U. S. Politics: A noun, a verb and no collusion.

[LongRider]

GOP: Dem's will abort the next MLK, but if he is born we'll be sure to suppress his vote when he comes of age.    Ok, I think I got it. 

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, LongRider said:

GOP: Dem's will abort the next MLK, but if he is born we'll be sure to suppress his vote when he comes of age.    Ok, I think I got it. 

Nowadays he can start a GoFundMe to afford the registration fees for a valid state ID.

Capitalism>Racism

Paul Ryan is retiring because the war is over.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Just shows how the conservatism just gets crazier and crazier. Just when you think they have hit rock bottom and can't get any more wacko they are like "think we've reached the limit of our nuttiness! Yeah, well we're going to show you! Well get even more wacko!"

I’d be curious to see a study on political tribalism and religion and their association. Liberals have become very tribal, there’s no denying it, but I don’t think it’s comparable to conservatives. Their willingness to deny reality has become startling. Trump could tell them the sky was red and they’d just nod and agree.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

37 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I thought on of their main issues with abortion was they were aborting all the white babies.  Now they're concerned with black babies?  That's a tough sell. 

Quote

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases, such as interracial pregnancies.

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding: “Or a rape.”

https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2009/06/nixon-saw-interracial-pregnancy-as-grounds-for-abortion-019304

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Just shows how the conservatism just gets crazier and crazier. Just when you think they have hit rock bottom and can't get any more wacko they are like "think we've reached the limit of our nuttiness! Yeah, well we're going to show you! Well get even more wacko!"

Hey. This is the party that quotes HRC and Maxine Waters on their anti-Comey web site, don’t forget.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

Hey. This is the party that quotes HRC and Maxine Waters on their anti-Comey web site, don’t forget.

It's like Winston Churchill said

"If Hitler invaded Hell I'd disparage the Devil."

[Guest]

So GOP state senators in Arizona tried and failed to pass legislation which would change the way appointments are made for vacant seats. The new proposal would have allowed any appointment made after March 31 to serve 2 years before a special election would be called.

This is very interesting because of McCain's recent hospitalization. He has reportedly returned home to recuperate, but given this push by the GOP to change the law at the last minute, I'm wondering if McCain has received a poor prignosis and isn't expected to remain in office until May 30.

If McCain leaves office before May 30, under existing law, both Arizona Senate seats would be up for grabs in November.

 

[Fragile Bird]

You know how we were all talking about the horrible intrusiveness of Facebook just a few weeks ago?

Amazon has announced it has entered into an agreement with Volvo and GM that, when a car owner who is a Prime member agrees, packages can be delivered to your car trunk.

And also they are working through their acquisition of Ring to deliver packages inside your house.

Is it convenient for me? Well screw privacy!

 

[Fragile Bird]

You may remember that a while ago I made the comment that every single time I've watched a press conference with Trump and a foreign leader he makes some kind of putdown, often, ha ha ha, as a joke?

I watched his conference with Macron, and he started by talking about how great his relationship is with Macron and how US-France relations were the best they've ever been in history.

He then leaned over and said' "Let me pick this piece of dandruff off his jacket, he has to be perfect".

There always has to be something....but a piece of dandruff???? WTF?

[LongRider]

Here is our fearless leader, showing the French President just how prezidenial he really is.  >>eyeroll<<

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

You know how we were all talking about the horrible intrusiveness of Facebook just a few weeks ago?

Amazon has announced it has entered into an agreement with Volvo and GM that, when a car owner who is a Prime member agrees, packages can be delivered to your car trunk.

And also they are working through their acquisition of Ring to deliver packages inside your house.

Is it convenient for me? Well screw privacy!

 

People really don’t understand how little privacy you have. One quick example is you don’t actually have to be a Facebook member for them to collect data from you. Every time you go on a page that has the option for you to share it on Facebook, or other sites, they’re watching you.

Make sure to delete the Facebook app from your phone.

We were told Big Brother was the one who would always be watching us. They were half right……

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Meanwhile on planet facebook.

As you may or may not recall Zuckerberg brought up the EU privacy laws during his hearing before the senate, as a way to protect user data. Well, those who paid some attention to it, found it funny at that  moment, as facebook fought tooth nails to stop this legislation. Now after the CA scandal they paid for news paper ads (who said print media was dead?) to praise it. Ok now comes the actual punch line. Facebook has decided to move user data from the Ireland (its European HQ) to the US before the new privacy laws come into effect.

Of course Internet Imperator Mark ZUckerberg has promised to apply the spirit of the law globally. I am sure users around the globe will rest easy now.

[Martell Spy]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2009/06/nixon-saw-interracial-pregnancy-as-grounds-for-abortion-019304

Well, you must make sure it is legitimate rape first.

[Guest]

Market in another sell-off with the DOW down almost 2.5%.

Benchmark Treasury yield hit 3%, which will affect borrowing costs right about the time the U.S. is staring down the barrel of $1 trillion deficits.

[James Arryn]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2009/06/nixon-saw-interracial-pregnancy-as-grounds-for-abortion-019304

Ben Stein Says That’s Fine.

[Kalbear]

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Except...that's not what the links you provided showed at all.  One link clearly showed an increase in Latino turnout from 2008 to 2012.  The other demonstrated the gap between eligible Latino voters and those that actually turned out increased, but still, Latino turnout increased in the aggregate in 2016.  Again, I agree that that increasing gap is problematic, but the way you're posing is unconvincing because it's an inaccurate representation of the data you yourself are presenting.

Okay, I'll try again. 

The percentage basis of latinx voters who voted Republican stayed almost precisely the same between 2012 and 2016 (and actually went down in 2008) despite the overall population of eligible latinx increasing significantly more than the baseline number of eligible voters. The totals? Sure, they went up - along with everyone else, and in line with population. But the actual percentages for Republicans decreased. 

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Well, of course.  My original example was based on exit polls, which are national.  You got better state-by-state data?  Great, love to see it.  If not, I don't see what your gripe is about.  I used the national exit poll data because it's the simplest (and easiest accessible) proxy data to use.  I'm not assuming latinos vote the same across the country, or evenly spread, I'm simply providing the best data that is readily available.  You wanna present better numbers?  By all means.

Again, when you say that Clinton lost Latinx voters and present this as your data, it's unconvincing because it's an inaccurate representation of the data you yourself are presenting. 

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, but that doesn't really support your assumption - or "hypothesis" - in the least.  If it's states that are heavily blue - thus presumably NOT engaging in voter suppression, while simultaneously red states are suppressing the latino vote - then the obvious assumption would be the opposite:  the Dems should see gains in the margins of Latino vote, not the losses they saw from 2012 to 2016.  You're concurrently arguing that voter suppression caused a quelling in latino vote due to voter suppression, and this also caused a rise in latina female support for Trump. 

In academic terms, that does not follow.  This rationale is faulty (to put it nicely), and in fact the logic of it should dictate precisely the opposite:  As in, when blue states enjoy a higher proportion of "latinx" voters - since latinx voters are being suppressed in red states - then the margins favoring the Dems among latinx voters should logically increase.  That's the logical hypothesis from such an argument.

You're right, it doesn't support my hypothesis, though the voter suppression argument is one that isn't clearly factual (IE, lower suppression in bluer states). I suspect that it's more nuanced in general - IE, California has some suppression depending on the county and area, Arizona has a lot, and Texas even more - but places like Nebraska didn't do much at all - though that hardly matters, as their share of latinx population didn't increase.

You also keep saying that latinas voted more for Trump, and I've not seen that; what I've seen is that they didn't vote for Clinton, but that's not saying they voted for Trump. 

And as you say, the exit polls are national, so it's hard to state that the overall percentage of latinx corresponds to (say) California also having reduced numbers but Arizona having greater - or anything else. 

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, Trump's goal is to suppress the minority vote.  No argument here (although this has already been going on far before Trump, and I'm unsure how much more damage he can do considering the advancements in disenfranchising ex-convicts and the voter-id laws already on the books).  But you still have no rationale for why the remainder of minorities will support Trump at greater margins.  Why?  Particularly if their racial cohorts are being disenfranchised. 

I thought I explained this, but I'll try again. Assume that for, say, AA, we have a current mix of 20% who will vote Republican, 80% Democrat. (the numbers don't matter here). Voter suppression targets counties and demographics that are both AA AND will likely vote Democrat. Let's say they manage to reduce the overall vote by 6% - but they managed a 1/5 split here in repub/democrats. The net result would look like fewer overall voters, but the actual share of vote will have increased to Republicans because fewer Republican voters were suppressed. In the above example, you would now have 20.2% AA voters for Republicans, 79.8% for Democrats. 

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here or just radically misunderstanding how elections work.  There's no reason for those remaining voters to increase their margins for Trump.  In fact, if he kills the turnout capability of a specific minority, there's every reason to believe the margin among the remaining demographic to increase opposition to the party/candidate that has disenfranchised those that look like them.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse; we already know that you can not only target minorities, you can target counties, cities and neighborhoods and have a much better idea of who you're going after. We've seen this many times now - reducing county polling stations in certain places, requiring certain ID cards which have difficulty being filled, some actual violence and intimidation at polling places, etc. 

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

That's just patently wrong, although unsurprisingly full of shit like this whole post you've had.  I don't know how many times I've shown the economic models predicting the national vote almost exactly, I'm not gonna do it again.  If you want studies that show those that went Obama-Trump also identified the economy as their main concern, there's plenty of those out there as well.  I'm done walking you through basic research and empirical facts.

Yeah, it isn't, and I'm not surprised you chicken out and don't point out anything - because it doesn't really exist. The economic models certainly did predict a switch in party - but that does not explain for a single second why people voted. And you know this too. 

Furthermore, the economic models didn't predict a popular win for the Democrats. They didn't predict anything as far as the actual election's value went. They predicted, simply, a party switch. Taking that and turning it into the reason people actually voted when we have research into it is disingenuous. 

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Heh.  Oh yeah already covered this.  But it is telling.  This demonstrates a gross and laughable misunderstanding of what we're talking about.  And you're one of the more informed posters here.  I'd hope this embarrassment will help to convince others to stop being so hostile to anyone that proposes an alternative viewpoint in the future.

Well, not all of us have being completely drunk to fall back on. 

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Well, I'd argue vehemently on poll numbers.  But other than that, fair enough.

Okay, let's go back a bit. You're arguing that the economic models predict the election, no? What do they say about the next election given the current economy?

[Kalbear]

Oh hey, here's another one - voters were anxious about losing privilege, not economic status.

 

Quote

 

Losing a job or income between 2012 and 2016 did not make a person any more likely to support Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found. Neither did the mere perception that one’s financial situation had worsened. A person’s opinion on how trade affected personal finances had little bearing on political preferences. Neither did unemployment or the density of manufacturing jobs in one’s area.

“It wasn’t people in those areas that were switching, those folks were already voting Republican,” Dr. Mutz said.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Ben Stein Says That’s Fine.

I remember first learning about him as a young child on a quest for the most important thing for a 4th grade boy: The South Parks! Little did I know he was a complete hack.

50 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oh hey, here's another one - voters were anxious about losing privilege, not economic status.

 

 

Arg, I came here to post this. 

Honestly though, you could arrive at this conclusion without a study. It was always clear that the economic fear factor was overplayed. It reminds me of something I read in HS about the Civil War and the period leading up to it. In a sane world, the poor white people living in the South would have wanted to end slavery for their own economic benefit. Some did, but many did not because there was a caste system (as there is today) and even when you're on a lower rung, it still makes people feel good to know there are people below them in society's hierarchy. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

7 hours ago, LongRider said:

Here is our fearless leader, showing the French President just how prezidenial he really is.  >>eyeroll<<

 

Saw this and just thought it will be good to share.

 

 

[DanteGabriel]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Oh hey, here's another one - voters were anxious about losing privilege, not economic status.

 

 

So, basically what Lyndon Johnson said fifty years ago about dumb white people letting you pick their pocket as long as they get to feel superior to black people.