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
![]()
That may be true, but consider that it takes a long time to get things done even WITH everyone acting in concert.
The GOP is going to be nonviable on the national level within the next decade or so and completely extinct in most of the country within 20 if they can't start appealing to millennials, and that's not going to happen while the far right dominates the party. That opens up the door for some fairly rapid change, and while a new opposition party will eventually form (which personally I suspect would be to the left of the democrats), that's going to take time.
edited 23rd Apr '16 3:33:17 PM by CaptainCapsase
The only good reason to take away a criminals right to vote is if their crime is one relate to voting (so someone convicted of electoral fraud) or possibly if they're in jail and are serving a sentence where they will never be released. But if someone is either out of jail or going to be out of jail, then they still get a say in the society that they're in/going to rejoin.
A few outliners don't change the way that the majority are going, the fact that some women, some Hispanics and some African Americans are right wing doesn't change the fact that if such groups were the main majority the Dems would never loose.
edited 23rd Apr '16 3:33:49 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
They aren't, but (scientific) polling of the millennial demographic shows about 60:40 support in favor of democrats, which is enough to cripple the GOP in its current state, so I'd say I'm correct to call that an overwhelming advantage. In fact, that number is probably underselling things a bit, there's a lot of independents among millennials compared to previous generations, and polls on their political views suggest the majority of those independent millennials are further left than the democratic mainstream.
Something similar happened with the Greatest Generation which came into their majority during the great depression, and that resulted in a phase of American politics were even the Republicans were fairly left leaning, and we got as a result, among other things, social security, an extremely progressive taxation system, public heallhcare for the poor, and a variety of other left oriented policies under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
It should be noted that Hispanics and African Americans as a demographic are fairly socially conservative however, the only reason they vote democrat so overwhelmingly is because of the (fairly accurate) perception that the GOP is out to get them. That's why there was a big push among the establishment for Marco Rubio, they're fully aware how desperately they need to make some breakthroughs with young voters or minorities to remain viable.
edited 23rd Apr '16 3:53:59 PM by CaptainCapsase
Of course, Rubio just ended up being an example of how out of touch they are. Putting the same crap in the mouth of a Latino guy doesn't magically make all the Latinos love you.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Rubio tried to be a Tea Party republican and an Establishment republican at the same time.
It didn't work. Rolling Stones has great article about what went wrong with the Rubio campaign. [1]
The sight of Chris Christie eviscerating Rubio during the eighth GOP debate, in New Hampshire, where Rubio, fresh off his "strong" third-place finish in Iowa, had arrived on a wave of expectations – RUBIO-MANIA IS UPON US declared The Week, in almost all seriousness – was a telling moment. Rubio was derided for his "robotic" performance by everyone who didn't know him. Those who did, saw something different. "What you were looking at is inexperience," says Planas. "Christie wasn't a politician up there, he was the federal prosecutor he used to be, and he had Marco on the witness stand. But since Marco has never really litigated, he was completely unprepared. You could see it in his eyes, he had no idea what Christie was even doing."
In the final weeks, as Trump surged, Rubio faltered, and faltered again. He attempted to out-Trump Trump on the debate stage, calling him a "con man," referring to his sketchy business deals, calling him out for his alleged fraud at Trump University and ripping on his appearance, as he'd done in his high school debates – in one oft-told story about Rubio's adolescence, he decimated a high school debate opponent by making fun of his looks. Students laughed. Rubio won the debate.
Not this time, though. Instead, Rubio's frantic upping of the ante looked desperate, which was exactly what it was. Perhaps had he started earlier, it would have made a difference – or not. Republican conventional wisdom seemed to suggest that just like with Romney in 2012, the GOP would settle on an "electable" and somewhat moderate choice. The problem with that theory, says Luntz, is conventional wisdom in 2016 has proved utterly worthless, though it took the GOP months to accept it.
Rubio has his charms, but it couldn't save him in this chaotic election.
edited 23rd Apr '16 4:28:57 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.Racist demonstrators clash with police in Georgia.
Counter-protestors did a good job.
edited 23rd Apr '16 5:38:09 PM by carbon-mantis
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
-Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, Cornerstone Speech, 1861
To play devil's advocate, there were plenty of cultural differences between the North and the South, even more so back in the 19th century before telecommunications and mass media, and the same period saw several European empires break apart along cultural/ethnic lines, most notably Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, so I'm willing to buy that there were nationalist sentiments behind the CSA's secession in addition to the slavery issue.
What it definitely wasn't about though was state's rights.
Although slavery was the most oft-cited reason for the US Civil War, there was another issue, seldom acknowledged, that contributed to the divisiveness between North and South. The South had re-established aristocracy within the ranks of their society. Not going so far as to re-create royalty and nobility and peerage, they at least had landed gentry in the form of plantation owners and "Society" families. A subsistence farmer whose land bordered on a plantation had to depend on the plantation owner for access to virtually everything: a cotton gin or threshing machine, a market to sell his produce, even monetary loans. Cities were few and far between in the South, and the banking industry was poorly developed. A farmer could ill afford to travel hundreds of miles to the nearest city to apply for a loan at a bank, only to be turned down because he had no credit or collateral. Thus, even a free man was not truly free in the South, since he could do nothing without the approval of the local landlord.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
Any answer to that question that is not an unambiguous, decisive "Yes" is wrong.
![]()
,
That's all fine and good, and slavery was certainly the biggest cause, but I don't think it's correct to say it was the only one, and strongly suspect the civil war would have been inevitable even had slavery somehow been abolished.
The American Civil War was highly atypical of civil wars of the period, which usually consisted of fairly brief struggles over the capital rather than extremely protracted and brutal total warfare followed by decades of guerrilla warfare and terrorism by groups like the KKK. That's not something that generally characterized conflicts between countryman in the period, nor is it really typical of the frequent aristocratic revolts seen in the early modern and medieval period.
edited 23rd Apr '16 7:22:35 PM by CaptainCapsase
>Prager U
Certainly an... interesting
"institution," and Rational Wiki unsurprisingly some choice words about its founder.
But at least it seems like even an arch-conservative outlet is not completely moronic about this issue.
Anyways, I think that the channel appears to be a fascinating insight into the conservative mindset, they've even got one complaining about modern art
(and not just stereotypical modern or post-modern art, but all art from the Impressionists onward). Maybe someone with more time (and fortitude) can examine other videos.
edited 23rd Apr '16 7:35:44 PM by Eschaton
"That's all fine and good, and slavery was certainly the biggest cause, but I don't think it's correct to say it was the only one, and strongly suspect the civil war would have been inevitable even had slavery somehow been abolished."
Except you're overlooking an important detail: Slavery was the reason the South developed a distinct, single-party, aristocratic culture in the first place. It was in this very thread, I wish I could find it, but you look at population percentages at the time and the states that rebelled versus states that remained loyal to the Union, at it basically amounts to how strongly slavery was entrenched in that state that determined their position in the war. States that had more in common culturally with the South but had somewhere around 18% or less of their population enslaved did not rebel.
It is true that the "states' rights" issue is what nominally started the war, and it was brewing well before the Constitution was signed. But it's crucial, even vital to remember that the reason states' rights were an issue in the first place was slavery. The southern states wanted the right... to own slaves. Sure, there were other issues, but that's numero uno. And it hasn't changed, either: red states in this country want the right... to discriminate against minorities. Scratch a hardcore Republican (or a "Southern Democrat") and you will find someone who thinks that [blacks, Hispanics, gays, Muslims, atheists, et. al.] earning less, being jailed more, and/or being shut out of opportunities is just hunky dory.
Yes, I know, #NotAllRepublicans. Take a good long look at your party.
edited 23rd Apr '16 7:42:37 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
I'm not sure that's necessarily correct either; in the settled societies of the old world aristocracies tended to develop in lightly urbanized societies regardless of whether or not they relied upon bound labor (serfdom or slavery); the South was lightly urbanized, and the lack of major regulation on land ownership allowed vast swaths of land to accumulate in the hands of a small group of large scale landowners. Access to slavery as a pool of forced labor certainly helped exasperate this issue, but I wonder whether or not the South would have ended up with a system of de facto serfdom (the abolition of which would require a civil war, or failing that, a revolution) because of its economic system.
![]()
![]()
![]()
That anti-modernist stance is pretty common among conservatives for some reason (actually it makes sense when you stop to think about it). I've seen this political movement before and am familiar with the Art Renewal Center which was mentioned in the video (regardless of the political opinions of the movement i've heard their ateliers are actually pretty solid for building artistic skills).
I have a lot I could say about the video, given that I was working towards a teaching degree in art a while back, but I don't think this thread is a good place to talk about it (and I'm not sure where I would given that we don't have that great a place to talk about visual art anyways, the "Visual Arts" forum on TVT is a ghost town.).
edited 23rd Apr '16 8:04:59 PM by wehrmacht
Slavery is what made the war inevitable. Their is no way of getting around that. The South would have been pissed at the North for various other reasons, but their is no way they would have sacrificed so much blood and treasure except to defend their "peculiar institution."
Edit: I do have to wonder though what roles tariffs played in starting the war. In particular citing them would be more likely to mobilize the poorer whites of the South than slavery.
edited 23rd Apr '16 8:13:49 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
