tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post5125120323974672677..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Is amnesty suicide for the Dems or for the GOP?agnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-76363737345063199252017-09-22T22:30:45.284-04:002017-09-22T22:30:45.284-04:00"That's interesting, because nowadays its..."That's interesting, because nowadays its become very common to include that kind of stuff in cop dramas or to show it in the news."<br /><br />We're getting into the lurid voyeurism that's more common in cocooning times. In the 70's and especially 80's, it became fairly common for TV shows to have occasional episodes where a (typically young) character is confronted by some unsavory trend or person, and eventually learns that their naivete could've gotten them hurt. By around 1994 these episodes were considered passé (I do seem to remember a 90210 episode involving underage drinking and/or gambling around this time); audiences were getting cynical and they wanted less ditzy characters.<br /><br />It's telling to see how stories involving certain subjects have changed in tone and structure:<br /><br />- Drugs and excessive drinking: 80's/early 90's, taken seriously. late 90's-present: treated flippantly or not mentioned at all.<br /><br />- Sex crimes (pedophilia and rape): 80's/early 90's, dangers that could confront main characters, but the emphasis was on characters learning to fend off danger, not on the abuse itself and it's details. Late 90's-present: people are routinely killed, raped, molested, etc. The nature of the crime is explored and sometimes shown in detail (voyeurism), and the suggestion seems to be that we ought to just lock ourselves away to stay permanently safe from a horrible world. Whereas before the mid 90's, the suggestion was more that these things happen to some degree, like it or not, and we've got to face it and move on. We need to be aware of it, but not let it run our life either.<br /><br />The Gen X-ers who were the target audience of these "message" shows back in the day tend to make fun of them decades later, not realizing that the zeitgeist of the prior era made adults concerned that kids were plunging headlong into dangerous territory and something, anything, had to be done to warn kids. People got more uptight and boring the further we got from the 80's, so why bother these days trying to make the TV set a half-assed babysitter for latch key kids? People don't have friends like they once did, they don't shop like they once, there's no longer a cultural division between mature adults, young adults, teens, and children like there was in the 70's-early 90's. Kids can veg out with video games and pointless social media crap, and adults spend so much time on keeping tabs on their kids.<br /><br />Somewhat related is the change in characterization. In the 70's-early 90's, dramas were about earnest people. And comedies often had likable goofballs.<br /><br />In the later 90's-present, dramas tend to focus on lugubrious characters (like Christian Bale in well, just about anything), while comedies tend to feature snarky know-it-alls.<br /><br />Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-19533690083505279222017-09-20T17:29:14.105-04:002017-09-20T17:29:14.105-04:00to a cocooners, reading about a horrible crime is ...to a cocooners, reading about a horrible crime is like reading about some guy who got hit by lightning - it doesn't upset them because they think they will never come close to encountering something like that.<br /><br />Not the case during a period of rising crime, where reading about bad stuff happening emotionally effects people much more.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-33932459002227372242017-09-18T19:16:34.392-04:002017-09-18T19:16:34.392-04:00"One Texas news reporter said that articles a..."One Texas news reporter said that articles about pedophilia got angry letters to the editor (angry about being forced to confront the stuff, not anger that kids were being hurt)."<br /><br />That's interesting, because nowadays its become very common to include that kind of stuff in cop dramas or to show it in the news.<br /><br />Its easier for cocooners to view it from a distant vantage point, because they are less afraid of it actually happening in their real lives. for most people, less experience with real pain, more numbed out.<br /><br />In the 70s and 80s, on the other hand, they were more likely to know of that happening, or to have a real fear of it happening in their own communities. they didn't want to be reminded of it.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-49627503083336401452017-09-18T00:53:20.617-04:002017-09-18T00:53:20.617-04:00http://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/04/science/etan-pat...http://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/04/science/etan-patz-case-puts-new-focus-on-a-sexual-disorder-pedophilia.html<br /><br />The article initially tries to not make a big deal about gays, then near the end the American Psych. Assoc. admits that gay men are more likely to be chronic predators than are straight men and dykes. Yes this appeared in the frikkin' NY Times.<br /><br />What makes the 80's stand out is that people simultaneously had a lot of fun and grasped taboos (regarding fags, dirty bums, criminals, drug addicts, bodily functions, etc.). It's why sex and violence in 80's movies is generally not that off-putting.Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-4366326021709977612017-09-18T00:25:05.820-04:002017-09-18T00:25:05.820-04:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWY8T3ujxNw&t=...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWY8T3ujxNw&t=0s<br /><br />This is the '81 TV special I referenced. It's pretty interesting, because you can watch the transition from the 70's to the 80's, seemingly before your eyes.<br /><br />3 of the talking heads are more relaxed (concerned, yes, but still stoic), while the professor at times acts like a guy who's seen too much....More than he was supposed to see (he ended up being shot in a home invasion, but survived). It wasn't the care-free 70's quite so much anymore; you couldn't just shrug your shoulders and accept things anymore, not when we were hit by a sense of deep shame for looking the other way for 5+ years.<br /><br />Now, it is interesting to consider what might happen in the coming decades when Millennials/Gen Z no longer have X-ers setting the tone. Will they eventually do what Silents and early Boomers did in the 70's? ("avenge" a boring period by removing all restraints on morality). These periods of extreme hedonism are so, uh, wrong, that they quickly burn themselves out and fuel future waves of moral crusaders who end up being the brunt of ridicule because they weren't there when we needed them most (kids had no defenders in the 70's).Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-61712826620738936092017-09-18T00:03:22.919-04:002017-09-18T00:03:22.919-04:00" will we have to go through something like t..." will we have to go through something like the 60s again,<br /><br />Not really, because no two decades or eras are exactly alike. America (and other Western countries) are not at all like they were in the 50's or 60's, demographically, culturally, or whatever. Back then we were riding a wave of economic boom (or recovery, depending on the country) and felt like we could do anything. These days, X-ers and Millennials feel gypped and cynical, like they've been part of some sinister experiment whether they wanted to or not. And there's plenty of intra-generational hostility, with strivers complaining about efforts to rein in striving and decadence, while others feel very resentful of strivers trying to grab while the grabbing's good, seemingly oblivious to the crash and/or insurrection we're hurtling toward. It's key to remember that Silents and Boomers by the 1960's all felt that the material ease of that time was not a fair trade for the G.I. generation's disinterest in encouraging individual ambition, self-discovery, and creative and spiritual experimentation. <br /><br />Meanwhile, these days X-ers and Millennials all feel that the Boomer's restless pursuit of whatever floats their boat has gotten stale and tiring. Being that we're in a posturing era (unlike the 1960's), we have to deal with some hypocrisy and glibness here. Early X-ers have long talked a good game about not being yuppies like them Boomers were, but c'mon. Many of you want to be the best and the coolest, you just go about it somewhat differently than the Boomers did. To be fair, X-ers arent' going to make some of the biggest mistakes that Silents and Boomers did. Primarily, X-ers are doing much more to protect kids and to stigmatize anything that smacks of the disgraceful Ford-Carter era's attitude towards kids. I just saw a cut of several different local TV specials from the early 80's South dealing with the the epidemic of kids and teenagers being found dead in cities known for underage male hustler trafficking (Atlanta, New Orleans, and Houston). One Texas news reporter said that articles about pedophilia got angry letters to the editor (angry about being forced to confront the stuff, not anger that kids were being hurt). The main special they used was aired in October 1981, featuring several Texas researchers. This was before the Satanic panic and child-sacrifice nonsense diverted attention away from the large numbers of adult men abusing and often killing underage runaways/drug addicts, etc. Of course, by the early 80's it was well-known that an undetermined number of male predators was killing males and females, but the MSM by the mid-80's had successfully covered up the often shoddy invesigations into dead young males and the fact that large groups of male pedophiles (some of whom were elites) were responsible for hurting many boys. Occasionally, a high-profile scandal became public but there generally was never significant follow-up into everyone involved. The professor interviewed said that many media, religious, educational, and legal institutions all appeared to have been infiltrated by pedos and pedo sympathizers; he said that he looked into Texas university's files and research about the subject and mostly found material defending male pedophiles.<br /><br />Fortunately, by the mid-80's people were no longer tolerating the sick shit promoted by dirty old Silents in the 70's. Most Boomers realized after 1984 that to a large degree they had been conned; too many people were getting hurt, and they sure as hell did not want these things to happen to kids anymore.Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-13949881760068927232017-09-17T11:22:08.542-04:002017-09-17T11:22:08.542-04:00"centious and unpretentiously violent in the ..."centious and unpretentiously violent in the 2nd and 3rd decades of a high crime period, with the 1st half of the next decade being a transition to a more sanitized culture."<br /><br />I've wondered what will happen when the crime rate begins to rise this time around - will we have to go through something like the 60s again, or will the culture just pick up exactly where it left off at the late 80s and early 90s?<br /><br />The 80s could represent the "final form" of the way human culture is supposed to be(excepting the status-striving), so hopefully we pick up right where we left off. <br />Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-86651182383442542362017-09-16T19:10:33.244-04:002017-09-16T19:10:33.244-04:00Who are the most reliable non-white Democrat voter...<i>Who are the most reliable non-white Democrat voters? Blacks. Where are blacks the largest share of the population? In the South. What region is completely off the table for Democrats? Also the South, because whites said "fair is fair" and began voting as a bloc like the blacks.</i><br /><br />Southern whites have always voted as a bloc. They just switched parties during the Civil Rights era. <br /><br />Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-89902014429450773682017-09-15T22:34:01.845-04:002017-09-15T22:34:01.845-04:00And for the record, paradoxically our pop-culture ...And for the record, paradoxically our pop-culture becomes "gratuitiously" licentious and unpretentiously violent in the 2nd and 3rd decades of a high crime period, with the 1st half of the next decade being a transition to a more sanitized culture. So the 1910's and 20's had relatively little censorship of gangsters, prostitutes, gamblers, short-tempered brawlers, and the like. As did the 1970's and 80's. The early 30's and early 90's saw increasing efforts to tone down pop-culture; in the austere and chaste mid-Century, virtually all sex and violence was presented either not at all or in the most prosaic terms. <br /><br />In the decadent mid-90's thru present, we get campy and overblown, often dour and off-putting depictions of sexual content and violence. Weirdly, though, overt nudity is less common then it was in the 80's, and when their is nudity it isn't naturalistic nudity, e.g. sleeping nude, changing, showering, tentative/low-key sex between youngsters, or sincerely wild romps between older characters. And god forbid yer modern horror movies have kids being believably and even likably hedonistic. In the fourth Friday the 13th, we get as I recall, at least 3 different nudity scenes: all the kids skinny dipping (which comes after a jump cut) and egging each other on like 80's kids would, with young Corey Feldman stumbling on the carousing no less. There's a modest shower sex scene (scene thru frosted glass) with no wild thrusting or screaming, and last, Crispin Glover and his one night stand are first seen awkwardly starting sex, and then we cut away and later return to orgasming, with the girl being briefly topless either before or after the sex. Flushed faces, and we can relate to the tension of inexperienced kids fumbling around and being insecure. Later on, Crispin Glover brags to his friend who didn't get any, but the characters are more enjoyably ditzy than annoyingly macho.<br /><br />Nowadays, evidently 90% of actresses won't do nudity, or won't do it unless they're playing off-putting character or are in off-putting situations. There's also "joke" nudity involving men ('cuz schlongs aren't sexy to the Judd Apatow types, and after all what better way to annoy "homophobic" frat-boy types who watch these smarmy and faux-sophisticated comedies) or older people. Whereas in the 80's hey-day of sex comedies, no matter how stupid and low-brow they could be, at least you got to see many pairs of young breasts and even some bush (Booger in Revenge of the Nerds, who could forget?).<br /><br />One of the biggest indictiments of entertainment of the last 25 years is how damn hard it is to, uh, get hard watching it. There are few younger babes who look and act natural on display, and we don't get to see the goods like we used to. People blame it on internet porn, yet beginning in the early 90's there was a drop in naturalistic depictions of nudity and hedonism, even in goddam horror movies which last I checked should at least satisfy the base needs of horny teens.Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-16718468131388236712017-09-15T21:53:34.627-04:002017-09-15T21:53:34.627-04:00Crime already is getting worse. Downtown Minneapol...Crime already is getting worse. Downtown Minneapolis had virtually non-existent crime from 2001-2013, which then got substantially worse in subsequent years; a woman was recently knifed and robbed in a parking area. As criminals get emboldened they'll start holding up more yuppies.<br /><br />Keep in mind just how long it takes for all this to sink in. Purse snatchings and parking ramp prowlers are well-known to anyone who grew up watching 80's movies, but in the 70's a lot of people seemed to think that we'd grow out of crime ("it's just the teen/twenty-something Boomers causing trouble"), or that it was some weird and annoying fad that would blow over and probably not affect us too much.<br /><br />I've been looking into the EAR-Original Night Stalker case (not Richard Ramirez, this guy was a white Boomer who raped 50+women in the late 70's and 80's) known to be active in California, who has never been caught. A Boomer cop said that she grew up in Sacramento in the 70's, and before the rapes were publicized in 1977-1978, she and most of her neighbors and acquaintances tended to feel safe and comfortable. Most Boomers are naïve about how bad crime was in the 70's, because many did not have kids back then and many of them spent most or all of their lives in the suburbs or in small towns. There's also the vanity of not acknowledging how many Boomers were scuzzy criminals. When X-ers began to commit crimes in the 80's, it was a lot easier for the culture to focus the spotlight on crime. <br /> <br />Also, by the 80's so many people knew of other people who had been victimized that it was becoming impossible to ignore it or explain it away.Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-31485977042494167552017-09-15T18:58:51.760-04:002017-09-15T18:58:51.760-04:00"The Dems cannot be on this ridiculous identi..."The Dems cannot be on this ridiculous identity politics binge just because they're deluded, and they are not"<br /><br />Its also being effected by cultural changes caused by the declining crime rate and a phenomenon known as "cocooning". Since the mid-90s, the population has become more reclusive, more infantile, and more delusional, and the rise in identity politics is tied to this more than anything else, IMO.<br /><br />The good news is that once the crime rate begins to rise, and it should rise pretty soon(mid-century crime decline lasted about 25 years, and its been 25 years since the current crime decline), identity politics will blow away in the wind.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-83529443456208387692017-09-15T13:55:33.958-04:002017-09-15T13:55:33.958-04:00The elites will continue not to absorb populism as...The elites will continue not to absorb populism as long as they don't have to, and even then since it's directly against their interests they will fight. They are already fighting in various subtle ways, I am sure. We see this in the stuff that is coming at Trump from all sides, now including Republicans.<br /><br />Bannon alluded to this in his 60 Minutes interview, saying that Trump was naive that he thought he could get his way thru personal interactions as he has succeeded in his earlier life, but here he's dealing with big institutions. I think Trump was not naive, but he underestimated the venality esp. of McConnell who threw him under the bus in August, and he didn't really have another choice because he has no big US institutions on his side. He may try to enlist foreign institutions to domestic politics to support him (Israel, Saudi Arabia) and he's found it easier to remake the politics in those countries than to unfreeze the issues here in the USA.artichokenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-7223374133286753072017-09-15T13:28:36.395-04:002017-09-15T13:28:36.395-04:00Interesting analysis. A couple comments though:
(...Interesting analysis. A couple comments though:<br />(1) Even though Florida has been unpredictable, it doesn't mean the effect of adding more non-Cuban hispanics is unpredictable. Those will push it toward the Dems. And Florida really matters.<br /><br />(2) I too like the Latino culture that isn't very political. What we see on TV though is "latino strivers", and they are very unpleasant. Also the numbers say they are the latinos who do vote. And 46% voting is less than others, but it's far from "not voting".<br /><br />(3) The Dems cannot be on this ridiculous identity politics binge just because they're deluded, and they are not. Big international communists are behind it, for example George Soros. They spend big sums to keep it going. So reforming the Dems isn't just a matter of reaching out to them.<br /><br />(4) Trump started reaching out to Dems when his main Rep. ally, McConnell, turned away from him by refusing to recess the Senate for August. McConnell, and every other senator including all the Republicans. Any single senator could have forced a recess. This really hurt Trump, because it stopped him filling posts by recess appointment. He probably had 100 of those ready to go, but McConnell kicked him in the face and facilitated Dem. obstruction. And what's worse, Trump had appointed McConnell's wife to his cabinet and thought he had an ally. So this was an act of cold hostility from the Republicans.<br /><br />I think Trump should just retreat and govern a while by EO and regulation, while letting Congress stew in its own juice. They are all terrible, with few exceptions, esp. in the Senate. But Trump feels the need to reach out and make a deal on immigration, and I don't get it. Maybe Schumer and Pelosi threatened him? Schumer did say they have "six ways from Sunday" to get him.artichokenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-71936881866193985802017-09-12T11:30:53.559-04:002017-09-12T11:30:53.559-04:00Asian-Americans also show low levels of voting.
&...Asian-Americans also show low levels of voting.<br /><br />"In traditional Hmong culture, Vang said only the elite discuss politics and government. Young people conform to their parent's ideologies. And personal politics take a backseat to community harmony."<br /><br />https://votingwars.news21.com/asian-american-population-increases-but-voter-turnout-still-lags/<br /><br />Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-57152211930885767012017-09-11T17:17:48.778-04:002017-09-11T17:17:48.778-04:00Yes, I was going to say Austinization and the popu...Yes, I was going to say Austinization and the population growth via immigration will keep nudging Texas in the direction of California, a reliably Republican state a generation ago. <br /><br />Your perspicacity often floors me. I'm hoping you're wrong about this, but I'm not that confident that you are. <br /><br />That said, I don't see a benefit in being fatalistic about this. Every time an amnesty comes up, Rep congress critters are pushed by donors and pulled by voters on it. For this amnesty to be stopped, we have to pull like hell. If a DACA amnesty is defeated, the door is open for all kinds of restrictionism--we'll have the judiciary, executive, and legislative all having shot it down in one form or another.Audacious Epigonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07495507254628580077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-40749480275678950132017-09-11T13:08:55.812-04:002017-09-11T13:08:55.812-04:00Amnesty this time is more likely b/c it's not ...Amnesty this time is more likely b/c it's not comprehensive but just for the DACA people -- say 1 million max, vs. the 10-20 million total -- and they're chosen to be the most sympathetic cases, vs. any illegal no matter how awful.<br /><br />In fact, the only group that can kill amnesty this time around is the Democrats -- they could get greedy and pull for a far more comprehensive amnesty than just the DACA people / 1 million.<br /><br />R's would be happy to give them just the DACA people, but you know how identity politics can make the Dems act irrational.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-18586455313251209682017-09-11T09:14:14.155-04:002017-09-11T09:14:14.155-04:00We're nowhere near the non-striving climate th...We're nowhere near the non-striving climate that would enable tremendous strides in populism. The fact that NFL ratings have been down for two years indicates that proles are beginning to move on from idolizing elites. As was the enthusiasm for interlopers Bernie and Trump among non-ideologues.<br /><br />But this sentiment takes a long time to absorb among elites, the majority of whom (with the exception of a few like Robert Mercer or well, Trump) still insist on plugging their ears and shouting la la la la la la la la when proles try and reach them.<br /><br />And in fact, even on the Right, about 50% (give or take depending on who's asking and how it's asked) aren't that opposed to DACA. So we've got a long way to go.Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-31732800220134967462017-09-11T03:56:32.078-04:002017-09-11T03:56:32.078-04:00Texas is deep red. You're comparing its rankin...Texas is deep red. You're comparing its ranking relative to other states, rather than simply how big the R vs D gap is in the state itself.<br /><br />Romney beat Obama by 16 points, even though it ranked 15th out of the 24 states he won.<br /><br />Trump beat Clinton by 9 points. Less than Romney did, though not because the state had gotten so much more liberal, but because Trump was not a typical Republican on economic and social issues.<br /><br />I don't see Romney +16 and Trump +9 as portending Texas becoming a battleground state. Call it "safe red," "solid red," "deep red," whatever.<br /><br />But it's not going anywhere for Republicans, and even if it did, it would not be due to Hispanics or immigrants, but white yuppies.<br /><br />One of the few big counties in the nation that flipped red to blue was a wealthy suburb of Houston, similar to Orange County and the three counties in suburban Atlanta. Sun Belt transplant yuppies. That's who threatens the Republican dominance of Texas.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-54561809211754815312017-09-11T03:39:07.580-04:002017-09-11T03:39:07.580-04:00This time will be different because the Overton Wi...This time will be different because the Overton Window has shifted so far toward amnesty among Congressmen, even since 2013, forget since 2006. Probably true for the general public too.<br /><br />Party make-up is basically the same as '13, where all Dems and enough Repubs are allowed to cross over, with the rest of the R's voting against in order to maintain the facade. Similar to most R's and some D's passing trade deals.<br /><br />Unless there's another Cantor event, the R leadership might not be afraid. And that really was a fluke -- a member of leadership getting beat in a primary, let alone by a nobody, let alone on the issue of immigration.<br /><br />Plus before it was Bush and Obama pushing amnesty, so that allowed the people to get angry over the globalist President pushing foreigners over citizens.<br /><br />But now it's Mr. Immigration Hardliner, Trump himself, pushing amnesty for DACA. And just look at how many Trump voters, whether reluctant ones or the fanatic ones, never miss a beat when any news item breaks whatsoever. The forecast is raining whitepills again, it's another 4-D chess move, etc. Any bad news is proof you're fake base, "who do you really support?" etc.<br /><br />I don't think most of the hardcore Trump supporters are that brainless -- it's actually more of a clever-silly phenomenon affecting the educated Trump fans.<br /><br />But are there enough of them, especially in key sectors like the media, that they could drain any popular revolt over amnesty for DACA people? Definitely.<br /><br />We can't tell what magnitude the result will be, but it's clear what direction it will point in -- toward amnesty, away from deportation.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-88711703347526613752017-09-10T21:58:39.728-04:002017-09-10T21:58:39.728-04:00Now that the DACA people are going to be amnestied...<i>Now that the DACA people are going to be amnestied</i><br /><br />Every legislative amnesty that has been attempted in the last two decades has failed, always because of Republican congressmen. Why will this one be different? <br /><br /><i>This is a naive argument, which explains why it is never listened to by the GOP</i><br /><br />The GOPe rejected as naive warnings about Trump's candidacy through all of 2015. <br /><br /><i>also deep red ones like Texas</i><br /><br />Is it deep red? Trump won 30 states. In eight of them, his margin of victory was narrower than in Texas. In 21 of them, it was wider. Texas whites already go 70%-30% Republican, not quite the South but more Republican than whites in other states with large Hispanic populations. Audacious Epigonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07495507254628580077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-29207593034915766902017-09-10T14:05:44.567-04:002017-09-10T14:05:44.567-04:00The more that demographics change toward non-white...The more that demographics change toward non-white, the more whites will vote as a bloc.<br /><br />Who are the most reliable non-white Democrat voters? Blacks. Where are blacks the largest share of the population? In the South. What region is completely off the table for Democrats? Also the South, because whites said "fair is fair" and began voting as a bloc like the blacks.<br /><br />Texas would do the same thing if Hispanic immigrants poured in enough to make them a near-majority.<br /><br />In a place like California where whites might effectively go extinct, that just means the Democrat party will split into warring factions -- the black party, the Hispanic party, the Asian party, etc. That's already underway, in fact.<br /><br />It would stay blue in presidential elections (no gain for the Dems), but it might actually lose Democrats in Congress because their Reps and Senators would be hailing from The Black Party or The Hispanic Party or The Asian Party, rather than The Democrats.<br /><br />Sure, they'd caucus with Dems, but they would not necessarily be in lockstep with them. Especially if the Dems try to win back working-class whites (otherwise they're finito), which might provoke their fellow caucus members from The Black / Hispanic / Asian Party to revolt. And that would be a big loss to the Dems, who focus so much on strict party discipline.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-52480693394843409282017-09-10T06:28:24.719-04:002017-09-10T06:28:24.719-04:00I think I just realized what I like about how few ...I think I just realized what I like about how few Hispanics vote (other than how this impacts elections). This is related to why I like Hispanics in general. It is not a striver culture, they are nothing like pretentious liberal whites who use politics to virtue signal. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373560420508884302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-15692471746832897752017-09-10T05:50:39.496-04:002017-09-10T05:50:39.496-04:00I live in very heavily Hispanic Yakima WA. Despite...I live in very heavily Hispanic Yakima WA. Despite the demographics, Trump won this county by double digits. Sometimes I hear Hispanics complain about Trump. I ask them if they voted and they always say no.Voting and politics is not a part of their culture.<br /><br /> I live with a Hispanic family. I remember on election night they watched a situation comedy on TV and weren't even interested in the election results. I have been a political junkie all my life (even as a child) but I actually find the Hispanic apathy toward politics and non-participation in voting to be sort of a charming quality for some reason.<br /><br />I should add that I know two Hispanics who totally got into the election and did in fact vote...for Trump! They are both young and spent their whole life in the U.S...one is a very attractive girl in her 20s. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373560420508884302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-74540264656651709432017-09-10T02:14:09.532-04:002017-09-10T02:14:09.532-04:00This is very excellent and is why it's so impo...This is very excellent and is why it's so important Trump loosened his bonds to the GOP.<br /><br />"On the other hand, if the party is emotionally hijacked by identity politics warriors, they may not be able to respond rationally. It's all still up in the air at this point, although the number of progressives coming out with "yeah but" arguments about immigration (Thomas Frank, Peter Beinart) is a welcome sign."<br /><br />Oh, man. They had done a great job suppressing this, knowing rationally it's not what people want, until the implosion of the Russia hack narrative and... they've been talking about Confederate/ Conquistador/ Founding Fathers statue removal since.<br />How many weeks ago was that?<br />Yeah, they did not handle that well at all.<br /><br />I can't sign my name cuz, you know. But I'm doing alright.<br />I kind of feel like me, you, a lot of us, are in Twin Peaks.<br /><br />Anonymousenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-77438368872843440502017-09-09T09:49:42.418-04:002017-09-09T09:49:42.418-04:00its interesting that Hispanics don't vote that...its interesting that Hispanics don't vote that much. In his book "The Next 100 Years", George Friedman, of Stratfor, argues that it is because many of them still feel more political loyalty to Mexico rather than the U.S. - they see immigration as retaking old Mexican provinces, rather than going to a new country.<br /><br />In the future, Friedman says that the Mexican government might even create Congressional seats to represent the Hispanics in the American Southwest.Curtisnoreply@blogger.com