405 replies to this topic

[Triskele]

TerraPrime, on 13 December 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

Babylon 5, would be my guess, re: Vorlon.

Ah.  My bad.  Still a virgin in the BG universe.

[AlexT]

Is John Boehner's surname pronounced "boner"?

[Shryke]

AlexTimperley, on 13 December 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Is John Boehner's surname pronounced "boner"?

I believe it is.

He keeps insisting it's pronounced "bay-ner". I think he's lying. You would to if your name was as euphemism for cock.

[AlexT]

"Boner" is more fun. I'm sticking with that. "bay-ner" doesn't fly with me.

[Fez]

The Census Bureau's first projections based on the 2010 Census are out.  And yep, Republicans are extremely fucked longterm if they don't make some serious policy changes.

Quote

The non-Hispanic white population is projected to peak in 2024, at 199.6 million, up from 197.8 million in 2012. Unlike other race or ethnic groups, however, its population is projected to slowly decrease, falling by nearly 20.6 million from 2024 to 2060.

Meanwhile, the Hispanic population would more than double, from 53.3 million in 2012 to 128.8 million in 2060. Consequently, by the end of the period, nearly one in three U.S. residents would be Hispanic, up from about one in six today.

The black population is expected to increase from 41.2 million to 61.8 million over the same period. Its share of the total population would rise slightly, from 13.1 percent in 2012 to 14.7 percent in 2060.

The Asian population is projected to more than double, from 15.9 million in 2012 to 34.4 million in 2060, with its share of nation's total population climbing from 5.1 percent to 8.2 percent in the same period.

Among the remaining race groups, American Indians and Alaska Natives would increase by more than half from now to 2060, from 3.9 million to 6.3 million, with their share of the total population edging up from 1.2 percent to 1.5 percent. The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population is expected to nearly double, from 706,000 to 1.4 million. The number of people who identify themselves as being of two or more races is projected to more than triple, from 7.5 million to 26.7 million over the same period.

The U.S. is projected to become a majority-minority nation for the first time in 2043. While the non-Hispanic white population will remain the largest single group, no group will make up a majority.

All in all, minorities, now 37 percent of the U.S. population, are projected to comprise 57 percent of the population in 2060. (Minorities consist of all but the single-race, non-Hispanic white population.) The total minority population would more than double, from 116.2 million to 241.3 million over the period.

And its not just immigration that Republicans need to change their stance on.  For a long time there's been this meme that Hispanics would be a natural Republican constituency if it weren't for their stance on immigration; a new poll suggests that isn't exactly the case.

Quote

A new poll conducted by a Republican pollster for GOP-aligned groups finds that a majority of Hispanics in four swing states would be willing to vote for a candidate even if they don’t agree with his or her position on immigration

But on a host of issues, from abortion to the role of government, the fast-growing Hispanic population breaks with conservatives. Majorities in Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico also agreed that “the Republican party does not respect the values and concerns of the Hispanic community.” In Colorado, they said so by a 33-point margin, 63 percent to 30 percent.

By a margin of nearly 2-to-1, Hispanics surveyed said that government should do more to solve problems and meet the needs of people. Asked whether government should increase investments or limit spending, taxes and regulations, majorities picked more investment.

Pluralities of Hispanics were pro-choice in Colorado, Florida and Nevada. In New Mexico, 48 percent identified themselves as pro-life, and 40 percent called themselves pro-choice. Pluralities also supported gay marriage.

The poll showed that majorities of Hispanics in all four states believe the Democratic Party cares more about helping the middle class than the Republican Party cares about the same. They also say the Democratic Party understands the needs and concerns of Hispanic voters, works to protect women’s rights and has the right plans to improve education.

Looks like we're gonna be an extremely progressive country in a few decades.

Edited by Fez, 13 December 2012 - 09:51 AM.

[Opisthokont]

Do ethnic groups usually maintain the same average opinions and values over that many decades?

Boehner is from German Böhner. Is that a name that actually means something, like "Smith" or "Brown", or is it just a name?

[Raidne]

Triskele, on 12 December 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

I'm starting to conceive of a scenario in which no deal is reached.

FWIW, that friend of mine that's a tax adviser for a House rep scoffed at the whole idea that a deal would not be reached, or even delayed for a few days after the deadline. She seemed absolutely certain that they'd hammer something out by the date in question.

I also asked her about dividend tax rates, capital gains tax rates, and the estate tax exemption, and she seemed to think that the estate tax exemption will stay (as apparently even some Democrats are insisting on that), but the current dividend tax rate and estate tax rate will be allowed to expire. I was wondering if the total absence of those topics from the news coverage meant (1) keeping the status quo (renewing the rates) or (2) taking no action (letting rates expire). I am happy with this solution and can deal with a $5 million estate tax exemption if we get rid of the ridiculously low CG and dividend tax rates we have currently.

Plus, that whole bullshit "small businesses pay higher taxes" argument dies with that too, since it's equating "small" with "partnership" and "large" with "corporation" (bullshit as there are closely held corporations that are smaller than some partnerships, etc.) and this would restore shareholder profit rates to the same levels that used for income.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, seems like Boehner actually has some kind of a grip on his party again, no? That would be excellent news.

AlexTimperley, on 13 December 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Is John Boehner's surname pronounced "boner"?

No, but wouldn't it be great if it was? I kind of feel like the Republicans would think it projected a desirable image of masculine strength, too, while liberals would feel that it's metaphorical for a hard-headed, annoyingly insistent, flesh-pole of bizarre coloration with no mind of its own, so it's a win-win for everyone.

[The Iceman of the North]

Woo!, on 13 December 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Boehner is from German Böhner. Is that a name that actually means something, like "Smith" or "Brown", or is it just a name?

'Bohn' means 'bean', so it might be related to that. BTW, what's 'just a name'? Are there really any names out there (apart from recent creations) that doesn't mean anything?

[Fez]

Woo!, on 13 December 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Do ethnic groups usually maintain the same average opinions and values over that many decades?

I don't know if there's much data on that to be honest.  But one example that sticks out is African-Americans, who've been staunchly more progressive than the rest of the country for a long, long time now.  The one exception was on gay marriage, but even that's changed since Obama came out in favor of it.

We don't need to wait until 2060 to see massive changes though, since the trends are already well underway and will only pick up steam.  When Arizona goes swinging (best guess 2016) and Texas as well (2024), things are over for Republicans nationally if they don't change their stances on a whole range of issues.  They could probably keep a gerrymandered House for a good long while, but the Presidency, and the Senate, may be out of reach except in the most dramatic of circumstances.

[Cuellar]

Well a great thing from the Republicans become weaker could be that the Democrats splinter and we could see the rise of a real 3rd party or 4th party (especially if they didn't run presidential candidates).  

The problem for the Republicans is that much of their base has had an "us" against "them" attitude towards minorities, and that is not going to change unless they lock the crazies up in basement.  I'd argue that over the past 20 years, the rise of the teabaggers have actually made the Republicans swing away from attracting minorities.  I can't see the teabaggers coming out in droves to support any of the hispanic candidates they have in their party, especially for president.  

The one ethnic group that the republicans should really be courting is Asians. The republicans seem to do a decent job there in blue states, but really haven't outside of blue states.

EDIT: Besides Jindal.

Edited by Cuellar, 13 December 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[Shryke]

RE: Hispanics

Yeah, I saw data like that a few times over the past couple of months. The old adage that "Hispanics were socially conservative but not GOP cause of the racism" doesn't actually seem to pan out. They are quite a bit more socialist than the GOP. And apparently not "value voters" either. Asians, I believe, were similar too.

Their just aren't alot of voters that brand of religious conservatism can tap in to anymore.

The scarier thing with that whole trend though is it's effect on shit like the debt ceiling that's upcoming. The GOP is approaching a position where they are holding a majority in the House while needing only a minority of hardcore supporters. That puts them in a position to be very hardline. And GOP hardline is "Burn it all down and fuck everyone!" crazy.

Edited by Shryke, 13 December 2012 - 12:30 PM.

[awesome possum]

I'd say Hispanics lean socially conservative.  But I'd also say the GOP has been less "socially conservative" these last few years and more "socially draconian."

Edited by awesome possum, 13 December 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[Shryke]

Raidne, on 13 December 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

FWIW, that friend of mine that's a tax adviser for a House rep scoffed at the whole idea that a deal would not be reached, or even delayed for a few days after the deadline. She seemed absolutely certain that they'd hammer something out by the date in question.

I also asked her about dividend tax rates, capital gains tax rates, and the estate tax exemption, and she seemed to think that the estate tax exemption will stay (as apparently even some Democrats are insisting on that), but the current dividend tax rate and estate tax rate will be allowed to expire. I was wondering if the total absence of those topics from the news coverage meant (1) keeping the status quo (renewing the rates) or (2) taking no action (letting rates expire). I am happy with this solution and can deal with a $5 million estate tax exemption if we get rid of the ridiculously low CG and dividend tax rates we have currently.

Plus, that whole bullshit "small businesses pay higher taxes" argument dies with that too, since it's equating "small" with "partnership" and "large" with "corporation" (bullshit as there are closely held corporations that are smaller than some partnerships, etc.) and this would restore shareholder profit rates to the same levels that used for income.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, seems like Boehner actually has some kind of a grip on his party again, no? That would be excellent news.

I find this hard believe based largely on the idea that Boehner is capable of accomplishing anything.

Quote

No, but wouldn't it be great if it was? I kind of feel like the Republicans would think it projected a desirable image of masculine strength, too, while liberals would feel that it's metaphorical for a hard-headed, annoyingly insistent, flesh-pole of bizarre coloration with no mind of its own, so it's a win-win for everyone.

There's someone out there for you already actually: http://www.colbertna...-gate-questions
(specifically around 3:35 )

[Triskele]

Raidne, on 13 December 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

Anyway, as far as I can tell, seems like Boehner actually has some kind of a grip on his party again, no? That would be excellent news.

I hope so, but this is sort of in "I won't believe it until I see it" territory.

As I said, I think there are probably some folks who are chomping at the bit to remove Boehner.  We who are not consumed by the movement cannot underestimate the psychological power of the movement.

[Fez]

Shryke, on 13 December 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

The GOP is approaching a position where they are holding a majority in the House while needing only a minority of hardcore supporters. That puts them in a position to be very hardline. And GOP hardline is "Burn it all down and fuck everyone!" crazy.

Yup, and gerrymandering has power.  Republicans still somehow control the New York State senate thanks to it.  The hope is that more states create nonpartisan commissions to draft district lines (and it can happen in red states, Arizona has one for instance) and for there to be more population growth in states where Republicans don't have the trifecta (Governor and both chambers) and can't do whatever they want.  Hopefully since 2020 is a presidential year it will mean Democratic turnout will be high enough to ensure that some of the blue state Governors' mansions are actually won by Democrats, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin so that the next redistricting is more evenhanded (I'd say the state legislatures too, but Republicans were pretty successful at drawing themselves state-level districts as well).

Truly, 2010 was one of the most disastrous elections in a long, long time.

[Fragile Bird]

Shryke, on 13 December 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

There's someone out there for you already actually: http://www.colbertna...-gate-questions
(specifically around 3:35 )

Shryke, how come you can see that while I can't, did you guys seperate while I wasn't looking?

I watched Boehner's press conference this morning, and I just wanted to know if I was up to date.  Are the Republicans still refusing to lay out any comprehensive plan on how to cut costs, even though they campaigned on it, and even though their mantra in front of the tv cameras is cut costs, cut costs, cut costs?  All I ever hear when I turn on the tv is "the President refuses to play ball and tell us what costs he's willing to cut."  Since the President campaigned on higher taxes and the GOP campaigned on leaving the tax cuts as they are but cut costs, shouldn't they be putting a detailed plan of what they want done in front of the American public?

[TrackerNeil]

Fez, on 13 December 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Yup, and gerrymandering has power.  Republicans still somehow control the New York State senate thanks to it.  The hope is that more states create nonpartisan commissions to draft district lines (and it can happen in red states, Arizona has one for instance) and for there to be more population growth in states where Republicans don't have the trifecta (Governor and both chambers) and can't do whatever they want.  Hopefully since 2020 is a presidential year it will mean Democratic turnout will be high enough to ensure that some of the blue state Governors' mansions are actually won by Democrats, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin so that the next redistricting is more evenhanded (I'd say the state legislatures too, but Republicans were pretty successful at drawing themselves state-level districts as well).

Any blue state in which the Democrats retake control might be able to re-redistrict, depending on their laws. Texas did this in 2002, and unless there's some state ban on such, I say we go ahead. Admittedly, Democrats don't usually try to buck the rules in this way, but if redistricting is to be a power grab, then let's make sure we grab as hard and as often as we can.

[awesome possum]

Fragile Bird, on 13 December 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Shryke, how come you can see that while I can't, did you guys seperate while I wasn't looking?

I watched Boehner's press conference this morning, and I just wanted to know if I was up to date.  Are the Republicans still refusing to lay out any comprehensive plan on how to cut costs, even though they campaigned on it, and even though their mantra in front of the tv cameras is cut costs, cut costs, cut costs?  All I ever hear when I turn on the tv is "the President refuses to play ball and tell us what costs he's willing to cut."  Since the President campaigned on higher taxes and the GOP campaigned on leaving the tax cuts as they are but cut costs, shouldn't they be putting a detailed plan of what they want done in front of the American public?

You would think so, but this GOP we're dealing with isn't exactly stable or completely sane anymore.  They appear to be playing the same exact game they were playing to try to make Obama lose the election, even though that blew up in their faces.  The only reasoning I can gather from this idiocy is that they're hoping the gambit will work in keeping the base fired up for 2014.  Otherwise they seem to have nothing to gain from continuing as they have been.

[Fez]

TrackerNeil, on 13 December 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Any blue state in which the Democrats retake control might be able to re-redistrict, depending on their laws. Texas did this in 2002, and unless there's some state ban on such, I say we go ahead. Admittedly, Democrats don't usually try to buck the rules in this way, but if redistricting is to be a power grab, then let's make sure we grab as hard and as often as we can.

I agree.  I can't remember which states have constitutional amendments against redistricting, but there's not a lot (although I would assume any states with nonpartisan commissions would also have bans on it).  And if there's not a ban, the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Constitution only requires states to redistrict at least once every 10 years, it doesn't say anything about redistricting more than that.  I think Minnesota was the only state this year to go from Republicans controlling at least one of the trifecta to having nothing, but its a start.

The most egregious redistricting though is of course in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia.  And, thanks to 2010, those state legislatures are pretty well entrenched.  If just those three states had been redistricted fairly (so that the percentage of Democratic representatives was roughly equal to the percentage of the vote that Democratic candidates for the House got), Democrats would be very close to having a majority in the House.

Example: In Ohio, Democratic candidates for the House won a majority of the vote, but only won 4 of the 16 seats.  They also won a majority of votes for the state assembly, but Republicans actually had a net gain of a seat and took a supermajority in the chamber.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Woo! - "Böhner" doesn't mean anything in German as far as I know (FYI for credentials I was a German major in college, so while I am a bit more reliable perhaps than an online translator I'm not a native). As pointed out, "Bohne" is bean, but the plural is Bohnen.

Edited by WrathOfTinyKittens, 13 December 2012 - 04:31 PM.