(02-06-2020, 08:24 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020, 10:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020, 11:12 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days.
I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.
When you try to characterize the Koch Brothers as liberal, you do discredit to your own perspective. You would likely loose the bulk of the posters if you hadn’t lost them already. Who do you think your garbage has fooled?
Pelosi knows full well how the Republican Establishment senators are not likely to do their duty by the Constitution. They Establishment Republicans value personal power much more than they value the country. The coastal media covers it the same way, predicting acquittal.
I am less sure. The Republican Establishment couldn’t get the people to back any of their own in 2016, so they had to go with Trump. With his guilt becoming clearer by the day, will they take the chance to get one of their own in power? Will the incumbency of a new guy be enough to hold the White House? After pardoning Nixon, Ford lost his next election. Will Pence walk that path? Would he rather see Trump's chant of 'lock her up' be reversed? Is he deep enough in the drug deal to get impeached himself, or share a cell with Trump? If Trump has been unable to bring any of his recent candidates to electoral victory, does that mean it is safe for the Establishment Republicans to thumb their nose at him, or do they really need the votes he will bring?
By conventional standards the Democrats have no chance at removing Trump, but they have every chance of discrediting the Establishment Republicans. That will be big come November. That is likely what Pelosi is more likely working towards. Trump will try to rally his supposedly loyal base, only to find the flip flop has flipped. The principles of division of power and rule of law might well be more American than you think.
I personally see the hypocrisy, with both sides honoring the Constitution only when convenient, and wrapping themselves in the flag when it is. The Republicans are generally all in favor of the Constitution when the 2nd Amendment comes up. Both sides take turns speaking on how rare impeachment ought to be, depending on which party holds the White House. Does congressional oversight of the executive mean anything if the executive branch disregards Congressional subpoenas? Does anyone appreciate rule of law?
Your ‘I’m right the world is wrong’ approach is most confused. Liberals know liberal values more than you. They know what they are striving for, and it is nothing like the demonization you spew out.
Sorry But alot of us have actually watched the primaries and your scenario of election 2020 being based on the electing being about liking Trump vs Not Liking Trump or his policies (or sensibilities) becomes by the day LESS and LESS likely. The DNC is clearly hell bent on nominating an Authoritarian SJW candidate. Its blatantly obvious that the Democratic Party elites are only considering Warren, Harris, and maybe Klobochar and Buttigieg as Candidates and are actively sabotaging all the others. Under Such circumstances Trump will likely win by a MUCH greater margin than in 2016. This is because the DNC by force-feeding such a candidate, would have eliminated any possibility of November 2020 being "a referendum on President Donald Trump" because they would have force fed basically a FREAK as the democratic Nominee. Instead Such and Election would effectively be decided on the Issue of "Freaks vs Non-Freaks" if the DNC continues on its current path. Last Time I Checked, there are A LOT more non-freaks than there are freaks. Ironically legions of outraged Millennials, Late-wave Xers, Northern Blacks, Hispanics and Asians (demographics that are normally decidedly Democrat leaning) would probably be what propels Trump to victory in 2020. And it would be fitting because the DNC would have brought the landslide defeat upon themselves.
As usual, You, Eric, Pbrower, Classic, Kinser and Warren Dew can all weigh in your thoughts on the above statement.
My only disagreement, I think the Southern blacks are more likely to jump ship and eventually join forces with the party of Lincoln these days. I do agree, the liberal Democrats who are bringing defeat upon themselves. The freaks vs non freaks sounds harsh but I get what you mean and basically agree with that too. I saw Buttigieg basically tell a Democratic woman that she and millions of others will have look/go else where if they're looking for promises and assurances from the Democratic party these days. I'm telling you, if those people ( I know those people) switch parties, the liberals can say goodbye to the American heartland.
I Think it would be Northern and western Blacks who switch for the most part. Remember that Minnesota's black communities demographic dynamics are atypical compared to the equivalent populations in most other states. Large Percentage of Minnesotas blacks are Muslim african immigrants mostly from the horn of Africa, this likely causes them to identify more with the pro-unchecked immigration policies of the DNC establishment. In most of the rest of the Midwest, as well as the Northeast, Mid-atlantic and western states (Florida and Texas blacks may be this category as well), Black voters are increasingly similar to non-elite white democrats. They Prefer economic reform like that proposed by Bernie, Tulsi, Yang and others as well as being increasingly swayed by president Trumps policies.
Uhhh...the black bourgeoisie is still strongly D. First, unlike the white middle class that has little empathy for poor whites especially out of the regions in which the white middle class lives, it cares about poor blacks. The black bourgeoisie has been more adept into assimilating white people into its fold (through marriage and childhood -- the kids will be black bourgeoisie, of course) than finding its way into the Republican Party. The black bourgeoisie is more likely than whites of similar social-economic status (SES) to be government employees (so they have a stake in Big Government and are not going to fall for anti-tax rhetoric); if they are in business they are likely to get much of their income from welfare recipients or from government contracts. Second, the black bourgeoisie is much less likely to be homeowners because it is more urban or suburban than the white middle class (which includes many farmers). If your landlord is a big drain upon your income you are less likely to support unbridled free enterprise.
Quote:Blacks In the traditional south are still regarded by the DNC as the "establishment's firewall" they block-voted for Clinton in 2016. And Hillary pandered quite a bit to southern black voters in 2016. Bernie failed to make any headway there (he had quite a bit of success among blacks outside the south) Kamala tried to pander to them but failed miserably. Polls among their communities seem to place Biden and warren Ahead of the other candidates. Older voters also tend to have more influence there as well at least it appears so (probably due to gospel Church influence). These older Voters tend to block-vote for establishment democrats, and can be more easily scared into supporting establishment politics such as campaigning on identity politics. Although this is partially due to the legacy of the spoils system in the south but that is an entirely different subject altogether.
...except that blacks do not make a difference in the states in which they are the largest parts of state populations compared to the rest of the United States. Virginia would, Delaware, and Maryland (now that one might be a surprise, but it has lots of middle-class blacks) night still be voting R in Presidential elections except for large black populations. This said, the black vote is not going to swing Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina D.The Hispanic vote is about as large as the black vote in Texas, and rarely enough to swing a statewide election. To be sure, neither Florida nor North Carolina could ever be close without the black vote, and if the Democrats win any statewide vote in Georgia, then the black vote will make a difference.
So why does Trump do unusually badly among blacks?
1. He is a racist and a religious bigot, and that scares blacks. I do not see him as particularly anti-black in the sense of a segregationist pol of the old days; his bigotry is more anti-Muslim and anti-Hispanic. If the direction of his bigotry were toward Asians , then that would still scare blacks. Among ethnic and religious minorities, the common wisdom well known in practice is that bigots usually end up turning against other targets. (Even if Donald Trump has a Jewish daughter he scares Jews with his weak-to-non-existent condemnation of neo-Nazi violence. His type is more likely to turn against Jews -- even his daughter -- than people who show no "racial" consciousness).
2. He made his money as a landlord. Americans have more sympathy for capitalists who make their money as technological innovators or creators of intellectual property. If the 2020 election proves to be between media mogul Mike Bloomberg and real-estate profiteer Donald Trump, then Bloomberg will have the edge (if he were an oilman he would have that edge) among people who do not have an unqualified love for capitalism. Trump reminds too many people of a slumlord -- which may not be so much of a problem in rural areas and small towns.
3. He is anti-intellectual, and that hurts him among Jews (even with a daughter who converted), the black bourgeoisie, middle-class Hispanics, and the bulk of Asians who are more educated than whites of similar SES. Anti-intellectualism offends the well-educated, people who depend upon education for getting their jobs, and people who aspire to education as the only means that they have for escaping poverty. The Republican Party has been going blatantly anti-intellectual for several decades; consider that Eisenhower won 80% of the college-educated vote in the 1950's. On the other side, Donald Trump does well among ill-educated white people who see educated people more as exploiters (there are the people who correct their kids' grammar in school) than distant city-slickers. Trump is little-better educated than the typical high-school graduate with which he has affinity. He said "I love low-information voters", something that Republicans used to cavil about saying.