Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

That’s a lot of paint!

[iam416]

Ranting about "coastal elites" and expressing hatred of places like San Francisco and NYC is completely ubiquitous in conservative circles.

I will always love this piece by Kevin Williamson and will continue enjoying to post it once a quarter or so, heh

Cities -- Conservatives’ Message to America’s Metropolitan Areas Must Improve | National Review

I honestly wonder what Williamson would say about American cities at this point in time -- a mere 4 years later -- but, fuck man...we've seen a few cities go nearly all-in on Prog policies. We've seen NYC revert to an ostensibly "tough on crime" -- or at least not "criminals are misunderstood" -- mayor who has the audacity to think homeless camps might be an issue. We've see SF school board members recalled for utter nonsense. We've all seen the unfettered shoplifting. Traditionally liberal Ds are bitching about people shitting the in the street in SF.

Now, none of these places are going to vote R. That's for damn sure.These are all complaints to be sorted in primaries not the general. BUT, I do think it's clear that some cities are wildly different than they were in 2018. And it's also obvious that not all cities are the same. Columbus is not Seattle. Miami is not NYC. Dallas is not San Francisco. I do think it's fair to point to actual, you know, coastal elite cities and ask -- "is that what you want?"

[Dr. Strangelove]

I honestly wonder what Williamson would say about American cities at this point in time -- a mere 4 years later -- but, fuck man...we've seen a few cities go nearly all-in on Prog policies. We've seen NYC revert to an ostensibly "tough on crime" -- or at least not "criminals are misunderstood" -- mayor who has the audacity to think homeless camps might be an issue. We've see SF school board members recalled for utter nonsense. We've all seen the unfettered shoplifting. Traditionally liberal Ds are bitching about people shitting the in the street in SF.

Now, none of these places are going to vote R. That's for damn sure. These are all complaints to be sorted in primaries not the general. BUT, I do think it's clear that some cities are wildly different than they were in 2018. And it's also obvious that not all cities are the same. Columbus is not Seattle. Miami is not NYC. Dallas is not San Francisco. I do think it's fair to point to actual, you know, coastal elite cities and ask -- "is that what you want?"

No, a Republican candidate for President is unlikely to win New York City, but they COULD win closer to 40% instead of 15-20% if they moderated the message somewhat instead of playing exclusively to base and hammering home that they view New Yorkers as "Un-American". I don't think it's utterly impossible that a Republican could be mayor of NYC in the next decade. Do you?

[Mike]

I agree that they need to do better in big cities. Frankly, it shouldn't be that difficult given all the ammunition handed to them since 2020.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I said nothing of the sort. Progs continually say that Trump was authoritarian, and I simply presented an argument why that is not true. As Talent often points out, we do know what is factually true.

I'm against Trump as the R nominee because of guys like Tom and Mike. Why should the Rs take a chance on Trump? Someone above said something like " 81 million voted against orangeman bad". Mostly true. Trump Derangement Syndrom is a real thing, and there are many voters against Trump. Why take that chance when you have someone like DeSantis waiting in the wings. That is not a hard decision for me. But I would vote for Trump over Butt-itch-itch or any other D prospect.

Your extreme partisanship clouds your judgment. We know that Russia did not invade under Trump. We know the economy was booming after the tax cuts and prior to the pandemic. We know Trump called out China in the economic sphere, and in their genocide of the Uygers.

But I'll give you two things Trump did wrong:

1. He shut down the economy. All the idiotic decisions made by the government follow this tragic mistake; rent waivers, holiday on payment of student debt, interest-free loans to businesses, $ 15.00 / hr EXTRA to those out of work, all of it follows from one tragic decision. My buddy, THE WIZARD, can wax eloquent about this if you wish.

2. He was not presidential at all. That matters a lot.

Agree with the resident fogey

[Jeff Buchanan]

Geezer, you can be off-putting despite your apparent intelligence. It's a fault of yours that often stifles useful discourse and sharing of ideas. I don't give a shit about who an essayist or journalist writes for as a means of discrediting them. WTF. Amanpour, "a French elitist and Marxist", give me a fucking break. I find it hard to believe you find that kind of argument useful..... but apparently you do. Even though I might find an essayist's argument weak, a journalist's commentary left or right or one whose opinion I don't agree with, I still listen to it respectfully. Broadens one's perspective. The next step is to deconstruct his/her argument if you disagree with it. Discrediting the person or the source as you attempted to do as a means of dismissing what he/she had to say is weak. You're better than that.

Lets get back to my original post that prompted an informed, respectful discussion from folks I respect here about the presence of a political divide in the US that is widening by what appears to me, among others, as the normalization of extremism on both sides of that divide. Is there a looming civil war? Fuck no and I didn't assert that I personally believed there is one. Mike points out that the loons on each side are small in number and may have an out sized impact on perceptions of the ideological course that America is following. Social media augments what the loons say potential making perceptions more distorted from reality I agree. IOW, I assume Mike falls in the camp of observers of American life who, like me, don't think a civil war is looming. Giglio on the other had would be a 7 on that scale compared to me who is maybe a 4 or 5, talent and Mike a 2 or 3.

Nevertheless, I'd argue that the political divide is wide enough, the two sides, by all appearances, so angry with each other, so intent on making a point along with a scene that shit like January 6th happens. January 6th persuades me to believe the divide is real . If you don't, Geezer, deconstruct the argument Giglio is advancing in his chronology of Stephen Rhodes's long relationship with Oath Keepers and the ideology that group is advancing. BTW, I thought talent did a good job of that. IMO, your effort to do that sucked and added little to the conversation.

Geeze, you might want to have a look at Giglio's bio at the link below. He's substantive, IMO. I thought his interview on Amanpour demonstrated that.

https://www.mikegiglio.com/bio

[Hannibal]

No, a Republican candidate for President is unlikely to win New York City, but they COULD win closer to 40% instead of 15-20% if they moderated the message somewhat instead of playing exclusively to base and hammering home that they view New Yorkers as "Un-American". I don't think it's utterly impossible that a Republican could be mayor of NYC in the next decade. Do you?

"moderate the message" isnt the same thing as "don't shit on them". Other than Trump vis-a-vis Baltimore I can't think of a Republican who has done something like the latter.

[Jeff Buchanan]

The population of actual Right Wing extremists in the country wouldn't' fill a MAC football stadium.

That's a fuckton of loons capable of mobilizing sheepel. I don't think Rhodes is a loon, an extremist or insurrectionist. He's a Yale educated Lawyer. I don't believe the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys are insurrectionist groups. What I do believe from the Giglio piece is that Rhode's, no matter how you want to label him, is persuasive and capable of mobilizing people to disruptive ideologies that are cloaked in traditional conservative values and ideas. January 6th happened, the Oath Keepers where there and allegedly organized their collective actions in advance. January 6th should never have happened but it did and to me is de facto evidence that the political divide in America is wide enough, severe enough and significant enough to facilitate it.

[iam416]

No, a Republican candidate for President is unlikely to win New York City, but they COULD win closer to 40% instead of 15-20% if they moderated the message somewhat instead of playing exclusively to base and hammering home that they view New Yorkers as "Un-American". I don't think it's utterly impossible that a Republican could be mayor of NYC in the next decade. Do you?

An extremely moderate R/Clinton D. Sure. I mean, Larry Hogan is Gov of Maryland. It's not some sort of impossible ask.

But, I do think there's an opportunity to change the message to, more or less, are THESE the people you want running things? There's a definite opportunity to focus on crime, too.

That said, the almost impossible hill to climb is AA voters. At least for now. AAs are pretty much the only demographic that votes single party. Every other demographic is far more of a bell curve. Some are 60/40 D; some are reverse. But, the distribution is there and there's a chance to win over voters. 95/5 ain't a chance. It's death. So, IMO, the real messaging issue for Rs is to AAs.

In NYC, I think 25% of the population is AA. At current rates, that means the Rs lose that 23-2. That means, in order to get to "closer to 40%" the Rs would need to go 38-37 with the remaining 75%. C'mon.

So, I think the "city" issue often is just a reflection of the AA issue.

Also, I'd get back to what I said -- cities are different. NYC and SF are very left. The Rs do, in fact, come close to 40% in, say, Columbus. They're probably closer to 50% in Cincinnati. But, in truly Prog enclaves, there's just no hope. It's like the Ds figuring out how to run better in Idaho. There's no messaging that's going to persuade that electorate -- as currently constituted.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Jeff, you must be doing something right because you continually get blasted from both the left and right.

Heh, I'm for equal opportunity stupidity here.

[iam416]

Jackson is confirmed to the Court by a vote of 53-47. 3 Rs voted for her. In case you're keeping track 4 Ds, total, voted for the last 3 justices. 4. Total.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Well don't sell yourself short JB...you are the Lord of the Stupid...

[AlabamAlum]

So, JB is your lord, Wiz? Scott Frost will be upset.

[Mike]

Frost is Lord of the Inept.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Jackson is confirmed to the Court by a vote of 53-47. 3 Rs voted for her. In case you're keeping track 4 Ds, total, voted for the last 3 justices. 4. Total.

Worked out well for Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donnelly.

I forgot that Manchin didn't vote for Barrett (he voted for Gorsuch and Kav). He put out a statement ripping McConnell

Manchin Votes Against Supreme Court Nominee Process | U.S. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia (senate.gov)