Started By
Message
re: Lets Talk Politics
Posted on 2/22/16 at 9:18 pm to Iosh
Posted on 2/22/16 at 9:18 pm to Iosh
quote:
I know you think this is getting smarter every time you say it but it isn't.
No, its a blend of emotional and rational politics, or really an appeal to both at the same time.
quote:
For starters you're weak-manning globalism by trying to unify economic globalization (i.e., free trade, migration) with neo-con style military imperialism while ignoring the fact that there's plenty of people who support the former and reject the latter, as a cursory comparison between WTO membership and our "coalition of the willing" illustrates.
I need to clarify when I say "Globalism." I do not mean free trade, I mean trade constructed to benefit other nations as part of a neo-con strategy foreign policy wise. The idea exists in American politics that increasing the wealth of a nation will make it more likely to become democratic. Firstly, I reject the notion that democracy is inherently good for every people, and that other nations being democratic is good for the USA. Second, I reject the idea that wealth will increase a nation's favorability toward the United States.
When I say globalism as far as trade, I mean the deals we have made with China, Bangladesh, Malaysia, etc where they have access to our markets, but we have no or restricted access to theirs. This kind of a deal, which exports our economy in order to 'nation build by trade' is what we currently engage in, and what I mean when I say Globalist.
I want free trade, fair trade. That is NOT what we have, or what either party has supported. I actually LIKE the TPP, because it does just that, and is with a majority of 1st world nations, with Brunei and Vietnam being the notable exceptions. They are in there for Neo-Conism/Globalism, exactly what I've stated above.
And WTO membership is a half-measure. China violates its terms of entry with impunity.
quote:
In addition most of the hot zones we see today are not the result of "globalism" but individual nations waggling their dicks to establish and defend spheres of influence (which is classic nationalism).
And? What Hot Zone currently active is any of our goddamn business?
quote:
Do tell me what revisionism your "10 minutes of research" turned up regarding the Treaty of New Echota, though. I could use some quality r/badhistory chuckles.
No revisionism. The state governments were having fights with the indian tribes. Jackson picked the state sovereignty over the indian sovereignty. Pretty cut and dry.
1
Posted on 2/22/16 at 9:20 pm to cokebottleag
I'm for trump right now because all of this drama is very enjoyable
I will probably end up voting for Cruz though
I will probably end up voting for Cruz though
Posted on 2/22/16 at 10:10 pm to texag7
I can't bring myself to vote this year.
I just want this political season to be over, but this will be on all year
I just want this political season to be over, but this will be on all year
Posted on 2/24/16 at 5:37 am to Farmer1906
quote:
With nearly 90% of the votes counted, Donald Trump has a 46% lead over the rest of the Republican pack, with his closest rival Marco Rubio getting 23%
So trump just dominated a Hispanic state, despite wanting to build a wall......
Posted on 2/24/16 at 1:23 pm to Old Sarge
You'd be surprised how many legal Hispanics don't like the illegal ones.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 1:34 pm to Roger Klarvin
No I wouldn't, and it's all immigrants and naturalized citizens.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 1:49 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
You'd be surprised how many legal Hispanics don't like the illegal ones.
This. Especially down here.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 3:32 pm to Old Sarge
I think early numbers showed only 8% of the caucus participants were Hispanic in Nevada (which was the same percent the Republicans saw in 2008). Even if Trump had won 100% of all the Hispanic vote that participated, it's still a dangerously low number. And let's keep it real, Trump isn't the type of guy who is going to capture the undecided Latinos. Especially after threatening to go after birth right citizenship (and as we all know, a lot of Hispanic citizens benefited from that).
And don't get me started with the African American Vote. It only represented 1% of the total republican caucus.
RNC is in trouble and Trump isn't the guy to bring in the undecided minority vote. Republicans failed to get the Latino vote in 2008 and lost. They did even worse with latinos 2012, and lost.
If this trend continues, it's going to be Hillary 2016 and the continued assault on society by the ultra liberal radicals. It used to be I was a straight guy, but now that's not even politically correct (because apparently it makes others feel different
). The correct term is now heterosexual Cisgendered male individual. . Somebody stop this nonsense!
And don't get me started with the African American Vote. It only represented 1% of the total republican caucus.
RNC is in trouble and Trump isn't the guy to bring in the undecided minority vote. Republicans failed to get the Latino vote in 2008 and lost. They did even worse with latinos 2012, and lost.
If this trend continues, it's going to be Hillary 2016 and the continued assault on society by the ultra liberal radicals. It used to be I was a straight guy, but now that's not even politically correct (because apparently it makes others feel different
). The correct term is now heterosexual Cisgendered male individual. . Somebody stop this nonsense!
Posted on 2/24/16 at 3:53 pm to greenbastard
quote:
RNC is in trouble and Trump isn't the guy to bring in the undecided minority vote.
Yeah but there really isn't any candidate that will bring in the minority vote to the Republicans. If two Cubans can't outdo Trump on that metric no one can.
Plus quite frankly the need for Republicans to court hispanics is completely overrated. So far the Democrats haven't done much to show that they deserve the Hispanic vote, and overall hispanics don't vote at the same rate other races do so even if the demographics show a major population shift by 2050 it might be another 20 years past that for it to matter in elections.
quote:
Overall, 48% of Hispanic eligible voters turned out to vote in 2012, down from 49.9% in 2008. By comparison, the 2012 voter turnout rate among blacks was 66.6% and among whites was 64.1%, both significantly higher than the turnout rate among Hispanics.
LINK
The much bigger problem for the Republicans than hispanics are youths. Young voters' (including hispanic youths) enthusiasm for Bernie gives the GOP a glimpse of a very scary future. While the GOP was fighting for mom votes and religious votes the last 15 years, Jon Stewart night after night pretty much ruined the Republican brand with anyone under the age of 40.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 3:55 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
This. Especially down here.
Bro, that's just a San Antonio thing. Tejanos hate Mexicans, just like Mexicans hate Tejanos. It's a widely known secret among us brown people
. Tejanos have Flour tortillas, while Mexicans have Corn Tortillas. Tejanos have Bud Light, while Mexicans have Victoria. Tejanos have Breakfast Tacos while Mexicans have Pan Dulce. Tejanos have Little Joe and Cultura while Mexicans have Los Tigres Del Norte and Juan Gabriel.
Tejanos: (Yes, that's a real brother who sings in Spanish)
Vs.
Mexicans: (Yes, Mexico has its own Liberace, and he's still alive and creepy
) 
Tejanos and Mexicans may come from the same roots, but boy, they HATE each other.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 5:16 pm to greenbastard
quote:
It used to be I was a straight guy, but now that's not even politically correct
My response to that is to tell them that I'm deeply offended by their lack of personal resiliency and fortitude. As a result, they have ruined my safe space and should leave.
This post was edited on 2/24/16 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:29 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:That's a funny way of spelling George W Bush
While the GOP was fighting for mom votes and religious votes the last 15 years, Jon Stewart night after night pretty much ruined the Republican brand with anyone under the age of 40.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 12:30 am to cardboardboxer
quote:
While the GOP was fighting for mom votes and religious votes the last 15 years, Jon Stewart night after night pretty much ruined the Republican brand with anyone under the age of 40.
nah, it had nothing to do with the complete debacle in Iraq that included things like shaming anyone as unpatriotic and against the troops if you disagreed with being there, BS assertions that they were involved with 9/11, BS claims they had WMDs beyond what we sold them in the 80s, dissolving the Iraqi army which set up the environment needed for AQ to exist, believing the tripe puked out by Paul Wolfowitz that the war would pay for itself, standing on an aircraft carrier with a mission accomplished sign behind him when out time there was nowhere near close to done..... etc etc etc... do I even need to go past the colossal frick ups with the Bush admin's Iraq adventure?
How about hiring buddies who were total failures in the private sector for important positions like heading FEMA w/Mike Brown, or employing a total POS like Karl Rove who helped foster a completely toxic environment between Dems and Rupubs to a level not seen in modern times, or ramping up the failed war on drugs tossing more people in jail over minor offenses, or relying on torture for info that usually ended up as bunk b/c OF COURSE a person getting tortured will tell you what the frick they want to make it stop, or putting a fool like John Bolton in as a UN ambassador when he openly shite on its very existence...
Nah... it wasn't the Bush admin that hurt the Republican brand. It was Jon Stewart. A guy on a late night cable show that barely hit 2 million viewers a night.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 12:31 am
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:22 am to Iosh
quote:
That's a funny way of spelling George W Bush
Bush was only there for eight years. The rest of the time Jon went after the Republican establishment for being on the wrong side of the "Gay Civil Rights Movement," or being obstructionists in Congress via the Tea Party movement, or anything to do with Sarah Palin, or in general opposing Obama implementing progressive policies.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 6:58 am
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:34 am to Dr RC
quote:
Nah... it wasn't the Bush admin that hurt the Republican brand. It was Jon Stewart. A guy on a late night cable show that barely hit 2 million viewers a night.
Bush is old news at this point. All those Millennials are not lining up for Bernie because of Bush. They are lining up because the left wing media (including and especially Jon) has crafted a message that Republicans are on the wrong side of history- on healthcare, or gay rights, or just being religiously motivated in general. The progressives have painted a picture that the "smart" people are on the left while the "mean" people (and the "evil" big businesses they support) are on the right, and young Americans have bought it hook, line and sinker.
Bush's follies are too far back and too associated with his own brand. Hell Trump is showing that many mainstream Republicans are anti-Bush. That alone doesn't push you into a socialist philosophy. Wanting to be seen as the good guys in the history books does. Millennials act based on feeling, which is why they want to "feel" the Bern.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 7:46 am
Posted on 2/25/16 at 10:31 am to cardboardboxer
quote:Reagan was only there for eight years too, yet his success is invoked constantly when candidates want to appeal to Boomers. I would rank the influence of eight years of actual disastrous governance over 16 years of a single comedian.
Bush was only there for eight years.
At the end of the day the most powerful influence on the average person's views is the simple "are you better off" test. From the Millenial perspective, you (or your family) was almost certainly worse off in 2009 than in 2001. And from 2009 to 2017 you've had the spectacle of Republicans constantly trying to draw equivalencies with Bush (I think there were something like twelve "Obama's Katrinas") when the actual record of the Obama admin has been, if not static, at least a far shallower decline.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 10:58 am to Iosh
May be a bit off topic here, but just wanted to hear the AggyArk's thoughts on this (and if this has already been discussed, my apologies):
But what needs to happen for a GOP candidate to take down Trump? I'm a supporter of Cruz (I was originally pulling for Huckabee, but he never really got established as a serious candidate), but I just don't see Cruz or anyone else taking down Donald at the rate things are currently going. Am I being short sighted here, or should I prepare myself for Trump to be the nominee?
But what needs to happen for a GOP candidate to take down Trump? I'm a supporter of Cruz (I was originally pulling for Huckabee, but he never really got established as a serious candidate), but I just don't see Cruz or anyone else taking down Donald at the rate things are currently going. Am I being short sighted here, or should I prepare myself for Trump to be the nominee?
Posted on 2/25/16 at 11:03 am to Iosh
quote:
I would rank the influence of eight years of actual disastrous governance over 16 years of a single comedian.
Well obviously, or Jeb would have been the Republican nominee. With that said, it is very obvious that GOP put itself on the "wrong" side of the culture war for many Millennials and there will be a price to be paid for that in conservative brand erosion. Jon Stewart was the guy making the most hay out of this, but a lot of what we would normally consider "entertainment" media (compared to news media) pilled on with him. They made being "progressive" cool, a single generation removed from when the word "liberal" became toxic.
2/3rds of Millennials don't see themselves as religious:
And there is evidence that many Millennials were driven from religion by the culture wars:
quote:
Among Millennials who no longer identify with their childhood religion, nearly one-third say that negative teachings about, or treatment of, gay and lesbian people was either a somewhat important (17%) or very important (14%) factor in their disaffiliation from religion.
Source
Overall we see a clear trend over time among all adults that those without religion more and more identify themselves as liberal:
So I think it would be folly to assume that Millennials back Sanders because of how well their family did in comparison to the Bush years. If that was the case then we would see them supporting Hillary (who is trying to position herself as a continuation of Obama's policies) in greater numbers.
Instead we see Millennials push back on Obama, and Hillary, and embrace a much more progressive politician. They are doing that because they as a generation ARE more liberal, and a big part of the reason they are is because the cultural wars (especially gay marriage) pushed them there. Jon was just a cheerleader on the sidelines of that now lost war who Millennials trusted much more than "traditional" figures of authority. It wasn't all his fault of course, but he was the best at articulating the brand damage being done.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 11:06 am to Houston Summit
quote:At this point, a time machine.
But what needs to happen for a GOP candidate to take down Trump?
Posted on 2/25/16 at 11:17 am to Iosh
quote:
Am I being short sighted here, or should I prepare myself for Trump to be the nominee?
It sounds like you should be prepared for candidates who aren't evangelical.
Page 26 of 50
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News