[Suits]

Roy Moore is behaving like a liberal. You can't win an election by simply choosing to ignore reality.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(12-15-2017 01:38 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:14 AM)therealpoder Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:27 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

I have been looking for actual evidence that Hispanics support the welfare state. I haven't found any. Since the Red Team and the Blue Team are BOTH socialists and champions of the welfare state, a vote for a Red Socialist or a Blue Socialist signifies nothing.

The only reason that Hispanics are voting for the Blue Socialists is the fact that the Blue Socialists have been a lot less xenophobic than the Red Socialists. Thirty years ago, the Hispanic vote was split about evenly between the Red Socialists and the Blue Socialists.

I disagree. Aside from Chile, which had the free market imposed on them by dictatorship, no Latin American country is that economically free.

According to the 2017 Economic Freedom of the World Index, the most economically free Latin American country after Chile is Costa Rica, which ranks 35. Chile is 15, the United States is 11.

Not to mention that election after election, Hispanics vote Democrat. What more evidence do you need that Hispanics support bigger government?

Those Hispanics are staying in those countries. They never come here, so they don't matter. Do you think they are exactly the same as people who leave their countries?

You can't determine motive in a prisoner's dilemma scenario, which is what voting is. Since Republicans are also a party of big government, a vote for a Democrat over a Republican means nothing.

Do you have any evidence via referendum or initiatives? That would actually prove something. Picking one socialist over another socialist means nothing.

Actually it matters shitloads if one of those socialists is moving towards genociding your race and the other isn't.

[Number one bummer]

(12-15-2017 01:48 AM)Suits Wrote:  

Roy Moore is behaving like a liberal. You can't win an election by simply choosing to ignore reality.

I'd argue liberals won the election by in fact ignoring reality, via false rape allegations...

[therealpoder]

(12-14-2017 11:06 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 07:35 AM)therealpoder Wrote:  

Quote:

If Hispanics identify alternately to whites then they will vote alternately to whites

Eliminate the category of Hispanic on the census?

It’s unclear to me why “Hispanic” is on the census. “Hispanic” wasn’t a category until 1970 and there is nothing really tying Hispanics other than some claim of ancestry to a Latin American country. You don’t have to speak Spanish or Portuguese to be Hispanic and there are white Argentines, Brazilians with Japanese ancestry, mestizo Mexicans and black Dominicans and yet they are all considered “Hispanic”. Even though most Hispanic Immigration is coming from Mexico there are a lot of Mexicans that look white.

The problem of the government officially recognizing groups is that it allows the government to grant benefits to said groups and to push for their own interests. Hell, if the Irish or Somalians or any other group were officially recognized, it gives an incentive for them to engage in identity politics too. And in fact, many white ethnics were identified as separate groups in the past.

Since 53 of Hispanics identity as white already, it’s best to just eliminate the Hispanic category, most Hispanics will be lumped into the white group and it undercuts “Hispanics” looking out for their interests. It would also help to make English an official language too.

Reminds me of this book I read...

thread-51287...=hispanics

Most Hispanics considered themselves white until about 1980 when the census created the Hispanics category.

Great review. Pretty much confirms that identity politics is just a way for minority groups to get free stuff from the government. This interview with the author confirms this point

Quote:

Weren’t there enough Mexican Americans to warrant their own category?

In the 1970s, this was fine if you wanted to capture the California governor’s attention, but it wasn’t enough for capturing President Nixon or President Ford’s attention, and it certainly wasn’t enough for capturing the attention of East Coast politicians because many of them had never even met a Mexican. But when activists were able to cite the number of Cubans in Florida, Puerto Ricans in New York, Salvadorans in DC and Mexicans in the Southwest, and when they were able to argue that these groups were all connected and were all in need of resources for job training programs and bilingual education, then they were onto something. It was only then that activists could get federal attention – by making Latin American groups seem like part of a national constituency.

What do Hispanics have in common other than the Spanish language?

In many cases, they don’t even have that in common. You have the person whose great-grandmother came from Argentina, but has never visited Latin America, and does not speak Spanish, lumped into the exact same category as a Guatemalan who just crossed the U.S. border.  One argument the book makes is that in order for all these government, market and political interests to come together, the category had to become broader in order to fit in all these ideas about Hispanics being consumers, or Hispanics being disadvantaged people. Over time, the Hispanic identity has become based on cultural generalities such as ‘We all love our families. We are all religious and we all have some connection to the Spanish language however far back that may be.’  That’s a weakness and a strength. It was because of that ambiguity that we have the large numbers who identify as Hispanic and who have made advances.  But when you have such a broad and opaque category it’s hard to elicit and sustain passion and commitment.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2014/04/29/hispanic-label/

(12-15-2017 01:38 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

Those Hispanics are staying in those countries. They never come here, so they don't matter. Do you think they are exactly the same as people who leave their countries?

I don’t see any evidence of that. I could see it if there was some kind of self selection process such as successful Cubans moving to Miami after Castro took power but that doesn’t seem the case. Most Hispanic immigration is from Mexico and all they have to do is cross a land border. There would not be any distinction between the immigrant, illegal or otherwise, that is for big or small government.

Quote:

You can't determine motive in a prisoner's dilemma scenario, which is what voting is. Since Republicans are also a party of big government, a vote for a Democrat over a Republican means nothing.

Do you have any evidence via referendum or initiatives? That would actually prove something. Picking one socialist over another socialist means nothing.

I would say you could get a good idea what policies a certain demographic values if that demographic votes for the same political party over time. If only men, whites, taxpayers, people over the age of 30 voted, Republicans would win in a landslide; these groups want smaller government and they consistently vote in the same way.

Hispanics, blacks, women and Muslims vote for bigger government and have consistently done so.

If they are both just the party of “big government” and there are no differences between the two, then why don’t white men vote for the Democrats? Why don’t 90% of blacks vote Republican? 44% percent of Hispanics did vote for George W. Bush in 2004, compared to 31% for McCain and 27% for Romney, but that is because he was pushing for amnesty. Even with George W. Bush supporting amnesty, he couldn’t win over Hispanic voters. What can be gleaned from this is that Hispanics want amnesty and even if they are given amnesty, Republicans will never get most of their votes and will likely return to voting for Democrats like they have previously.

This is the civic nationalist flaw: the idea that immigrants who come to the United States want to be American and will vote for smaller government. This idea is wrong. Many immigrants have no intention of giving up their identity and think being American means nothing more than having an American passport. Many immigrants want to live off the welfare state. Is it an accident that immigrants have higher welfare usage than natives? Many immigrants want to make the United States in the image of the place they came from. If not, then why are so many immigrants pushing for the United States to recognize the holidays and customs from the places they come from?

To make matters worse, there is absolutely no process of assimilation now nor any costs for immigrants maintaining the identity. At least in the past, the government forced immigrants to give up their prior identity, lack of technology made it harder for people to maintain ties with their former country and discrimination against immigrants was more acceptable. None of those factors exist anymore.

[Enoch]

Unfortunately this election proved to the dems and GOPe that character assassination on someone like Roy Moore can work.

Just wait until Paul Nehlen wins the R primary to take Paul Ryan's seat.

The guy was just on Fash the Nation and went ham.

[Tayo]

Poster is already banned.

[SlickyBoy]

(12-12-2017 11:53 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 10:26 PM)Only8sandup Wrote:  

Child molester should've dropped out. Any other normal Republican would've won the red state.

I'm not entirely sure I believe the accusers. I mean they had 40 fucking years to come forward and accuse him while he was running for judge positions. "Luckily" for Democrats they waited until he was just 2 months away from a key senatorial election. It's just too convenient to believe.

For anyone still interested, CH did a pretty good analysis of this.

Basically, Moore was looking for a young wife after being in all male environments (West Point, Vietnam, Harvard Law) until he finally returned to AL at nearly 30 years old. Might be weird him going for young but legal women at 30, but not a crime. The one incident where he touched a 14 year old on a date? Well, it was Alabama in the 1970s and a) neither she nor her family complained (they even kept dating for a bit) and b) it would have been legal just a few miles away in the next state over. Weird? Sure. But framing him as a serial child molester was a stretch.

If Moore was really a perv, he'd have kept on perving just like Clinton, Weiner, Wienstein, etc. - pervs don't stop being pervs. But for decades, no complaints against Moore. Then when it's politically expedient, these women - now aging cat ladies - all of a sudden decide retroactively that they were molested. Some of them probably tinged with regret at letting Moore get away.

Regardless, Moore wasn't the best candidate. He campaigned on things mid-term votes don't care all that much about like they did 20 years ago, not even down in AL. Abortion & scripture were not going to win the day. Hell, Trump is a pro-choice republican and he swept the state! Moore also hid out for the last month of his campaign. No surprise he blew it.

Mo Brooks was a much better candidate but Mitch the Bitch McConnell didn't like him because he's a member of the House Freedom Caucus, so he pushed for Luther Strange, who lost to Moore.

McConnell's involvement in the race at all probably tainted whatever chance Moore had as McConnell is correctly seen as part of the swamp.