Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Yeah, since you did not chime in on what I typed I am marginally dismissed.

I din’t know you, I don’t see you post here. Do you think you are making some kind of profound statement when you tell people, the majority of whom grew up on the internet, that stuff stays there forever?

Most of the regulars are Americans. Do you think you told them something they didn’t know? Are you educating the Europeans?

eta f**king spellcheck fails, lol!

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clegane'sPup said:

 

Southern VA in 1970's and 1980's had social segregation.

Still does especially if church services are considered.

 

"Southern Virginia" is nowhere unique in terms of church services being "socially segregated."

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, 11 am on Sunday morning is "the most segregated hour in America." That still hold true today, and certainly is not confined to the South. Things have improved a bit over the last 50 years -- back then 97% of churches were overwhelmingly of one racial ethnic group, while today it's 86%. I really doubt if churches in northern Virginia are much less segregated than those in other parts of the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ormond said:

"Southern Virginia" is nowhere unique in terms of church services being "socially segregated."

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, 11 am on Sunday morning is "the most segregated hour in America." That still hold true today, and certainly is not confined to the South. Things have improved a bit over the last 50 years -- back then 97% of churches were overwhelmingly of one racial ethnic group, while today it's 86%. I really doubt if churches in northern Virginia are much less segregated than those in other parts of the country. 

I'm not sure how to say this without sounding like a racist bigot politically incorrect neanderthal.

What attracted me to this thread was "blackface."

The now governor of Virginia --- someone delved into his past --- 25 years ago --- found a photo in a yearbook.

That insinuates to me that some one in a political party was looking for incriminating fodder to feed the political agenda and flame american  racism.

MLK was a pacifist, I have read a few of his books. He rubbed shoulders with the likes of Merton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I'm not sure how to say this without sounding like a racist bigot politically incorrect neanderthal.

What attracted me to this thread was "blackface."

The now governor of Virginia --- someone delved into his past --- 25 years ago --- found a photo in a yearbook.

That insinuates to me that some one in a political party was looking for incriminating fodder to feed the political agenda and flame american  racism.

MLK was a pacifist, I have read a few of his books. He rubbed shoulders with the likes of Merton.

It was a right wing blog that propagates all things racist, white supremacist, etc., that did it. Deliberately, February 1, first day of Black History Month.

https://dcist.com/story/19/02/01/photo-on-virginia-governors-yearbook-page-shows-men-in-blackface-ku-klux-klan-robes/

Big League Politics is the blog's name:

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

The now governor of Virginia --- someone delved into his past --- 25 years ago --- found a photo in a yearbook.

That insinuates to me that some one in a political party was looking for incriminating fodder to feed the political agenda and flame american racism.

So what?

You want an equally profound statement? 25 years ago was 1994, not 1964.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It was a right wing blog that propagates all things racist, white supremacist, etc., that did it. Deliberately, February 1, first day of Black History Month.

https://dcist.com/story/19/02/01/photo-on-virginia-governors-yearbook-page-shows-men-in-blackface-ku-klux-klan-robes/

Big League Politics is the blog's name:

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/

Right wing, left wing or chowing down on the middle I dunna care how ya cook them. As long as the wings aren't spicy I be okay.

The Virginia governor is toast. That is sad. It is the power of innuendo on the peoples web site sharing platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You want an equally profound statement? 25 years ago was 1994, not 1964.

Profound has nadda to do with nuttin. We will have to settle on 25 years ago as 1984.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Thanks, this is what I was alluding to.

The consensus may be over, but neo-liberalism is still haunting our lives. And yes, as I like to point out on a regular basis, contrary to what many on the right believe, right-wing populism and neo-liberalism are not mutually exclusive because neo-liberalism does not have to be globalist in nature.

And yes, there are some forces who will stop at nothing to prevent the actual alternatives to neo-liberalism (socialism, actual democracy, green new deal... etc) from being implemented. Can you imagine a world in which the common good would be crucial again? The horror!

Neoliberalism and political liberalism are not inherently intertwined (hell, neoliberalism was birthed in Pinochet's Chile). On the other hand, I'd suggest that right-wing populism represents opposition to neoliberalism from the Right (not least because the sort of people who support right-wing populists are not neoliberalism's winners. Ergo, Trump's Protectionism, and working class support for Brexit).

Edited by The Marquis de Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

On the other hand, I'd suggest that right-wing populism represents opposition to neoliberalism from the Right

I used to think that. But after looking at the policies of parties like Italy's League or France's National Front, I now think they're just promoting the nationalist version of neo-liberalism under the cover of ethno-nationalism/nativism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I used to think that. But after looking at the policies of parties like Italy's League or France's National Front, I now think they're just promoting the nationalist version of neo-liberalism under the cover of ethno-nationalism/nativism.

Well, on the ground, it looks a lot like the same old neo-liberalism. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Also, note that a lot of the protectionism promises at least in America turned out to just be stunts and re-branding. NAFTA is quite intact. I'm not sure what happened to dunking on the Canadians, but apparently we already beat them somehow and their dairy products are no longer a threat. 

The end of TPP was consequential, but it may well return at some point.

The trade war with China may be genuine. However, based upon past actions, what are the chances Trump is not looking for a way to declare victory and end it? 

Brexit effects are likely to have far more impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Triskele said:

Oh, no doubt.  Obama supporters talked a lot about Penn in this space back then.  The most fascinating question about Penn is whether he's more loathsome than Dick Morris who worked for Bill Clinton.  Both of these guys are out of central casting.

 

On the AOC marginal tax plan I saw David Brooks say something on PBS the other night which was, more or less, "no matter what we've done with tax rates, federal revenue has always been about 19%."  This set my BS meter off similar to that Bret Stephens column claiming that Venezuela's spending on social programs was some huge outlier, and google just led me to a concept I'd not heard of but maybe you guys have called Hauser's Law.   Brooks did not cite this "law" but I now suspect that this is where he got that figure.  And without too much further research, the early returns suggest that this law is no law at all and that revenue fluctuations are indeed larger than the law suggests and therefor Brooks is full of it.   He was of course making this argument as a way of saying we should not increase taxes on the top incomes.  

Pop quiz, what percent chance do you assign to the likelihood (of each man) that mark penn, dick Morris, or David breaks have dressed up in either blackface or as the klan in their lifetime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd put Morris as the likeliest, but I'd actually put Penn as the least likely.  I think that kind of stuff tends to happen in groups and at parties, and I doubt Penn has ever had friends.  Too weird.

ETA:  To fully answer the question, I'd put Morris at 70%, Brooks at 15%, and Penn at 10%.  

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

You did though.

I'll throw this out and let ya'll sink your teeth in and rip and roar.

Who spent the time and money to research far back enough to find a photo in 1984 yearbook?

25 years ago. In 2044 you run the risk of being researched for social and political incorrectness.

Virginia is divided. Northern VA being in the hub of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

Southern VA in 1970's and 1980's had social segregation.

Still does especially if church services are considered.

Not an excuse. Merely a truism.

I want to reiterate what you say today, the pictures you post today, the tweets you tweet today may verra well come back to haunt you 25 years from now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taking a pic with a clansman 25 years ago was a known stupidity. This isn't some, "Oh times have changed, derpy do."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, ya know what? Pictures we take 25 to 35 years from now may come back to haunt us, and we should own that. In 30 years anyone who owned a car may be vilified, especially an SUV. Own it, apologize sincerely, dont hide it and move on. Or dont seek public office at 60 and let those with less baggage govern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DMC said:

Anyone that followed the 2008 Dem primary should have known how loathsome a creature Penn was back then.  Her whole 2008 campaign was, ironically, full of deplorables - Howard Wolfson and Lanny Davis weren't much better.

Except I haven't seen one iota of evidence that it is.  Looking at the latest Morning Consult poll, the only pattern among "Gen Z" when you look at issue attitudes (see pages 65-109) is Gen Z respondents are much more likely to have no opinion on pretty much every issue.  All that suggests is 18-21 year olds are less politically interested and thus less likely to vote, which is pretty damn standard.

And, if you look at the "Reducing the federal budget deficit" item specifically (pg. 97), 46% of Gen Z respondents thing it's at least an important priority, 19% thing it's not important or shouldn't be done, and 35% don't know or don't have an opinion.  This is compared to 75% that think its important and 14% that don't among all registered voters.  So, yeah, this notion seems pretty well pulled out of someone's ass.

Yeah, but only the crazy old "radical left" has to present evidence, along with 60 white papers explaining its ideas.

"Reasonable centrist" and conservatives never have to present any. That's why Bloomberg can just assert single payer will bankrupt the country, without further explanation or maybe making some lame reference to Venezuela. Or why Sgt. Shultz can complain about deficits, yet be completely allowed to do the old texas two step around the issue of corporate tax cuts creating deficits. Or just assert that Generation Z are fiscal hawks and "fiscal conservatism" is gonna be the hottest and hippest new thing evah.

So there.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Altherion said:

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on memory for this: all of the posts are still there. I called him a demagogue from the start to the end (here's a post from just before the election) and I started a long thread in the first post of which I point out that Trump (like most of his fellow populists) is a member of the ruling class who is only in this for power. It's true that after Sanders lost and the only choices were Clinton and Trump, I preferred the latter, but to refer to that as being all for him is a gross exaggeration.

I'm not sure why you think any of that excuses you. Yes, you admitted he was a demagogue only in it for power, but you were all in for him nonetheless. You knew all that, and you didn't care: you reveled in the prospect of the damage he would do, cheering for it because you said (absurdly) that it was worth it for the tiny chance that by some magical process, it would bring about real change. You scoffed at those who pointed out that this was rubbish, or who decried the idea that you were willing that other people pay any price for the chance of change. 

That doesn't excuse you. It makes you look worse.

12 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Getting into political pogroms over events from the early 1980's? Especially in a state where racism to some degree is the norm, not the exception?  Well, that's one surefire way for the Democratic Party to snatch (near certain) defeat from the (likely) jaws of victory. 

The abuse of the word 'pogroms' there does not do your point any favours.

In any case, quite apart from the message ignoring this would send - racism is a price worth paying, sorry, black voters - the fact is that Northam has made such a mess of his handling of the whole affair that on pragmatic grounds alone, he needs to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northam should go, and the universe will right things (a little bit), since an African American will be his replacement as governor.

I'm not sure what's going on in this thread currently, but 35 years from now if someone digs up this post - no insult is meant to Serbians or Serbian Americans by me using a facsimile of one as my avatar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something has been worrying me about the state of the country.  I think that Trump is a slight underdog to be reelected in 2020.  But the stakes of this election are really worrisome.  Now I know we say that about every election, but the capacity of the system to withstand the recent Republican power grabs is starting to wane, and I'm not sure the country can survive a Trump victory. 

IF Trump wins, he probably wins the House (gerrymandering didn't go away with the 2018 victory, and there are a lot of vulnerable seats).  He definitely holds the Senate.  And the chance of RGB and Breyer making it to 2025 seems remote, so we're looking at a Supreme Court with swing justice Gorsuch.  Or possibly Alito.  Who knows.  But basically the Supreme Court becomes a Republican organ, rather than just a strong conservative lean, like we have now. 

So that's bad.  But a democratic win isn't exactly smooth sailing anyway.  If we manage to defeat Trump in the EC, Democrats probably hold the House, but if they fail to take the Senate, then in all likelihood McConnell won't let any justices through anyway, so we still get the Supreme Court Armageddon, we just have to wait a little longer for it. 

Which means that our options are that anything sort of a complete victory for Democrats in 2020  (IE, win the presidency, hold the house, gain 3+ seats in the Senate) is going to be an absolute disaster for the country.  And even then there's a good chance the economy tanks between 2021 and 2024, since we are long past due for a recession, and any Republican who wins in 2024 will probably be every bit the strongman the Trump is, but with a bit more competence and message discipline. 

In short, I am starting to share the pessimism of many posters here.  I think the country is going to a very dark and scary place, and I'm really not sure what to do to stop it or to protect my family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

to protect my family. 

What's worse is that you pretty much have to invest in firearms and training, because when the shit hits the fan you don't want to be stuck as the only person without a fucking weapon. Man...what a shit show. 

On the other hand, given the other hand, a great deal of Trump supporters are 50 and up, and a fair amount are over 65. Given the way Americans go about feeding themselves, we can probably expect to uhhh..lose some of those folks in the near future. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I've already made my thoughts known on the whole Northam affair and those haven't changed in the interim. 

However, as I've learned a little more about how the story originally broke (initially published by a right-wing, Trump- backing website, picked up by the right-wing echo chamber until the mainstream press got wind of it), I started becoming very concerned about whether it will become a possibility that this kind of stuff becomes commonplace in the future, except where any such photos or video is actually fake. 

We already know the right doesn't give a shit about anything but winning. I mean hell, James O'Keefe is still considered a hero among most of the far-right crowd even though every "sting" he's perpetrated has been a hoax.

What happens when the technology of photoshopping and deep-fake videos becomes so advanced as to become almost indistinguishable from the real thing? We know the right will have no moral qualms when it comes to doctoring videos or pictures to manufacture a scandal (probably with the help of their new best buds, the Russians). And these kind of manufactured scandals won't even need to rise to the point of having the target actually resign; the right-wing will just keep hammering this inside their bubble, and force Democratic leaders to spend all their time and political capital answering baseless accusations instead of actually governing. 

Fighting fire with fire will only hasten the decline of any shred of bi-partisanship that may be left among the American populace, and will further degrade the already shaky epistemological foundation upon which the voting public relies to cast votes for candidates whom they believe to reflect their values. 

Right now, I believe that even if Northam wasn't one of the ones depicted in the yearbook, he probably has dressed up in blackface at some point in his life. But if something similar comes out in 10 years during the 2028 elections, how could we be certain?

Edited by The Great Unwashed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×