The News Thread

Nah I'd say it has paid off reasonably well. 90% of the black vote, 80% of the Asian vote, 70% of the Hispanic vote, and continued demographic shift is virtually inevitable. Unless Trump manages to turn the Rust Belt into safe red states to balance things out, places like Arizona and Georgia which were once safe Republican states will be under greater and greater threat of turning blue. Dems are playing a long-game and their biggest fuck-up for 2016 was in allowing Clinton to hijack the party, not the culture war itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG and Dak
The minority vote has paid off very well for them the last 10-12 years...but not this time (at least at presidential level). That's why electoral votes went so strongly toward Trump at the final tally -delegates knew that employment looked upon as "oppression" and promising the non-working a lifestyle paid for by the "rich" just to obtain votes won't hold in a national economy, let alone in a global economy. Hillary gambled on "fake" minority siding, and identity politics almost solely, the Democratic Party BARELY even gave her the hat-tip..and she lost. If the 'underclass' starts to see that their quality of life hasn't improved under liberal programs, the Democratic Party is in trouble- I already think we're starting to see a class war with the working class/non-working class more than seeing it as a racially motivated problem in the NW...now that their "racial" platform didn't totally pan out, liberals only concern is currently helping the homeless, and stopping "opioid" OD's at any cost...that's not gonna be enough to win the next election either IMO
 
It just didn't pay off enough to offset the many other issues. If you look at the general trends, black voter turnout is still high relative to where it was pre-Obama, and Republicans continue to lose the Hispanic vote from W's high in 2004. Virginia used to be a fairly safe Republican state, now it's a consistent light blue. Republicans used to win Georgia and Arizona by 20 points, now they win by just several. Overall election turnout, despite all the controversy, was quite low. In most states, Trump received the same number of votes that Romney did, and he was a fairly boring and uninspiring candidate. It's just that Clinton totally failed to excite people like Obama did; people had groaned about the prospects of a Hillary vs Jeb election ever since W was elected president and Clinton elected NY senator. It's true that Trump did a better job appealing to poor/working-class whites, but if Trump fails to improve the standard of living of the poorer whites that switched for him, he loses his entire edge in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and perhaps even in Ohio.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nate Skalman
If Bernie runs again he's going to win. Which would be absolutely terrible. Not sure if it would be any worse than a Hillary win, but still terrible. At least Trump has shown selected competency in some of his appointments, and some competency outside of government. Bernie has never done anything but get elected to Congress - which isn't a very high bar if you look at the sorts of terrible and ignorant people in Congress. He does know how to appeal to a bunch of kids who want free stuff and if Trump doesn't improve the economic fortunes of the "blue collar states", Trump will lose those votes by sheer reaction.
 
Russia is preparing for an NK invasion. Would be interesting to see a Trump administration pull off a truly multilateral takedown of an actual threat to global security, as opposed to Dubyas misguided and Anglo-lateral adventures into backwards wadistan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nate Skalman
Tulsi Gabbard could beat Trump as well, but of course the DNC establishment hates her so who knows.

I think destroying the NK regime in a way that SK can support is the single best interventionist thing that can happen, both for overall world peace as well as Trump's image. Doubt it will happen though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
I think it depends on how Reps handle the control of Senate, and overcoming the challenge of outing the Neo-dems as pieces of shit the next 3 years (while avoiding being pieces of shit themselves). Pelosi's gang will threaten "government shutdowns" in response to DACA legislation, among other issues -(they will -mark my words!!) and that's the time to bring attention to their refusal to play ball, merely because they're not solely writing the rules. Humorous -especially after Pelosi talked shit about the Reps shutdown over healthcare reform (also subject to ridicule)...I don't think the pendulum is gonna swing any farther left at this point. Even minorities want jobs...If Republicans can get the soft moderates on board and unify their party through a stronger employment market, the minorities will more than likely follow suit. Good jobs and opportunities for advancement will out-do a desire for "free living" (with no opportunities) if they're given both options...but Dems are only pushing the "free living" angle and not being honest about the shitty quality of life with no options that comes with subsidized living. Even libs here in the most extreme of liberal ground zero are wondering why their ideas are falling apart.
 
Last edited:
On another note...purposely turning a blind eye to heroin, fentanyl and meth use (and allowing it) to reach out to the jobless is also a tactic Dems are using to appeal to a demographic of non-working potential voters. Last I checked us working class still outnumber the non-working, regardless of race...the only people with enough time on their hands to pipe up, or protest are the non-working...that's what the media focuses on. Take away all that hype, and the working class still outnumber the jobless, druggies, etc. The Dems have made a career out of trying to divide the working class into women's, minority, and identity groups instead of one proud workforce
 
  • Like
Reactions: ~Lynn~
1482248167-exmachina.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG and Dak
the underclass keep talking about "no jobs" as the technology world figures out how to program machines to replace jobs...pretty soon, what will the mouth-breathers do for work? Lol
 
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/whats-college-good-for/546590/?utm_source=atltw

College students do hone some kinds of reasoning that are specific to their major. One ambitious study at the University of Michigan tested natural-science, humanities, and psychology and other social-science majors on verbal reasoning, statistical reasoning, and conditional reasoning during the first semester of their first year. When the same students were retested the second semester of their fourth year, each group had sharply improved in precisely one area. Psychology and other social-science majors had become much better at statistical reasoning. Natural-science and humanities majors had become much better at conditional reasoning—analyzing “if … then” and “if and only if” problems. In the remaining areas, however, gains after three and a half years of college were modest or nonexistent. The takeaway: Psychology students use statistics, so they improve in statistics; chemistry students rarely encounter statistics, so they don’t improve in statistics. If all goes well, students learn what they study and practice.

Actually, that’s optimistic. Educational psychologists have discovered that much of our knowledge is “inert.” Students who excel on exams frequently fail to apply their knowledge to the real world.
...........
I’m cynical about students. The vast majority are philistines. I’m cynical about teachers. The vast majority are uninspiring. I’m cynical about “deciders”—the school officials who control what students study. The vast majority think they’ve done their job as long as students comply.

tl;dr: College is now primarily expensive signaling. Now a new charge, but I'm surprised the Atlantic put it up. The idea has mostly languished in libertarians and neoreactionary outlets. Of course, Caplan is a libertarian.
 
I'm not counting, but this isn't the first time you've posted something from The Atlantic and said that you're "surprised" they published it. Perhaps you should recalibrate your scope.
 
I'm not counting, but this isn't the first time you've posted something from The Atlantic and said that you're "surprised" they published it. Perhaps you should recalibrate your scope.

Well, I don't post the volumes and volumes of the other stuff. One or two libertarianish book excerpts a year isn't a trend except to say it isn't Salon.
 
Actually, The Atlantic is considered a left-of-center publication that often features pieces from non-left writers. I consider that a balanced and laudable venue.