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
![]()
Most of the people with the Republican Tribalism are Baby Boomers and older Gen X'ers. Considering how PC the Millennial Generation is, I'd be surprised if the number of Millennials with Republican Tribalism amounted to more then 20%, and these Republicans being more Alt-Right then Neoconservative. The Republican Tribalism is not going to last, at least not in it's current state; they will either have to adapt and become more Centrist/Left Leaning, or they will shrink to become unimportant.
I think even Fox News sees the writing on the wall, as even though they have Sean Hannity on, they also have Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, who, while Neoconservative, are at least sane.
edited 16th May '17 8:35:50 AM by DingoWalley1
It is a bit of an overly conservative estimation to make I think, but if it's true I don't think it speaks well of the long-term health of the nation.
This is correct. In the Keynesian sense, we are beyond the point where macroeconomic fiscal stimulus will accomplish the ostensible goals. Nothing in this precludes efforts to redress inequality or improve wages and labor conditions for lower-class workers, of course.
edited 16th May '17 8:58:11 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Trump is a toddler set loose in a room full of valuable, breakable objects.
edited 16th May '17 9:18:07 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Sgamer 82: In the blackmail sense. No one assassinates celebrities.
@Dingo Wally: "Honestly, at this point, I think the Republican party is dead by 2021."
Sadly, I dont think we can assume that. If the economy recovers enough, not only will the Republicans keep the Senate, but Trump could very well get re-elected.
It's human to be tribal. Many people (most?) see the world essentially as an arena of inter-group competition for control of scarce resources. As long as their family and their neighbors are doing better, other groups have to look out for themselves.
That is why it is critical for the Democratic party to reach out to the working class again. Doing so will help insure that the conservative Republicans do not regain their support in 2020. If we miss this window, we aren't getting it back.
@Mio: Say what you like about Occupy and Bernie Sanders, but they and others like them made taxing the rich to help the middle class a talking point again. We have to keep pushing it.
edited 16th May '17 9:39:39 AM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Remember how Barrack Obama was obviously a Kenyan plant because of his name? You'd think that Trump's behaviour would be sufficient to convince the Republicans that he's a Russian plant. They convinced themselves Obama was a traitor on the basis of exactly zero evidence; one would expect that Trump's clear conflicts of interest regarding Russia would be sufficient to persuade them he's The Manchurian Candidate come to life.
Of course, that would require the Republicans to actually care about American security, and it's pretty obvious by this point that they don't. So far as they were concerned, Obama was a traitor not because of any real connections to Kenya (or Indonesia or the Muslim Brotherhood or pick-your-conspiracy) but because by being a black man in the White House he was betraying their understanding of who the President was supposed to be. Trump selling out to Russia doesn't have the same effect on them because after all, he's still a white man, and therefore meets all their basic requirements for occupying the White House.
If anyone had hope that the right-wing media might start to acknowledge reality because of the scale of this particular scandal, be prepared to be disappointed. Hannity immediately denounced it as "Fake News", Charles Krauthammer tried to pivot to "Hillary would be worse" and Breitbart, well, I don't want to link to them, so here's a piece from another site summing up Breitbart's version of events
. I'm hoping that the denialist elements on the left, like The Intercept, Secular Talk, and some of the TYT contributors will get the memo after this and finally admit that Russian interference is a thing that happened, but I'm not hopeful (though I'll be happily proven wrong). Too many people seem to have far too much invested in pretending Russia doesn't exist.
This again. The urban working poor voted for Clinton. It was white middle class people, and the white rural poor who broke for Trump. So when you say "Democrats need to reach out to the working class" who, exactly are you talking about?
edited 16th May '17 9:42:21 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Once again, I must call you out on your stereotyping. Conservatives care very much about national security. They vary in their belief regarding whether Russian Intelligence or American Liberals are the greater threat. On the surface of it, this attitude is at least as valid as believing that the Republicans (by which you really mean conservatives) are a greater threat than foreign militaries, a very common attitude on the Left.
As for your question, I mean all the working class, including rural working class whites.
edited 16th May '17 9:44:10 AM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.A conservative and pro-Trump media group may be about to take over a the vast majority of local news stations/programs and become the largest broadcast group in the country.
Bonus points: if it goes through, it'll be because of Trump relaxing regulations on who can own broadcast media.
On May 8, Sinclair announced its plan to buy Tribune Media Company and its 42 television stations for $3.9 billion — a merger made possible by the Trump administration relaxing regulations on broadcast ownership. If the acquisition goes through, Sinclair would become the nation’s largest broadcast group “by a country mile,” as Sinclair CEO Christopher Ripley put it to investors Monday morning. An estimated 72 percent of American households would live in a place where Sinclair controls at least one of the broadcast television stations.
This is a big deal — literally — because local news programs are some of the most-watched shows in America. About 23 million Americans tune into the evening local news, and 12 million watch the early morning local news. The three top cable networks — CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC — only get around 3 million primetime viewers daily.
People who tune into Sinclair stations for local news often end up getting some conservative commentary in the mix as well. The broadcaster has a history of airing right-leaning segments critical of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. According to Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, the Trump campaign struck a deal with Sinclair to air exclusive interviews with Trump during the election.
The company’s vice president for news, Scott Livingston, has accused mainstream news outlets of being too liberal. He claims that Sinclair is more balanced. “I think maybe some other news organizations may be to the left of center, and we work very hard to be in the center,” he told the New York Times recently.
...
These regulations date back to the 1940s, when the FCC decreed that companies could only own three TV stations at once. By the 1950s, there was the so-called “Rule of Seven,” which restricted owners to seven FM, seven AM, and seven TV stations. In recent decades, the FCC has loosened its regulations even further: Altogether, a company’s portfolio of TV stations can’t reach more than 39 percent of American homes.
Right now, Sinclair’s stations reach about 38 percent of American households. But in April, an FCC decision reopened a loophole for the company grow much, much bigger.
How Trump’s FCC chair brought back a loophole allowing Sinclair to grow The FCC’s new chair, Ajit Pai, a Trump appointee, wants to raise the 39 percent cap and allow broadcasters to buy up more stations — but that might require an act of Congress. In the meantime, he’s turned to a loophole known as the UHF discount.
Television stations use one of two different kinds of wavelengths, VHF or UHF. Until 2009, stations licensed to broadcast on VHF were more valuable, because VHF waves are larger, travel farther, and can get into homes more easily. This made UHF stations less desirable than VHF stations, so in calculating the ownership limits, the FCC gave companies what’s called a “UHF discount” — only half of a UHF station’s audience would count toward a company’s limit of 39 percent of American households.
But in 2009, American television stations switched to digital broadcasting. When that happened, UHF stations were no longer at a disadvantage; in fact, they were more desirable. Although UHF frequencies don’t penetrate as far as VHF, they are less prone to the kind of interference that affects digital TV signals, so customers get a clearer picture.
Long before the digital transition was complete, the FCC was warning that the UHF discount would eventually go away. Expecting this, many broadcasting companies have been wary of moving forward with mergers — without the discount, many of them were already dangerously close to the 39 percent ownership cap.
In 2016, after a long period of debate, the FCC finally eliminated the UHF discount. But under Pai, that decision was quickly reversed in late April. Pai agrees that the UHF discount doesn’t make sense anymore in the age of digital broadcasting. But as he has hinted, he views the UHF discount as a temporary measure until the ownership cap can be increased.
“All I said was, let’s return to the status quo, take a fresh look at the issue, and try to figure out what the optimal structure is for this going forward,” Pai told Recode’s Tony Romm recently.
...
Sinclair is a notable company not just for its size, but for its efforts to inject conservative views into the news.
For instance, over 80 Sinclair stations regularly air a 90-second segment called Behind the Headlines, where conservative commentator Mark Hyman gives his opinions on the news. In a recent spot, Hyman defended Trump’s first 100 days, claiming that the media was unfairly harsh on the president. In February, Hyman criticized the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for ruling against Trump’s travel ban on people from seven Muslim countries.
The company also produces national news segments — often with a conservative tinge — that it requires stations to run during their local news broadcasts.
A Washington Post investigation revealed that during 2016 election, Sinclair executives often forced their stations to run pro-Trump or anti-Clinton segments during their evening or morning local news programs. One of the mandatory segments emphasized problems about Clinton’s health and questioned her trustworthiness. Another mandatory segment featured Ivanka Trump talking about her potential role in her father’s White House.
In December, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly bragged that the Trump campaign had struck a deal with Sinclair executives to provide exclusive interviews during the primaries and presidential campaign, which Sinclair agreed to run as-is, without any commentary. Sinclair’s current network of stations covers many key swing states, and the deal seems to have been aimed at increasing Trump’s exposure in those parts of the nation.
Vallum had pleaded guilty last year to the 2015 assault and murder of Mercedes Williamson, a 17-year-old transgender woman whom he says he once dated.
"Crimes motivated by hate have devastating effects on the victims, their families and community, but also leave a blemish on our society as a whole," Christopher Freeze, special agent in charge of the FBI's Jackson Division, said in a statement.
The Justice Department says it's the first case "involving a victim targeted because of gender identity" that has been prosecuted under the Matthew Shepard, James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — a law that was expanded in 2009 to cover victims attacked specifically for their gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.
Now, with Betsy De Vos, one of the country’s fiercest advocates of school choice, installed as education secretary, that experiment is poised to go national. But Ms. De Vos’s own department this week rendered judgment on the Washington school choice program: It has not improved student achievement, and it may have worsened it.
The examination of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the only federally funded voucher program in the country, by the department’s Institute of Education Sciences, found that students who attended a private school through the program performed worse on standardized tests than their public school counterparts who did not use the vouchers.
Among students who attended poor-performing public schools — the targets of this and other voucher programs — there was no significant effect on achievement
Researchers and experts said the report offered a valuable, if limited, snapshot of the program that was based on a one-year study of 1,700 students — 995 who were selected through a lottery to receive scholarship offers, and 776 who were not.
The program was established in 2004 during Mr. Boehner’s tenure as chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and he proposed the legislation to reauthorize it in 2011 under the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. Congress also mandated an independent evaluation of the program.
The report, released Thursday, was well underway before the 2016 election, but it comes as President Trump and Ms. De Vos press Congress to devote hundreds of millions of dollars to a voucher program as part of a $1.4 billion plan to expand school choice among private, parochial and public charter schools — a move that critics say would cripple the public education system.
Researchers said that the Washington program was not intended to make a case for or against a national voucher system. The city has a robust choice of charter and private schools, and public schools have significantly improved in the past decade — conditions not mirrored in other school districts.
“In D.C., it’s good to think of this as a study of value added to an environment that is already rich with school choice,” said Marsha Silverberg, who oversaw the evaluation for the Institute of Education Sciences.
Still, the results are sizable enough to conclude that students who were not selected for vouchers fared better academically.
Math scores among students who used the vouchers were roughly seven percentage points lower than students who were not selected. The negative academic effect was even more pronounced for students who were not attending a low-performing school when they were awarded the vouchers — their scores were 14.6 percentage points lower in reading and 18.3 percentage points lower in math — and for students in elementary school.
And speaking of schools, Arizona law maker on why he wants to repeal universal education.
The number one thing I would like to repeal is the law on compulsory education. And let me explain to make it very clear why I want to repeal this. When my son was five in kindergarten, he missed 18 days. My son is a very brilliant kid, he gets straight As. The truancy officer called and said, “Hey, your kid missed 18 days.” And I said “So what? He’s five.” The law is compulsory education from six to 16. And he’s like, “Well, this is just a courtesy call.” And I was actually pretty upset about getting a call from a policeman, because if I remember correctly, it’s a $400 fine and a misdemeanor for the parent. Whether the absences are excused or not. All 18 of these days were excused. The schools get their funding on daily attendance. This is why I believe the law is not a good law. Because education used to be a privilege. People used to believe getting an education was something you had to be privileged to get, that you had to work hard to get. Now we basically force it down everybody’s throats. There are ways around it, of course. Arizona has some of the most lax homeschool laws. You just sign a waiver. But most parents aren’t going to do that. I believe education is still a privilege, and the kids who don’t want to be there are a larger distraction to the kids who do want to be there. We’re telling kids they have to go to school, and we put fences around the schools to protect them now, and we give them a meal or two and sometimes send a backpack of food home with them. So now schools are not only tasked with educating our children, but also feeding our children. What happened to the personal responsibility of a parent to feed and educate their kids?
From WTF Happened today:
3/ Republican and Democratic lawmakers to Trump: hand over the transcript of the meeting with the Russians.
poll/ 48% of voters support impeaching Trump 🚨
edited 16th May '17 9:55:04 AM by sgamer82
The Trump presidency is like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, except instead of a Mole in Charge harnessing British intelligence as a Russian weapon against the American target, it's a Mole in Charge harnessing American intelligence as a Russian weapon against the European target.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."I'm starting to think Trump really is a Mole in Charge, since I have a hard time believing anyone that stupid and careless could live to be 70 without somehow choking to death on a slice of the overpriced chocolate cake from Mar-a-lago he tried to shill while gushing about the missile strike on Iraq Syria.
Sure they do. That's why the bulk of right-wing media is pretending away the Russia story. Hell, you yourself admit it—they think American Liberals are a greater threat to national security than Vladimir Putin. I hate to break it to you, but once someone embraces an attitude as warped as that, they no longer care about actual national security concerns, or for that matter, objective reality.
I also like being told what I really mean. It gives me lots of reasons to believe that someone is debating in good faith. Good try at both sider-ism though.
Good luck with that. The rural white working class hasn't gone for the Democrats since the Democrats stopped being the party of racism, and there's a reason for that.
Don't think anybody said they were. Last I checked though, the rural black poor, rural Hispanic poor, etc, didn't put Trump in office.
@TheWanderer: I'm all for repealing compulsory education, but only if having a high school diploma or GED is made mandatory to be able to vote.
Really, though, it just has to be rewritten so that excused absences are not counted against the total. If your kid is chronically ill and has to frequently miss class due to medical appointments or the like, it shouldn't be counted as truancy.
edited 16th May '17 9:59:33 AM by danime91
It isnt. That guy is an idiot.
@Septimus: "The rural working class. Not all rural working class people are white. Culturally anxious white working class people are probably going to stay with Trump."
Your point about rural minorities is well taken. On the other hand, if this latest economic "recovery" leaves them behind like all the others did, the economically anxious may well be swingable.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Well, that article a while ago did argue that white working class people with actual economic issues voted mostly for Hillary. So that pool might be maxed out. And Trump carried some places on what little support he got from rural Hispanics, such as in Yuma County.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanCompulsory education exists not (just) for the good of the students, but for the good of the country. A higher education level is better for the country at large — it has knock-on effects on everything from the economy (educated workers are more productive) to the military (it's easier to train and command soldiers when you can assume basic literacy) to a whole hell of a lot of other things.
Removing compulsory education by itself probably wouldn't be a disaster, because most people would probably continue to go as long as public schools remain free to attend (and those that wouldn't would probably have dropped out anyway, compulsory or not). But it's definitely a step in the wrong direction.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I understand that thinking long term may be a luxury at this point but is there any way to ensure that this shitshow doesn't happen again? Sure, we may be able to get people to swing Democrat for an election or two but I don't see the Conservative media bubble being affected. In 8 years, they could put on another incompetent idiot who threatens US interests.
Are there any ideas out there on how to prevent this?

The thing that Krugman is trying to say is that we are at a point where deficit spending may not do much good since any increase in demand is likely to be offset by increased inflation.
It is a bit of an overly conservative estimation to make I think, but if it's true I don't think it speaks well of the long-term health of the nation.
edited 16th May '17 8:29:43 AM by Mio