Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am going to guess that 'integrating with America" means becoming a white, old, rural republican.

 Easy E wrote:
I am going to guess that 'integrating with America" means becoming a white, old, rural republican.

Basically. When they say integrate, they don't mean a seamless blend of cultures, but "stop not being like us."

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I am going to guess that 'integrating with America" means becoming a white, old, rural republican.

Basically. When they say integrate, they don't mean a seamless blend of cultures, but "stop not being like us."

It's easy to bust America's balls on this topic, but we do a better job of integrating immigrant culture into our own than most. Jewish, Catholic, and Mormon culture is part of our national landscape in a way that would have been almost unthinkable 100 years ago. We eat ethnic food and watch telenovellas. We get drunk on St. Patrick's day and Cinco de Mayo. yes, it's expected that immigrants assimilate, but it's also possible to have full assimilation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The Democrat erosion of the 2nd Amendment at least is based on the laudable idea of reducing crime and violent death, not some personal bias against XXX (gays, Islam, immigrants, black people, etc.)

No its based on a personal bias against guns. Very little has been put forward to try and reduce violence or crime, but a lot of bs on looks has.Nothing laudable about outlawing a rifle not used in crimes because it has a bayonet lug.

If the Democrats want to attack systemic violence in America they can start and end with the legalization of drugs, and to a lesser extent getting young Black males to not kill each other.

Oh you mean like states legalizing weed left and right? Or states decriminalizing small amounts of it? Only to be sued by red states over it

 Polonius wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I am going to guess that 'integrating with America" means becoming a white, old, rural republican.

Basically. When they say integrate, they don't mean a seamless blend of cultures, but "stop not being like us."

It's easy to bust America's balls on this topic, but we do a better job of integrating immigrant culture into our own than most. Jewish, Catholic, and Mormon culture is part of our national landscape in a way that would have been almost unthinkable 100 years ago. We eat ethnic food and watch telenovellas. We get drunk on St. Patrick's day and Cinco de Mayo. yes, it's expected that immigrants assimilate, but it's also possible to have full assimilation.

In all fairness they weren't referring to America overall but just how some specific group is. Overall we are pretty cool about this kind of stuff, but there are small groups that get bent out of shape about the other.

 jmurph wrote:
Ok, so saying "conservative" in regards to GOP glosses over some pretty different groups:
Business conservatives who like deregulation and lower taxation- this group includes large corporate interests and wealthy elites. This is the big funder of GOP politics and seems to be in the crosshairs this primary.
Cultural conservatives who range from moderate to extreme fundamentalists. This group is the voting base of the GOP and seems to be increasingly hostile to the globalism of the first group. This is where you see the strong naturalism, populism, and protectionist rhetoric scoring big.

Sort of. You're missing the central group, movement conservatives. These are the guys who have dominated Republican leadership for decades, who's control has only recently come under threat. When various Republicans are discussed as 'true' conservatives' or not, it is against movement conservative values that they are being assessed. They hold a position which is basically 'small government', but while this is like most conservatives it's their focus on small government for its own sake that makes them unique. A business conservative might want open markets so he can better compete, and would therefore conclude government should be smaller, but a movement conservative starts with smaller government and then figures out what might good about that.

It was on social issues that movement conservatism drew it's early impetus, as their focus on small government made for a much better way of arguing for social conservative positions that were quickly becoming untenable. On civil rights it was almost impossible to argue for white supremacy or even seperate but equal, but the movement conservative argument of fighting Fed govt power, through state's rights, was an argument that was still viable. But while this may have been early in-road to conservative politics, movement conservatives aren't inherently social conservatives. Nor are they really economic conservatives, as their drive for less and less government quickly moves beyond any economic argument, and is pursued entirely for its own sake.

The thing about movement conservatives, though, is that while they've dominated GOP leadership since Reagan, and now make up almost all of the conservative punditry, the actual base of voters they command has been doubtful. Most people really don't give a crap about ideologically pure theories. It was an academic movement turned to a political movement, that never actually built a grassroot voter base.

But the movement has always been well positioned to frame its arguments to appeal to other conservative groups. They're not economic conservatives, but it isn't hard to sell tax cuts. They're not social conservatives, but it isn't hard to sell 'less fed govt' to people who've been on the losing end of federal decision on civil rights, integrated schools, abortion, and now gay marriage. And they've appealled to racists with dog whistles - they sell a reduced social safety net with talk of 'welfare queens' and 'strapping young bucks on food stamps'.

And so once the Republican base is seen through that framework, we get a part-explanation for what Trump has managed to do. See, while a diverse group might have preferred Republicans for social conservative reasons or whatever else, that support was often in spite of some Republican policies. The Republicans aren't unique in that, no major party can perfectly appeal to everyone. But Republicans had the problem worse than most, because some elements of the movement conservative platform appeal to almost no-one. The social security cuts loved by the movement conservatives are extremely unpopular.

Trump's possibly accidental genius was to adopt all the bits of the GOP that appealed to many voters, while ditching the bits that large block of voters didn't like. He didn't just keep the racist language, he cranked it to 11. But at the same time he actually came out clearly in favour of the social security network, he's actually promised to expand social security. It isn't too hard to see how Trump might capture GOP voters who blame their low incomes on immigration, illegal or otherwise, but at the same time rely on government support.

Now in order to win a national election, the GOP needs both these groups, plus enough political moderates that don't identify strongly as Democrats. The problem is that the second group is pushing against the other two blocs that the Repubs need to actually win.

They need to do that, and at the same time they need to avoid appearing so radical that it frightens lots of liberal leaning people to go out and vote against the Republican candidate. The other big problem that the GOP has right now is that the Democrats have more voters. They counter that problem by having a more energised voter base, but it means they run the risk every election of pissing off the large number of Democratic casual voters.

 Ustrello wrote:
Oh you mean like states legalizing weed left and right? Or states decriminalizing small amounts of it? Only to be sued by red states over it

4 states is hardly left and right, nor does it touch on the billions of dollars made in hard drugs. And two states suing is ridiculous, but hardly just a red state thing. Either way, not a Democrat incentive but the peoples incentive. Cannabis didn't become legal because of any prominent Democrat initiatives, it was almost entirely grass roots. Of course that is all being taken over by venture capitalist feth bags now.

Edited by RiTides - Please avoid combining words that avoid the swear filter.

I'm more mocky this idea certain groups seem to have that anyone who isn't a bible thumping, flag waving, eating steak at the barbaque on 4th of July, red blooded Murican is somehow "not integrating."

For exactly the reasons Polonius points out, that has never been the case and it's never been the doomsday scenario some people seem to think it is. American culture, for all its problems with immigrants, has in the long run been remarkably successful at adapting people from many different places and backgrounds into a single society.

 whembly wrote:
GOP leadership is the blame by ignoring the conservatives/tea party movement. They're paying the piper now...

The first problem is that there was never a coherent, viable Tea Party platform. "We're angry about stuff... and things" is all good and well for a rally, but it doesn't translate in to much of a policy platform.

The second part is that the Tea Party is far from ignored. go look at the five ringed circus I know you like, and have put up on this site. Walker, Perry, Carson and finally Cruz are all Tea Party darlings. There has probably never been a Republican field with more outsiders/rabble rousers/hardliners.

This primary doesn't show a Tea Party that's been ignored. It shows a Tea Party that's almost claimed the dominant position in control of the GOP.

Trump relates to this in that he's a seperate symptom of the same core problem. The core of the Republican party, movement conservatism, is really struggling for appeal and direction, in large part because they've won (taxes and government are nothing like they were in the 80s). Lacking a policy platform that resonates, its easy to see how it led to the Tea Party, which sort of, more or less, took the ideas of movement conservatism but made them more extreme and lots crazier. Trump is a different kind of approach, he's taking the parts of movement conservatism that still work, and ditching the more problematic parts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
If the Democrats want to attack systemic violence in America they can start and end with the legalization of drugs

Except almost every other developed country has bans on everything from weed upwards, and nothing like the US murder toll. Nor is gang violence actually a major contributor to the murder rate. Here's my favourite link on this subject, once again;
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2013.xls

That link well tell you that drug and gangland killings in total are about 1,000 murders a year, out of a total of 12,000. The category "Other arguments" is almost three times that by itself.

The US murder rate isn't driven by drugs, or by drug laws. If it was then the rest of the developed, except the Netherlands and maybe one or two other places, would have murder rates just like the US. But they don't. Because they don't have mass proliferation of lethal weapons.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
If the Democrats want to attack systemic violence in America they can start and end with the legalization of drugs

Except almost every other developed country has bans on everything from weed upwards, and nothing like the US murder toll. Nor is gang violence actually a major contributor to the murder rate. Here's my favourite link on this subject, once again;
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2013.xls

That link well tell you that drug and gangland killings in total are about 1,000 murders a year, out of a total of 12,000. The category "Other arguments" is almost three times that by itself.

The US murder rate isn't driven by drugs, or by drug laws. If it was then the rest of the developed, except the Netherlands and maybe one or two other places, would have murder rates just like the US. But they don't. Because they don't have mass proliferation of lethal weapons.

So if 50% of American murders are committed by Black males, and its not related to drug and gang turf, then what is it? I have trouble believing that levels of melanin really affect violence rates that much, or that the police are unfairly targeting Black males for murder convictions. That other arguments tab doesn't preclude drug or gang related murders, just that they weren't tried that way. And changing the drug laws would absolutely have an affect on murder rates in other parts of America, namely South and Central America.

And I really wish people would stop acting like the US murder rate is so high. 2 or 4 out of 100K really isn't all that much different honestly.

The last I checked, gun murders by a friend, family member or acquaintance were by far the most common, with "professional criminal" or spree shootings much less common.

Of course, suicide is by far the most common way to die by firearm.

 sebster wrote:
Trump is a different kind of approach, he's taking the parts of movement conservatism that still work, and ditching the more problematic parts.

Accidental or not... that makes him a genius. And very fething dangerous at the same time.

DutchWinsAll wrote:


So if 50% of American murders are committed by Black males, and its not related to drug and gang turf, then what is it? .

Black people have conflicts beyond drugs and gangs.

DutchWinsAll wrote:
So if 50% of American murders are committed by Black males, and its not related to drug and gang turf, then what is it? I have trouble believing that levels of melanin really affect violence rates that much, or that the police are unfairly targeting Black males for murder convictions.

According to one report that I have read, economic despair is the number #1 "cause" of crime. As Polonius points out, most murdering is done by people who fairly intimately know each other is the most common "form" of murder, and most murders are actually "crimes of passion" and not pre-meditated.

You are correct in that melanin levels aren't to blame, but you can quickly see how looking at things economically, people with more melanin, statistically speaking are in a bad way economically. We also know from statistics that if a black person goes to court for the "same" crime as a white person, the black person is far more likely to receive the maximum sentence.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
GOP leadership is the blame by ignoring the conservatives/tea party movement. They're paying the piper now...

The first problem is that there was never a coherent, viable Tea Party platform. "We're angry about stuff... and things" is all good and well for a rally, but it doesn't translate in to much of a policy platform.

The second part is that the Tea Party is far from ignored. go look at the five ringed circus I know you like, and have put up on this site. Walker, Perry, Carson and finally Cruz are all Tea Party darlings. There has probably never been a Republican field with more outsiders/rabble rousers/hardliners.

This primary doesn't show a Tea Party that's been ignored. It shows a Tea Party that's almost claimed the dominant position in control of the GOP.

When the Tea Party got candidates elected, like Rubio for example, and then those candidates did not deliver on their promises, or worse went the opposite direction (like Rubio on immigration) then Wembly's case they feel ignored is probably not very far off the mark. And seeing candidates like Rubio and Bush being pushed down their throats just exacerbated that feeling.

 Polonius wrote:
Of course, suicide is by far the most common way to die by firearm.

I was watching the 30 For 30 on the 1985 Bears and it talked about one of the players killing themselves at one point and Jim McMahon said that he had such pain from the hits that if he had had a gun he would have killed himself to stop the pain.

It's one of those things that we really seem puzzled by. Americans are probably not that much more likely to want to kill somebody (or themselves), but are far more likely to have access to a gun, which dramatically increases the chances of success.

I'm not necessarily in favor of gun control, but lets not pretend that our gun violence rates are somehow unrelated to the sheer ubiquity of guns.

Startimg with a philosophy and then trying to find what it 'helps' is a backwards way of doing something.

 skyth wrote:
Startimg with a philosophy and then trying to find what it 'helps' is a backwards way of doing something.

Not entirely, because the philosophy wasn't really that high minded or abstract. We think of the arguments about "big government" vs. "Small government" as pretty narrow settings. Obamacare is "bigger government" because it has a mandate to purchase health insurance, but health care is already heavily regulated, with the government buying huge chunks already between Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and Federal employee plans. It was big before, and it's slightly bigger now. Bush tax cuts were for "small government," but kept most taxes.

Sure, there's the occasional call to close down the Fed or breaking up the big Wall Street banks, but for the most part, things have stayed within a pretty narrow band of regulated capitalism for a few generations.

Movement conservatives were born from something far more traumatic: the New Deal. We don't understand how huge it was, because the country was much more laissze fair prior to it, and the regulations of the New Deal were incredibly intrusive into business. Tack on the threat of communism, and movement conservatism was born with a pure ideology: smaller government.

It reached a climax with Ronald Reagan. Now, objective observers might now that Reagan was an unusually charismatic leader at a time when the USSR really suffered long term economic collapse (at least partially due to low oil prices). But movement conservatives saw that an ideologically pure president was hugely popular. The goal, since the 80s, has been to recreate that.

Still seems backward to start at 'smaller government is better' and then trying to come up with whys that match what you want. Almost like a creationist doing science

So the National Enquirer (yes, that one) reports that Cruz has had 5 affairs...and offers pics of the ladies (pretty easy to id pics).

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/24/the-national-enquirer-runs-story-of-multiple-ted-cruz-affairs/

Thoughts?

Looks like the connections are there...

Also sounds like it was an elephant in the room for awhile that nobody talked about hoping nobody would talk about it.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So the National Enquirer (yes, that one) reports that Cruz has had 5 affairs...and offers pics of the ladies (pretty easy to id pics).

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/24/the-national-enquirer-runs-story-of-multiple-ted-cruz-affairs/

Thoughts?

Looks like the connections are there...

Also sounds like it was an elephant in the room for awhile that nobody talked about hoping nobody would talk about it.

For me... It's kind of a "meh" issue.... I've come to pretty much expect that ANY politician who runs on "Family Values" or "Christian Traditions" or whatever other buzzword, is going to get caught, literally or figuratively, with their pants down.

Do I think this will sink him?? Probably not. His supporters will figure out some way of hand-waving this away, ignore it altogether, or come up with some Clinton conspiracy theory. In the most latter instance, I could see a more long-term effect on party politics from that side of the fence, but it won't really have that big an impact in the grand scheme of things.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So the National Enquirer (yes, that one) reports that Cruz has had 5 affairs...and offers pics of the ladies (pretty easy to id pics).

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/24/the-national-enquirer-runs-story-of-multiple-ted-cruz-affairs/

Thoughts?

Looks like the connections are there...

Also sounds like it was an elephant in the room for awhile that nobody talked about hoping nobody would talk about it.

So a gossip publication of this ilk is pushing this...

How 'bout we wait for someone more... reputable... no?

In a way, it'd be nice to see us move on from judging a person's lifestyle when we vote. The question of who Mr. Cruz was sleeping with is a matter for him and Ms. Cruz, not us.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So the National Enquirer (yes, that one) reports that Cruz has had 5 affairs...and offers pics of the ladies (pretty easy to id pics).

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/24/the-national-enquirer-runs-story-of-multiple-ted-cruz-affairs/

Thoughts?

Looks like the connections are there...

Also sounds like it was an elephant in the room for awhile that nobody talked about hoping nobody would talk about it.

I am positively giddy at the prospect that this could even be slightly true. A great big smile slowly bloomed upon my face as I read the linked article.

But, that is, admittedly, my Ted Cruz hate boner talking.

 whembly wrote:


How 'bout we wait for someone more... reputable... no?

Perhaps this isn't much more "reputable," but I find the quote, and it's implications interesting:

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/03/25/numerous-reports-claim-ted-cruz-extramarital-affairs/

Basically... the quote is that the NE got "leaked" info, not quite the same as what most people would consider their usual tricks.... Also, this article does point out that it was also the Enquirer that initially broke the Edwards' affair in 07, which turned out to be completely true...


So yeah, I'm actually with you whembly, in saying, let's wait for more details and whatnot.... but the way things are worded here, I have my suspicions that it's true..

And of course, the google search shows a USA Today piece where Cruz is calling this leaked story an "attack" from the Trump camp


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
In a way, it'd be nice to see us move on from judging a person's lifestyle when we vote. The question of who Mr. Cruz was sleeping with is a matter for him and Ms. Cruz, not us.

I agree with this sentiment, however when one of your major talking points is the "sanctity of marriage" and "family values".... being hypocritical, and a liar can be a bit tough to look past, even if it is only a "lifestyle" issue.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
In a way, it'd be nice to see us move on from judging a person's lifestyle when we vote. The question of who Mr. Cruz was sleeping with is a matter for him and Ms. Cruz, not us.

I agree with this sentiment, however when one of your major talking points is the "sanctity of marriage" and "family values".... being hypocritical, and a liar can be a bit tough to look past, even if it is only a "lifestyle" issue.

A couple of points.

Family values don't mean what you think they do. The implied meaning has changed over the years, as the culture wars shift from premarital sex to cohabitation to gay marriage to trans rights, but generally it means a support of an idealized nuclear family unit. It also carries a whiff of very staunch conservative ideals, such as marriage within ones race, husbands leading the household, and efforts to exclude those that are different.

Further, most family values voters don't want a leader that exhibits those values, otherwise they'd love Obama. They want somebody that will impose those values on others.

I do think that being seen as insincere or hypocritical could effect enthusiasm, which given that Cruz is running a strict excite the base type of platform, wouldn't bode well.

 whembly wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So the National Enquirer (yes, that one) reports that Cruz has had 5 affairs...and offers pics of the ladies (pretty easy to id pics).

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/24/the-national-enquirer-runs-story-of-multiple-ted-cruz-affairs/

Thoughts?

Looks like the connections are there...

Also sounds like it was an elephant in the room for awhile that nobody talked about hoping nobody would talk about it.

So a gossip publication of this ilk is pushing this...

How 'bout we wait for someone more... reputable... no?

They broke the Edwards cheating scandal, and 2-3 others as well.

Also, just heard it referred to as the Cuban Mistress Crisis.

 Polonius wrote:

Family values don't mean what you think they do. The implied meaning has changed over the years, as the culture wars shift from premarital sex to cohabitation to gay marriage to trans rights, but generally it means a support of an idealized nuclear family unit. It also carries a whiff of very staunch conservative ideals, such as marriage within ones race, husbands leading the household, and efforts to exclude those that are different.

Further, most family values voters don't want a leader that exhibits those values, otherwise they'd love Obama. They want somebody that will impose those values on others.

I do think that being seen as insincere or hypocritical could effect enthusiasm, which given that Cruz is running a strict excite the base type of platform, wouldn't bode well.

That is precisely what I mean... It is a term that is strongly associated with the evangelical movement and Christianity in particular.

And for me, when a candidate professes Family Values, a married man seeking or engaging in sexual relations outside of the home goes completely against their monogamous ideas. You make a fair point about FV voters not liking Obama, because I would posit that there are slightly racist tones to the view... In the 60s and 70s, this crowd railed against hippies, and African-American communities, decrying a decline in morals.... and yet, they failed to take in the economic reality: for many the idea that a black family had two bread-winners was because of a moral deficiency, not because they were fighting an uphill battle with a racist system and the father couldn't get paid enough money for the same work, or couldn't even get the same work as white men, thus forcing the family into the position that either the wife works as well, or they end up on the street.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:


They broke the Edwards cheating scandal, and 2-3 others as well.

Also, just heard it referred to as the Cuban Mistress Crisis.

If you head to the link I posted, they mention the Edwards scandal, but also that the Enquirer ran a story of Palin cheating which turned out completely false... So they aren't batting 1.000 in the "correct cheating story" department