Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

????

Not that I agree with everything he wrote in absolute terms but I don't think the author is trying to convince me to do that. He does lay out a good case for the destructiveness of identity politics on a strong liberal democracy dedicated to protecting the liberty of all.

Libertarianism is dead. When you accept this reality, your political stance changes from one of less government to trying to mitigate the damage of a large government. I'm still Right/Libertarian at heart, but I realize that the political viability of this movement is zero. Everything that I see now in traditional Right Wing sources that still operates under the assumption that Libertarian stances on economic issues can win is an article that ignores reality.

The author labors under the delusion that there is some magic potion that is going to put an end to Left Wing oriented ethnic nationalism. You could probably find this idea rephrased in fifty different National Review OpEds dating back to the 1980s. This has been the official Republican stance on the issue since the Regan years. I have a lot of respect for Ronald Reagan, but he was catastrophically naive in this area. 30-40 years of trying to convince blacks, Hispanics, and Asians of the virtues of the Constitution and the merits of Milton Friedman's ideas have failed miserably. The author either ignores or is unaware of the reams of data showing why this would never work, ignoring also in the meantime the negative consequences of charging down the Open Borders road that we have been on. The author also makes the case that white ethnic nationalism is more dangerous because whites are the majority, forgetting that whites will not be the majority in a generation or so, depending upon what assumptions you use for immigration, amnesty, and birth rates. What happens then?

[Kapture1]

Talent- This one's for you and puts things better than I ever could

Why right-wing identity politics is more dangerous than left-wing identity politics ever will be. From the libertarian magazine Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2019/03/...litics-is-more

left wing identity politics is driving right wing identity politics, and they're both dangerous

[Hannibal]

With all the EC talk, this is worth bringing up. Expected changes in apportionment after 2020. Texas and Florida the only two states to gain 2-3 representatives. Virtually every state around the Great Lakes will lose at least one seat. But also Alabama and (possibly) California.

https://www.electiondataservices.com...s-20181219.pdf

This brings up another interesting possibility regarding "reform". What if instead of ditching the EC, we simply raise the cap on the number of Representatives above 435? That could be changed with legislation and not a constitutional amendment. In theory each member of Congress is supposed to represent just over 700,000 people. That number will only continue to get larger, at a rate faster than a lot of states grow. At the start of the 20th century it was only about 190,000.

The chart below has a column showing the number of people each electoral vote represents. In Texas, each electoral vote represents ~750,000 people. In Wyoming, it's not even 200,000. Allowing for an expansion of the House for the first time in over a century would go towards correcting the imbalance. And plenty of red states like Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri would benefit from this as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population

To me, sensible reform might be to just do away with the "winner take all" approach. The winner gets the two "Senator" EVs and the candidates split the rest based on their share of the vote in the state. It would definitely have people campaigning in California and New York though. I'm not sure how much effect that would have since the candidates already get so much exposure that it's pretty easy to figure out who you want to vote for.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yeah, I'm largely with Hannibal on this. I think the practical reality is that it is the left-wing identity politics that has hegemony and the ability to effectuate direct outcomes. Right-wing shit barely moves the needle and barely gets anything done. It's only really effective as a political tool in reaction to the gross overreach of the left.

There is zero chance that in the US the ethno-nationalist folks are going to ever win or control the agenda. At most you may, MAY get some sort of immigration restrictions comparable to those in, say, 2005. The Horror! Or you may end up with race-based decisions being outlawed. The Horror!

However, there is a huge chance (and according to Hannibal, an absolute certainty) that left-wing identify politics will win. And because people like the writer admire the goals thereof they WILL implement policies. Socially, they already do.

So, anyone who thinks that right-wing identity politics is a bigger threat than left-wing identity politics is brazenly ignoring the realities of the US. Or, to quote Hannibal:



That said, I mostly agree with the critiques of each. At least in respect to the stated problems with each. But, again, I think the assumption that right-wing identity politics is majoritarian is laughably wrong. It requires us ignore all those effete, self-hating white folks that drive the progressive movement.

To the extent that you portray right-wing ethno-nationalistists as cowardly, pathetic, hopeless, bungling, incompetent losers, too stupid to ever gain control of society and better suited to cower in a rural Michigan basement somewhere, I am in complete agreement. Glad the piece brought us together.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Libertarianism is dead. When you accept this reality, your political stance changes from one of less government to trying to mitigate the damage of a large government. I'm still Right/Libertarian at heart, but I realize that the political viability of this movement is zero. Everything that I see now in traditional Right Wing sources that still operates under the assumption that Libertarian stances on economic issues can win is an article that ignores reality.

The author labors under the delusion that there is some magic potion that is going to put an end to Left Wing oriented ethnic nationalism. You could probably find this idea rephrased in fifty different National Review OpEds dating back to the 1980s. This has been the official Republican stance on the issue since the Regan years. I have a lot of respect for Ronald Reagan, but he was catastrophically naive in this area. 30-40 years of trying to convince blacks, Hispanics, and Asians of the virtues of the Constitution and the merits of Milton Friedman's ideas have failed miserably. The author either ignores or is unaware of the reams of data showing why this would never work, ignoring also in the meantime the negative consequences of charging down the Open Borders road that we have been on. The author also makes the case that white ethnic nationalism is more dangerous because whites are the majority, forgetting that whites will not be the majority in a generation or so, depending upon what assumptions you use for immigration, amnesty, and birth rates. What happens then?

Thanks ....... I see your point. Arguments on the subject article are going to be varied in hypothesis and jumping off point. The article is certainly provocative and sets a stage for a decent back and forth on viewpoints. The venue we have in this forum for such a back and forth, however, isn't great. I'm reluctant to dive in. I will offer that I'm not certain the argument you offer diminishes the destructiveness of the clash between the two sides of identity politics on liberal democracy.

I think you probably recognize that. Folks who have a clear picture of the destructive nature of the battle inherent in the two sides of identity politics, and probably not everyone thinks there is a risk to liberal democracy because of it, are going to fairly disagree on how to mitigate the damage.

[Jeff Buchanan]

left wing identity politics is driving right wing identity politics, and they're both dangerous

I don't think the Peterson video was intended to support your POV. If it did, it doesn't. Peterson is calling for Americans who identify with a group, who behave in ways that make you identifiable with a group - left or right - to rise above that sort of identity politics and act responsibly as individuals. Makes sense.

That is one of many hypotheses that Shikha Dalmia, in his linked article, puts out there. He offers this at the outset of his article:

Lord Acton

So, Dalmhia offers that cultural homogeneity that the right insists on is as dangerous (he offers more dangerous - I'm not sure about that) than the left overplaying its insistence on "forced programs of diversity." ......the author lays out a strong case for this; I'm bothered by his use of the adjective, "forced." Too strong. The right (Conservatives and Libertarians) are in a position to resist legislation that inappropriately grants an advantage to "minorities" (diverse races).

[Ghengis Jon]

I wonder if is going to publicly rage about Hillary Kushner?


???????https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/polit...unt/index.html

[Dr. Strangelove]

The deranged Trump fan who sent pipe bombs to dozens of politicians and tv personalities switched his plea to guilty on 65 counts today

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alleged-mail-bomber-cesar-sayoc-pleads-guilty-devices-were-sent-n985786

[froot loops]

The deep state or Q got to him.

[Kapture1]

I don't think the Peterson video was intended to support your POV. If it did, it doesn't. Peterson is calling for Americans who identify with a group, who behave in ways that make you identifiable with a group - left or right - to rise above that sort of identity politics and act responsibly as individuals. Makes sense.

"Well, having the right degenerate into identity politics does not seem to be a positive solution. So one of the things I would say is that, like, I understand why the identity politics that have been practiced so incidiously and so devastatingly by the left has been co-oped by the right, I understand that...."

[Dr. Strangelove]

Nazis were the original internet trolls

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/mosque-shooter-troll-like-original-nazis/585415/

Now relax, Talent, I'm not saying Trump = Hitler or Trump = nazi. I just found a lot of the quotes regarding Nazi contempt for the truth to be pretty striking and relevant today. Prticularly these two:

a New York Times reporter

[Dr. Strangelove]

Hit an ominous marker today. Hopefully stuff like this scares President No Collusion into holding off on his auto tariffs.

[THE_WIZARD_]

^{you never see...
...a cogent post by hack...
...a short and to the point post by Buchanan...}

[froot loops]

The final nail in the coffin

[iam416]

a New York Times reporter

That's almost a word-for-word self-decription from your hero, Palin-Cortez. So, yeah. ("People get too caught up in facts")