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.
Nah, he will do what every Republican administration has done. He will cut taxes and increase military spending. He will not be able to radically effect most spending cause...well, he doesn't control it. We will get pretty much the same budget but with less revenue to cover the bills.
Just another spend and borrow Republican.
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
For many Americans, it feels as if the 2016 election split the country in two.
To visualize this, we took the election results and created two new imaginary nations by slicing the country along the sharp divide between Republican and Democratic Americas.
Trump America
Spoiler:
Geographically, Donald J. Trump won most of the land area of the United States. A country consisting of areas he won retains more than 80 percent of the nation’s counties.
While Trump country is vast, its edges have been eroded by coastal Democrats, and it is riddled with large inland lakes of Clinton voters who were generally concentrated in dense urban areas.
infinite_array wrote: So, remember the gak Paul Ryan caught when he posted the Republican intern image that was a sea of white faces?
Well, now Mike Pence is at it:
Spoiler:
"Hey, can we push the half dozen women to the front of the crowd, please? And where's our token minority?"
Also, Trump's talking about doing a victory lap of rallies through all the states that he won. Sorry, but isn't there a job he's supposed to be preparing for?
Token guy is all the way in the back left corner, can't miss him.
Nah, he will do what every Republican administration has done. He will cut taxes and increase military spending. He will not be able to radically effect most spending cause...well, he doesn't control it. We will get pretty much the same budget but with less revenue to cover the bills.
Just another spend and borrow Republican.
ender502
He doesn't control spending. Got it. Of course you imply he can cut taxes. He does not control tax rates either.
But why be accurate, right?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
infinite_array wrote: So, remember the gak Paul Ryan caught when he posted the Republican intern image that was a sea of white faces?
Well, now Mike Pence is at it:
Spoiler:
"Hey, can we push the half dozen women to the front of the crowd, please? And where's our token minority?"
Also, Trump's talking about doing a victory lap of rallies through all the states that he won. Sorry, but isn't there a job he's supposed to be preparing for?
The token minority guy is stuck right at the back of the room in the top left. Bit unfortunate
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Like the rash of racist attacks that followed the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and, more recently, the “wave of hate crimes and hate incidents [that] washed over the U.K.” after this summer’s Brexit vote to leave the European Union, Potok said he predicts the current swell in post-election incidents will “peter out over the course of a couple of weeks.”
And here is a summation of the FBI's annual report:
Hate crimes in the United States ticked back up in 2015, after a 20-year low the year before, fueled in part by a 67 percent increase in crimes against Muslims, according to an FBI report released today.
Crimes against religious groups overall were up by 23 percent since 2014 and anti-black, white and LGBT incidents were all up last year as well. Most incidents -- nearly 30 percent -- in 2015 were anti-black crimes, the data show.
Crimes ran the gamut from simple assault to murder and rape.
In 2015, there were 257 anti-Muslim hate crimes, compared to 154 the year before, the data show. Overall hate crimes were up just under 7 percent, to 5,850 reported incidents.
So there was already a small uptick in hate crime before 2016 even started and that increase in 2015 came after a 20 year low in hate crimes. A nation the size of a continent containing 320,000,000 people and we have less than 6,000 hate crimes annually.
Well, figures on "hate crime" are a bit wanky to begin with. But thanks for the intel!
So, your elections always come with a rise in violence against minorities? Or is it a reaction to liberal transformation of society, the growing income gaps, or a resurgence of a racism that was always there?
We had and have similar strains running through German society, especially in Eastern Germany, where nazism/racism was only superficially covered up by socialist propaganda, and saw a swift return when West Germany destroyed the (rotten) industry of East Germany quasi overnight.
There is a pretty straight-forward connection between economic downturn/poverty, lack of democratic-liberal education, scape-goating immigrants/foreign influences, and a rise in violence against both liberal-democratic institutions and immigrants, both in language and in deed. And the more often these elements can voice their opinion unchallenged, and especially when such opinions are raised by people in power, the more accepted and "OK" it becomes to participate in that violent rhetoric and actions.
So this may very well be the beginning of a much worse trend, seeing how Trump will most likely crash US economy further and people like Steve Bannon moving into the White House.
Hard to tell about historical levels of post presidential election hate crimes. We've had federal hate crime laws since 1968 but they only considered crimes that which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.
We passed additional legislation in 2009 to remove the prerequisite that the victim had to be engaging in a federally protected activity so under that wider classification we can only compare 2016 to 2012.
Nah, he will do what every Republican administration has done. He will cut taxes and increase military spending. He will not be able to radically effect most spending cause...well, he doesn't control it. We will get pretty much the same budget but with less revenue to cover the bills.
Just another spend and borrow Republican.
ender502
He doesn't control spending. Got it. Of course you imply he can cut taxes. He does not control tax rates either.
But why be accurate, right?
Because the republican controlled congress isn't going to vote for tax cuts?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Nah, he will do what every Republican administration has done. He will cut taxes and increase military spending. He will not be able to radically effect most spending cause...well, he doesn't control it. We will get pretty much the same budget but with less revenue to cover the bills.
Just another spend and borrow Republican.
ender502
He doesn't control spending. Got it. Of course you imply he can cut taxes. He does not control tax rates either.
But why be accurate, right?
I was just pointing out how he will be just as incompetent as every other Republican president. Cut taxes, keep spending, borrow more. Am I missing something? Didn't think so.
I suggest actually learning about what Republican presidents have done before commenting. It helps you to be "accurate."
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
Oh yeah, that HuffPo pic is ten metric tons of bullgak, which is why no one takes the HuffPo seriously if other news outlets aren't reporting the same.
But the HuffPo's editors aren't the ones who are currently running the country.
It's kind of like the argument against the right/left fringes.
The left fringe is crazy, but it's restricted to the internet and college campuses.
The right fringe is crazy, and it's currently taking over the party's power.
There are four Koreans/chinese/viet there. What's with all the white hate for publications/company photos?
In a city - my office is around 30% African 65% Caucasian (1/4 Latino/Asian) and the last 5% is a mix of middle eastern/indian
Our CEOS are across the board are people of color. Our German or Canadian office? 99% Caucasian when I browse the company database. However - our entire HR team is African when I worked there for a short stint (30~ employees). I was the only Asian/Caucasian. If they took a picture of us - it would look almost staged.
It's not 'hate' - it's a concern about a lack of Diversity (capital D), which, especially when you're talking about Governmental organisations, or indeed some would ague, journalists (and law too), where it could be argued to be vitally important for people from different backgrounds to be directly represented.
Note I said vitally important - There's been many studies that show having different backgrounds and experiences is very important in general businesses and companies.
The Huffington post photo is SOOOO bad because they posted it while bragging about how much more diverse they are than the average company......yet, all I see in that group is women. Not a man in sight. Not really diverse.
Just checked, Ladbrokes is giving equal odds (7-1) to Booker or Warren being the Dem 2020 nominee. Cuomo and Sanders trail at 10-1. Any takers?
I'd have my money on Booker. Sanders isn't going to run again. Cuomo will almost assuredly run, but is too economically conservative for the recent progressive push to let him past (and the "we ran a moderate and lost to Trump" thing will not help him). I do find is hillarious that they have him below Michelle Obama, when she's stayed out of politics and focused on stuff like healthy kids. Warren isn't going to run, she's better where she is. But we have 4 years, another Obama might rise in that time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/17 22:40:28
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There was a really interesting story on Russia Today. They were discussing the Trump presidency, and there is a possibility that the USA might get a new state, a 51st state, and it's not Britain
Puerto Rico have a plan to send people to Washington, and do a 'Louisiana.'
They'll occupy the senate building and peacefully demand statehood. Trump is said to be open to the idea of Puerto Rico joining the USA.
Yeah, they might be only worth 1 EC vote or something,
but the whole thing sounds pretty neat.
There could be another star on old glory
Your thoughts?
The minimum number of EC votes a state can have is 3.
Nevermind my post. For some reason the reply someone else made didn't show up right away.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/17 23:03:04
Twinkle, Twinkle little star.
I ran over your Wave Serpents with my car.
cuda1179 wrote: The Huffington post photo is SOOOO bad because they posted it while bragging about how much more diverse they are than the average company......yet, all I see in that group is women. Not a man in sight. Not really diverse.
cuda1179 wrote: The Huffington post photo is SOOOO bad because they posted it while bragging about how much more diverse they are than the average company......yet, all I see in that group is women. Not a man in sight. Not really diverse.
That was my thoughts.
If the point being made is one of racial diversion and not gender, what's the issue?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
cuda1179 wrote: The Huffington post photo is SOOOO bad because they posted it while bragging about how much more diverse they are than the average company......yet, all I see in that group is women. Not a man in sight. Not really diverse.
That was my thoughts.
If the point being made is one of racial diversion and not gender, what's the issue?
cuda1179 wrote: The Huffington post photo is SOOOO bad because they posted it while bragging about how much more diverse they are than the average company......yet, all I see in that group is women. Not a man in sight. Not really diverse.
That was my thoughts.
If the point being made is one of racial diversion and not gender, what's the issue?
No black people?
Maybe on the left side, "behind" one of the asian ladies?? It's really hard to tell since all I can see is like, an eye and a forehead.
cuda1179 wrote: The Huffington post photo is SOOOO bad because they posted it while bragging about how much more diverse they are than the average company......yet, all I see in that group is women. Not a man in sight. Not really diverse.
They are not 99% white males. That is diversity. I know there are a lot of white men who get snippy when they seen groups engaging women and minorities and then claim "reverse discrimination" or whatever, but it's time to let it go. Women make up roughly half of the population, yet are grossly underrepresented in board rooms end executive positions. Minorities are similarly disproportionately low. They fact that a company may end up with a majority minority makeup is actually a good thing, so long as they didn't engage in discriminatory practices to get there.
But they are liberals, so they are inherently evil and probably planning to take all the guns anyway.
cuda1179 wrote: The Huffington post photo is SOOOO bad because they posted it while bragging about how much more diverse they are than the average company......yet, all I see in that group is women. Not a man in sight. Not really diverse.
They are not 99% white males. That is diversity. I know there are a lot of white men who get snippy when they seen groups engaging women and minorities and then claim "reverse discrimination" or whatever, but it's time to let it go. Women make up roughly half of the population, yet are grossly underrepresented in board rooms end executive positions. Minorities are similarly disproportionately low. They fact that a company may end up with a majority minority makeup is actually a good thing, so long as they didn't engage in discriminatory practices to get there.
But they are liberals, so they are inherently evil and probably planning to take all the guns anyway.
Houston traded all its guns for Brock Osweiler, see where that gets them.
I wish to thank Whembly for the article on Bannon. It was very informative.
I think the topic of "is Bannon a racist?" does not really matter. The article points out that his goal is to transform American conservatism to be closer to the European far-right. To do this, he supportive in increasing the influence of the alt-right.
Do we all agree that the Alt-right is pushing white nationalism and that is racist?
If he is trying to increase the influence of a racist point of view, isn't that enough reason to be concerned?
Well the far right in Europe has a lot of racism. One might go so far as to say that many far right parties there run on it. I'm not so sure one can reconcile not being racist with that goal unless one is completely oblivious.
~4100
~1660
