Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

I don't know if the GOP knows anything. I'm seeing scant evidence of introspection and realistic reflection. There's a tiny bit here and there but neither the Mitt Romney types nor the National Review types seem to understand what happened.

I wonder if the Trumpkins will understand what happened when he goes down in flames. I mean, seriously...I wonder if they will take accountability for Trump's failure as a candidate. Or if they'll just blame the "establishment" for "rigging" the election.

[Mike]

The latter. 100% the latter. And he, of course, will fan the flames the whole time.

[iam416]

I read some piece somewhere about immigration the other day. It talked about how the D Machines gobbled up Irish immigrants to consolidate power, and then Italian immigrants. And now Hispanic immigrants. But it talked about how several generations later, there is no Irish vote or Italian vote -- they're just the dreaded "white" vote. I'm not sure there's any reason the same won't happen for Hispanics. Nearly every ethnic group in the US eventually votes its class/social/economic interest -- i.e., ceases to be a monolithic vote. Except for AAs, of course.

[iam416]

The latter. 100% the latter.

No doubt in my mind.

[Hannibal]

I wonder if the Trumpkins will understand what happened when he goes down in flames. I mean, seriously...I wonder if they will take accountability for Trump's failure as a candidate. Or if they'll just blame the "establishment" for "rigging" the election.

There has to be a realistic post-mortem and an honest discussion of everyone's failures. Trump's failures are obvious, but they are also irrelevant for future elections unless another loudmouthed billionaire businessman comes along next time. What's more relevant to me is how the Republican establishment embraced Left Wing SJW language to bash Trump and continuously lived in denial about why he was popular. The Republican Party repeatedly criticized Trump with harsher language during this election than they ever used to criticize Obama. IMHO any "where do we go from here now?" analysis needs to start there. The Republican mentality has to change. Appeasement has to be abandoned in favor of actually winning. There needs to be a look at which of Trump's positions the public will support if the candidate's personalities are not a factor. There needs to be a lot of brainstorming done on how to battle back against "racism" charges without surrendering the substance of your positions, and also without giving the other side more ammunition, a mystery that nobody has solved yet.

I read some piece somewhere about immigration the other day. It talked about how the D Machines gobbled up Irish immigrants to consolidate power, and then Italian immigrants. And now Hispanic immigrants. But it talked about how several generations later, there is no Irish vote or Italian vote -- they're just the dreaded "white" vote. I'm not sure there's any reason the same won't happen for Hispanics. Nearly every ethnic group in the US eventually votes its class/social/economic interest -- i.e., ceases to be a monolithic vote. Except for AAs, of course.

All of this is from the pre-multiculturalism and the pre-welfare state era. If you want to envision how America's immigrants will assimilate going forward, a better point of reference would be to look at the various ethnic groups in Europe and the Middle East and take now of how centuries of racial identity politics have led to endless strife and no assimilation.

[iam416]

An interesting factoid re NC Voter ID law -- in the 2010 mid-term elections, 40% of AAs voted; in the 2014 mid-term elections, with the evil law in place, 42% of AAs voted.

Seems like AAs aren't quite the invalids Ds make them out to be. Seems like they actually have IDs and can muster up the intellect to comply with straight-forward rules. Go figure

[iam416]

What's more relevant to me is how the Republican establishment embraced Left Wing SJW language to bash Trump and continuously lived in denial about why he was popular. The Republican Party repeatedly criticized Trump with harsher language during this election than they ever used to criticize Obama. IMHO any "where do we go from here now?" analysis needs to start there.

Completely disagree re Trump v Obama, but that's neither here nor there. I agree with the point, but I don't think the answer is to adopt Trumpism whole hog. The answer is to pick up on the 2 or 3 messages that most resonated and find ways to fit them into the R party.

It's completely sane to take argue that you're going to pass laws, they ought to be enforced. You may also be able to take commonsense approaches to immigrants from Islamic countries. And I think you can very much take the Orwellian SJW bullshit to task. I would probably do it a little differently -- say in the egregious campus shit that happens -- that's political gold.

I think the toughest reconciliation is trade deals. There's no way Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan Rs are going to go protectionist.

All of this is from the pre-multiculturalism and the pre-welfare state era. If you want to envision how America's immigrants will assimilate going forward, a better point of reference would be to look at the various ethnic groups in Europe and the Middle East and take now of how centuries of racial identity politics have led to endless strife and no assimilation.

Yeah, I don't agree with this.

[Da Geezer]

Hack: The phrase "free-market capitalism" has always seemed redundant to me too. But it developed as China moved from a socialist, command, economy to a more capitalist-oriented consumer economy. The differentiation in China is that the Party still controls the "commanding heights" (Lenin's phrase) of the economy. Free-market capitalism is generally used for those (few) economies where private parties make decisions for major industries. Incidentally, capitalism has raised BILLIONS of humans out of poverty, but, hey, who cares?

I'd really like to see you deal with the first proposition, that of how a society deals with the fact of a population that is more than 50% on the dole in one way or the other.


Talent: IMO, you are essentially correct in your view that the Rs do now and will in the future control many state and local units of government. This is because local elections attract a much lower turnout than national elections, and those who turn out know more about issues and candidates. The Gimmedats (nice word, Hanni) show up for those elections for national office, particularly President.

I think one needs to take this one step further. The reason that the Supreme Court should be the driver in decision-making when voting this election is that the SC is the vehicle that applies "elite opinion" to the entire nation. "States rights" has taken on the aura of "racist", but it really was supposed to mean that the states determine local matters. Americans often left one state and moved to another state when the political winds in the original state became to unpalatable. The activist SC has made the option of moving to another state useless now. The SC has also usurped the right of Americans to vote on social issues. Has any state actually approved gay marriage by referendum? Probably so, but certainly more states have voted against gay marriage than for gay marriage (by a vote of the people).

This election is about the SC. Period. That is why looking to a resurgence in 2020 or so is not reasonable from a moderate point of view. This is not 1964. Once Hillary makes the appointment of three 45-year-old Ginsberg clones (replacing Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsberg), it is game-over.

Again, if Gary Johnson would give a list of his choices for the SC like Trump did, he could certainly get on the debate stage. Of course, I'm the guy who voted for Perot in 1992.

[iam416]

The Supreme Court is important re "states rights" only insofar as it address Chevron deference and the massive, massive expansion of a regulatory state with virtually no accountability. But you can get at regulatory power through the Executive. So 2020 matters a great deal in, e.g., walking back the DoE's ridiculous Campus crap or the EPA's designation of carbon dioxide -- a basis for life on Earth -- as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (instead of actually legislating the issue).

Social issues -- whatever -- win or lose, the economic impact is minimal. Expansive regulatory power is not.

[Hannibal]

Yeah, I don't agree with this.

Why not? AAs are stil voting as a bloc because of racial identity politics and multiculturalism. Hispanics and Muslims are in the exact same environment and subject to the exact same factors. And the long term results will be the same. The experience of ethnic minority groups around the world throughout history gives me no reason to expect otherwise.

[Da Geezer]

Hanni said:

Bullshit. When they got pushback from the public sector unions on collective bargaining rights they folded instantly without any attempt to defend restrictions on those rights, which IMHO are very reasonable and necessary.

Correct. The biggest problem in the US today is the public sector unions electing those with whom they allegedly bargain. Fix this, and much else gets fixed as a result.

[Hannibal]

Completely disagree re Trump v Obama, but that's neither here nor there. I agree with the point, but I don't think the answer is to adopt Trumpism whole hog. The answer is to pick up on the 2 or 3 messages that most resonated and find ways to fit them into the R party.

It's completely sane to take argue that you're going to pass laws, they ought to be enforced. You may also be able to take commonsense approaches to immigrants from Islamic countries. And I think you can very much take the Orwellian SJW bullshit to task. I would probably do it a little differently -- say in the egregious campus shit that happens -- that's political gold.
.

IMHO the solution is anti-political correctness and nationalism. This is a very broad umbrella, huge tent approach that captures a lot of what has defined the Republican Party since Goldwater, plus leaving room to debate on some of the issues like abortion and free trade. You retain Conservative attitudes about hard work and American exceptionalism. America first, protect our borders. Fuck political correctness.

[hack]

Yeah, that's short-sighted. As I said/predicted, the GOP will assrail the Ds in 2018.

I get that Ds can promise and endless amount of benefits despite the economic impossibility of it all -- FREE COLLEGE FOR ALL!

They might. We'll see. I know you see things mostly as business as usual, or at least that's the message you want to project. I don't know about that. I think we're at the end of the post-cold war era and changes are coming. I've used the pendulum analogy. I don't know whether this happens in this four-year cycle or if it's 2 or 3 down the road, but it's coming.

Analysis of the free-tuition proposal is an example. We're coming out of the period in which we ask whether government can pay, and just leave it at that. A full cost-benefit analysis would examine whether it's better to funnel student cash through banks to university endowments, where it will then be redirected to low-risk securities, or to have that cash in the hands of young people who might buy cars and houses and dishwashers and whatnot. But, regardless of the underlying ideas, like I said, the pendulum swings. We're tried the former and there is an appetite for the latter.

[iam416]

Hanni:

I tend to think of the Hispanic "bloc" as generally hard-working and, well, religious. I think, at bottom, they're more conservative than not. The thing is -- if you come here, work your ass and succeed then you're drifting right or at least to personal accountability. My guess is we view Hispanic immigration differently. If your view is that they tend to be welfare-state recipients, then I get your conclusion.

I'm more inclined to look at Asian or Indian-Americans for a point of reference than I am to Europe.

JMO. If I'm still posting here when and if this is borne out, then please shoot me. That is, if we can still own guns.

[Da Geezer]

The Supreme Court is important re "states rights" only insofar as it address Chevron deference and the massive, massive expansion of a regulatory state with virtually no accountability. But you can get at regulatory power through the Executive. So 2020 matters a great deal in, e.g., walking back the DoE's ridiculous Campus crap or the EPA's designation of carbon dioxide -- a basis for life on Earth -- as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (instead of actually legislating the issue).

Agreed. I don't mean to imply only social issues are determined by the SC. Excess regulations cost $ 1.9 Trillion annually out of a $18 Trillion economy. Obama has proven that the Executive can and will "override" the will of Congress.

For example, Congress specifically rejected "comprehensive immigration reform" but Obama put it in place by executive order. Some federal courts enjoined him, and the SC backed the lower courts 5-4 or 4-4. The new appointee will allow such action 5-4.

What this entails, in all its iterations, is a few people overriding the will of the majority of voters. It doesn't matter if it is the actual SC in matters like abortion in 1973, or the Executive bureaucracy (supported by the SC) today. It is all the same and it is called statism.