RSS
From the New York Times:
Go Midwest, Young Hipster
If you really want Democrats to win in Iowa, move there.
By ALEC MacGILLIS OCT. 22, 2016
Not surprisingly, the Obama Administration has been waging war on Dubuque, Iowa to get local officials to take surplus blacks off the hands of blue state Illinois and convert purple state Iowa to permanently blue.
… That hyper-concentration of Democratic votes has long hurt the party in the House and state legislatures. In Ohio, for instance, Republicans won 75 percent of the United States House seats in 2012 despite winning only 51 percent of the total votes. That imbalance can be explained partly by Republican gerrymandering. But even if district lines were drawn in rational, nonpartisan ways, a disproportionate share of Democratic votes would still be clustered in urban districts, giving Republicans a larger share of seats than their share of the overall vote. Winning back control of state legislatures in Pennsylvania and Michigan could help Democrats in redistricting after 2020. But it would help more if their voters were not so concentrated in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Detroit and Ann Arbor.
“It would be awfully difficult to construct a map that wasn’t leaning Republican,” said the University of Michigan political scientist Jowei Chen. “Geography is just very unfortunate from the perspective of the Democrats.”
Obviously, one reason for this is that white people are more likely to vote Democratic the more their fertility is restricted by crowding together. But that puts high proportions of white Democrats in a small number of urban districts.
This is one reason for the Democrats’ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing plan for population transfers. The Democrats are damaged by the Voting Rights Act demanding districts gerrymandered elect blacks and Hispanics, because that means Republican legislators can pack large numbers of Democrats into a limited number of districts, all in the name of Racial Justice. But the Democrats can’t publicly call for repeal of this black and Hispanic privilege in the sacred Voting Rights Act.
What the Democrats want to do, therefore, is to have taxpayers and home buyers subsidize the Democrats’ racial minorities moving to suburban, exurban, and small city districts, where they will still vote Democratic.
Also, by ethnically cleansing high crime groups from downtown, AFFH will encourage more whites to move downtown where they will marry later and have fewer children and thus vote Republican less.
By the way, in Chicago, where the Democrats’ population transfer policy has been most blatant, 48 people were shot this autumnal weekend.
“white people are more likely to vote Democratic the more their fertility is restricted by crowding together”
Steve, I know you’ve invented and championed this theory of Affordable family formation, but it does not make intuitive sense to me (and to a lot of other people, I suspect). Yes, I know you found a strong correlation in the data, but why would this happen? If someone asked me, what would I tell them was the reason “restriction” or “cost” of fertility has something to do with voting Democrat?
Could it be plausible that people who tend to want to have children just move to cheaper places to raise them? And that people who want to have lots (relatively speaking) of children vote Republican because of correlations between traits of traditionalism, family values and fertility? In that case, this idea from your sentence I quoted above, that one fixed group of people, when subject to crowding and cost of fertility, suddenly start to vote Democrat doesn’t make sense to me.
If I had to hazard an anecdotally-informed guess, it'd go something like this:
Urban educated whites start families very late. So they spend a LONG time without kids, often with good or great jobs, enjoying all sorts of DINK goods and services that cities can provide. And their views on government are often, mostly, at the level of abstractions and virtue signalling. And a lot of them are in the weird situation that they have quite a lot of disposable income, which means they feel pretty economically secure from one vantage point... which leads them to having lots of moral outrage about the plight of minorities who are their neighbors (from a few neighborhoods over) and who use the failing schools and suffer all the gang violence. So they feel Privileged. And yet on the other hand, they also feel incredibly economically pinched, because of insane housing prices, and student loan debt, and the need (down the road) for paying for private schools, which contributes hugely to them putting off family formation, along with social norms from their peers about it not being a big deal to start families late, and to have few children.
If you're this person, the idea that government should step in and make it easier for you to start a family is pretty understandable. It sucks to be hitting your mid/late 30's and thinking your life is just on hold for ever. OF COURSE, you're actually right in this case. You SHOULD be looking to government to step in... because in the places where people can afford houses, like in major Texas
cities, government absolutely does play a huge role in setting zoning, tax, and regulatory regimes that are pro-growing-the-middle-class housing supply. Ironically.
What I have seen, over and over, is that white educated urban dwellers have their first kid, weather a year or two trying to make it work, and then either their kids gets too big for their apartment and starts needing school, or the lack of yards starts grating, or they have a second kid, and they end up giving up, and abandoning the city. And then they move out to the suburbs, have their attitudes change, start seeing the other side of policy discussions because they now have kids and so have skin in the game, and they're now surrounded by neighbors with a different set of social norms about family and government - hell, maybe they even join the local megachurch because they think the socialization will be good for their kids. They might still be socially liberal in some sort of airy abstract way, but at a nuts-and-bolts level, their tax dollars are segregated to people like themselves. And because they've moved, the norms of the cities they've had to abandon remain basically static. These people's attitudes and world views change, but they bring those changes with them somewhere else, only to be replaced by younger versions of themselves in the city with their former attitudes. It's like a standing wave.
This isn't just purely theory - I've watched this process happen with people I know a bunch of times.Replies: @dc.sunsets, @27 year old, @Anonymous, @Almost Missouri
I drove past Strawberry Field Athletic Field in Greenport at around 3 PM…..Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party Voting Bloc Soccer Leagues were playing….surrounding the soccer field were the flags of every Central and Latin American Nation.
Strawberry Fields also has hosted MS-13 gang knife fights. Common sight downtown Greenport:young pregnant Central American Females pushing a stroller with three Central American youngins trailing behind.
Formerly the Anarcho-Sundicalist known as “Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain”…..
Looks like the equivalent of Somalis-to-Wisconsin is happening in the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/from-the-jungle-to-great-torrington-up-to-70-young-calais-migran/
The story was that they all had families here. Seems not to be the case after all !
(and local newspaper reports all feature the same photo of two small girls with school bags on their backs)
The worldwide Left seems obsessed with “resettling” abandoned areas. In Italy, there was an argument that the Italians needed to let in more refugees and “resettle” them in the depopulated mountain towns of Western Italy (e.g. the old Samnite territory).
And then there was those articles in the NY Times and elsewhere about 10 years back about how moving to a place created jobs, even in rural nowheres with no industries. Some gullible Lefties actually moved to places like rural Wisconsin and opened up their Artisinal Vegan Bakeries and Pottery Shops, only to find that demand creates jobs, not supply.
Of course, this is cargo-cult thinking, as the reason those old towns have been depopulated have been the lack of jobs and the ease of travel to more exciting urban metropolises—and the Left’s emphasis on NOT having a family early, children anchoring parents nearer to their families in small towns and making parents want to live outside big cities for affordability and low crime reasons.
While the Soros-and-Brock propagandists of the Left surely know this is just rhetoric to get more Muslims into Europe and to try to win more elections, the rank-and-file Left seem to think that you can magically get people to move to places without jobs and they will just stay there.
This smacks of feudalism. The Diocletian reforms of the Roman empire chained people to the jobs and the lands of their parents; this began the thousand-years of feudalism in European society. But that truly is the only way to get people to stay in unproductive jobs and unproductive places: slavery.
And so the Left will probably begin arguing soon enough that we should force people to live in “abandoned” places in order to revitalize those areas. Because it’s nationalistic to restrict freedom of movement. (/sarcasm)
Everything old is new again.
Note who was a one of several hundred looney tune speakers there:
https://habitat3.org/speakers/ The New Urban Agenda has been adopted!! There were 17.5 pages (54 per pg.-- scroll down for pg. advance dots) of looney tune speakers at this one week confab.
https://habitat3.org/speakers/john-hill/ (speaker of special note)
Now, who paid for his narrow black country ass to go macking in Quito anyway? Broke-ass Detroit?
As a European, I do not know what provisions of the Voting Rights Act ensure the outcomes referred to in the article. Enlighten me!
The VRA was essentially the federalization ("centralization" to you Europeans) of elections and voter registration, which had formerly, per the Constitution, resided with the individual States. Like most Federal power-grabs, it was dressed up in a lot of nice language about enfranchising minorities and so on.
Part of the VRA (sections 4 & 5?) guaranteed that (Democrat-friendly) minorities would get district lines redrawn around them to ensure their (Democrat) politician gets elected. While this is obviously a cynical election ploy for Democrats, it also has the unintended (for them) side-effect that all their minority easy voters become concentrated in a few special minority districts. Some rare, clever Republicans took advantage of the Democrats' game by over-stuffing those special minority districts with minority voters, so that the Democrats' advantage with minorities was partially wasted. (Keep in mind that unlike most of continental Europe, which has proportional representation, the US has first-past-the-post elections, meaning that votes beyond 51% in each district are wasted.) The Democrats would like to redeploy those above-51% minority (ethnic minority--not voter minority) votes to help the Democrats in other districts, but as Steve points out, having pretended they cared about those minorities to pass the VRA, the Democrats can't un-pretend now. (Actually, I think they can and eventually will, they just have to come up with some new victim-crisis language for cover.)
Told you it was kind of complicated.
The New York Times whines that "geography is against them" but of course it is really just the consequences of their own sneaky ploy partially backfiring.Replies: @snorlax, @Another German
Steve, I know you've invented and championed this theory of Affordable family formation, but it does not make intuitive sense to me (and to a lot of other people, I suspect). Yes, I know you found a strong correlation in the data, but why would this happen? If someone asked me, what would I tell them was the reason "restriction" or "cost" of fertility has something to do with voting Democrat?
Could it be plausible that people who tend to want to have children just move to cheaper places to raise them? And that people who want to have lots (relatively speaking) of children vote Republican because of correlations between traits of traditionalism, family values and fertility? In that case, this idea from your sentence I quoted above, that one fixed group of people, when subject to crowding and cost of fertility, suddenly start to vote Democrat doesn't make sense to me.Replies: @SFG, @bomag, @TicklingTimeBomb, @Lot
A lot of correlations work both ways, because humans are herd animals. If I’m conservative and want to have kids, I’m not going to live in downtown Manhattan where I can’t afford them. Conversely, if I live in a rural area and everyone’s life revolves around kids, I’m going to feel a lot more left out if I don’t have any…and I’m going to feel a lot weirder talking about voting Democrat. Flip both of those statements for liberals.
Cause and effect can be really hard to determine in sociology (even without SJWs making sure you come up with one answer).
48 shot? Never mind, they were probably super-predators.
By encouraging Hispanics to spread out, it will speed up the pace of mixed race marriages between Hispanics and whites. As a later mixed generation of partial Hispanic origin in mass adopts white identity and the political culture of less educated whites with whom they marry there will be a sea change in voting patterns as well as demographics. The percentage of the population that is white will increase and the ranks of working class Republican voters will grow.
These Hispanics tend to marry, knock up, or get knocked up by working class whites. The upper middle class, well educated type of white usually has nothing to do with the Hispanics (but they also have very little to do with lower status whites). In school, it's the same type of thing. The kids will tend to hang around with the white kids rather than the black kids. (Although, I think people from other parts of the country would be very surprised at how much social interaction there is between blacks and whites).
Other races are dinge an sich...but white is just "identity" that anyone can adopt.
Even as apparently it is the worst thing ever to befall humanity.
So tell me how come these browns are going to give up their sacred melanin/victimization and grievance points...and become Deplorables?
There is a 70+ year old screaming match regarding whether the Right or the Left are the real “fascists”.
According to historian Carroll Quigley, fascism is the total organization of the state by the state. The state consumes and subsumes all human activity within its power and control. The social, economic, and political arrangements in industrial society typically created in times of total war are made permanent, including the suppression of individual liberties and almost all private pursuits. Political correctness and “thought police” in the service of the state’s organizational control are an essential ingredient of fascism.
In Quigley’s assessment, the Soviets (the Left) were not surprisingly the most successful in putting the state on a permenent war footing encompassing and structuring all sectors of society whether in times of war or peace, far surpassing the Germans (who never nationalized industrial production or rural estates) or the Italians (where fascism was a meaningless political slogan far removed from reality).
Urban areas by their very nature are the most congenial to total social organization and reorganization, including the control over and movements of mass populations and the enforcement of social controls on these populations in the service of a unitary and comprehensive organizational model.
More specifically, if we compare Trump and Hillary and their political parties and agendas, it is clear who is most keen to exercise top-down control over society on the fascist (that is, Soviet) model. Indeed, with the EU and Democratic administrations in Washington, the West is on a predictable path of “Sovietization” where virtually all social, economic, and political arrangements are under state control and private expressions of social, economic, and political activity are progressively criminalized.
Any ideology you'd hear quoted at you is mere superstructure of an entrenched advantage, farmer vs. forager morals, etc.
Seems like TPTB will have to go back to the drawing board if they want to reduce crime in Chicago.
Daily Chicago shooting averages are a good proxy for ambient air temperature – rather like cricket chirps.
Put simply, more blacks interacting (due to seasonable temperatures) = more deaths.
This hoopla about gerrymandering is all hat and no cattle anyway. The Democrats are mad because of 2012, that a generic Congressional vote that was slightly more D than R yielded a 233-202 R majority (of course, it didn’t matter, because Congress is mostly a dead letter institution anyway). But two years later is what proved that gerrymandering doesn’t matter. The two party generic split was virtually the same in 2014 as it was in 2010. But 2014’s vote took place under this decade’s districts, most of those were evil Republican gerrymanders, the 2010 vote took place under the previous decade’s boundaries, not quite so gerrymandered. And the results? 247 seats in 2014, 242 seats in 2010, the red team. So, in the end, all that gerrymandering only made a five seat difference.
As for the subject matter, maybe some long term blue team strategists are thinking what you’re thinking, but I think the chief motivation is Negro removal out of cities.
The real story though is that the Democrat brand is so awful with non-urban whites that they can't field reasonably moderate candidates in near even Democrat/Republican registered districts who can win. Even when they do manage a cross-dressing operation and swing a district it's usually in a Presidential year, and their inability to mobilize their voters in off-years means that the seat can be retaken. As a consequence, it's more difficult to recruit a candidate who is looking at possibly winning the job for two years, half of which is spent trying to win reelection and given the hassle and expense of bi-locating in both DC and the home district, quitting current employment, etc. They wind up not getting top tier candidates, and so the pattern is self-replicating.Replies: @countenance
I forgot to add that a couple of polysci profs ran the 2012 generic Congressional vote through thousands upon thousands of hypothetical district maps, ranging from the craziest pro-Democrat gerrymanders to the craziest pro-Republican gerrymanders, to everything in between. They found that only a very small handful of the craziest pro-Democrat gerrymanders would have resulted in a Democrat congress, and that the map being used this decade is a moderate pro-Republican gerrymander. It also concluded what the NYT wrote about here, that the Democrats’ problem is that their base is tightly geographically clustered, and gerrymandering in their favor would hardly help it.
This is the fundamental gerrymandering.
Steve, I know you've invented and championed this theory of Affordable family formation, but it does not make intuitive sense to me (and to a lot of other people, I suspect). Yes, I know you found a strong correlation in the data, but why would this happen? If someone asked me, what would I tell them was the reason "restriction" or "cost" of fertility has something to do with voting Democrat?
Could it be plausible that people who tend to want to have children just move to cheaper places to raise them? And that people who want to have lots (relatively speaking) of children vote Republican because of correlations between traits of traditionalism, family values and fertility? In that case, this idea from your sentence I quoted above, that one fixed group of people, when subject to crowding and cost of fertility, suddenly start to vote Democrat doesn't make sense to me.Replies: @SFG, @bomag, @TicklingTimeBomb, @Lot
Democrats have installed themselves as a surrogate family, an alternate support group. Vote Dem and you don’t have to have a family of your own, the Dems will pay the bills and provide the bodies; all you have to do is enjoy your job and social life.
This indeed happens, but most people want it all: the exciting urban life unencumbered by too much responsibility AND a support structure for the down times. Democrats promise it all.
New polls
ABC: Clinton +12
IBD: Tie
USC: Clinton +1
Rasmussen: Trump +2
UPI: Clinton +3
YouGov: Clinton +5.4
PPD: Trump +0.6
Avg: Clinton +2.7
Median: Clinton +1
Steve, I know you've invented and championed this theory of Affordable family formation, but it does not make intuitive sense to me (and to a lot of other people, I suspect). Yes, I know you found a strong correlation in the data, but why would this happen? If someone asked me, what would I tell them was the reason "restriction" or "cost" of fertility has something to do with voting Democrat?
Could it be plausible that people who tend to want to have children just move to cheaper places to raise them? And that people who want to have lots (relatively speaking) of children vote Republican because of correlations between traits of traditionalism, family values and fertility? In that case, this idea from your sentence I quoted above, that one fixed group of people, when subject to crowding and cost of fertility, suddenly start to vote Democrat doesn't make sense to me.Replies: @SFG, @bomag, @TicklingTimeBomb, @Lot
I live in the urban educated white demographic being talked about here.
If I had to hazard an anecdotally-informed guess, it’d go something like this:
Urban educated whites start families very late. So they spend a LONG time without kids, often with good or great jobs, enjoying all sorts of DINK goods and services that cities can provide. And their views on government are often, mostly, at the level of abstractions and virtue signalling. And a lot of them are in the weird situation that they have quite a lot of disposable income, which means they feel pretty economically secure from one vantage point… which leads them to having lots of moral outrage about the plight of minorities who are their neighbors (from a few neighborhoods over) and who use the failing schools and suffer all the gang violence. So they feel Privileged. And yet on the other hand, they also feel incredibly economically pinched, because of insane housing prices, and student loan debt, and the need (down the road) for paying for private schools, which contributes hugely to them putting off family formation, along with social norms from their peers about it not being a big deal to start families late, and to have few children.
If you’re this person, the idea that government should step in and make it easier for you to start a family is pretty understandable. It sucks to be hitting your mid/late 30’s and thinking your life is just on hold for ever. OF COURSE, you’re actually right in this case. You SHOULD be looking to government to step in… because in the places where people can afford houses, like in major Texas
cities, government absolutely does play a huge role in setting zoning, tax, and regulatory regimes that are pro-growing-the-middle-class housing supply. Ironically.
What I have seen, over and over, is that white educated urban dwellers have their first kid, weather a year or two trying to make it work, and then either their kids gets too big for their apartment and starts needing school, or the lack of yards starts grating, or they have a second kid, and they end up giving up, and abandoning the city. And then they move out to the suburbs, have their attitudes change, start seeing the other side of policy discussions because they now have kids and so have skin in the game, and they’re now surrounded by neighbors with a different set of social norms about family and government – hell, maybe they even join the local megachurch because they think the socialization will be good for their kids. They might still be socially liberal in some sort of airy abstract way, but at a nuts-and-bolts level, their tax dollars are segregated to people like themselves. And because they’ve moved, the norms of the cities they’ve had to abandon remain basically static. These people’s attitudes and world views change, but they bring those changes with them somewhere else, only to be replaced by younger versions of themselves in the city with their former attitudes. It’s like a standing wave.
This isn’t just purely theory – I’ve watched this process happen with people I know a bunch of times.
Pass me the popcorn...
ABC: Clinton +12
IBD: Tie
USC: Clinton +1
Rasmussen: Trump +2
UPI: Clinton +3
YouGov: Clinton +5.4
PPD: Trump +0.6
Avg: Clinton +2.7
Median: Clinton +1Replies: @Anonymous, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Mark F.
You did see the Wikileaks memos with instructions on skewing polls to shape public opinion? It’s amazing how the globalist cabal can get the average American (shabbos polloi) to carry their water for them.
“ABC: Clinton +12”
Did ABC do all of their polling in Hillary’s super Left Wing hometown of Chappaqua?
ABC has the least accurate polling because Crooked Hildabeast is not that likable a personality to hold a double digit lead. Not even Barack Hussein Obama ever held a double digit lead in 2008 & 2012 and Americans like Barack way more than they like Crooked Hildabeast.
I don’t know why Trump doesn’t make a bigger deal about Section 8.
ABC: Clinton +12
IBD: Tie
USC: Clinton +1
Rasmussen: Trump +2
UPI: Clinton +3
YouGov: Clinton +5.4
PPD: Trump +0.6
Avg: Clinton +2.7
Median: Clinton +1Replies: @Anonymous, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Mark F.
“BREXIT effect”!! Plus deliberate mis-weighting!! The polls are worth jack shit this year.
Liberals have been giving this advice ever since the 2000 election highlighted how large Jesusland was.
OT:
Steve, I wish you or someone else would do a feature on how we have had 99 years of Democrats/Hollywood telling us that Russia is our greatest friend, now that Hillary! is telling us that the greatest geostrategic threat of the 21C is Russia. Pro-Russian WWII movies, for instance.
Clinton's russophobia, like basically all warnings of war between industrial powers in the modern era, is manufactured because politicians want to keep getting paid for building F-35s. Neither of our most recent two presidencies has been above playing up our foes for votes and arms lobby spoils.
A hate crime occurred on The Walking Dead last night. Negan a White man murdered an Asian man named Glenn Rhee with his barbed wire bat Lucille. Negan is obviously a Donald Trump supporter. Negan’s hatred of Asians was inspired by The Donald’s speech that China is ripping us off.
Not a question of “hipsters”, but there’s already a mass movement of Democrats to Iowa. Specifically, folks on welfare from Chicago.
This sort of this has been discussed here before.
Italians fled those areas specifically because they couldn’t make a living there.
Could someone actually define “hipster” for me? If the word ever had any meaning, it certainly currently seems devoid of any.
The earliest I personally heard it used is when Elaine calls Kramer a “stupid hipster doofus” in a Seinfeld episode from ’93.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVmmYMwFj1I
Reminds me of the ubiquitous African villages where women have to walk for 2 hours to get water. As individuals on the ground who are genuinely interested and concerned about overpopulation try and fail to remind the media, those villages didn’t exist 20-40 years ago, population growth lead to new settlements being established in more and more marginal areas. It isn’t just the Sahel moving into the good land, it’s people moving into the bad land.
And of course the Republicans in Congress did nothing to stop AFFH. The GOPe pretty much delivers nothing to its rank and file, which is why Trump is the nominee.
An anecdote:
In Atlanta there has been an influx of hipsters very near utterly savage areas like Edgewood and Grant Park. Lots of new hip restaurants and condos. I figure this is AFFH in action.
Visiting there recently, I was struck by how autistic these incoming fashionable hipsters are. They aren’t outgoing like the homos in Midtown, or affectedly bored and sneering but confident in their clothes and looks, like the hipsters I saw when I visited Brooklyn a decade ago. These new gentrifying hipsters are just plain retarded.
If I had to hazard an anecdotally-informed guess, it'd go something like this:
Urban educated whites start families very late. So they spend a LONG time without kids, often with good or great jobs, enjoying all sorts of DINK goods and services that cities can provide. And their views on government are often, mostly, at the level of abstractions and virtue signalling. And a lot of them are in the weird situation that they have quite a lot of disposable income, which means they feel pretty economically secure from one vantage point... which leads them to having lots of moral outrage about the plight of minorities who are their neighbors (from a few neighborhoods over) and who use the failing schools and suffer all the gang violence. So they feel Privileged. And yet on the other hand, they also feel incredibly economically pinched, because of insane housing prices, and student loan debt, and the need (down the road) for paying for private schools, which contributes hugely to them putting off family formation, along with social norms from their peers about it not being a big deal to start families late, and to have few children.
If you're this person, the idea that government should step in and make it easier for you to start a family is pretty understandable. It sucks to be hitting your mid/late 30's and thinking your life is just on hold for ever. OF COURSE, you're actually right in this case. You SHOULD be looking to government to step in... because in the places where people can afford houses, like in major Texas
cities, government absolutely does play a huge role in setting zoning, tax, and regulatory regimes that are pro-growing-the-middle-class housing supply. Ironically.
What I have seen, over and over, is that white educated urban dwellers have their first kid, weather a year or two trying to make it work, and then either their kids gets too big for their apartment and starts needing school, or the lack of yards starts grating, or they have a second kid, and they end up giving up, and abandoning the city. And then they move out to the suburbs, have their attitudes change, start seeing the other side of policy discussions because they now have kids and so have skin in the game, and they're now surrounded by neighbors with a different set of social norms about family and government - hell, maybe they even join the local megachurch because they think the socialization will be good for their kids. They might still be socially liberal in some sort of airy abstract way, but at a nuts-and-bolts level, their tax dollars are segregated to people like themselves. And because they've moved, the norms of the cities they've had to abandon remain basically static. These people's attitudes and world views change, but they bring those changes with them somewhere else, only to be replaced by younger versions of themselves in the city with their former attitudes. It's like a standing wave.
This isn't just purely theory - I've watched this process happen with people I know a bunch of times.Replies: @dc.sunsets, @27 year old, @Anonymous, @Almost Missouri
When the credit bubble finally pops, they’re going to suffer.
Pass me the popcorn…
“You did see the Wikileaks memos with instructions on skewing polls to shape public opinion? It’s amazing how the globalist cabal can get the average American (shabbos polloi) to carry their water for them.”
The Podesta email you are referring to was directed to the Atlas Polling Group, which handles the internal polls for the Hillary campaign. Without proper context, it is essentially impossible to exactly figure out what is the gist of the conversation. If you buy into the story there is a concerted effort by her campaign and the polling groups to “trump(et)” her lead, it requires you to believe she was directly instructing their polling firm about how to rig it so it could tell spread its own version of truth. As far as I know, none of national polling firms use the Atlas Polling Group. They have their OWN pollsters. But since a number of the Coalition of the Fringe Group Right believes the mainstream liars are LIARS 24/7, it is much easier to saturate conspiracy stories across the Internet for their greedy consumption.
Interesting how Trump’s campaign manager, a former pollster herself, admits that they are behind. Would she dare admit that polling has also been rigged by Republicans?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-kellyanne-conway-20161023-story.html
Why bother polling at all if its all fake?
If I had to hazard an anecdotally-informed guess, it'd go something like this:
Urban educated whites start families very late. So they spend a LONG time without kids, often with good or great jobs, enjoying all sorts of DINK goods and services that cities can provide. And their views on government are often, mostly, at the level of abstractions and virtue signalling. And a lot of them are in the weird situation that they have quite a lot of disposable income, which means they feel pretty economically secure from one vantage point... which leads them to having lots of moral outrage about the plight of minorities who are their neighbors (from a few neighborhoods over) and who use the failing schools and suffer all the gang violence. So they feel Privileged. And yet on the other hand, they also feel incredibly economically pinched, because of insane housing prices, and student loan debt, and the need (down the road) for paying for private schools, which contributes hugely to them putting off family formation, along with social norms from their peers about it not being a big deal to start families late, and to have few children.
If you're this person, the idea that government should step in and make it easier for you to start a family is pretty understandable. It sucks to be hitting your mid/late 30's and thinking your life is just on hold for ever. OF COURSE, you're actually right in this case. You SHOULD be looking to government to step in... because in the places where people can afford houses, like in major Texas
cities, government absolutely does play a huge role in setting zoning, tax, and regulatory regimes that are pro-growing-the-middle-class housing supply. Ironically.
What I have seen, over and over, is that white educated urban dwellers have their first kid, weather a year or two trying to make it work, and then either their kids gets too big for their apartment and starts needing school, or the lack of yards starts grating, or they have a second kid, and they end up giving up, and abandoning the city. And then they move out to the suburbs, have their attitudes change, start seeing the other side of policy discussions because they now have kids and so have skin in the game, and they're now surrounded by neighbors with a different set of social norms about family and government - hell, maybe they even join the local megachurch because they think the socialization will be good for their kids. They might still be socially liberal in some sort of airy abstract way, but at a nuts-and-bolts level, their tax dollars are segregated to people like themselves. And because they've moved, the norms of the cities they've had to abandon remain basically static. These people's attitudes and world views change, but they bring those changes with them somewhere else, only to be replaced by younger versions of themselves in the city with their former attitudes. It's like a standing wave.
This isn't just purely theory - I've watched this process happen with people I know a bunch of times.Replies: @dc.sunsets, @27 year old, @Anonymous, @Almost Missouri
Great comment.
Off-topic: The New Yorker issues an appreciation of Carson McCullers as a White Writer that really warrants close reading as a document of our debased age. If you can stand it, that is:
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/white-writer
As for the subject matter, maybe some long term blue team strategists are thinking what you're thinking, but I think the chief motivation is Negro removal out of cities.Replies: @antipater_1, @Alec Leamas
As municipalities have mosquito abatement programs, they now have negro abatement programs.
These anonymous trolls are getting weirder lately.
So please explain to us why the Clinton campaign would rig its own internal polls.
Why bother polling at all if its all fake?
If I had to hazard an anecdotally-informed guess, it'd go something like this:
Urban educated whites start families very late. So they spend a LONG time without kids, often with good or great jobs, enjoying all sorts of DINK goods and services that cities can provide. And their views on government are often, mostly, at the level of abstractions and virtue signalling. And a lot of them are in the weird situation that they have quite a lot of disposable income, which means they feel pretty economically secure from one vantage point... which leads them to having lots of moral outrage about the plight of minorities who are their neighbors (from a few neighborhoods over) and who use the failing schools and suffer all the gang violence. So they feel Privileged. And yet on the other hand, they also feel incredibly economically pinched, because of insane housing prices, and student loan debt, and the need (down the road) for paying for private schools, which contributes hugely to them putting off family formation, along with social norms from their peers about it not being a big deal to start families late, and to have few children.
If you're this person, the idea that government should step in and make it easier for you to start a family is pretty understandable. It sucks to be hitting your mid/late 30's and thinking your life is just on hold for ever. OF COURSE, you're actually right in this case. You SHOULD be looking to government to step in... because in the places where people can afford houses, like in major Texas
cities, government absolutely does play a huge role in setting zoning, tax, and regulatory regimes that are pro-growing-the-middle-class housing supply. Ironically.
What I have seen, over and over, is that white educated urban dwellers have their first kid, weather a year or two trying to make it work, and then either their kids gets too big for their apartment and starts needing school, or the lack of yards starts grating, or they have a second kid, and they end up giving up, and abandoning the city. And then they move out to the suburbs, have their attitudes change, start seeing the other side of policy discussions because they now have kids and so have skin in the game, and they're now surrounded by neighbors with a different set of social norms about family and government - hell, maybe they even join the local megachurch because they think the socialization will be good for their kids. They might still be socially liberal in some sort of airy abstract way, but at a nuts-and-bolts level, their tax dollars are segregated to people like themselves. And because they've moved, the norms of the cities they've had to abandon remain basically static. These people's attitudes and world views change, but they bring those changes with them somewhere else, only to be replaced by younger versions of themselves in the city with their former attitudes. It's like a standing wave.
This isn't just purely theory - I've watched this process happen with people I know a bunch of times.Replies: @dc.sunsets, @27 year old, @Anonymous, @Almost Missouri
Good comment and apt use of the “standing wave” analogy, a useful model that belongs in every intellectual’s toolbox.
Vibrancy needs lebensraum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4nmRZx9ncReplies: @ATX Hipster
I wonder if Hillary ever feels any guilt over her embrace of BLM-style anarchy. I’m sure the “super-predator” comment is still completely in line with her “private position” on crime, and she’s smart enough to know the Ferguson Effect is no myth.
Maybe so. I don’t know enough about most of the country to have a strong opinion about whether this will happen. But as far as a lot of Deep South places, it seems like a good theory. In many areas, there really aren’t enough Hispanics to form a separate “community” (for lack of a better term). Although it’s an exaggeration, you could almost say that everyone is either white or black. This is purely anecdotal but the Hispanics I have encountered aren’t big fans of the blacks. The Hispanics, especially the generations that descend from the original immigrants, think of themselves as white. Whites also think of the Hispanics as white. The thinking is that if they are not white, they must be black. But they clearly are more white than black.
These Hispanics tend to marry, knock up, or get knocked up by working class whites. The upper middle class, well educated type of white usually has nothing to do with the Hispanics (but they also have very little to do with lower status whites). In school, it’s the same type of thing. The kids will tend to hang around with the white kids rather than the black kids. (Although, I think people from other parts of the country would be very surprised at how much social interaction there is between blacks and whites).
Dmitri Helios
The two statements …
“white people are more likely to vote Democratic the more their fertility is restricted by crowding together”
and
“Could it be plausible that people who tend to want to have children just move to cheaper places to raise them?”
… are not mutually exclusive.
Steve, I wish you or someone else would do a feature on how we have had 99 years of Democrats/Hollywood telling us that Russia is our greatest friend, now that Hillary! is telling us that the greatest geostrategic threat of the 21C is Russia. Pro-Russian WWII movies, for instance.Replies: @anonitron2, @Blosky, @Clyde
What are you even referring to here? Explicitly pro-Soviet film? The maybe three major war movies released since the collapse of the wall?
Clinton’s russophobia, like basically all warnings of war between industrial powers in the modern era, is manufactured because politicians want to keep getting paid for building F-35s. Neither of our most recent two presidencies has been above playing up our foes for votes and arms lobby spoils.
As much effort as the left has put into demonizing flyover country over the past decade, they’re going to have a tough time finding takers to colonize it.
It’s ironic they’re so up in arms over Republican gerrymandering, considering they’re trying to use immigration to turn the entire country into a packed district for the Dems.
By the way – it seems like there’s suddenly been a surge of outcry over gerrymandering in 2012. Why now? Anxiety that Trump will pull through and GOP will have control of Executive and Legislative branches (and Judicial, after the God-Emperor names his Justices)?
OT:
The third James O’Keefe video came out, and it shows Hillary in direct communication with these PACs which is a violation of federal campaign laws.
The interesting mirror position of this is Kevin Williams of National Review and his pathological hatred of anyone who wants to stay in a small town, or defends them.
I think it is a complicated case of triple-bank-shot unintended consequences.
The VRA was essentially the federalization (“centralization” to you Europeans) of elections and voter registration, which had formerly, per the Constitution, resided with the individual States. Like most Federal power-grabs, it was dressed up in a lot of nice language about enfranchising minorities and so on.
Part of the VRA (sections 4 & 5?) guaranteed that (Democrat-friendly) minorities would get district lines redrawn around them to ensure their (Democrat) politician gets elected. While this is obviously a cynical election ploy for Democrats, it also has the unintended (for them) side-effect that all their minority easy voters become concentrated in a few special minority districts. Some rare, clever Republicans took advantage of the Democrats’ game by over-stuffing those special minority districts with minority voters, so that the Democrats’ advantage with minorities was partially wasted. (Keep in mind that unlike most of continental Europe, which has proportional representation, the US has first-past-the-post elections, meaning that votes beyond 51% in each district are wasted.) The Democrats would like to redeploy those above-51% minority (ethnic minority–not voter minority) votes to help the Democrats in other districts, but as Steve points out, having pretended they cared about those minorities to pass the VRA, the Democrats can’t un-pretend now. (Actually, I think they can and eventually will, they just have to come up with some new victim-crisis language for cover.)
Told you it was kind of complicated.
The New York Times whines that “geography is against them” but of course it is really just the consequences of their own sneaky ploy partially backfiring.
The Democrats who were elected were nearly all white, and, while generally still to the left of the hapless local Republicans, also well to the right of the national Democratic Party. White moderate Southern Democrats were the reason Reagan, for example, was able to pass his tax cuts and military funding increases, and have a successful presidency. And, conversely, why Clinton was unable to pass Hillarycare, gays in the military, etc.
Liberals got fed up with this, so the reinterpretation of the VRA triaged the white moderate wing of the Southern parties in favor of electing a smaller number of much more liberal blacks.
Except the more the Hispanics mix with whites, the more that will claim Hispanic ancestry to maximize affirmative action bennies. In the very near future you will have more whites that will be able to claim Hispanic ancestry than not.
Oftentimes, nothing more than asserting an identity to your employer on a job application.
Federal and state agencies that provide loans and grants rely on private vetting agencies, usually stocked with hardcore minority SJWs who take a harder line. Even they can be challenged, however, if they push too hard against light-skinned you in favor of darker skinned applicants.
The last thing --the VERY last thing--the Feds want to do is get in a nasty battle telling people they aren't Mexican or black enough.
As more and more millennials go without jobs and are trained to see minorities as ok people, I expect we will see more and more whites passing as Hispanic, Black or Asian (or pre-conversion transsexual bull dykes=you look like a guy, you dress like a guy, you are "equipped" like a guy, but you are a little girl deep down inside).
Negan killed the most prominent Asian male – white female pair on TV. That’s racist.
If I had to hazard an anecdotally-informed guess, it'd go something like this:
Urban educated whites start families very late. So they spend a LONG time without kids, often with good or great jobs, enjoying all sorts of DINK goods and services that cities can provide. And their views on government are often, mostly, at the level of abstractions and virtue signalling. And a lot of them are in the weird situation that they have quite a lot of disposable income, which means they feel pretty economically secure from one vantage point... which leads them to having lots of moral outrage about the plight of minorities who are their neighbors (from a few neighborhoods over) and who use the failing schools and suffer all the gang violence. So they feel Privileged. And yet on the other hand, they also feel incredibly economically pinched, because of insane housing prices, and student loan debt, and the need (down the road) for paying for private schools, which contributes hugely to them putting off family formation, along with social norms from their peers about it not being a big deal to start families late, and to have few children.
If you're this person, the idea that government should step in and make it easier for you to start a family is pretty understandable. It sucks to be hitting your mid/late 30's and thinking your life is just on hold for ever. OF COURSE, you're actually right in this case. You SHOULD be looking to government to step in... because in the places where people can afford houses, like in major Texas
cities, government absolutely does play a huge role in setting zoning, tax, and regulatory regimes that are pro-growing-the-middle-class housing supply. Ironically.
What I have seen, over and over, is that white educated urban dwellers have their first kid, weather a year or two trying to make it work, and then either their kids gets too big for their apartment and starts needing school, or the lack of yards starts grating, or they have a second kid, and they end up giving up, and abandoning the city. And then they move out to the suburbs, have their attitudes change, start seeing the other side of policy discussions because they now have kids and so have skin in the game, and they're now surrounded by neighbors with a different set of social norms about family and government - hell, maybe they even join the local megachurch because they think the socialization will be good for their kids. They might still be socially liberal in some sort of airy abstract way, but at a nuts-and-bolts level, their tax dollars are segregated to people like themselves. And because they've moved, the norms of the cities they've had to abandon remain basically static. These people's attitudes and world views change, but they bring those changes with them somewhere else, only to be replaced by younger versions of themselves in the city with their former attitudes. It's like a standing wave.
This isn't just purely theory - I've watched this process happen with people I know a bunch of times.Replies: @dc.sunsets, @27 year old, @Anonymous, @Almost Missouri
Mostly agree. I lived a long time in a purplish county just beyond the metropolitan exurbs. I watched an endless stream of yuppie/hipster/whatever couples (well, mostly couples) move out from the city with their kids in tow as they figured out that the big city was no place to raise a family (or “family” in the case if the single lesbians, etc.)
The county was purple because the blue stream from the city competed with the red natives. Having experience with both of those groups, I am a little less sanguine that blue urban refugees will gradually redden to their local neighbors’ dispositions. For one thing, they usually try to avoid having red neighbors, preferring to cluster with other blues, or just live where they don’t meet their neighbors at all. Local real estate agents will tell you the top two client requests: “not near a big road”, and “I don’t want to see the neighbors”. (As a digression, my own observation was that red staters are much more likely to live on the big roads, while blue staters live in towns, villages or back woods, skipping over the accessible-roadway-but-still-sort-of-private housing that seems to appeal to reds.)
Also, the blues try to colonize not just real estate but also the high ground of culture: starting lefty newspapers, sponsoring gay events, experimental theater troupes, insinuating their people and movements into schools, etc.
Additionally the blues are surprisingly active in local politics, perhaps because they have more money and fewer kids taking their time. I have often been impressed at how unabashed they are as newcomers in insisting that the locals conform to the blues’ imported norms which they will use the political process to enforce.
As for the subject matter, maybe some long term blue team strategists are thinking what you're thinking, but I think the chief motivation is Negro removal out of cities.Replies: @antipater_1, @Alec Leamas
What is interesting is that they believe – probably not without good reason – that Democrat voters will reliably vote for whichever democrat runs, rather than for the particular candidate in a particular district.
The real story though is that the Democrat brand is so awful with non-urban whites that they can’t field reasonably moderate candidates in near even Democrat/Republican registered districts who can win. Even when they do manage a cross-dressing operation and swing a district it’s usually in a Presidential year, and their inability to mobilize their voters in off-years means that the seat can be retaken. As a consequence, it’s more difficult to recruit a candidate who is looking at possibly winning the job for two years, half of which is spent trying to win reelection and given the hassle and expense of bi-locating in both DC and the home district, quitting current employment, etc. They wind up not getting top tier candidates, and so the pattern is self-replicating.
ABC: Clinton +12
IBD: Tie
USC: Clinton +1
Rasmussen: Trump +2
UPI: Clinton +3
YouGov: Clinton +5.4
PPD: Trump +0.6
Avg: Clinton +2.7
Median: Clinton +1Replies: @Anonymous, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Mark F.
If you look at state polling in addition to this, however, it’s hard to see how Trump wins. He’s been trailing in FL and NC. Way behind in PA. May win OH and IA. Interestingly, he’s pretty close to Clinton in MN.
Brexit polling was not that far off. The average of final polling showed it as being a dead heat and it won 52/48.
Do you think it’s pretty much over at this point?
The earliest I personally heard it used is when Elaine calls Kramer a "stupid hipster doofus" in a Seinfeld episode from '93.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBOcjnCY9f0Replies: @Altai
It’s a phrase which seems to be re-purposed in the US over and over. The breed we’re talking about now.
Yes, but this entire scheme is based on the ability of Whites to move away through so-called “White Flight”. Without leaving a path to escape, they are faced with angry gun owners who have no choice but to fight. And that right there is why Civil War II will not be like the first. Its not geography its a race thing. When most if not all Whites are on one side, its less like a War and more like the Mother of All Turkey Shoots. Much like Iraq or the Spanish-American War, White Men have historically proven to be the World’s Most Efficient Killers. This is a really bad plan they have there.
What is a Hipster? Whatever he (it) is, I think the meaning has evolved since Norman’s time.
The tired screeds of anti-white/anti-Trump/globalist/totalitarian/commie/anti-American whining, endemic to NYT’s editorials and op-eds every single day, could all be written by an SJW edition of that Postmodernism Generator computer program. But then again, I don’t want to give Carlos Slim any ideas. Do it, Carlos, do it!
In the meantime, Trump is a true hero for breaking modern historical tradition of the Stupid Party’s usual neocon cuck cowardice in the face of these evil MSM liars and actually fighting back. The Sulzberger kid currently running the newsroom may want to think about slipping some sedatives in the water cooler so Gail Collins and Charles Blow can finally sleep at night.
Steve, I know you've invented and championed this theory of Affordable family formation, but it does not make intuitive sense to me (and to a lot of other people, I suspect). Yes, I know you found a strong correlation in the data, but why would this happen? If someone asked me, what would I tell them was the reason "restriction" or "cost" of fertility has something to do with voting Democrat?
Could it be plausible that people who tend to want to have children just move to cheaper places to raise them? And that people who want to have lots (relatively speaking) of children vote Republican because of correlations between traits of traditionalism, family values and fertility? In that case, this idea from your sentence I quoted above, that one fixed group of people, when subject to crowding and cost of fertility, suddenly start to vote Democrat doesn't make sense to me.Replies: @SFG, @bomag, @TicklingTimeBomb, @Lot
There is some pure correlation and some causation with fertility rates and cost of living. It would be tough to disentangle the effects.
People keep saying this, but I don’t see how it’s true, unless one includes polls conducted well before the final day of polling.
On the final day of polling, there were 6 polls. Remain got on average 48.5 and Exit 45.3 — 3.2% up. Since Exit won by 3.8%, that would be 7% off.
See the list of polls here, and calculate your own averages:
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/
Generally it’s considered good to go with the final day polls (if they suffice in number) because that’s the point at which voters will have made their decisions. But it is particularly important not to include earlier polls in this case, because of the assassination of the Labour Party MP over the issue of Brexit (as it came to be revealed immediately before the election) by a mentally disturbed man just a few days before the election. There seems to be little doubt this had an impact on the numbers.
The real story though is that the Democrat brand is so awful with non-urban whites that they can't field reasonably moderate candidates in near even Democrat/Republican registered districts who can win. Even when they do manage a cross-dressing operation and swing a district it's usually in a Presidential year, and their inability to mobilize their voters in off-years means that the seat can be retaken. As a consequence, it's more difficult to recruit a candidate who is looking at possibly winning the job for two years, half of which is spent trying to win reelection and given the hassle and expense of bi-locating in both DC and the home district, quitting current employment, etc. They wind up not getting top tier candidates, and so the pattern is self-replicating.Replies: @countenance
I don’t think blue team much cares about that anymore, which is why I don’t think that AFFH has anything to do with spoiling suburban Congressional districts. I think blue team realizes that all they need to do is to go all in all out on the Presidency, and if successful, he will have the pen, the phone and the nuclear football, and as long as the Democrat President has 34 Democrat Senators to protect against impeachment, he can do whatever the hell he wants.
OT – another Diversity Dividend
BBC news this morning had an item saying that Type 2 diabetes was rapidly increasing in the UK, that it already took up 10% of the NHS budget, and that it could bankrupt the NHS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37720610
The two examples on the program were (IIRC) a Mr Khan, who at age 47 is having a leg amputated due to his circulation being wrecked, and a 16 year old girl, Ayesha, who’s just been diagnosed.
Intrigued by this coincidence, I found the Diabetes UK website.
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-and-ethnicity.html
There seems to be no end to the blessings of diversity.
She corrected me. She said that Asians tend to hold their fat inside their bodies and organs rather than show it to the world. She related that Asians tend to have real issues with "fatty organs", which I suppose can be a factor in diabetes.
Oh, and the discovery of Haim Saban’s functional illiteracy is hilarious. “Let’s not allow them to steel the Jewish vote from us.” Haim, please, should secretly scheming for the tribe via unsecured email remain par for the course in the overall trajectory of corrupt subversion you’ve got planned, maintain some standards and at least work on your spelling skills so they may someday succeed that of a Detroit Public School graduate.
Steve, I wish you or someone else would do a feature on how we have had 99 years of Democrats/Hollywood telling us that Russia is our greatest friend, now that Hillary! is telling us that the greatest geostrategic threat of the 21C is Russia. Pro-Russian WWII movies, for instance.Replies: @anonitron2, @Blosky, @Clyde
Eurasia, East Asia, Airstrip 1…
So even the quality of hipsters is going downhill.
Steve, I wish you or someone else would do a feature on how we have had 99 years of Democrats/Hollywood telling us that Russia is our greatest friend, now that Hillary! is telling us that the greatest geostrategic threat of the 21C is Russia. Pro-Russian WWII movies, for instance.Replies: @anonitron2, @Blosky, @Clyde
“We have always been at war with…..”
So what makes you a racial/ethnic/sexual minority and therefore eligible for fed, state, and corporate bennies (rapid promotions, cheap loans, small business funding, etc.)?
Oftentimes, nothing more than asserting an identity to your employer on a job application.
Federal and state agencies that provide loans and grants rely on private vetting agencies, usually stocked with hardcore minority SJWs who take a harder line. Even they can be challenged, however, if they push too hard against light-skinned you in favor of darker skinned applicants.
The last thing –the VERY last thing–the Feds want to do is get in a nasty battle telling people they aren’t Mexican or black enough.
As more and more millennials go without jobs and are trained to see minorities as ok people, I expect we will see more and more whites passing as Hispanic, Black or Asian (or pre-conversion transsexual bull dykes=you look like a guy, you dress like a guy, you are “equipped” like a guy, but you are a little girl deep down inside).
BBC news this morning had an item saying that Type 2 diabetes was rapidly increasing in the UK, that it already took up 10% of the NHS budget, and that it could bankrupt the NHS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37720610
The two examples on the program were (IIRC) a Mr Khan, who at age 47 is having a leg amputated due to his circulation being wrecked, and a 16 year old girl, Ayesha, who's just been diagnosed.
Intrigued by this coincidence, I found the Diabetes UK website.
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-and-ethnicity.htmlThere seems to be no end to the blessings of diversity.Replies: @Marina, @TheJester
Asians need to stay thinner than Europeans to keep their Type Two Diabetes risk under control. I doubt doctors in the West are discussing this with patients, though I know the Singaporean government sets lower BMI guidelines because of their Asian population. People from the subcontinent start experiencing increasing diabetes risk at a BMI of 21, which is a maximum of 122 pounds at 5’4″.
OT:
Workers at Harvard’s dining halls are going on strike. Here’s an op-ed by a worker talking about how she can’t support her two children even with gov’t assistance. The father isn’t mentioned. She talks about the “cycle of poverty”. I found myself surprisingly sympathetic, although this seems like an advertisement for a “one-and-done” policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/opinion/struggling-to-serve-at-the-nations-richest-university.html
The dining hall workers are apparently upset about increases to their health care co-payments. Not knowing the details of their former or current plan, there's not much to say, other than to point out that increasing health care costs are hardly limited to hourly workers.
Ms. Rivera's Op-Ed is at least as well written as the typical NY Times piece, which suggests that either she didn't really write it, or she has been unwilling or unable to make the most of her innate abilities. In any event, the author of the piece writes far better than the average university undergraduate.
She provides specific figures for her insurance payments, her weekly income, and the annual income of the average Harvard food services worker. Nowhere is there any mention of child support or any form of supplemental income from the father or fathers of her children. If she had a husband or live-in boyfriend with a steady job, she and her family would probably be OK, at least financially.
This goes under the category of making the most of affirmative transfers of population, in this case to Arizona.
My word for the day is “dacamented”. (From Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival.) I’m watching a report on efforts to register Hispanic US citizens being organized primarily by people who are in the country illegally. These dacamented illegals (who I guess don’t need to work, being on welfare) have all day to go house to house, and have registered hundreds of thousands using scripts encouraging these new voters to vote Democrat.
This is not rigging of the election by the Clinton team, though, being subsidized by US taxpayers.
Tom Hayden: “[A] long-term goal of mine: the peaceful, nonviolent disappearance of the white race.”
“The worldwide Left seems obsessed with ‘resettling’ abandoned areas.”– Well they certainly are obsessed with shifting and clustering populations into their little “sustainable” (read: controllable) “urban environments” scattered throughout our Brave New Borderless World as evidenced by last week’s UN Habitat III confab in Quito, Ecuador.
Note who was a one of several hundred looney tune speakers there:
https://habitat3.org/speakers/ The New Urban Agenda has been adopted!! There were 17.5 pages (54 per pg.– scroll down for pg. advance dots) of looney tune speakers at this one week confab.
https://habitat3.org/speakers/john-hill/ (speaker of special note)
Now, who paid for his narrow black country ass to go macking in Quito anyway? Broke-ass Detroit?
Soviets/Warsaw Pact folks were “social conservative, fiscal liberal” in vibe. Portugal, Spain, and Chile in the realm of Fascism proper were all very frumpy and lacking the business appetite. The difference was whether social-engineering cant was enforced, or rather, which type was valorized. I think it is past time to admit that capitalism doesn’t belong to the Right, though this is a challenge for think-tank puppets; also, that the cliche dream of freedom implies no political program. One person wants to be a slutty nightclub singer in the city, another wants to live in a hut and practice female genital mutilation. It’s a joke to pretend they both subscribe to the proposition of “freedom.”
Any ideology you’d hear quoted at you is mere superstructure of an entrenched advantage, farmer vs. forager morals, etc.
Correction: the ONLY Asian Male / White Female pair on TV. Like, ever.
The average hourly wage for a Harvard food services worker is $21.89, which is almost exactly the average hourly wage in the US. OK, Boston’s an expensive city, but that’s pretty good pay for that kind of work.
The dining hall workers are apparently upset about increases to their health care co-payments. Not knowing the details of their former or current plan, there’s not much to say, other than to point out that increasing health care costs are hardly limited to hourly workers.
Ms. Rivera’s Op-Ed is at least as well written as the typical NY Times piece, which suggests that either she didn’t really write it, or she has been unwilling or unable to make the most of her innate abilities. In any event, the author of the piece writes far better than the average university undergraduate.
She provides specific figures for her insurance payments, her weekly income, and the annual income of the average Harvard food services worker. Nowhere is there any mention of child support or any form of supplemental income from the father or fathers of her children. If she had a husband or live-in boyfriend with a steady job, she and her family would probably be OK, at least financially.
The VRA was essentially the federalization ("centralization" to you Europeans) of elections and voter registration, which had formerly, per the Constitution, resided with the individual States. Like most Federal power-grabs, it was dressed up in a lot of nice language about enfranchising minorities and so on.
Part of the VRA (sections 4 & 5?) guaranteed that (Democrat-friendly) minorities would get district lines redrawn around them to ensure their (Democrat) politician gets elected. While this is obviously a cynical election ploy for Democrats, it also has the unintended (for them) side-effect that all their minority easy voters become concentrated in a few special minority districts. Some rare, clever Republicans took advantage of the Democrats' game by over-stuffing those special minority districts with minority voters, so that the Democrats' advantage with minorities was partially wasted. (Keep in mind that unlike most of continental Europe, which has proportional representation, the US has first-past-the-post elections, meaning that votes beyond 51% in each district are wasted.) The Democrats would like to redeploy those above-51% minority (ethnic minority--not voter minority) votes to help the Democrats in other districts, but as Steve points out, having pretended they cared about those minorities to pass the VRA, the Democrats can't un-pretend now. (Actually, I think they can and eventually will, they just have to come up with some new victim-crisis language for cover.)
Told you it was kind of complicated.
The New York Times whines that "geography is against them" but of course it is really just the consequences of their own sneaky ploy partially backfiring.Replies: @snorlax, @Another German
Before the “majority-minority district” interpretation of the VRA was introduced in the ’80s, Democrats held nearly every congressional seat in the South, with their current coalition of unanimous black support plus ~45% white support (compared to ~30% today).
The Democrats who were elected were nearly all white, and, while generally still to the left of the hapless local Republicans, also well to the right of the national Democratic Party. White moderate Southern Democrats were the reason Reagan, for example, was able to pass his tax cuts and military funding increases, and have a successful presidency. And, conversely, why Clinton was unable to pass Hillarycare, gays in the military, etc.
Liberals got fed up with this, so the reinterpretation of the VRA triaged the white moderate wing of the Southern parties in favor of electing a smaller number of much more liberal blacks.
BBC news this morning had an item saying that Type 2 diabetes was rapidly increasing in the UK, that it already took up 10% of the NHS budget, and that it could bankrupt the NHS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37720610
The two examples on the program were (IIRC) a Mr Khan, who at age 47 is having a leg amputated due to his circulation being wrecked, and a 16 year old girl, Ayesha, who's just been diagnosed.
Intrigued by this coincidence, I found the Diabetes UK website.
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-and-ethnicity.htmlThere seems to be no end to the blessings of diversity.Replies: @Marina, @TheJester
I once expressed to my doctor (a female of Korean heritage) that perhaps a rice diet was good because you see few overweight Asians.
She corrected me. She said that Asians tend to hold their fat inside their bodies and organs rather than show it to the world. She related that Asians tend to have real issues with “fatty organs”, which I suppose can be a factor in diabetes.
The VRA was essentially the federalization ("centralization" to you Europeans) of elections and voter registration, which had formerly, per the Constitution, resided with the individual States. Like most Federal power-grabs, it was dressed up in a lot of nice language about enfranchising minorities and so on.
Part of the VRA (sections 4 & 5?) guaranteed that (Democrat-friendly) minorities would get district lines redrawn around them to ensure their (Democrat) politician gets elected. While this is obviously a cynical election ploy for Democrats, it also has the unintended (for them) side-effect that all their minority easy voters become concentrated in a few special minority districts. Some rare, clever Republicans took advantage of the Democrats' game by over-stuffing those special minority districts with minority voters, so that the Democrats' advantage with minorities was partially wasted. (Keep in mind that unlike most of continental Europe, which has proportional representation, the US has first-past-the-post elections, meaning that votes beyond 51% in each district are wasted.) The Democrats would like to redeploy those above-51% minority (ethnic minority--not voter minority) votes to help the Democrats in other districts, but as Steve points out, having pretended they cared about those minorities to pass the VRA, the Democrats can't un-pretend now. (Actually, I think they can and eventually will, they just have to come up with some new victim-crisis language for cover.)
Told you it was kind of complicated.
The New York Times whines that "geography is against them" but of course it is really just the consequences of their own sneaky ploy partially backfiring.Replies: @snorlax, @Another German
Thanks.
Well, you keep touting the success of the black-a-block strategy in the Chicago suburbs in the 60’s. Did you think that the powers that be ignore everything that you write?
I don’t think a parallel can be drawn to blacks in this case because white liberals have much less goodwill (don’t mean there’s any ill will) towards Hispanics as blacks. Maybe only 1/10th. So smart Hispanics can’t expect much of a bump for Harvard College admission or get adored for being articulate or made into a presidential contender without much going on. The affirmative action incentives for smart Hispanics who despite marriage into middle class America to stay Hispanic just aren’t that strong.
I’m stating an obvious inevitable future involving race mixing and renewed white identity. Only an SJW would disagree believing instead that Americans are so irredeemably racist that they could never on a large scale accept Hispanics, intermarry with them, and accept their progeny as whites.
What cultural/economic enrichment can Somali, Nigerians, Pakistani and the rest bring with them?
What were the real motivations of Blair and his circle?
What are they today?
In reading this account of the genetic history of Britain old and contemporary, I am spellbound: it goes beyond what I knew.
Over 50 percent by 2070 means England is over.
No reason why France shouldn’t like wise be a thing of the past by 2070.
Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway?
Belgium and the Netherlands?
We see how painstakingly they are working in Germany to the same goal.
“Soros, the Jews” is too simplificative an explanation. Yes they push to that direction, but their pressure alone would accomplish zilch.
And I can’t find one that satisfies me.
Those water bearers might stop to chop some wood along the way for cooking fires. The Sahara desertification into the Sahel has much human help.
What were the real motivations of Blair and his circle?
What are they today?
In reading this account of the genetic history of Britain old and contemporary, I am spellbound: it goes beyond what I knew.
Over 50 percent by 2070 means England is over.
No reason why France shouldn't like wise be a thing of the past by 2070.
Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway?
Belgium and the Netherlands?
We see how painstakingly they are working in Germany to the same goal.
"Soros, the Jews" is too simplificative an explanation. Yes they push to that direction, but their pressure alone would accomplish zilch.
And I can't find one that satisfies me.Replies: @Questionator
“Soros, the Jews” is too simplificative an explanation. Yes they push to that direction, but their pressure alone would accomplish zilch. And I can’t find one that satisfies me.
The jews probably are that powerful. Look around. But in conquering Western nations and destroying the European genome, they have the consent, support, and assistance of almost every other non-White group on the planet, which fear and envy European ability.
This is just age-old tribal warfare for control of resources.
Ah, the soft eugenics of the left!
Other races are dinge an sich...but white is just “identity” that anyone can adopt.
Even as apparently it is the worst thing ever to befall humanity.
So tell me how come these browns are going to give up their sacred melanin/victimization and grievance points…and become Deplorables?
Before this thread goes stale, I just thought of another reason why AFFH isn’t really about two-party political sabotage, but instead more about shoveling ghetto blacks out of cities.
Back in December, there was a long form in the Baltimore Sun about an AFFH precursor program in the Baltimore area, wherein the Baltimore City public housing agency, very much on the quiet and sly, bought houses in suburban counties for use as public housing. The article said in passing that the intended and virtually sole “beneficiaries” of this program and AFFH in general are young/ish single black women with dependent children.
The problem is that young/ish single black women don’t do much voting. As you know, voting in the black community is almost the exclusive province of middle aged to elderly women. So, you move L’Booshondria and her kids to the suburbs thinking L’Booshondria’s vote will swing the suburban Congressional district from R to D. Except that L’Booshondria didn’t vote when she was back in the ghetto, and she won’t vote now that she’s in the suburbs. Even when she hits upper middle age, the odds that she’ll ever vote are lower than that for previous generations of black women who hit upper middle age, because today’s generation of upper middle age to elderly black women remember the civil rights movement as a matter of something that happened in their conscious lifetimes, and therefore, they can be goosed out to the polls based on singing “We Shall Overcome” and showing images of nooses and burning crosses. L’Booshondria, OTOH, is a Millennial, and has no conscious memory of anything like that.
While I’m on that subject, the other reason why AFFH and related programs are intended for single black women with children, the real reason being Negro removal and population displacement, is because women of reproductive years are the population and reproductive bottleneck; in any species that uses sexual reproduction, females of reproductive age and capability are the population and reproductive bottleneck. If you get the black women of reproductive age out of the cities, it is the one single thing you can do short of moving all the blacks out that will have the inevitable result of crashing the black population in the place where they’re taken out of. The young/er black men will follow the L’Booshondrias out to the suburbs for obvious natural reasons, human nature being what it is, and of the younger black men that stick around, for the purposes of thugging or whatever, most of them will either wind up in prison, murder victims, kill themselves off of bad behavior, or just waste away. The elderly blacks that stay behind, well, time being what it is, and the way of all flesh being what it is, they’ll be on to the next realm of existence within a decade or two. And with the L’Booshondrias recreating the ghettos using her womb in the suburbs instead of the city, it’ll mean that in 10-20 years, nobody will be left in what used to be the urban ghetto. Send in the gentrifiers.