Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
You keep saying Woodrow shouldn't have attempting to create the League of Nations, but you've got the benefit of nearly a century's worth of hindsight. Also, a large part of the problem with Germany arose because France and other countries were particularly vengeful and created a situation with runaway inflation in Germany. Woodrow's failures weren't directly responsible the way the actions of officials leading the countries that were much closer to Germany.
Woodrow is far from the only politician to make plans and then have others thwart him.
http://www.wwltv.com/news/politics/national/207037591.html
Meanwhile in Texas a man named Castro gets elected mayor of San Antonio for the third time. His brother is also a Senator who represents that city. (Texas legislature.) A sign of the changing demographics.
You forget that Texas has been fairly Democratic in many cases,....firstly until Reagan came along,they were better at voting up the liberal guy than California. And Clinton lost by a very small margin.
Until Obama,the only GOP guys that ever won by a large margin since 1964 were Nixon (and that was only in the 72 landslide,he still lost Humphrey),Reagan,and the Bushes (which both came from Texas,and even then Bush narrowly beat Clinton)
Texas voted for Humphrey,Carter the first time,and only just barely voted against Clinton
The fact that Obama did not immediately take Texas or even contest it against Mc Cain or Romney is troubling to the hypothesis that Texas'll be blue anytime soon.
According to this page
, Texas has been won by the Republican candidate in every presidential election since 1980. It went Dem in 1976, Repub in 1972, Dem in 1968, 1964, and 1960, Repub in 1956 and 1952, and then we're going much farther back than we should for any modern relevance.
I don't know the margins but I do know that the margins in 2004, 2008, and 2012 were not even close. That said, the state was not much contested by the presidential candidates.
edited 13th May '13 5:02:15 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
Keep in mind that the Democrats haven't been trying to win Texas. While that margin does tell us about the current demographics, it's a good idea to consider that the margin would narrow if the Democrats put serious effort into trying to win Texas. Add in the demographic shift and the possibility of the Dems fielding a Texas friendly candidate and things change rapidly. Stick someone like one of the Castro brothers in the VP spot on a 2016 or 2020 Dem ticket and Texas might swing.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNo,I'm not, if I did I wouldn't have added after '64.
Humphrey and Carter were both liberals,they won Texas,and Clinton lost by less than 5%. Until Obama happened,the odds were 6:5 in favor of GOP. If some effort had actually been put into Texas in '08 and '12,it's possible that it could've swung back.
edited 13th May '13 9:41:56 AM by terlwyth
Demographics are what's going to swing Texas to the blue side: the rising population of Hispanics which is, ironically, a consequence of Texas being a haven for cheap labor.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's always been staunchly conservative due to the Republican/conservative stranglehold, but the "red" and "blue" states thing is a neologism caused by one of the Bush elections. Before that one of the colors just stood for whoever happened to be winning at the time.
Terlwyth: I don't think you really understand what you're talking about. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. That somehow Texas is more liberal than we think?
edited 13th May '13 9:44:23 AM by AceofSpades
That "few districts are Democratic" thing is largely due to gerrymandering, let us not forget.
edited 13th May '13 9:55:33 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yes, we are aware of that Fighteer.
Terlwyth, Texas has nearly always been strongly conservative. It was part of the "Solid South" voting bloc, as I understand it. The GOP sweep didn't change much as far as voting records go. Largely due to gerrymandering. And the Oil business that has a huge hold on politics here, because of offshore drilling and such. And because huge sweeps of the population lives in rural areas, which are traditionally more conservative.
And Hispanics used to vote conservative because of Republicans being the family values party. Bush had a lot of Latino voters because of that. They started voting Democrat largely because the Republicans got more and more racist in recent history.
Yep. Oddly enough,. most hardworking, family oriented, christian mexican voters dislike having an entire party imply theyre lazy, godlessheathens who do nothing but drink tequila and take amurrican jobs.
In short, the Republicans have nobody to thank but their own xenophobic voters for driving the latino vote into the Democratic party's banner.
Kinda like they did the same with black people.
edited 13th May '13 10:10:38 AM by Midgetsnowman
Senator Rubio demands resignation of IRS chief
Gingrich: IRS targeting scandal ‘huge problem’ for ObamaCare
Obama dismisses GOP Benghazi probe as political ‘sideshow’
I remember seeing one that's like "Huckabee: Obama will face impeachment".
Y'know, I can do that too.
"Harvey: Trump likely to be fired"
"Harvey: Boehner's last name actually mispronounced"
"Harvey: Mc Connell likely to lose to Ashley Judd Kim Kardashian Oprah Winfrey"
@Handle: To answer your question, the "the poor are lazy" meme is a mutation from religious doctrine. (I'm sure this will come as no surprise to anyone.)
Specifically, the idea comes from Calvinism, which posits (I'm simplifying here) that the elect (those who are destined for heaven) will be blessed by God with virtuous qualities, and given material blessings in this world as well as eternal blessings in Heaven, while everyone else (who are destined for hell) are unvirtuous (such as lazy) and will be poor in this life and damned in the next.
Why, no, of course Jesus never said anything good about the poor! That's just commie propaganda that they snuck into your printing of the Bible. We over at Conservapedia are rewriting the Bible to fix that! (I wish I was joking. o.o)
Considering Calvinism was never really big in America I'm hesitant to accept that explanation.
Ron Paul Agrees With Obama: The Debate Over Benghazi Is A ‘Sideshow’
edited 13th May '13 12:59:37 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

You heard wrong. The vast majority of children go to primary schools. However, homeschooling is far easier in the UK because parents are not required to inform the education authorities when a child is being home-educated. This is a double-edged sword.
edited 12th May '13 9:18:58 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei