Key takeaways from this election

Author: thett3

Posts

Total: 104
#31
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@thett3
Certain elements on the left all but call for the extermination of Western society and culture.
and certain elements of the right wear white hoods and burn crosses. Every group has extreme elements. 

They claim that America is a white supremacist country, that white men are scum,
this is obviously not a widespread belief. I'm not sure anyone advocates for that, but if they do, they are a tiny, tiny group. 

that the police need to be systemically dismantled and replaced with social workers (lol)
a fairly high percent of police activity is not related to crime at all. dealing with the homeless, people with mental health issues, people with drug addictions etc. Police are an extremely expensive option for dealing with the issue, and they are really bad at it. They are not trained how to deal with that stuff. Social workers could do alot of their job alot better than police can. 

I know it was unpopular and understand why but the corporates tax cut was actually good and necessary (but should've been offset by higher taxes on high personal incomes.)
america already had some of the lowest effective tax rates in the world. Cutting them further not only wasn't necessary, but was negligent. It opened a huge whole in the budget that the republicans have no intention of filling. Their plan was to open the hole, then complain about it, then cut social spending because the deficit is too high. Essentially, they want to cut taxes on the rich and make the poor pay for it. 

Right now, the GOP is the party standing up for the working class when it comes to issues of trade and outsourcing, and facing down China.
what? the republicans created alot of those policies. And for all trump's bluster, he accomplished nothing on that front. 

Dems have moved rapidly to the "elite" consensus that the complete economic devastation of vast swathes of the country is a fair price to pay for cheaper iPhones. 
you are aware that both parties have the exact same outlook right? They both cater the wealthy and corporations. Do you really think the republicans are against outsourcing jobs?

Also, mass immigration is really bad and needs to be stopped 
what mass immigration? America's population growth rate is 0.6%. That isn't particularly high. For example, Canada's is 1.4%, India's is 1.0%. The current population growth in the US is some of the slowest it has been in a century. Without immigration, it would be negative. 

The idea that there is a massive wave of immigrants is a bad joke. America's population is growing relatively slowly, and alot of that growth is based on immigration. Without it, the US population would shrink and the economy along with it. 



#32
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@thett3
I'd have to disagree. The only group that votes majority Republican is White people, except the subset of the Latino vote (Cubans).

The highest Latino vote for GOP was 40% in 2004. Those votes are more malleable than Black votes to be fair, but saying they swung hard to Trump is probably because his 29% in 2016 was hard to fall from.

I think they should put most effort into maintaining their White base, and trying to grow their decent numbers with Latinos and Asians, which are remotely near half support.

Chasing the Black vote, to be very frank, is a waste of time for the GOP. Don't piss them off, but don't work too hard for it, either.


While we can grow our numbers with these groups, I'm not sure they will ever be over 50% GOP like White people are, so I still think that the "browning of America" will be the death of the GOP.
Topic's author
#33
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@HistoryBuff
and certain elements of the right wear white hoods and burn crosses. Every group has extreme elements...this is obviously not a widespread belief. I'm not sure anyone advocates for that, but if they do, they are a tiny, tiny group. 
You haven't been paying attention for the past few months if you believe that these are fringe ideas so vanishingly rare that they could be compared with followers of the KKK. There's been mass civil unrest by people trying to spread these ideas

you are aware that both parties have the exact same outlook right? They both cater the wealthy and corporations. Do you really think the republicans are against outsourcing jobs?
Both parties absolutely stabbed the working class in the back on this issue, but only one got what was coming to them. Donald Trump was the GOP's reckoning, and no Republican who wants a future as a national figure will toe the Bush/Romney/Obama/Clinton consensus on trade ever again. Hopefully the Dems go through a similar transformation soon.

what mass immigration? America's population growth rate is 0.6%. That isn't particularly high. For example, Canada's is 1.4%, India's is 1.0%. The current population growth in the US is some of the slowest it has been in a century. Without immigration, it would be negative. 

The idea that there is a massive wave of immigrants is a bad joke. America's population is growing relatively slowly, and alot of that growth is based on immigration. Without it, the US population would shrink and the economy along with it. 
We're just never going to agree here. I am VERY anti immigration and would gladly take a declining population in exchange for immigration restrictions 
Topic's author
#34
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@bmdrocks21
This is veering into really autistic stuff but what you're missing is that groups really do eventually assimilate into the "white" group (or mainstream America if we are being politically correct.) There really isn't any rational reason to think of some guy who is 85% European and is a monolingual English speaker as different from a typical white guy because one of his grandparents was born in Mexico. This is increasingly the story of "hispanic" people in the US, and so it's no surprise when at long last some of them do start to votes as white people. And yes white people are, and always will be, the base of the Republican Party. Lower black and hispanic unemployment is objectively a good thing for the country but it is pathetic to see the party be terrified of even talking about its base 

What leftists don't realize is that the assimilation process takes a lot of cultural energy and before it happens things aren't always pleasant. And even when it's finally over, it changes the country permanently in a way that the existing population never intends or consents to. The waves of Irish immigration in the 1840s-60s ABSOLUTELY changed America dramatically, and the know-nothings were absolutely right to oppose those immigrants coming in. So too with the 1880s-1890s wave from Eastern and Southern Europe...and let's not even get started on how the original wave of British settlers completely changed things for the Native Americans. 
 
I don't think mass immigration has ever been a good thing, but I also just don't agree that it results in the end of politics. The parties just change. I oppose mass immigration but back in 2016 or so I saw it as an existential threat to America and our way of life, it terrified and enraged me to the point where I believed in and expressed things I'm not proud of. Now I just view it as one of many issues I want to win on, although its still in my top three...
#35
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@thett3
You haven't been paying attention for the past few months if you believe that these are fringe ideas so vanishingly rare that they could be compared with followers of the KKK. There's been mass civil unrest by people trying to spread these ideas
So let me get this straight, you are conflating people saying "black lives matter" with people saying "white men are scum"? Those are, in no way, the same thing. 

Both parties absolutely stabbed the working class in the back on this issue, but only one got what was coming to them. Donald Trump was the GOP's reckoning, and no Republican who wants a future as a national figure will toe the Bush/Romney/Obama/Clinton consensus on trade ever again. 
you're kidding.... most of the republicans have not changed their tune on trade at all. Some of them paid lip service to trump's plans. Some just stayed quiet. But virtually none of the republicans have really changed their minds.

We're just never going to agree here. I am VERY anti immigration and would gladly take a declining population in exchange for immigration restrictions 
why? you would rather america decline as a nation than allow people to move to it? How does that makes sense? 




#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Without immigration, it would be negative. 

That's objective bullshit.

CDC stats say 4 million people are born yearly in America while near 3 million die yearly in America.

Are you saying that a net million people are leaving the country every year? 

I call bullshit.
#37
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
CDC stats say 4 million people are born yearly in America while near 3 million die yearly in America.

Are you saying that a net million people are leaving the country every year? 
no, i'm saying the birth rate among recent immigrants is much higher than the rest of the population. Without immigrants, the birth to death ratio would be negative. 
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Without immigrants, the birth to death ratio would be negative.

So you claim over a million illegal immigrants give birth yearly in America?

That's still a very sketchy claim.

Let's see some proof and documentation.
#39
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
if harris goes into an election against a populist, she will lose. People don't want a "return to normal". They wanted the chaos of the trump presidency to end, that is true, but the underlying causes of why trump won in the 1st place are still there. People want change. 
Pretty sure a half Carribbean, half Tamil female is change in itself. Not sure what you think she lacks but whatever, you are a poser left-winger as I have already said. You just dislike her because of reasons unknown to anyone but yourself. She is not chaotic, that is true, she will bring change in an organised, strategic manner... I don't see anything wrong with that at all, especially when the change itself will be positive, left-wing and wholesome without a doubt.

Could there be competition? Of course there can, her main competitor will be Warren. I don't mind which of the two wins but based on who is less severely left-wing and how Americans vote, I think you and I both know that Harris is the better option in terms of who can easier beat a right-wing candidate.

The feminist glass-ceiling does matter, the problem with Clinton was that it was the only thing she kept emphasising about herself. Harris and Warren will never make that mistake.
#40
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@thett3
What leftists don't realize is that the assimilation process takes a lot of cultural energy and before it happens things aren't always pleasant. And even when it's finally over, it changes the country permanently in a way that the existing population never intends or consents to. The waves of Irish immigration in the 1840s-60s ABSOLUTELY changed America dramatically, and the know-nothings were absolutely right to oppose those immigrants coming in. So too with the 1880s-1890s wave from Eastern and Southern Europe...and let's not even get started on how the original wave of British settlers completely changed things for the Native Americans. 

Yes, but you are making the bold assumption that a lot of people make. This is the idea that these immigrants will assimilate. 

The America we live in today has a different culture than the time of the Ellis Island immigrants. The people we are letting in are no longer from the "Western world". Their cultures may be less receptive to what we have to offer. Our economic style, now heading towards a service economy is much harder to adapt to than a factory job that doesn't even require a high school diploma. We also have a welfare state that allows people to not learn the language, while older waves of immigrants would have starved had they not adopted the language. We used to change peoples' names to be more "American" to cut their old ties with foreign lands.

The incentives and type of immigrants now coming to the country aren't conducive to assimilation.

I don't think mass immigration has ever been a good thing, but I also just don't agree that it results in the end of politics. The parties just change. I oppose mass immigration but back in 2016 or so I saw it as an existential threat to America and our way of life, it terrified and enraged me to the point where I believed in and expressed things I'm not proud of. Now I just view it as one of many issues I want to win on, although its still in my top three...

Let us assume that the GOP won't become irrelevant ever. That all they simply have to do, as you say, is "change". Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of being the "conservative" party? If they must abandon their values to reach a broader range of immigrants who don't hold American values, then any form of conservatism as we know it will be forever gone. The culture real conservatives wish to conserve is a Christian and Western one, and allowing non-Christian and non-Western people in certainly makes that more difficult. (Luckily, a decent amount of Hispanics are Catholic and are more receptive to right-wing cultural values. That is why I think outreach to them is more worthwhile).

Don't get me wrong, there is some current good change in the GOP. I like the appeals to the working class, but I also think we have thrown out so many cultural issues over the past 20 years. Remember when even Democrats opposed gay marriage  in 2008? Do you even hear any major Republicans saying anything negative about it or plans to alter it 12 years later? Regardless of your personal views on the matter, it is disheartening to see this shift that will inevitably lead to widespread acceptance of "degenerate" behaviors.

I think that it is wise that you still consider mass immigration to be a huge issue. Allowing people with radically different values to live together will lead to large conflict. Look at countries made during arbitrary deals after the World Wars. They put opposing groups together. We are doing that willingly right now, and the longer we delay cutting off the flow, the longer large ethnic enclaves will persist (some areas in the US, you can't even communicate with others without speaking Spanish). Mass immigration makes assimilation a near impossibility. It becomes a choice rather than a necessity.
#41
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
So you claim over a million illegal immigrants give birth yearly in America?
who said anything about illegal immigrants? I said immigrants. Why does your mind automatically go to illegal?

#42
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
Pretty sure a half Carribbean, half Tamil female is change in itself.
i guess by definition, yeah sort of. But not in any way that actually matters. She supports the same failed policies the neo-liberals have been pushing for decades. She isn't particularly different from Hilary or biden. The only real difference is identity politics. And frankly, most people don't give a shit about that. 

You just dislike her because of reasons unknown to anyone but yourself. 
I dislike her for the same reason i dislike other neo-liberals. She supports failed policies that harm the middle and working class and only serve the wealthy. 

 I don't see anything wrong with that at all, especially when the change itself will be positive, left-wing and wholesome without a doubt.
that's sort of a contradiction in terms. a person who supports right wing policies will bring left-wing wholesome change? I don't see how anyone could believe that. 

I don't mind which of the two wins but based on who is less severely left-wing and how Americans vote, I think you and I both know that Harris is the better option in terms of who can easier beat a right-wing candidate.
she got absolutely crushed in the dem primary. She has nothing to offer america except platitudes and failed policies. She has no chance of beating a populist. 

The feminist glass-ceiling does matter, the problem with Clinton was that it was the only thing she kept emphasising about herself. Harris and Warren will never make that mistake.
Harris' problem is that she has nothing to offer. She supports failed, right wing policy. She sometimes pays lip service to the left (like Medicare for all), but when it came down to it she denounced a bill she co-sponsored because she thought it was politically convenient (although ironically she tanked). She only cares about her own career. She she doesn't really care about fixing any of america's problems. 

#43
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@thett3
thett, there's so much to comment on :

Keynesian [economics were used] during Obama's term, with little effect. 22 Trillion dollars spent on trickle-up policies with no noticeable effect on the poverty level.
First of all,  $22 trillion ?  Where did you get that number ?  President Obama's predecessor, President Bush's eight budgets totaled $18.39 trillion.  President Obama's eight budgets totaled $22.86 trillion.  President Obama's eight budgets totaled $4.47 trillion more than his predecessor's.  Inflation during the sixteen years of the two President's budgets averaged 2.81% per year.  That means inflation accounted for $4.13 trillion (I used 8 years of inflation which is the difference in years between the two Presidents' budgets).  That means, discounting for inflation, Obama's budgets were $ .34 trillion ($340 billion) more than President Bush's over eight years.  That means 1/3 of a trillion dollars in Keynesian economics .. not even close to your $22 trillion .. to help to raise our economy out of the Great Recession, not to raise the standard of living for the poor.

A more effective economic policy would aim at restoring the long-term growth rate by reducing uncertainty and restoring investor and consumer confidence.
OK, that sounds good.  Please explain how you would "reduce uncertainty" in order to restore investor and consumer confidence ?  Yours an important statement.  Please don't gloss over it.

...a 10-year program of government spending cuts to reduce the deficit. Permanent tax reduction can only be achieved by reducing government spending.
This sounds good, too.  The first place to start reducing the deficit is the military budget.  We outspend our closest military competitor by 2-1/2 times, and an amount equal to the military spending of the eight largest militaries below us in line, combined.  Six of those eight are allies of ours, and four of them are committed to help defend us by treaty.  This is our greatest over-spending in the budget and where we should start cutting, in addition to other places.

Additionally, we must raise taxes, especially on the most wealthy Americans who recently got huge Trump tax breaks, to help pay the deficit down.  Reducing spending alone will not do it.  We should never be reducing taxes before we reduce spending.  That's Failed Economics 101.

reduce corporate tax rates and expense capital investment by closing loopholes.
Again, I agree with you.  We should reduce corporate tax rates to keep and return the residence of businesses in the US.  To compensate, we should raise the taxes of the owners, the directors and the stockholders of the corporations, as they are less likely to leave the Country like a corporate headquarters can.  Plus, even if they have an official residence off shore, if they earn their money in the US, they will be taxed.

I'd like to know what you mean by, "expense capital investment".

announce a five-year moratorium on new regulations.
Of course we could never do that.  How could we know what's coming down the pike in the next five years to know what would be damaging or dangerous to the US and our Citizens ?

adopt an enforceable 0%-2% inflation target to allay fears of future high inflation.
You may remember Nixon tried this.  It didn't go well.

One thing that really would help is a Balanced Budget Amendment.

#44
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@sadolite
The election has not been called and no candidate has been legally or  officially been elected President. Just thought all you people who think the election  is over should know that.

Why did Trump give a victory speech on Wednesday? 
#45
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
Certain elements on the left all but call for the extermination of Western society and culture. They claim that America is a white supremacist country, that white men are scum, that the police need to be systemically dismantled and replaced with social workers (lol), and they try to destroy the livelihoods of any who dare disagree with them. 

Did that circle jerk chat finally get too boring for you :) 

The "extermination of western society and culture" sounds like hyperbolic fear mongering regurgitated from Tucker Carlson. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Meanwhile no city has dismantled the police or even seriously tried. Minneapolis said they would but predictably got nowhere. Trump said it was like pulling teeth trying to get modest criminal justice reform even among Democrats. Nobody actually believes the police are being abolished. The black community has been particularly vocal about not wanting that, so bringing this up is just something the right-wing does (over and over) to scare people into thinking "America is being destroyed" by people who want to get rid of bad cops.  

Pointing out a history of white supremacy (and backing it up with facts) is not a condemnation that "white men are scum" lol that's clever though. That's a brilliant narrative for the GOP to push considering so many uneducated and low-information fragile white people will definitely believe that's what Demonrats are saying.

But Cancel Culture is nothing new. Conservatives have been the biggest culprits of all and it's not even close. Like I said in another thread: they'd cancel my marriage if they could. They relentlessly tried to cancel celebrities and media personalities who say "offensive" things for decades (like Eminem or Howard Stern) with government agencies like the FCC. They tried to criminalize dissent of Israel, with even convincing some states to require loyalty oaths to Israel in order to get government contracts. Liberty Republican Rand Paul demanded the FBI go after protesters who yelled at him in the street. Liberty Republican Ted Cruz wants the government banning films he doesn't like.  But all the "freeze peach" anti-cancel culture nags have to rage about is annoying campus liberals shouting down speakers and people being mean to Jordan Peterson and JK Rowling on the internet.  Someone like Bari Weiss is the perfect example of this. She's spent her entire adult life trying to ruin people's careers over their opposition to Israeli apartheid. She's spent her entire career falsely accusing people of anti-Semitism for criticizing Zionism. Then she went on Bill Maher and spoke about how "Cancel Culture is social murder" because people pushed back against her views lol. What a joke. The last few months have just been a massive reminder that the right *invented* cancel culture in this country, and when they cancel you it's not just with mean tweets or the private sector exercising its freedom of association; it's with the power of the US government behind them. 

What is a shy Republican?
#46
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
I think the biggest takeaway is the inaccuracy of pollsters which I don't believe was intentional. Contrary to the assertion that Dems are trying to rig the election by putting out false polls (which isn't even "rigging" anyway and may even encourage people to vote for Trump since he appeared to be behind) I know for a fact that Dems believed those polls were accurate. I have a few friends who work for the Party and they were genuinely shocked and gutted at how wrong they were about a few races, particularly Susan Collins. I dunno if she's a goddess though so much as just someone everyone knows. She's been in Congress for like 23 years. According to Republicans, wouldn't that make her an Establishment hack? Interesting. 
Topic's author
#47
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@AddledBrain
Good discussion, but I didn't write any of what you're responding to!
Topic's author
#48
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Danielle
Did that circle jerk chat finally get too boring for you :) 
Yes

Pointing out a history of white supremacy (and backing it up with facts) is not a condemnation that "white men are scum" lol that's clever though. That's a brilliant narrative for the GOP to push considering so many uneducated and low-information fragile white people will definitely believe that's what Demonrats are saying.
Make fun of it all you want, but resentment of the far left is the reason that millions of mostly educated and very plugged in people living in suburbs who couldn't stomach Trump voted Republican downballot, so the narrative worked. This led to Republicans holding the senate and almost taking the house against all expectations, and it spells electoral disaster for Democrats in the near future. It's funny, you love to make fun of uneducated white people living in rural areas, but they aren't the swing voters anymore. Republican overperformance down ballot was mostly due to educated suburbanites who were fed up with the excesses of the left: https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/711177?unlock=A5M4QNJ8UZCBFLHY

But Cancel Culture is nothing new. Conservatives have been the biggest culprits of all and it's not even close. Like I said in another thread: they'd cancel my marriage if they could. They relentlessly tried to cancel celebrities and media personalities who say "offensive" things for decades (like Eminem or Howard Stern) with government agencies like the FCC. They tried to criminalize dissent of Israel, with even convincing some states to require loyalty oaths to Israel in order to get government contracts.
I was too young at the time to know about it, but I've read that a lot of media figures and celebrities got a lot of flack for refusing to support the Iraq War. Considering what a disaster that was, it's a case study on why we should have a cultural norm of permitting free discussion as much as we can. I have no idea who Bari Weiss is so I can't comment on that. I don't think Republicans have been perfect on free speech issues and don't see the need to defend them. You must admit that social media has changed the game. Until recently normal, powerless people suffering consequences for their beliefs was something unheard of. 


Topic's author
#49
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Danielle
I think the biggest takeaway is the inaccuracy of pollsters which I don't believe was intentional. Contrary to the assertion that Dems are trying to rig the election by putting out false polls (which isn't even "rigging" anyway and may even encourage people to vote for Trump since he appeared to be behind) I know for a fact that Dems believed those polls were accurate. I have a few friends who work for the Party and they were genuinely shocked and gutted at how wrong they were about a few races, particularly Susan Collins. I dunno if she's a goddess though so much as just someone everyone knows. She's been in Congress for like 23 years. According to Republicans, wouldn't that make her an Establishment hack? Interesting. 
It's funny because they really weren't that off in 2016. Trump's support against Clinton oscillated, and he was on one of his upswings when the election was held. Other than Wisconsin, all the swing states showed a close race with lots of undecided voters. Of course he had a serious chance of victory. In 2020 it was the complete opposite... Biden's lead over Trump was VERY steady and a lot higher than things will end up. Trump came about 50k votes from being a two-term President which the polls definitely did not pick up. Like I said earlier in this thread it was basically a re-roll of the 2016 dice (with four years of trends added) and they came up slightly different. But I think people will always remember 2016 as the election where the polls were wrong, and not this one
Topic's author
#50
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@bmdrocks21
The America we live in today has a different culture than the time of the Ellis Island immigrants. The people we are letting in are no longer from the "Western world". Their cultures may be less receptive to what we have to offer. Our economic style, now heading towards a service economy is much harder to adapt to than a factory job that doesn't even require a high school diploma. We also have a welfare state that allows people to not learn the language, while older waves of immigrants would have starved had they not adopted the language. We used to change peoples' names to be more "American" to cut their old ties with foreign lands.
Yeah another nasty fact of history that liberals prefer to forget is that America had to do a lot of things to assimilate earlier immigrants that we would never do now. Kids would be beaten in schools for speaking languages other than English. During WWI, some German-Americans were almost lynched for being Germans. After WWII when the suburbs and interstate highway system were being built, lots of white ethnic neighborhoods were intentionally bulldozed. It took a lot to assimilate those waves of immigrants.

On the flip side of the coin, the monoculture is extraordinarily powerful and much harder to escape now than it was in the 19th and 20th centuries. People who have never even visited America are watching American TV, following American politics, and listening to American music. Unfortunately this corporate sponsored "culture" is the death of all real culture, both American and otherwise, but that's a different discussion. It's true that many current immigrant groups would've just been flat unassimilable in the 19th century, but the cultural power of the forces at work in the modern world is much stronger than anything imaginable back then. I grew up with lots of children of immigrants, and they aren't any different from most Americans--unfortunately they assimilated to leftist, white upper middle class culture lol. The remaining cultural trappings are just that--trappings. This is also why all the "cultural appropriation" stuff is even a thing, btw. People feel the need to aggressively defend their groups traditional clothing and food and such because that's all they have left, and they know it.

Don't take this as an endorsement of mass immigration, because it isn't. It's just what I expect to happen. It's actually something I find incredibly sad. For immigration not to be toxic for the mainstream society the immigrant (or at least their children) has to lose their uniqueness, what makes them THEM, and replace it with something different. It's not a fair thing to ask of people.

Let us assume that the GOP won't become irrelevant ever. That all they simply have to do, as you say, is "change". Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of being the "conservative" party? If they must abandon their values to reach a broader range of immigrants who don't hold American values, then any form of conservatism as we know it will be forever gone. 
Well. Yes, in a way. But I can't help but notice that the flavor of right wing politics I prefer (right wing populism) is much more palatable to minorities than Bush/Romney style austerity. Immigration did kill the old Republican consensus but honestly that surprisingly turned out to be a good thing. A white-working class and Latino coalition might actually be in the works (https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1325524794570313730). I certainly hope it is. 

Also a lot of the race stuff falls apart when you start looking at class, which is increasingly where things are falling. A lot of affluent, college educated white people are perfectly content to condemn the bottom 2/3rds of the population to working as their servants on rideshare and food delivery apps, or dying of opioid overdoses. The forgotten man isn't just a white guy living in rural Ohio, he lives in New England, in the Rio Grande Valley, in Detroit, Baltimore, etc. Everywhere. 

I wouldn't have allowed mass immigration if I were in charge in the 1960's, but honestly it's a fait accompli at this point. The good news is that I anticipate Biden's presidency to be the last great wave of immigration before the spigot is turned off again for a while. 
#51
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
Make fun of it all you want, but resentment of the far left is the reason that millions of mostly educated and very plugged in people living in suburbs who couldn't stomach Trump voted Republican downballot, so the narrative worked.
That is absolutely true. It's a great narrative because it's half accurate. The far left is pretty insane and intolerant, but the party as a whole is very corporatist and very moderate. It always has been. In fact that's why progressives take issue with the party, so for Fox News to keep fear mongering about how socialists are "taking over" the Dems when progressives are routinely ignored is not honest. There's like 7 of them in Congress and they loathe establishment Dems. Bernie lost handedly to a barely cognizant dinosaur specifically because the party is not far-left. 


It's funny, you love to make fun of uneducated white people living in rural areas, but they aren't the swing voters anymore. Republican overperformance down ballot was mostly due to educated suburbanites who were fed up with the excesses of the left.
 To be clear I only love to make fun of the ones that are bigoted (Trump supporters). I have nothing but empathy and respect for the others. 

You must admit that social media has changed the game. 

I agree social media changed the game and I agree that Cancel Culture is a huge problem in academia and intellectual discourse (I'm pretty indifferent about it in the private sector though).  What I don't agree with is perpetuating the falsehood that this is a "leftist" issue when it's just so clearly not.  Throughout history conservatives have been the first ones to demand cancellations of people they disagreed with. Even now Trump asked all of his  "we hate cancel culture!" supporters to cancel the NFL because one player kneeled during a song he likes. When Twitter marked one of his tweets as factually non-credible, Trump threatened to shut them down. The examples of right-wing Cancel Culture are innumerable and more dangerous coming from politicians or the president than say Chrissy Teigen or Alyssa Milano. 
#52
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
It's funny because they really weren't that off in 2016. . . But I think people will always remember 2016 as the election where the polls were wrong, and not this one
100 percent. Why do you think Trump came within 50K votes though? I stopped paying attention days ago. Too exhausting.
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
 Why do you think Trump came within 50K votes though?

Most likely because the people conducting the polls come from blue urban labor pools and might find it hard to catch the sentiments of the general voter. Empathy is a learned skill, not inherent.
Topic's author
#54
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Danielle
That is absolutely true. It's a great narrative because it's half accurate. The far left is pretty insane and intolerant, but the party as a whole is very corporatist and very moderate. It always has been. In fact that's why progressives take issue with the party, so for Fox News to keep fear mongering about how socialists are "taking over" the Dems when progressives are routinely ignored is not honest. There's like 7 of them in Congress and they loathe establishment Dems. Bernie lost handedly to a barely cognizant dinosaur specifically because the party is not far-left. 
Non-white dems routinely save the party by blocking the kind of radicals that white liberals would nominate. After seeing how Biden barely beat Trump I don't think that Sanders or Warren would have been able to win. 

The problem is that the people with the cultural power are far left. It wasn't Trump supporters who have been rioting for the past six months straight, and it wasn't the Republicans who refused to crack down on their lawlessness. The mainstream party doesn't repudiate the far left...I don't blame them because it's just the nature of politics, but this obviously makes people who aren't on board with progressivism not too keen on voting blue. This also makes me wonder how viable the current democratic coalition is going forward, if white liberals ever get the dominant position electorally. Looking at the results of this election, I don't think hispanics like Black Lives Matter much.

To be clear I only love to make fun of the ones that are bigoted (Trump supporters). I have nothing but empathy and respect for the others. 
Don't you think that's painting people with too broad a brush? 71 million (and counting) people voted for Trump, surely they can't all be bad. Hispanics swung very hard to Trump this time around (https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1325524794570313730). There was an overwhelmingly hispanic county in South Texas that went from Clinton +60 to Biden +5. Are they racist against their own race? Or just stupid? Or is it more likely that despite his many faults, Trump's message of border security, standing up to China/trying to bring back blue collar jobs, etc. really did appeal to a lot of people for benign reasons?

I agree social media changed the game and I agree that Cancel Culture is a huge problem in academia and intellectual discourse (I'm pretty indifferent about it in the private sector though).  What I don't agree with is perpetuating the falsehood that this is a "leftist" issue when it's just so clearly not.  Throughout history conservatives have been the first ones to demand cancellations of people they disagreed with. Even now Trump asked all of his  "we hate cancel culture!" supporters to cancel the NFL because one player kneeled during a song he likes. When Twitter marked one of his tweets as factually non-credible, Trump threatened to shut them down. The examples of right-wing Cancel Culture are innumerable and more dangerous coming from politicians or the president than say Chrissy Teigen or Alyssa Milano. 
It's a problem of human nature, so no political party really has a monopoly on it. But because the left has overwhelming cultural power and control of information access, they wield this power much more effectively that the right does. If I had to choose between being called out via tweet by name from Trump or be subjected to the kind of internet flash mob that random people get subjected to I would choose the former without one second of hesitation. I know that you don't disagree. No rational person would. This doesn't absolve Trump but it does demonstrate just how powerful the far left is, and how dangerous it can be to go against the narrative. Stuff like the Covington Catholic boys really pissed a lot of people off and, more than that, SCARED a lot of people, which is part of the reason that the polls were off. People were scared to admit their true political preferences.

100 percent. Why do you think Trump came within 50K votes though? I stopped paying attention days ago. Too exhausting.
He's losing by around 20k votes in AZ and WI, and 10k in GA. If he got those three it would've been a 269-269 tie and he likely would've won in that scenario. And PA looks like it'll be won by Biden by less than a point. He came veryyyy close
#55
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@thett3
Oops, sorry . . .  ..Still getting used to who's a recipient and who's the owner of a post on this site.
#56
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@Greyparrot
parrot (not thett), there's so much to comment on :

Keynesian [economics were used] during Obama's term, with little effect. 22 Trillion dollars spent on trickle-up policies with no noticeable effect on the poverty level.
First of all,  $22 trillion ?  Where did you get that number ?  President Obama's predecessor, President Bush's eight budgets totaled $18.39 trillion.  President Obama's eight budgets totaled $22.86 trillion.  President Obama's eight budgets were $4.47 trillion more than his predecessor's eight.  Inflation during the sixteen years of the two President's budgets averaged 2.81% per year.  That means inflation accounted for $4.13 trillion (I used 8 years of inflation which is the difference in years between the two Presidents' budgets).  That means, discounting for inflation, Obama's budgets were a mere $ .34 trillion ($340 billion) more than President Bush's over eight years.  That means 1/3 of a trillion dollars of Keynesian economics .. not even close to your $22 trillion .. to help to raise our economy out of the Great Recession, not to raise the standard of living for the poor.

A more effective economic policy would aim at restoring the long-term growth rate by reducing uncertainty and restoring investor and consumer confidence.
OK, that sounds good.  Please explain how you would "reduce uncertainty" in order to restore investor and consumer confidence ?  Yours is an important statement.  Please don't gloss over it.

...a 10-year program of government spending cuts to reduce the deficit. Permanent tax reduction can only be achieved by reducing government spending.
This sounds good, too.  The first place to start reducing the deficit is the military budget.  We outspend our closest military competitor by 2-1/2 times, and an amount equal to the military spending of the eight largest militaries below us in line, combined (including China).  Six of those eight are allies of ours, and four of them are committed to help defend us by treaty.  This is our greatest over-spending in the budget and where we should start cutting, in addition to other places.

Additionally, we must raise taxes, especially on the most wealthy Americans who recently got huge Trump tax breaks, to help pay the deficit down.  Reducing spending alone will not do it.  We should never be reducing taxes before we reduce spending.  That's Failed Economics 101.

reduce corporate tax rates and expense capital investment by closing loopholes.
Again, I agree with you.  We should reduce corporate tax rates to keep and return the residence of corporations in the US.  To compensate, we should raise the taxes of the owners, the directors and the stockholders of the corporations, as they are less likely to leave the Country like a corporate headquarters can.  Plus, even if they have an official residence off shore, if they earn their money in the US, they will be taxed.

I'd like to know what you mean by : "expense capital investment".

announce a five-year moratorium on new regulations.
Of course we could never do that.  How could we know what's coming down the pike in the next five years to know what would be damaging or dangerous to the US and our Citizens ?

adopt an enforceable 0%-2% inflation target to allay fears of future high inflation.
You may remember Nixon tried this.  It didn't go well.

One thing that really would help is a Balanced Budget Amendment.

#57
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
First of all,  $22 trillion ?  Where did you get that number ?

First off, if you want to bother quoting me and expecting a response, then don't create fiction and then highlight it as something I said. Copy and paste or don't bother.

Secondly, did you click on the link I posted under the actual statement I said? I'm guessing you did not.

#58
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
Non-white dems routinely save the party by blocking the kind of radicals that white liberals would nominate.

I agree brown Dems are more moderate,  but can you give some examples of where they have ever saved the party?

It's interesting that the perspective is Democrats should disregard the progressive left to save the party while conservatives have chosen to appease the alt-right to save theirs. Imagine if the GOP was not so hostile to immigrants or acknowledged systemic racism exists. They'd lock down a huge share of the minority vote but they refuse. Hispanics definitely don't like BLM and black people are hostile to gays and social progressivism that doesn't have to do with protecting their own necks. So both parties can improve their PR campaigns for sure. 


After seeing how Biden barely beat Trump I don't think that Sanders or Warren would have been able to win. 
This is probably true. It depends on how Warren campaigned. I never thought Bernie had a shot. 


The problem is that the people with the cultural power are far left. 
Such as? I don't know what cultural power means. 


 It wasn't Trump supporters who have been rioting for the past six months straight, and it wasn't the Republicans who refused to crack down on their lawlessness.
Where have there been riots for six months straight? 



The mainstream party doesn't repudiate the far left.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but hopefully it's not another fib about how Biden, Harris, Pelosi, et. al have not condemned violence. I've disproven that so many times that I'm just really bored  by it and hope to not have to do it again. It literally takes a 1 minute Google search to disprove. But if you're talking about far left politics in general, eh I'm not so sure about that. The establishment has been very opposed to criticisms of Israel of any kind which is a huge thing with progressives. Some of them have derided socialism very strongly. Which things in particular do you think they should denounce? 


 Are they racist against their own race? Or just stupid?
So it's funny because I happened to be watching that episode of Tucker Carlson the other night where he relentlessly mocked the idea that brown people could be racist against themselves; he showed a clip of some liberal pundit suggest Hispanics "hate themselves" to a degree and thought it was absurd. First off the irony of him ridiculing this idea is that he (and you) have just argued that white liberals are the ones who go hardcore in favor of "anti white" policies, so why is it so hard to believe that brown people could promote anti brown policies?

Secondly anyone who actually lives among a diverse community knows that Hispanics really ARE racist not "against their own race" per se, but against blacks and other groups of Hispanics. There is very distinct ethnic identity between Cubans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in particular. It is absolutely true that Cubans tend to look down on other groups of Hispanics for being "lower class" and preferring to identify as white or European rather than with "undignified" and poorer illegal immigrants. Of course there are other reasons Latinos vote red too such as being religious; I know a few very Catholic Hispanics who refuse to vote Democrat just because they are vehemently anti-choice. So there's a lot that goes into why groups vote the way they do, but just because brown people vote for Trump doesn't mean Trump isn't racist. If I vote for a homophobe because I like their economic policies, the person is still a homophobe just because they got some gay people to vote for them for whatever reason. That seems really obvious to everyone but Fox News viewers apparently. 


Don't you think that's painting people with too broad a brush? 
I've thought about this and I really don't think I am. I feel confident saying all Trump supporters are bigots or very okay with bigotry. If they were just concerned about their financial security, why not vote for Bernie Sanders' version of populism? Or rather why  did they vote for the party of "free trade capitalism" for the past 40 years? 


Trump's message of border security, standing up to China/trying to bring back blue collar jobs, etc. really did appeal to a lot of people
I think a lot of people want to stand up to China but most people have no idea what for. Trump is all-talk. What did he wind up accomplishing border-wise anyway? While Joe Biden will use more diplomatic language, everyone knows China is the biggest threat to our security. I hope Biden appoints a really solid Secretary of State. I don't see how Trump did much of anything to curb China's influence though. One could argue the trade war did more harm than good. 

I feel like a lot of people who try and defend Trump insist it was his "policies" people like and not just his bombastic rhetoric, but I really don't buy it. People liked that he was a "tell it like it is" personality, but very infrequently did I hear people defend his policies outside of whataboutism.  "Well yeah kids in cages is terrible but Obama built those cages!" Etc. I never really heard people argue that Trump was a brilliant policy wonk. He'd just say a lot of really bold things.  

But because the left has overwhelming cultural power and control of information access, they wield this power much more effectively that the right does.
What does that mean: overwhelming cultural power? Trump won the presidency through tweets and thanks largely in part to conservative publications like Breitbart. Is this one of those things like when I watch Fox News pundits lament "the mainstream media" and Big Media every day while simultaneously touting that they are by far the biggest and most popular news station with the largest ratings? Because I love that :)

Big Tech is not just a mouthpiece for the left. There's a ton of research that shows because of the algorithms on social media, they create massive echo chambers where people are just constantly fed things from likeminded people and that's how so many conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns go viral. Russians and others have utilized social media to influence people toward batshit crazy wackjob conservative conspiracy theories like QAnon by just ensuring people see nonsense in their feeds. Everyone is subjected to it, not just liberals. If you're a conservative you'll see nothing but right wing stuff in your feed all the time. 

Are you doubling down that Cancel Culture is a "leftist" issue? Because yeah that's just wrong. In addition to the plethora of examples I could give disproving that, one of the most egregious hypocrisies is when Trump took out a full page ad asking to execute the Central Park 5 who he wrongly accused of rape. Even after being exonerated by DNA evidence, Trump refused to apologize or even admit he was wrong about that. He not only smeared these people's names but insisted they be murdered by the state - but he's going to have the audacity to talk about Cancel Culture? Yikes.  


People were scared to admit their true political preferences.
I've never seen so many boat parades or truck flags or clothing and other paraphernalia for any other politician  in my lifetime but yeah, maybe. 


He's losing by around 20k votes in AZ and WI, and 10k in GA. If he got those three it would've been a 269-269 tie and he likely would've won in that scenario. And PA looks like it'll be won by Biden by less than a point. He came veryyyy close

He's only down by ~50K in those states, but they still have hundreds of thousands of ballots left to count most of which are presumed to be in favor of Biden. Even assuming he won AZ, WI and GA though it's still come down to PA which Biden is winning by 45K votes and counting. Admittedly the election was way too close for comfort. Florida was another huge surprise for me. 
Topic's author
#59
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Danielle
I agree brown Dems are more moderate,  but can you give some examples of where they have ever saved the party?
Joe Biden became the Democratic nominee because of nonwhite democrats.

Such as? I don't know what cultural power means...Where have there been riots for six months straight? 
Virtually every single celebrity is on the far left, every major media outlet besides Fox News, all of the tech companies, all of academia, almost every major company. Do I really need to go on? Here's a great breakdown of who donated to Trump vs. Biden that paints a clear picture: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-election-trump-biden-donors/ If you don't believe there is a power disparity between the right and the left in terms of culture, I don't know what to tell you. As for the riots, there have been spontaneous outbursts of rioting and civil unrest throughout the country over the past six months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests

So it's funny because I happened to be watching that episode of Tucker Carlson the other night where he relentlessly mocked the idea that brown people could be racist against themselves; he showed a clip of some liberal pundit suggest Hispanics "hate themselves" to a degree and thought it was absurd. First off the irony of him ridiculing this idea is that he (and you) have just argued that white liberals are the ones who go hardcore in favor of "anti white" policies, so why is it so hard to believe that brown people could promote anti brown policies?

The anti-white stuff on the left is really weird, and I don't have a great explanation for why it pops up. I've never seen anybody else be racist against their own race, other than a few mentally ill Indian girls I knew in High School. Why do you think Hispanics shifted so hard to Trump this time around? I guess it's possible they are racist against their own race or they think Trump has anti-brown policies but voted for him anyway, but it seems more likely that the swing is part of an ongoing re-alignment. 

I've thought about this and I really don't think I am. I feel confident saying all Trump supporters are bigots or very okay with bigotry. If they were just concerned about their financial security, why not vote for Bernie Sanders' version of populism? Or rather why  did they vote for the party of "free trade capitalism" for the past 40 years? 

Bernie Sanders supports a lot of things that people don't find palatable. For example, I would never vote for a pro-choice candidate and millions of people are the same. He supports the Green New Deal, he supports mass immigration (in a reversal from his previous position), wants to ban assault weapons, etc. You can't honestly say that there's no difference between Trump and Sanders other than Trump's "bigotry"--Sanders is a lot better than the Dem establishment, but he's a left wing populist, not a right wing populist. There's a distinct difference.

Do you even know any Trump supporters in real life?

Big Tech is not just a mouthpiece for the left. There's a ton of research that shows because of the algorithms on social media, they create massive echo chambers where people are just constantly fed things from likeminded people and that's how so many conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns go viral. Russians and others have utilized social media to influence people toward batshit crazy wackjob conservative conspiracy theories like QAnon by just ensuring people see nonsense in their feeds. Everyone is subjected to it, not just liberals. If you're a conservative you'll see nothing but right wing stuff in your feed all the time.
Donors who worked for Facebook and Google skewed 97%-3% for Biden. Apple was 92%-8%. Amazon was a mere 80%-20%. These companies are definitely left wing bastions, and if right wingers use them successfully it is absolutely against the wishes of those who own and work for those companies. They've been cracking down on right wing speech pretty rapidly lately.

Are you doubling down that Cancel Culture is a "leftist" issue? Because yeah that's just wrong. In addition to the plethora of examples I could give disproving that, one of the most egregious hypocrisies is when Trump took out a full page ad asking to execute the Central Park 5 who he wrongly accused of rape. Even after being exonerated by DNA evidence, Trump refused to apologize or even admit he was wrong about that. He not only smeared these people's names but insisted they be murdered by the state - but he's going to have the audacity to talk about Cancel Culture? Yikes. ..I've never seen so many boat parades or truck flags or clothing and other paraphernalia for any other politician  in my lifetime but yeah, maybe. 
I said the exact opposite, that it's a problem of human nature but since the left has more power right now they are far more effective at it. I don't care about something Trump did thirty years ago, I'm talking about the modern phenomenon of random individuals being "canceled."

As for the shy Trump vote thing--there absolutely are vocal supporters of Trump, but they don't tend to live in or work in leftist areas. A lot of people also couldn't stomach Trump but still voted Republican down-ballot. Republicans over performed big time in this election. I guess it's possible the polls just failed to reach people again but I really do believe that people lied to the pollsters. Or just hung up. That's what I would do if a pollster called. 

  He's only down by ~50K in those states, but they still have hundreds of thousands of ballots left to count most of which are presumed to be in favor of Biden. Even assuming he won AZ, WI and GA though it's still come down to PA which Biden is winning by 45K votes and counting. Admittedly the election was way too close for comfort. Florida was another huge surprise for me. 
No, Wisconsin is all counted, Georgia has VERY few votes left (a few thousand iirc), Arizona has around 40k left but they are actually predicted to skew in Trumps direction.
#60
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@Greyparrot
don't create fiction and then highlight it as something I said.
Please point out where I did that.  I quoted you accurately.

The link you provided says $22 trillion has been spend on poverty issues by the combined Administrations of the past 50 years.  It said nothing about Keynesian economics.  Your post indicated it was President Obama's budget that especially employed Keynesian techniques in the process of throwing $22 billion at poverty. 

While I do agree that the War on Poverty has not helped to change the economics in America so that we have no more poor people, it has provided a safety net to poor children, addressing the conditions, as your article says, but not the causes of poverty.  So, clearly, since that's terribly inefficient, as you correctly point out, I'd like to see your solution to not seeing children starve in the streets in front of us.

If your two short sentences are the only point with which you can take issue then I'd say we agree more than most people these days regarding politics.  Maybe we can work on pushing a Balanced Budget Amendment together.