Independents = white college kids who think that they can enact change by staying outside of the system of oppression maaaaaaaaaan.
Democrats = a range of voters from pragmatists to (hahahaha, not really) liberals who believe that government serves a valuable purpose, and should be curated as such.
Republicans = I dunno. Fuckin' nihilists I guess? They can't get their shit together. But they keep roflstompin the Democrats in non-presidential election years.
A lot of Republicans are in that party because of personal benefits. Lower taxes, less regulation on their industries, etc. Is that really so hard to understand? They are voting their self interest. People here often complain that people vote against their interests so. . .
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Independents = white college kids who think that they can enact change by staying outside of the system of oppression maaaaaaaaaan.
Democrats = a range of voters from pragmatists to (hahahaha, not really) liberals who believe that government serves a valuable purpose, and should be curated as such.
Republicans = I dunno. Fuckin' nihilists I guess? They can't get their shit together. But they keep roflstompin the Democrats in non-presidential election years.
A lot of Republicans are in that party because of personal benefits. Lower taxes, less regulation on their industries, etc. Is that really so hard to understand? They are voting their self interest. People here often complain that people vote against their interests so. . .
Culture, too. There are people who believe that the State allows a million babies to be murdered a year and there are people who don't want foreigners overrunning their nation. For them, the personal gain for voting Republican outweighs the potential economic gain from voting Democrat.
And for some people there might not even be an economic gain from voting Democrat- if you work at an arms manufacturer you're going to vote R to keep your job, if you work as a cook and don't want to be replaced by an illegal you vote R to keep illegals out, if you sell gold you vote Ron Paul etc.
"B-but Cap'n Marcus! That's not how abortions/immigration/buying gold wo-" Aaand that's why you're vote Democrat and they vote Republican. None of that crap has anything to do with getting laws passed though, and as an R I'm sorry for all the idiots in my party who think "politics" is another name for "let's hold America hostage". Tell them that they're acting like Iran in 1979 and their heads will explode.
Anyways, I blame the Internet for our political woes- it's far too easy to just interact with things that fit your worldview and never be challenged, and it makes surrounding yourself with IRL people who support your positions easier. Don't like your one-party home town? Move a thousand miles away! New city changes for the worse? Move again! God help us when the current generation takes power in 20 years, raised to view the entire opposition as a nefarious cabal of reincarnated Hitlers bent on destroying America.
This isn't new though. The Republicans fostered the John Birch society from its infancy to its modern incarnation. This is a beast a long time coming, created and supported by the dog whistles and then outright rhetoric of the party that wants govt just small enough to drown in the bathtub. There is no democratic equivalent except what? Hippies maybe?
Quite simply, given the history and record of the current group of republicans if you don't believe they are crazy then you aren't paying attention.
And if you believe that "the best person for the job" can be a republican then you similarly aren't paying attention because you must ignore the party behind him, who he will vote for for speaker, how his election influences committee chairs and the things they do.
Sometimes you can do that, maybe 10-20 years ago. But not now. Now you can only vote R if you aren't paying attention, are super rich, or want to blow it all up (alternate answers for racists and dominions are OK too)
God help us when the current generation takes power in 20 years, raised to view the entire opposition as a nefarious cabal of reincarnated Hitlers bent on destroying America.
That's what we have right now! Ben Carson can't go 4 hours without calling Democrats Nazis.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
God help us when the current generation takes power in 20 years, raised to view the entire opposition as a nefarious cabal of reincarnated Hitlers bent on destroying America.
That's what we have right now! Ben Carson can't go 4 hours without calling Democrats Nazis.
Its less view, and more fact, reinforced by the fact that Republicans cant go a week without reinforcing it and somehow lowering the bar even further.
God help us when the current generation takes power in 20 years, raised to view the entire opposition as a nefarious cabal of reincarnated Hitlers bent on destroying America.
That's what we have right now! Ben Carson can't go 4 hours without calling Democrats Nazis.
Its less view, and more fact, reinforced by the fact that Republicans cant go a week without reinforcing it and somehow lowering the bar even further.
Well, they're less a nefarious cabal and more a band of screeching howler monkeys*, but sure.
*With apologies to howler monkeys.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
California is now the second state to automatically register voters (or switch to an opt-out voter registration system, however you want to word it). Granted, California doesn't have that sweet synergy that Oregon does with its mail-in voting but it is another step.
Gov. Jerry Brown has approved legislation to make California the second state in the nation to begin automatically registering eligible voters when they obtain or renew their driver's licenses.
AB1461 by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, aims to boost California's voter rolls by registering visitors to the Department of Motor Vehicles and was among dozens of bills that Brown announced Saturday he had signed.
It follows Oregon's move earlier this year to adopt the nation's first automatic voter registration law.
The legislation backed by Democratic Secretary of State Alex Padilla calls for data collected by the DMV to be provided to the secretary of state's office, which would verify a resident's legal eligibility to vote before registering them. Drivers would have the option to opt out or cancel their voter registration at any time.
That's great. I wish it had been a state that's engaging in active voter suppression efforts but that isn't happening for obvious reasons.
Ironically, Florida's Supervisors of Elections did a good job telling Rick Scott to fuck off and serve as the last line of defense against Tea Party bullshit there. I do wish they got in on this action.
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) called the outcry over the state's mass closure of DMV offices after passing a photo voter ID law "race politics at its worst," in remarks to state Republican leaders in a closed-door meeting last week.
A recording of the Oct. 7 meeting was obtained by AL.com. In it, Bentley discussed with 17 members of the state GOP Steering Committee the Alabama budget woes that had prompted the closures and dismissed the concerns it would make harder for residents -- especially African-Americans in the rural regions particularly hard hit by the closures -- to vote.
Per Al.com's description of the recording:
"They are wrong on this issue," said Bentley. "Everyone can get a license and everyone can get a voter ID. They (critics) really don't have anything to talk about. It's politics at its worst. And it's race politics at its worst."
Bentley told the group that he had worked hard to help change the image of the state.
"Alabama is not George Wallace's state. I don't want it to be George Wallace's state." said Bentley. "I want us to be inclusive. I don't want us to look at the color of people's skin. I don't want us to look at whether they are male or female. We are all Alabamians and I'm their governor. I know most of them (blacks in the affected counties losing driver's license offices) are not going to vote Republican. But you are not going to win people over by not being inclusive."
In the recording, Bentley also suggested revenues would needed to be raised to ward off the budget issues the state was facing.
Voting rights groups sent a letter to the Obama administration Wednesday expressing their concern with what they say is a failure to comply with a voting registration law. The groups accused the administration of violating the National Voter Registration Act -- a 1993 law that expanded the opportunities for Americans to register to vote -- by not offering voting registration services through the federal healthcare exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act. The letter suggested potential for a lawsuit.
"We hope to avoid litigation, but we note that the NVRA includes a private right of action," the letter -- signed by the presidents of Demos, ProjectVote and League of Women Voters of the U.S -- states.
Similar lawsuits have been successfully brought against some states for not offering voting registration during certain public service programs. The law, also known as the "Motor Voter" Law, requires citizens seeking state services like drivers license applications, disability assistance, food stamps or Medicaid to have the ability to register to vote during those interactions.
Wednesday's letter notes that since the U.S. government took over Medicaid enrollment through the set-up of federal healthcare exchanges in states that did not set up their own exchanges, voter registration has gone down in some of those states:
For example, before the ACA was implemented, the number of voter registration applications submitted from Medicaid transactions in Mississippi was averaging around 900 per month. After the Medicaid enrollment process was taken over by the FFE in Mississippi, however, the average number of voter registrations per month dropped to only around 150. In Ohio, despite a significant increase in the number of people applying for Medicaid benefits, there has been no increase in the number of voter registrations from public assistance clients. In fact, the number has gone down since the ACA was enacted, dropping from almost 12,000 per month to approximately 10,000 a month. Overall, more than 3 million people have enrolled in Medicaid using healthcare.gov, and none of these individuals has been offered the voter registration services that federal law requires.
The voting rights groups also pointed to the summer's Supreme Court King v. Burwell ruling as buttressing their case. The ruling said that federal exchanges were legal and should function under the same requirements of the state exchanges.
"The undersigned groups and other voting rights advocates have been extremely patient in awaiting action on this important issue, understanding that the initial rollout of the ACA was challenging and that the King v. Burwell case created additional uncertainty while it was pending," the letter said.
"But King v. Burwell has now been decided and, as explained, the decision strongly supports the applicability of the NVRA. Furthermore, [the federal exchanges] have now gone through two successful open enrollment periods. There is no longer any good reason for not improving the voter registration services provided through the [federal exchanges]."
Voting rights groups sent a letter to the Obama administration Wednesday expressing their concern with what they say is a failure to comply with a voting registration law. The groups accused the administration of violating the National Voter Registration Act -- a 1993 law that expanded the opportunities for Americans to register to vote -- by not offering voting registration services through the federal healthcare exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act. The letter suggested potential for a lawsuit.
"We hope to avoid litigation, but we note that the NVRA includes a private right of action," the letter -- signed by the presidents of Demos, ProjectVote and League of Women Voters of the U.S -- states.
Similar lawsuits have been successfully brought against some states for not offering voting registration during certain public service programs. The law, also known as the "Motor Voter" Law, requires citizens seeking state services like drivers license applications, disability assistance, food stamps or Medicaid to have the ability to register to vote during those interactions.
Wednesday's letter notes that since the U.S. government took over Medicaid enrollment through the set-up of federal healthcare exchanges in states that did not set up their own exchanges, voter registration has gone down in some of those states:
For example, before the ACA was implemented, the number of voter registration applications submitted from Medicaid transactions in Mississippi was averaging around 900 per month. After the Medicaid enrollment process was taken over by the FFE in Mississippi, however, the average number of voter registrations per month dropped to only around 150. In Ohio, despite a significant increase in the number of people applying for Medicaid benefits, there has been no increase in the number of voter registrations from public assistance clients. In fact, the number has gone down since the ACA was enacted, dropping from almost 12,000 per month to approximately 10,000 a month. Overall, more than 3 million people have enrolled in Medicaid using healthcare.gov, and none of these individuals has been offered the voter registration services that federal law requires.
The voting rights groups also pointed to the summer's Supreme Court King v. Burwell ruling as buttressing their case. The ruling said that federal exchanges were legal and should function under the same requirements of the state exchanges.
"The undersigned groups and other voting rights advocates have been extremely patient in awaiting action on this important issue, understanding that the initial rollout of the ACA was challenging and that the King v. Burwell case created additional uncertainty while it was pending," the letter said.
"But King v. Burwell has now been decided and, as explained, the decision strongly supports the applicability of the NVRA. Furthermore, [the federal exchanges] have now gone through two successful open enrollment periods. There is no longer any good reason for not improving the voter registration services provided through the [federal exchanges]."
I haven't looked at King v Burwell specifically but
(4) the term "State" means a State of the United States and the District of Columbia; and
(5) the term "voter registration agency" means an office designated under section 1973gg-5(a)(1) of this title to perform voter registration activities.
A straight forward reading suggests that it doesn't apply to the federal government
And in the least surprising news ever, Kansas Secretary of State and major voter ID proponent Kris Kobach has ties to nativist bigots:
TSCP is a program run by U.S. Inc., a group created by John Tanton, who the SPLC calls the racist founder and principal ideologue of the modern nativist movement. The publishing house frequently runs race-baiting articles that argue that Muslim immigrants shouldn't be let into the United States or that Latinos are trying to "reclaim" the American Southwest. It has on staff a number of prominent white supremacists. Before becoming secretary of state, Kobach helped Arizona lawmakers to craft SB 1070, the infamous immigration law that passed in 2010, and then helped other states pass other similar measures to restrict immigration. Recently, he helped to lead the battle against President Obama's executive actions on immigration. He also serves as an attorney for the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which the SPLC lists as a hate group.
Independents = white college kids who think that they can enact change by staying outside of the system of oppression maaaaaaaaaan.
Democrats = a range of voters from pragmatists to (hahahaha, not really) liberals who believe that government serves a valuable purpose, and should be curated as such.
Republicans = I dunno. Fuckin' nihilists I guess? They can't get their shit together. But they keep roflstompin the Democrats in non-presidential election years.
A lot of Republicans are in that party because of personal benefits. Lower taxes, less regulation on their industries, etc. Is that really so hard to understand? They are voting their self interest. People here often complain that people vote against their interests so. . .
Culture, too. There are people who believe that the State allows a million babies to be murdered a year and there are people who don't want foreigners overrunning their nation. For them, the personal gain for voting Republican outweighs the potential economic gain from voting Democrat.
And for some people there might not even be an economic gain from voting Democrat- if you work at an arms manufacturer you're going to vote R to keep your job, if you work as a cook and don't want to be replaced by an illegal you vote R to keep illegals out, if you sell gold you vote Ron Paul etc.
"B-but Cap'n Marcus! That's not how abortions/immigration/buying gold wo-" Aaand that's why you're vote Democrat and they vote Republican. None of that crap has anything to do with getting laws passed though, and as an R I'm sorry for all the idiots in my party who think "politics" is another name for "let's hold America hostage". Tell them that they're acting like Iran in 1979 and their heads will explode.
Anyways, I blame the Internet for our political woes- it's far too easy to just interact with things that fit your worldview and never be challenged, and it makes surrounding yourself with IRL people who support your positions easier. Don't like your one-party home town? Move a thousand miles away! New city changes for the worse? Move again! God help us when the current generation takes power in 20 years, raised to view the entire opposition as a nefarious cabal of reincarnated Hitlers bent on destroying America.
To be fair, at least some of them work that way.
If you're a executive, or a manager, or, hell, a significant share-holder in General Dynamics, generally held as the world's fifth largest defense contractor, it's possible the two-party system means two things come election time:
1) A Democrat wins, which--honestly isn't too threatening, contrary to what rhetoric might get thrown around before the primaries. We've had eight years of a Democratic presidency and the United States, and national military expenditures sit comfortably at at least 40% of the world's total. So you're hardly hurting.
2) A Republican wins, which again is not a guarantee of change, is very unlikely to hurt your bottom line and, given the right circumstances--say, worsening relations with Iran or an even more aggressive defense bill being passed at the cost of something else--make result in huge purchases from companies like General Dynamics, which would directly help you out.
I think you can honestly say that literally no Republican who has a chance of winning the presidency will endeavor to reduce military spending (and even if one did, I doubt the rest of the party would let that stand). That doesn't mean it's not incredibly selfish and even rather short-sighted (or not--if literally everything you have is in General Dynamics or similar companies, the benefit might outweigh the harm to you--if you're investing millions in defense contractor shares, chances are inadequate public health doesn't really hurt you, just all those people you employ).
Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, a law professor, thinks that the problem with voting today is "over sensitive youth". His solution:
But children don’t vote. Those too fragile to handle different opinions are too fragile to participate in politics. So maybe we should raise the voting age to 25, an age at which, one fervently hopes, some degree of maturity will have set in. It’s bad enough to have to treat college students like children. But it’s intolerable to be governed by spoiled children. People who can’t discuss Halloween costumes rationally don’t deserve to play a role in running a great nation.
Yes, he thinks that we should raise the voting age to 25, because the young people of today aren't letting racial goosery go unnoticed.
[T]hose too stupid to differentiate between the actions of a privileged few and the ethos of an entire generation containing millions of individuals shouldn’t vote, either. That’s why America needs a constitutional amendment barring Glenn Reynolds from voting.
Independents = white college kids who think that they can enact change by staying outside of the system of oppression maaaaaaaaaan.
Democrats = a range of voters from pragmatists to (hahahaha, not really) liberals who believe that government serves a valuable purpose, and should be curated as such.
Republicans = I dunno. Fuckin' nihilists I guess? They can't get their shit together. But they keep roflstompin the Democrats in non-presidential election years.
A lot of Republicans are in that party because of personal benefits. Lower taxes, less regulation on their industries, etc. Is that really so hard to understand? They are voting their self interest. People here often complain that people vote against their interests so. . .
Culture, too. There are people who believe that the State allows a million babies to be murdered a year and there are people who don't want foreigners overrunning their nation. For them, the personal gain for voting Republican outweighs the potential economic gain from voting Democrat.
And for some people there might not even be an economic gain from voting Democrat- if you work at an arms manufacturer you're going to vote R to keep your job, if you work as a cook and don't want to be replaced by an illegal you vote R to keep illegals out, if you sell gold you vote Ron Paul etc.
"B-but Cap'n Marcus! That's not how abortions/immigration/buying gold wo-" Aaand that's why you're vote Democrat and they vote Republican. None of that crap has anything to do with getting laws passed though, and as an R I'm sorry for all the idiots in my party who think "politics" is another name for "let's hold America hostage". Tell them that they're acting like Iran in 1979 and their heads will explode.
Anyways, I blame the Internet for our political woes- it's far too easy to just interact with things that fit your worldview and never be challenged, and it makes surrounding yourself with IRL people who support your positions easier. Don't like your one-party home town? Move a thousand miles away! New city changes for the worse? Move again! God help us when the current generation takes power in 20 years, raised to view the entire opposition as a nefarious cabal of reincarnated Hitlers bent on destroying America.
as opposed to when? 30-40 years ago, when unless you lived in a major urban metro you had access to one daily newspaper and 2-3 broadcast news channels, and were basically just as likely to only live near people who looked like you and believed the same things you did?
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
on that other subject, it's worth mentioning that white supremacy was/is actually a fairly rational economic position for low-income whites, given the realistic options available; it reduced competition for higher-paying work, increased the influence of informal networks and generally speaking acted as a quasi-social safety net for whites whose professional/educational background might have left them in troubled circumstances otherwise
the way our society has totally de-legitimized racism is actually fairly remarkable, considering our political dialogue. A person can deny science or profess any other insane falsehood (ex: pyramids used to store grain) and find people to come to their defense, but even fairly innocuous racist statements are big trouble for any public figure. The upshot of this is that politicians (mostly republican) have learned to couch these topics in terminology which is not explicitly racist: they talk about illegal immigration (as though somebody who wants to travel thousands of miles to take a shit job making no money is really the kind of lazy person we don't want), or trade with china, about the gangs or "thugs" in our cities, and so on.
the white professional class has mostly embraced the idea of equal opportunity, because they already have the opportunities. Lots of lower class whites perceive that they will mostly get the 'opportunity' to be looted by the wealthy in equal measure with their brown-skinned counterparts, and it shouldn't really be surprising that they aren't in love with the idea (especially as lower-income life in such as sub/exburbs looks increasing precarious.) This is ultimately what trump et al are tapping into, and something the democratic party is not doing enough to address. People do have the understanding that Democratic policies help people in dire poverty, but people don't fucking want to be in dire poverty in the first place if somebody is offering them an alternative
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Those too fragile to handle different opinions are too fragile to participate in politics. So maybe we should cap the voting age to 65, an age at which, one fervently hopes, some degree of maturity will have set in. It’s bad enough to have to treat senior citizen like adults. But it’s intolerable to be governed by spoiled children. People who can’t discuss politics rationally don’t deserve to play a role in running a great nation.
Those too fragile to handle different opinions are too fragile to participate in politics. So maybe we should cap the voting age to 65, an age at which, one fervently hopes, some degree of maturity will have set in. It’s bad enough to have to treat senior citizen like adults. But it’s intolerable to be governed by spoiled children. People who can’t discuss politics rationally don’t deserve to play a role in running a great nation.
Poe's Law!
(Also, are you Jimmy Clausen? (SIG is like the only person who might get that joke))
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Kentucky's outgoing governor signed an executive order to restore voting rights to 100,000 disenfranchised former felons. Granted, next governor will probably take that back away immediately (Bevin kinda wishy-washy says he's for restoring rights, but he's also for taking back people's insurance and having his own constituents die in the streets so I'm taking that with the entire salt shaker) but at least it brings attention to the injustice for short time.
Kentucky's outgoing governor signed an executive order to restore voting rights to 100,000 disenfranchised former felons. Granted, next governor will probably take that back away immediately (Bevin kinda wishy-washy says he's for restoring rights, but he's also for taking back people's insurance and having his own constituents die in the streets so I'm taking that with the entire salt shaker) but at least it brings attention to the injustice for short time.
Iowa continues to suck.
I am not sure he can. You can only have your voting rights taken away for certain reasons so once they're back the state can't strip them from you without a new good reason.
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
As opposed to when? 30-40 years ago, when unless you lived in a major urban metro you had access to one daily newspaper and 2-3 broadcast news channels, and were basically just as likely to only live near people who looked like you and believed the same things you did?
Actually, yes. The guy who wrote Bowling Alone did a study of 30,000 people about ten years ago which found that diversity negatively impacts social capital- across the board, people are less likely to vote and are more mistrustful of others if their neighbors are different racially, culturally, or religiously. Call it a relic of our hunter-gatherer days. There's ways to get around this effect, but you've got to work on it- I'm a big fan of the turn-of-the-last-century's assimilation efforts. Free English class at night, free daycare during the day, that sort of thing. Cities should have programs to welcome newcomers and help them fit in in their new home.
As opposed to when? 30-40 years ago, when unless you lived in a major urban metro you had access to one daily newspaper and 2-3 broadcast news channels, and were basically just as likely to only live near people who looked like you and believed the same things you did?
Actually, yes. The guy who wrote Bowling Alone did a study of 30,000 people about ten years ago which found that diversity negatively impacts social capital- across the board, people are less likely to vote and are more mistrustful of others if their neighbors are different racially, culturally, or religiously. Call it a relic of our hunter-gatherer days. There's ways to get around this effect, but you've got to work on it- I'm a big fan of the turn-of-the-last-century's assimilation efforts. Free English class at night, free daycare during the day, that sort of thing. Cities should have programs to welcome newcomers and help them fit in in their new home.
queue republican spit-spewing screaming about how they get stuff for free and welfare queens and, I don't know, terrorists?
As opposed to when? 30-40 years ago, when unless you lived in a major urban metro you had access to one daily newspaper and 2-3 broadcast news channels, and were basically just as likely to only live near people who looked like you and believed the same things you did?
Actually, yes. The guy who wrote Bowling Alone did a study of 30,000 people about ten years ago which found that diversity negatively impacts social capital- across the board, people are less likely to vote and are more mistrustful of others if their neighbors are different racially, culturally, or religiously. Call it a relic of our hunter-gatherer days. There's ways to get around this effect, but you've got to work on it- I'm a big fan of the turn-of-the-last-century's assimilation efforts. Free English class at night, free daycare during the day, that sort of thing. Cities should have programs to welcome newcomers and help them fit in in their new home.
-.-
Well, I had to go look for the study, as the Globe neither linked to it or named it by title. But it wasn't hard to find, thankfully, and this is why.
Perhaps you should do even the slightest bit of double-checking on your racist shitbag sources before you come and deposit their their garbage on the forums, @Captain Marcus ? It's kind of tiresome to have to clean-up afterward every time.
EDIT: The link in the Chronicle is dead; Putnam's article can be found here.
Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration
That abstract is entirely consistent with Marcus's summary, @The Ender . Reign in the spittle a bit.
Edit: Everyone should treat studies of this kind with skepticism. Diverse neighborhoods are urban and probably have high turnover. I don't have a lot of faith in the ability to disambiguate these effects.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration
That abstract is entirely consistent with Marcus's summary, @The Ender . Reign in the spittle a bit.
Edit: Everyone should treat studies of this kind with skepticism. Diverse neighborhoods are urban and probably have high turnover. I don't have a lot of faith in the ability to disambiguate these effects.
The bolded seems pretty disambiguous to me.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
queue republican spit-spewing screaming about how they get stuff for free and welfare queens and, I don't know, terrorists?
My compatriots are penny-wise and pound-foolish, the lot. If you want to ensure that English remains numero uno, the smart thing to do would be to offer free language classes to immigrants instead of expecting Pablo or Kim to absorb irregular verbs out of thin air and howling about unwashed masses when they inevitably fail. But we've sunk so low that complaining instead of offering solutions will win you votes on both sides of the aisle, so whatta ya gonna do.
Perhaps you should do even the slightest bit of double-checking on your racist shitbag sources before you come and deposit their their garbage on the forums, @Captain Marcus ? It's kind of tiresome to have to clean-up afterward every time.
EDIT: The link in the Chronicle is dead; Putnam's article can be found here.
Bu-wuh? "Racist shitbag?" "Garbage?" I wasn't arguing that diversity was bad, dude- just that it makes people feel uncomfortable to constantly be around strangers who are different from them, and thus there's less "buy-in" in society (including politics), a thesis which is ripped directly from that study.
there are some problems with bowling alone; namely that putnam measures a relatively narrow slice of 'social organizations' and neglects to consider others, and also that he ignores similar research that predicted similar dire consequences... which was conducted in the 1920s, when the supposed technological menace was radio.
that being said I don't really think bowling alone is that relevant to what we were discussing; if ethnic diversity is leading to less 'formation of social capital,' do we think that trend would reverse or slow if only we had access to less media?
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
that being said I don't really think bowling alone is that relevant to what we were discussing; if ethnic diversity is leading to less 'formation of social capital,' do we think that trend would reverse or slow if only we had access to less media?
Yes, because if there's only the local newspaper for news then people have a shared source of information. If there's more sources that lean towards someone's particular politics, then it's possible to only view media that supports your point of view. The Internet is really bad for this- someone who gets their news solely from FireDogLake or Daily Kos is just as much of a problem as the guy that reads Drudge or Breitbart exclusively.
That abstract is entirely consistent with Marcus's summary, @The Ender . Reign in the spittle a bit.
The newspaper he sourced specifically points out the left leaning bias of the paper's author while singing the praises of it's apparent findings that racially diverse neighborhoods are bad (the clear intent being to say, "See? Even this progressive academic has discovered that racial diversity doesn't work!"). Nowhere does it mention the scope of the study (which was narrow) or Putnam's caveats about the findings.
This seems particularly relevant when Putnam's work is being put to use by Neo-Conservatives in an attempt to block race-conscious screening processes at post secondary educational institutes.
Putnam’s brief contends that the 2007 paper has been “twisted” to make a case against race-conscious admissions, asserting that, on the contrary, his “extensive research and experience confirm the substantial benefits of diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, to our society.”
So, what, yourself and @Captain Marcus apparently know the study better than it's own Goddamn author? And what's this crap about 'a relic of our hunter-gatherer days'? What part of the study is that from?
Posts
A lot of Republicans are in that party because of personal benefits. Lower taxes, less regulation on their industries, etc. Is that really so hard to understand? They are voting their self interest. People here often complain that people vote against their interests so. . .
Culture, too. There are people who believe that the State allows a million babies to be murdered a year and there are people who don't want foreigners overrunning their nation. For them, the personal gain for voting Republican outweighs the potential economic gain from voting Democrat.
And for some people there might not even be an economic gain from voting Democrat- if you work at an arms manufacturer you're going to vote R to keep your job, if you work as a cook and don't want to be replaced by an illegal you vote R to keep illegals out, if you sell gold you vote Ron Paul etc.
"B-but Cap'n Marcus! That's not how abortions/immigration/buying gold wo-" Aaand that's why you're vote Democrat and they vote Republican. None of that crap has anything to do with getting laws passed though, and as an R I'm sorry for all the idiots in my party who think "politics" is another name for "let's hold America hostage". Tell them that they're acting like Iran in 1979 and their heads will explode.
Anyways, I blame the Internet for our political woes- it's far too easy to just interact with things that fit your worldview and never be challenged, and it makes surrounding yourself with IRL people who support your positions easier. Don't like your one-party home town? Move a thousand miles away! New city changes for the worse? Move again! God help us when the current generation takes power in 20 years, raised to view the entire opposition as a nefarious cabal of reincarnated Hitlers bent on destroying America.
Quite simply, given the history and record of the current group of republicans if you don't believe they are crazy then you aren't paying attention.
And if you believe that "the best person for the job" can be a republican then you similarly aren't paying attention because you must ignore the party behind him, who he will vote for for speaker, how his election influences committee chairs and the things they do.
Sometimes you can do that, maybe 10-20 years ago. But not now. Now you can only vote R if you aren't paying attention, are super rich, or want to blow it all up (alternate answers for racists and dominions are OK too)
That's what we have right now! Ben Carson can't go 4 hours without calling Democrats Nazis.
Its less view, and more fact, reinforced by the fact that Republicans cant go a week without reinforcing it and somehow lowering the bar even further.
Well, they're less a nefarious cabal and more a band of screeching howler monkeys*, but sure.
*With apologies to howler monkeys.
Ironically, Florida's Supervisors of Elections did a good job telling Rick Scott to fuck off and serve as the last line of defense against Tea Party bullshit there. I do wish they got in on this action.
All the self-important waffle about how great he is for shutting down DMVs for black people I expected, but that last line hit me for six.
Technically, he said revenues. That could be the fees for getting a driver's license, for example.
I haven't looked at King v Burwell specifically but
A straight forward reading suggests that it doesn't apply to the federal government
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This is my shocked face, folks.
To be fair, at least some of them work that way.
If you're a executive, or a manager, or, hell, a significant share-holder in General Dynamics, generally held as the world's fifth largest defense contractor, it's possible the two-party system means two things come election time:
1) A Democrat wins, which--honestly isn't too threatening, contrary to what rhetoric might get thrown around before the primaries. We've had eight years of a Democratic presidency and the United States, and national military expenditures sit comfortably at at least 40% of the world's total. So you're hardly hurting.
2) A Republican wins, which again is not a guarantee of change, is very unlikely to hurt your bottom line and, given the right circumstances--say, worsening relations with Iran or an even more aggressive defense bill being passed at the cost of something else--make result in huge purchases from companies like General Dynamics, which would directly help you out.
I think you can honestly say that literally no Republican who has a chance of winning the presidency will endeavor to reduce military spending (and even if one did, I doubt the rest of the party would let that stand). That doesn't mean it's not incredibly selfish and even rather short-sighted (or not--if literally everything you have is in General Dynamics or similar companies, the benefit might outweigh the harm to you--if you're investing millions in defense contractor shares, chances are inadequate public health doesn't really hurt you, just all those people you employ).
Yes, he thinks that we should raise the voting age to 25, because the young people of today aren't letting racial goosery go unnoticed.
As another commentator put it
Those people still get votes.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The skeleton is already inside you!!!?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Particularly if the Republicans are the ones who decide which people get to vote.
as opposed to when? 30-40 years ago, when unless you lived in a major urban metro you had access to one daily newspaper and 2-3 broadcast news channels, and were basically just as likely to only live near people who looked like you and believed the same things you did?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
the way our society has totally de-legitimized racism is actually fairly remarkable, considering our political dialogue. A person can deny science or profess any other insane falsehood (ex: pyramids used to store grain) and find people to come to their defense, but even fairly innocuous racist statements are big trouble for any public figure. The upshot of this is that politicians (mostly republican) have learned to couch these topics in terminology which is not explicitly racist: they talk about illegal immigration (as though somebody who wants to travel thousands of miles to take a shit job making no money is really the kind of lazy person we don't want), or trade with china, about the gangs or "thugs" in our cities, and so on.
the white professional class has mostly embraced the idea of equal opportunity, because they already have the opportunities. Lots of lower class whites perceive that they will mostly get the 'opportunity' to be looted by the wealthy in equal measure with their brown-skinned counterparts, and it shouldn't really be surprising that they aren't in love with the idea (especially as lower-income life in such as sub/exburbs looks increasing precarious.) This is ultimately what trump et al are tapping into, and something the democratic party is not doing enough to address. People do have the understanding that Democratic policies help people in dire poverty, but people don't fucking want to be in dire poverty in the first place if somebody is offering them an alternative
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Steam Me
Poe's Law!
(Also, are you Jimmy Clausen? (SIG is like the only person who might get that joke))
Iowa continues to suck.
I am not sure he can. You can only have your voting rights taken away for certain reasons so once they're back the state can't strip them from you without a new good reason.
queue republican spit-spewing screaming about how they get stuff for free and welfare queens and, I don't know, terrorists?
-.-
Well, I had to go look for the study, as the Globe neither linked to it or named it by title. But it wasn't hard to find, thankfully, and this is why.
Perhaps you should do even the slightest bit of double-checking on your racist shitbag sources before you come and deposit their their garbage on the forums, @Captain Marcus ? It's kind of tiresome to have to clean-up afterward every time.
EDIT: The link in the Chronicle is dead; Putnam's article can be found here.
That abstract is entirely consistent with Marcus's summary, @The Ender . Reign in the spittle a bit.
Edit: Everyone should treat studies of this kind with skepticism. Diverse neighborhoods are urban and probably have high turnover. I don't have a lot of faith in the ability to disambiguate these effects.
The bolded seems pretty disambiguous to me.
Bu-wuh? "Racist shitbag?" "Garbage?" I wasn't arguing that diversity was bad, dude- just that it makes people feel uncomfortable to constantly be around strangers who are different from them, and thus there's less "buy-in" in society (including politics), a thesis which is ripped directly from that study.
that being said I don't really think bowling alone is that relevant to what we were discussing; if ethnic diversity is leading to less 'formation of social capital,' do we think that trend would reverse or slow if only we had access to less media?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
No, he's not a racist shitbag; the people misrepresenting his paper certainly are, though.
The newspaper he sourced specifically points out the left leaning bias of the paper's author while singing the praises of it's apparent findings that racially diverse neighborhoods are bad (the clear intent being to say, "See? Even this progressive academic has discovered that racial diversity doesn't work!"). Nowhere does it mention the scope of the study (which was narrow) or Putnam's caveats about the findings.
This seems particularly relevant when Putnam's work is being put to use by Neo-Conservatives in an attempt to block race-conscious screening processes at post secondary educational institutes.
So, what, yourself and @Captain Marcus apparently know the study better than it's own Goddamn author? And what's this crap about 'a relic of our hunter-gatherer days'? What part of the study is that from?