Reply With Quote
I hope they present evidence of all the democrat corruption and ban the party officially, good riddance
As of 2016 there are 31 Republicans and 18 Democrats, and 1 Independent holding the office of governor in the states.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li...ates_governors
The party composition of the legislatures (and party summary of the individual legislative chambers), as of January 2015, is:
33 Republican-controlled legislatures
14Democratic-controlled legislatures
3 Split legislatures
The GOP controls both houses of congress and the executive branch of the Federal government. The GOP won the gamble by not holding any hearings on the supreme court justice.
Thoughts:
No more ing about "the direction of the country" from conservatives. They have the keys, and it is all up to them, good or ill.
We now have one of the least qualified presidents ever, who simply does not have the intellectual firepower to think for himself. He will be overwhelmed and at the mercy of the people who feed him information. He does not have the critical thinking skills to recognize bull when he sees it. Given the incompetence and asshattery that appears to have been the modus operendi of his campaign, we will get a fine spectacle of this playing out under a microscope of hostile media attention.
Trump can only put two coherent sentences together when he is in front of a teleprompter, and will give almost no press conferences, because he simply does not have the intellectual firepower to do the prep work, or if he does, will fill them with incoherent babble that I will find painfully embarrassing as a citizen.
I look forward to Democrats in congress doing everything in their power to obstruct and impede his agenda. The GOP will get a nasty taste of its own medicine.
We will also have the pleasure of watching a sitting president try to explain himself at his fraud trial.
I don't see a guy like this getting a second term, but , anybody in the prediction game counting this guy out should think twice. Sokay, I'm a big boy. The mid-term elections in a couple of years will be a good barometer.
I hope they present evidence of all the democrat corruption and ban the party officially, good riddance
You mean the winning campaign?Given the incompetence and asshattery that appears to have been the modus operendi of his campaign
I thought obstructionism was bad for the countryI look forward to Democrats in congress doing everything in their power to obstruct and impede his agenda.
Eyup, the winning campaign. I have definitely learned a lesson this season: Truth doesn't really matter.
I need to up my game, and make up just like you guys. I read it on the internet, and a forwarded email it must be true.
I have already bought a gun, because I know that the next step is to get every non-Christian an armband. A country awash in guns is a great thing for a freedom fighter. Just sayin'.
We need Democratic politicians to obstruct the out of things while we get our militia units trained and ready. I have started teaching infantry tactics to my boys already.
I have already seen reports somewhere of journalists who criticized trump before the election being poisoned to death.
We have handed over the NSA's surveillance programs to the fascists. He has already given instructions on how the FBI is to monitor political opponents to the FBI friends that "found" the email trove a few days before the election.
Come and get me, internet pussy. You seem to forget that white people haven't been having as many welfare babies as my brown brothers. You will lose the war of attrition.
What kind?
You'll need to buy 10 more guns and tens of thousands of rounds for each of them to catch up with you're "enemies".
Last I checked humans only have two hands...
/sarcasm
Truth be told I have vacillated a lot about how to react. It is sooo temping to be an intellectually dishonest hack, like tlong, or Wild Cobra. So easy to just give in to lazy confirmation bias, stop thinking, and spout off bull conspiracy theories.
I don't think it is good for so many millions of Americans to be in a one party state, especially when the GOP actively seeks to disenfranchise Democrats. That is dangerous.
North Carolina GOP Brags Racist Voter Suppression Is Working—and They’re Right
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-working.html
Early turnout among black voters in the state has been running below 2008 and 2012 levels—so far, the bloc is turning out at only 82 percent of their 2012 numbers, as The New York Times reported. (Early voting overall was up in North Carolina, with 4.6 million ballots already cast.)
What the Times didn’t report was that the decline wasn’t due to lack of enthusiasm or effort, but voter suppression. In fact, there’s a near perfect fit between where black voters aren’t voting and where Republicans have made it harder to vote—a fact highlighted by a press release issued today by the state Republican Party, which called the decrease "encouraging."
http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/...and-elsewhere/This contrast was on display in a brief that the State of Texas recently filed in its fight with the U.S. Department of Justice over whether to put Texas back under federal voting supervision. The Justice Department argues that proof of intentional racial discrimination in voting is found in Texas’s recent redistricting plan, which disfavors minority voters and officeholders. Texas’s defense is that its law is about partisan politics, not about race, and it is therefore acceptable:
DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats. It is perfectly cons utional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.13
Note that Texas’s defense is that it was deliberately passing its law “at the expense of Democrats.” Leave aside for a moment the fact that discriminating on the basis of political party should serve as an indictment rather than a defense of Texas’s policy. Instead, note the bifurcation of race and party. To Texas, there is just an “incidental” effect on minority voters. If Texas is right that party discrimination is a valid defense under the law, but that racial discrimination violates the Voting Rights Act, then courts need to make a distinction: race or party?
Eyup. You read that right. The defense of the state of Texas was that they weren't targeting blacks. They were targeting Democrats.
This seems like a good place for you to start imo
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post8791109
You shouldn't worry too much. When Obama took office the Democrat party was giddy with power, forgot about the voters that put them there, and proceeded to themselves. Good chance the GOP does the same.
http://prospect.org/article/22-state...es-tight-racesPartisanship plays a key role. Of the 22 states with new restrictions, 18 passed them through entirely Republican-controlled bodies. A study by social scientists Keith Bentele and Erin O’Brien of the University of Massachusetts Boston found that restrictions were more likely to pass “as the proportion of Republicans in the legislature increased or when a Republican governor was elected.” After Republicans took over state houses and governorships in 2010, voting restrictions typically followed party lines.
http://prospect.org/article/22-state...es-tight-racesEarly Voting Cuts
The push to trim early voting provides another clear example of how new voting restrictions target minorities. For more than two decades, states have been increasing early voting opportunities. In fact, most states now offer early voting, and in the last two presidential elections, a full one-third of Americans voted early. The reason for this expansion? Early voting works well—voters like it, election officials like it, and it improves the election system. It is so non-controversial that the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration recently recommended that all states adopt it to prevent long lines at the polls.
Despite this consensus, after the 2008 election, support for early voting eroded among Republican legislators in the South and Midwest. What changed? For the first time, African Americans had begun voting early at high rates. In Southern states, early voting by African Americans nearly tripled between 2004 and 2008, overtaking early voting by whites by a significant margin. In North Carolina, for example, seven in ten African Americans voted early in 2008, as compared to half of white voters. And while Republicans have traditionally been more likely to vote early, in 2008 Democratic early votes exceeded Republican ones.
Feel free to do the lazy ad hominem of prospect.org, and ignore the links to the source material they provide, including the studies they reference. I expect that.
Oh yeah, I actually concur. Democrats really do have to place no small amount of blame on themselves. Their primary, their pick.
Personally I chalk it up to a bit of the party overall and Clinton herself for ignoring how unpopular she is. The rank and file will never forgive her.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-11-2016 at 02:58 AM. Reason: a bit of clarity and better outlining of thought
I think this is exactly what is going to happen. The GOP will overplay their hand.
The difference though between the two parties is that one will do a study, then proceed to ignore it, the other will do a post-mortem and pivot. GOP ignored their own post-mortem long term strategy analysis. (edit) I think that will cost them a lot in the long run (/edit)
The left, being a bit more evidence/science based, will hopefully map out what they need to do. I expect a shift leftwards, with some strong populist bull ting for the next presidential election, with a lot of anti-Wallstreet blather.
You think you have seen "class warfare" so far, you ain't seen nothing yet. This election was a huge emotional shock, and the waves are still rippling around unsettling a lot of centrist orthodoxy. Just a guess though. Be interesting to see how all this shakes out.
aw . Really gotta get to bed. 'Night Snakes.
I think the left should start with a study on whether or not it's a good idea to call the voters deplorable, stupid, and every "ist" they can think of.
trying to persuade somebody by insulting them never works, it only pushes them further into a corner. thats why elitism is a problem with the left.
A thread by a party of one... Named Random...
As I've said, I'm leftist on most issues, but also recognize that conservative thought has a lot value in many areas of social and economic policy.
The Left has an advertising problem, which has grown much, much worse since the advent of blogs, forums and social media. Engaging in dialog with someone who has opposing views was an exercise that had to be done in person, where you couldn't as easily dehumanize a person as you can online. Now that the political debate has largely shifted online, the "person" you're debating with is nameless and faceless, meaning it's easier than ever before to just cut a debate short with an insult. Instead of sincerely listening to a real human being explain why they don't believe in evolution, you can just call them an ignorant caveman who stupidly worships an invisible "sky daddy." The Right is similarly knee-jerky, but I think the Left has a bigger advertising problem, mainly due to the fact liberals tend to be younger and more active online.
So what's this "advertising problem?" The modern image of the Left, per your average Joe American in the Bible Belt or Midwest, is that of a smug, elitist, Coastal or even European "intellectual" who holds their traditions and way of life in contempt; who thinks of them as uneducated, obsolete rednecks pathetically clinging to an outdated ethos. The Left continually fails to understand or under-appreciate just how important religion and other traditions are to that region. Most of those communities are tight knit, going back generations, and religion and the church played a central part in the growth and flourishing of those communities. The modern Left just expects them to instantly shove their cultural iden y into the dustbin because "science." The rise of New Atheism was also a disaster for the Left's hope of building a bridge to those communities. Per Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest of those blowhards, you'd think the people in the Bible Belt are scheming 24/7 on ways to blow up abortion clinics. Yeah, try reaching out to them with "science" after ling your books "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."
"Well, those in the Bible Belt probably don't even know about Hitchens, et al."
Indeed they do. Sean Hannity and the rest of the Fox News cabal love using New Atheists as polemic talking points.
And the ironic thing is, conservative aren't science illiterate. Here's a study showing how the scientific literacy of conservatives increase if you phrase the wording differently:
http://www.motherjones.com/environme...fic-illiteracy
And this is not a conservative phenomenon either. The Left is similarly intractable being open minded on issues that attack their cultural iden y.Still, those who wish to communicate to the public about climate change will have to grapple with Kahan's assertion that conservatives really aren't ignorant about the issue—they're just highly prone to defend their worldviews when asked certain kinds of questions. If Kahan is right, the implication is that we need to talk about climate science in a way that is entirely devoid of cultural meanings that will antagonize the right.
"conservative thought has a lot value in many areas of social and economic policy"
like what? be specific
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
