Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Agree completely re Section 5. But that's not the law in jurisdictions that weren't subject to Section 5.

I am aware.

I bet the NC jurisdictions in question are on the list, though.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/jurisdic...ered-section-5

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe back in the day when the UAW told working class white people how to vote, but that is not where we are today.

There are parts of America that are both heavily white and yet still vote strongly D. Or, "Hello, from Minneapolis."

Sure, the red area to my northwest is even more heavily white, but I'm not sure race alone would get your there in Minnesota.

Urban/suburban/exurban/rural largely does.

Which is not to say I really disagree with you.

[SEC_Chick]

So a while back, if you recall, I reached a point where I was incapable of being continually outraged at the goings on in the Trump administration, but I was still an avid consumer of news and carefully cultivated NeverTrump conservative commentary.

I have recently blown through another plateau, and can no longer even bring myself to follow the Trump overseas trip. I no longer devour the WSJ or listen to CNN on my way home, and have dropped off of conservative Twitter.

What caused this change?

On Saturday night I took the SEC Chicklette to her first concert: NKOTB (formerly known as New Kids on the Block) with Boyz II Men opening. I think you will all mainly agree that I am mostly correct when I say I am the only one on this board so impacted, but seriously, watching Donnie Wahlberg rip off his shirt and throw it into a crowd of screaming middle aged women changed my entire outlook. I hate it when people are uneducated about current events or their impact on society, but I am so much happier listening to cds from high school followed by a strong margarita.

The kiddo also favored "the guy in the hat" and I did not have the strength to tell her he was wearing a hat because he is balding.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So a while back, if you recall, I reached a point where I was incapable of being continually outraged at the goings on in the Trump administration, but I was still an avid consumer of news and carefully cultivated NeverTrump conservative commentary.

I have recently blown through another plateau, and can no longer even bring myself to follow the Trump overseas trip. I no longer devour the WSJ or listen to CNN on my way home, and have dropped off of conservative Twitter.

What caused this change?

On Saturday night I took the SEC Chicklette to her first concert: NKOTB (formerly known as New Kids on the Block) with Boyz II Men opening. I think you will all mainly agree that I am mostly correct when I say I am the only one on this board so impacted, but seriously, watching Donnie Wahlberg rip off his shirt and throw it into a crowd of screaming middle aged women changed my entire outlook. I hate it when people are uneducated about current events or their impact on society, but I am so much happier listening to cds from high school followed by a strong margarita.

The kiddo also favored "the guy in the hat" and I did not have the strength to tell her he was wearing a hat because he is balding.

you want to teach the kiddo that balding is fine, attractive even, especially given the outside chance that Handmaiden's Tale is prophetic.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Yes, please drop the mic. No need to pick it back up. You win. JK!!!! Don't run away again! But yes, let's keep talking about what systemic, deep-rooted, heretofore-ignored injustices against white people that caused Trump to be elected. Because it is SO TOTES UNFAIR that people keep blaming you and others who blithely voted for third party candidates while assuring us that it made no difference. How many points was Hill gonna win PA by? Never mind, let's try to find out how we can make the disaffected white people happy so this doesn't happen again. Like the Trump supporters who are trolling Ariana Grande (led by the Cernovich, whom you described as "independent media"), because she once said "I hate America" in reaction to seeing a giant tray of doughnuts, so the bombing TOTALLY IS HER FAULT!!!!!! Yes, I want to spend lots of time wringing my hands about what I have done wrong in my life that has turned these people into moronic half-wit hateful trolls. Maybe I wasn't sufficiently coal-friendly? Maybe I drove my hybrid with a look of judgmental superiority. Once I gave a disapproving look at someone who called the Washington Post retarded AND THIS CHILLED THEIR SPEECH AND MADE THEM FEEL ALL SAD AND CONDESCENDED TO. You can call someone a retard without being prejudiced against retarded people, right??? Yes, this is good. I think I'm making progress. I am beginning to understand just how much Trump is MY FAULT and the fault of others like me. I'm beginning to see the light. There are problems in these times, but oooh, none of them are mine. I can't believe people are still talking about Russia. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. That was so two weeks ago. The hysterical media has its head up its ass, navel-gazing from the inside about THE CRAZY FUCKING SHIT TRUMP IS DOING RIGHT NOW, instead of focusing on why white people got sad and made Trump in the first place. Preach the truth, Sebastian. Don't let's bullies like Thurgreed silence you. You see the game. It's a chess match between Bezos and Trump, but instead of Rooks and Knights, they have napalm and Twitter. And we're the pawns! Takes a cat like Sebastian to see what's what. You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows. Because you can't see the fucking wind!!! Think. About. It. Sounds cynical, but scratch a cynic and you find a disappointed idealist. This cat Carlin said that. You should check his shit out.

Meters for the Daily Dose. "Pungee." Slow, funky groove with a backbeat that pushes it forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZybD2r6I4E

God, you are such a whiner. I mean, this is funny in spots, but the overall hysteria renders it more sophomore-at-campus-rally than John Stewart in his prime.

When I note "economic problems" caused Trump to be elected, I do not mean exclusively those impacting white rust belt or low skilled workers in Trump's base. I mean wage stagnation and govt failure to address the headwinds facing labor (automation, globalization, etc.) impacting people of all backgrounds and colors. As I'm a giving and patient sort, I'll connect the ostensibly obvious dots for you...

One of the reasons Hillary lost was because minority voters didn't come out to vote for her. Nor did the unions. Why is that? Because the unions viewed her as a neoliberal economic policy advocate in Wall Street's pocket (the heads supported her... the rank and file quietly pulled the lever for Trump). This view of her was in large part accurate. Minorities weren't excited by her for reasons I think non-minorities weren't excited by her: They've given up believing politicians can truly impact their lives in any meaningful way.

People who've been fucked over by the system become jaded and apathetic, for good reason. This describes a lot of minority voters. They're smart enough to spot bullshitters, having been bullshitted by so many politicians for so long. And like it or not, Hillary was considered, even by those who liked her, to be comprised of a fair amount of bullshit. Minority voters knew this person was not going to significantly improve minority unemployment (which have remained the highest under Obama).

Trump was, of course, entirely full of shit. Everyone spotted that. Except the dimwits who figured he could actually "bring urrr jobs back." Along with the bigots, loons, and those who vote purely against regulation and for lower taxes, they filled out his barely winning coalition.

But without any one of those five categories of voters (loons, bigots, tax voters, anti-regulation voters, and people who believed he could bring back jobs), Trump loses.

It is inescapable that long standing economic malaise, and politicians refusing to address it, led to a certain level of apathy among would-be Hillary voters of all backgrounds, and a certain level of enthusiasm among Trump voters. This isn't by any means the sole reason Trump won, but it's a significant piece of the puzzle. And when I say economic problems are a big cause of Trump's election, and Hillary's loss, that is not limited to whites. The plight of the poor to middle class voter in this country - of all backgrounds - impacts elections in myriad ways. Their anger is fluid, and manifests itself in different ways. One cycle, they're throwing out the Ds. The next, the Rs. Their apathy is also confounding. Many don't bother to vote at all. Others become third party protest voters.

It's not as simple as "forsaken entitled whites voted Trump into office," and no one has credibly argued that's the root cause of Trump. That's your simplification of a more complex argument, which makes things easy for you to understand. It also makes it binary for you -- gives you an easy enemy.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

God, you are such a whiner. I mean, this is funny in spots, but the overall hysteria renders it more sophomore-at-campus-rally than John Stewart in his prime.

When I note "economic problems" caused Trump to be elected, I do not mean exclusively those impacting white rust belt or low skilled workers in Trump's base. I mean wage stagnation and govt failure to address the headwinds facing labor (automation, globalization, etc.) impacting people of all backgrounds and colors. As I'm a giving and patient sort, I'll connect the ostensibly obvious dots for you...

One of the reasons Hillary lost was because minority voters didn't come out to vote for her. Nor did the unions. Why is that? Because the unions viewed her as a neoliberal economic policy advocate in Wall Street's pocket (the heads supported her... the rank and file quietly pulled the lever for Trump). This view of her was in large part accurate. Minorities weren't excited by her for reasons I think non-minorities weren't excited by her: They've given up believing politicians can truly impact their lives in any meaningful way.

People who've been fucked over by the system become jaded and apathetic, for good reason. This describes a lot of minority voters. They're smart enough to spot bullshitters, having been bullshitted by so many politicians for so long. And like it or not, Hillary was considered, even by those who liked her, to be comprised of a fair amount of bullshit. Minority voters knew this person was not going to significantly improve minority unemployment (which had actually gotten worse under Obama).

Trump was, of course, entirely full of shit. Everyone spotted that. Except the dimwits who figured he could actually "bring urrr jobs back." Along with the bigots, loons, and those who vote purely against regulation and for lower taxes, they filled out his barely winning coalition.

But without any one of those five categories of voters (loons, bigots, tax voters, anti-regulation voters, and people who believed he could bring back jobs), Trump loses.

It is inescapable that long standing economic malaise, and politicians refusing to address it, led to a certain level of apathy among would-be Hillary voters of all backgrounds, and a certain level of enthusiasm among Trump voters. This isn't by any means the sole reason Trump won, but it's a significant piece of the puzzle. And when I say economic problems are a big cause of Trump's election, and Hillary's loss, that is not limited to whites. The plight of the poor to middle class voter in this country - of all backgrounds - impacts elections in myriad ways. Their anger is fluid, and manifests itself in different ways. One cycle, they're throwing out the Ds. The next, the Rs. Their apathy is also confounding. Many don't bother to vote at all. Others become third party protest voters.

It's not as simple as "forsaken entitled whites voted Trump into office," and no one has credibly argued that's the root cause of Trump. That's your simplification of a more complex argument, which makes things easy for you to understand. It also makes it binary for you -- gives you an easy enemy.

You take things way too literally. I was just doing some stream of consciousness riffing. Basically a combo of you and SNL's drunk uncle. I LEARNED IT FROM YOU, DAD.

ETA: The trolling of Grande is seriously fucked up, though, and it was started by your boy Cernovich. I'd respond to your substantive points, but I have not read them. I'm sure they are compelling. It's James Brown Thursday on the Daily Dose. "Get Up Offa That Thing":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_uNMy20qAI

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You take things way too literally. I was just doing some stream of consciousness riffing. Basically a combo of you and SNL's drunk uncle. I LEARNED IT FROM YOU, DAD.

ETA: The trolling of Grande is seriously fucked up, though, and it was started by your boy Cernovich. I'd respond to your substantive points, but I have not read them. I'm sure they are compelling. It's James Brown Thursday on the Daily Dose. "Get Up Offa That Thing":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_uNMy20qAI

Thank God you are okay. I was very worried when i read this. Has anyone heard from Coltrane?

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/fish...n-great-lakes/

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Agree completely, and agree completely on your Sebby posts two. He owns it.

Buckley Voice, sneeringly as possible: "You, uh -- say this like I... care."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, those of us who campaigned for, donated to and voted for the other possible alternative elected this guy. Uh huh.

You're the very worst of offenders. You've never seen an argument suggesting things aren't going swimmingly in the economy that you didn't attempt to shred.

Even in yesterday's back and forth with Ty, you default to using the most blunt statistics to tout the conventional, classic economists' commentaries. These same people who see something as bizarre as Trump's election and say, "How could that have happened in a world where everything is going so well for everyone?"

The data's designed and carefully massaged to shade things in a certain direction. That direction is positive. This is not in dispute.

The only astute things I've noted in your critiques of late are the admissions the growth of the middle class from the 50s through the 90s was an aberration, and that we'll never see significant growth again in our lifetimes without another dot com bubble type of event, which is unlikely.

I doubt you grasped when writing that how much it knocks the foundations out from under so many other positions you take.

At least GGG offered the admission, "Yeah, most people are getting fucked, but we're fairly high up the ladder... and it beats Brazil!"

I agree with you and him on those points. The question I'd prefer to ponder is, "How do we deal with a world in which labor becomes increasingly unnecessary at an exponentially increasing rate?" This labor includes people doing what you and I are doing, by the way. So it is worth considering.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

One of the reasons Hillary lost was because minority voters didn't come out to vote for her.

One reason minority voters turned out less is the GOP's nationwide effort to suppress minority votes, which was particularly successful in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Maybe, but we're seven years into a recovery (and then there's the matter of how much people get paid for that employment).

If you had assets, it's been a decent recovery. (If you bought into the market at its basement, it's been awesome.)

For those trading their skills and labor for money, it's been a very mixed bag.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

One reason minority voters turned out less is the GOP's nationwide effort to suppress minority votes, which was particularly successful in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Bullshit as to PA. Philly and Pittsburgh are 80% of the minority vote, and there is no suppression in those towns. Those folks simply did not come out. Or they voted for Trump (union people).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You've never seen an argument suggesting things aren't going swimmingly in the economy that you didn't attempt to shred.

We have had this exchange repeatedly. And I've repeatedly said I don't think the economy is going swimmingly, I just don't think it's anywhere near as dire as you keep portraying it.

You keep trying to reduce the current political moment to the economy. It's a factor, but you can't dismiss racism, xenophobia and misogyny so easily.

Even in yesterday's back and forth with Ty, you default to using the most blunt statistics to tout the conventional, classic economists' commentaries.

Yes, the most blunt statistics, as in all available measures of employment.

These same people who see something as bizarre as Trump's election and say, "How could that have happened in a world where everything is going so well for everyone?"

It can happen in large part because America is deeply misogynistic. It can happen because xenophobia and Islamophobia are powerful tools that were only at the sideline of our politics out of the restraint of well-intentioned politicians. It can happen because America is still profoundly racist.

Ultimately, 45 won, primarily, because he was willing to say the things that the crudest Americans wanted to hear. The things that the GOP had learned not to say, because "elites" don't say them and because they alienate our allies.

It's popular to think that those sentiments only come out when the economy is bad, but that's profoundly ahistorical. America has always been that way.

The data's designed and carefully massaged to shade things in a certain direction. That direction is positive.

It's not and this in tinfoil hat stuff.

The only astute things I've noted in your critiques of late are the admissions the growth of the middle class from the 50s through the 90s was an aberration

No, I said the peak in workforce participation is an aberration. The growth in the middle class is what happens in an industrializing society.

and that we'll never see significant growth again in our lifetimes without another dot com bubble type of event

No, I said we'll never see peak levels of workforce participation absent another bubble. Grow we can do.

which is unlikely

Maybe I'm younger than y'all, but I'd wager I'll see another in my lifetime. Just don't ask me when.

I doubt you grasped when writing that how much it knocks the foundations out from under so many other positions you take.

Only if you misunderstand the terms used, as you have.

The question I'd prefer to ponder is, "How do we deal with a world in which labor becomes increasingly unnecessary at an exponentially increasing rate?"

The answer to this question is that labor doesn't become unnecessary. It moves to other uses. Services. Creative output. Research. I dunno and I don't have to be able to explain them all to you.

This labor includes people doing what you and I are doing, by the way. So it is worth considering.

It's going to be a long time before technology can fully replace thinking for a living.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Philly and Pittsburgh are 80% of the minority vote, and there is no suppression in those towns.

Funny, that's not what they were saying on election day.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The answer to this question is that labor doesn't become unnecessary. It moves to other uses. Services. Creative output. Research. I dunno and I don't have to be able to explain them all to you.

Yes you do. Because so far, you've been wrong. So far, low paying service work is almost all that's replaced the traditional jobs (management, manufacturing, admin, etc.) lost. The burden of at least attempting to show how the trend toward increasingly crappy jobs for most of the displaced falls will change is exactly on you. Because it's your school of abstract thinking on these issues that's provided faux academic cover for the policy people to ignore them.

The reason you'll never ever do that is not only because you are not a very creative thinker, but because you have not even a credible theory as to what will replace the jobs lost. Not. A. Clue.

Is Snapchat going to suddenly hire 10,000 "service" workers? Will I hire five lawn people down the road when they become as cheap as hiring two of them is today? Maybe Uber will start paying $30.00 an hour? Perhaps caddying and nannying will see 10,000% price increases in the next decade.

There's a lot of talk about getting those low skilled whining males into health care work. Let's do that. Home health aids get paid a motherlode. And it's a growing field! We need awareness on that!

Compliance. Yes. I forgot that one... That's a high value.high paying area! More of that, please. That'll help fill in the spaces left as the buzzsaw of technology and automation do what they naturally do at dizzying increased speed.

It's going to be a long time before technology can fully replace thinking for a living.

No it's not. Not at all. And a guy who recoils from thinking outside the paper bag of his conventional views as strongly as you should be most aware of this. You may think your skills are special. You, me, almost everyone here, are nothing but dressed up procedure navigating instruments -- inevitable, and sooner than you think, meat for the algorithms.