could've made the difference, to say nothing of emails, Russia, intraparty conflict, being old, or any of the other countless factors that contributed. It's not a good idea to assume drastic changes are required in response to a close election loss, no matter how shitty things are.
4. White supremacy is bad, etc. People should take more time to be horrified that everybody in the Republican Party was willing to vote for a white supremacist because he was running as a Republican. That is the biggest reason Trump won.
 
Well now Turtle makes his move and we live with the results regardless. I personally think this was the move to make. The fired up base wants it, we have the political capital to do it, if they go nuclear now they would in the future. Unless you could turn Gorsuch into votes for a democratically passed healthcare bill, I don't see a deal that's worth it.
 
Fenderputty said:
Well now Turtle makes his move and we live with the results regardless. I personally think this was the move to make. The fired up base wants it, we have the political capital to do it, if they go nuclear now they would in the future. Unless you could turn Gorsuch into votes for a democratically passed healthcare bill, I don't see a deal that's worth it.
Click to expand...

There's no scenario I can think of where republicans could be trusted to act in good faith for any bill, healthcare or otherwise.

So..filibuster the shit out of this nominee, let McConnell try to invoke the nuclear option.
 
There's a vote that's needed to go nuclear correct? Or is this all on McConnell.

Also, if it's gone, it's gone for good right? Republicans can't pull some shit where they re-establish the filibuster as they lose power can they?
 
The filibuster is almost universally used by republicans to obstruct democratic majorities.

This would be the first time I can think of Democrats even using it in recent memory.
 
sc0la said:
The filibuster is almost universally used by republicans to obstruct democratic majorities.

This would be the first time I can think of Democrats even using it in recent memory.
Click to expand...

Major reason I'm for it's destruction. If Dems fear a rule change so much they never get to use the filibuster for leverage than its serving as a tool for one side only.
 
BoogieWoogie said:
There's a vote that's needed to go nuclear correct? Or is this all on McConnell.
Click to expand...

Here's how the process would go:

1. McConnell files cloture on Gorsuch.
2. Cloture period elapses (one legislative day plus forty hours if I remember correctly).
3. Cloture vote to end the filibuster and proceed to the vote on Gorsuch is held, goes 59-41 or so.
4. President of the Senate (probably Pence) rules that the vote fails.
5. McConnell raises a point of order and says that a majority vote of senators should be sufficient to end cloture on a SCOTUS appointment.
6. Parliamentarian rules that the rules don't permit this.
7. McConnell appeals the ruling of the parliamentarian to the full Senate.
8. Senate votes to overrule the parliamentarian by a majority vote.
9. Having overruled the parliamentarian, the precedent is now recorded that a majority vote of senators is sufficient to end cloture on a SCOTUS appointment.
 
Crab said:
Being able to get a relatively secure job that didn't require much academic training, only vocational, and offered a certain security was a fundamental part of the American Dream. It wasn't some outlandish prospect; it actually existed. People had these jobs. These jobs are now disappearing, these prospects are disappearing. That represents a fundamental decrease in the quality of life for these people - often into outright poverty.

Your response is to say: they didn't get the message, these days you need to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

We're supposed to be the progressive party! We are meant to fight for the existence of these sorts of jobs (not the exact role, but the existence of jobs that can support and sustain a working class - not everyone is suited to academia). But here you are, a stone throw away from accepting the Randian message of: fuck 'em.

I thought we were the progressive party!
Click to expand...

No, I'm on record here saying that both parties are culpable in this. I used to work for Ford Motor Company, left in 2006, got my BA and MBA afterwards. Having been where you described people as far as chasing or obtaining the American Dream. We do owe it to displaced people to get into new jobs, trained in new skills. However, that isn't the problem for a great deal of people. They want the old way of life, with today's societal rules. That is incompatible. The construct of the American Dream is still alive and well, the means of obtaining it have changed, so we need to change as well. Coal is a dying industry, instead of West Virginians and others embracing that fact, they want to go back to the 1950's as far as jobs and the mentalities towards them. There are so many jobs out there that could be filled, but it requires people to A. Move and B. obtain newer skills. Until people, en masse attempt to do this, this is where we will stand.
 
BoogieWoogie said:
There's a vote that's needed to go nuclear correct? Or is this all on McConnell.

Also, if it's gone, it's gone for good right? Republicans can't pull some shit where they re-establish the filibuster as they lose power can they?
Click to expand...

Yes a vote needs to take place to change the rules as far as I'm aware or not Graham wouldn't of mentioned it a couple of months back. This just exposes how fucked our system is though. You have a 60 vote rule but it can be changed by less than 60 votes.

Plus Dems are better off letting them use it now and get it over with because you can be sure as shit they'll use it if they get to another Supreme Court nominee and god forbid it's to replace a Liberal on the court. Stay strong RBG.
 
pigeon said:
Here's how the process would go:

1. McConnell files cloture on Gorsuch.
2. Cloture period elapses (one legislative day plus forty hours if I remember correctly).
3. Cloture vote to end the filibuster and proceed to the vote on Gorsuch is held, goes 59-41 or so.
4. President of the Senate (probably Pence) rules that the vote fails.
5. McConnell raises a point of order and says that a majority vote of senators should be sufficient to end cloture on a SCOTUS appointment.
6. Parliamentarian rules that the rules don't permit this.
7. McConnell appeals the ruling of the parliamentarian to the full Senate.
8. Senate votes to overrule the parliamentarian by a majority vote.
9. Having overruled the parliamentarian, the precedent is now recorded that a majority vote of senators is sufficient to end cloture on a SCOTUS appointment.
Click to expand...

What's the latest rumor on if they have the votes? (GOP)
 
pigeon said:
We won't know until we get there. I think all messaging on this topic is likely to be false because the GOP just assumed they wouldn't have to do the nuclear option.
Click to expand...
I'm impressed that Schumer has held the caucus together on this, people were pretty pessimistic on him in November (myself included) but I've been impressed with him since January.
 
pigeon said:
We won't know until we get there. I think all messaging on this topic is likely to be false because the GOP just assumed they wouldn't have to do the nuclear option.
Click to expand...

Ok. Last I heard I they had the votes needed, but I agree that was before Dems played their cards. At least we know the Dems weren't bluffing
 
pigeon said:
Here's how the process would go:

1. McConnell files cloture on Gorsuch.
2. Cloture period elapses (one legislative day plus forty hours if I remember correctly).
3. Cloture vote to end the filibuster and proceed to the vote on Gorsuch is held, goes 59-41 or so.
4. President of the Senate (probably Pence) rules that the vote fails.
5. McConnell raises a point of order and says that a majority vote of senators should be sufficient to end cloture on a SCOTUS appointment.
6. Parliamentarian rules that the rules don't permit this.
7. McConnell appeals the ruling of the parliamentarian to the full Senate.
8. Senate votes to overrule the parliamentarian by a majority vote.
9. Having overruled the parliamentarian, the precedent is now recorded that a majority vote of senators is sufficient to end cloture on a SCOTUS appointment.
Click to expand...

Chiming in to say thanks for this.
 
Box of Kittens said:
Looking at the precinct maps you can see that whites in Chicago voted for Clinton (since it is unfortunately a rather segregated city). Lakeview is over 80% white and gave over 80% of the vote to Clinton. Lincoln Park is also over 80% white and "only" gave about 77% of the vote to Clinton. North Center, which is "only" 77% white, gave over 80% of the vote to Clinton. The only community area in Chicago that Trump won was Mount Greenwood (probably due to having a high population of police officers).

Actually, as I'm typing up this post it occurs to me that your math is off. Let's assume that the demographics of voters in Cook County match those of the population (likely false but let's see what happens if that were true). Let's also try to specifically estimate the non-Hispanic white vote in Cook County, which accounts for roughly 44% of the population according to the 2010 Census. Clinton won Cook County 74-21. If we allocate the other 56% of the voters 80% to Clinton and 20% to Trump+others, we get 45% of the total vote for Clinton from there. The other 29% of the vote needs to come from the 44% of non-Hispanic whites, which brings us to Clinton getting 66% of the non-Hispanic white vote in Chicago, under these assumptions. If Clinton had only won 36% of the white vote (even just the non-Hispanic white vote), you wouldn't even be able to get her to 74% by allocating every single remaining vote to her. I'm not sure where your error is.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to throw in anecdotal evidence, so thanks for this. White people here on the North Side are, in my experience, not Trump people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT2| Fractured but Ox
166 167 168 169 170
8K
544K
Mista replied
Formula 1 2017 Season |OT2| A Dutch Horror Story - Sundays on Sky
54 55 56 57 58
3K
338K
Grieves replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom