Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 539 540 [541] 542 543 ... 1342

Author Topic: Murrican Politics Megathread 2016: There Will Be Hell Toupée  (Read 1570133 times)

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8100 on: December 14, 2015, 03:21:47 pm »

Actually, affirmative actions CAN help fight the root cause (racism etc...). I have a nice paper by Esther Dufflo looking at the Indian case mainiac referred to earlier.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 03:43:00 pm by Sheb »
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8101 on: December 14, 2015, 03:34:37 pm »

That dropbox link requires a dropbox account to access. nvm the article appeared after I closed the box asking me to register.

It's interesting, that paper because where women's spots are reserved the public expenditures more closely resemble the local women's concerns. Which is kind of the obvious conclusion. But it's pretty varied since women in one area might care about a topic that's of more interest to men in another area. So you get the same thing either being funded or defunded when you bring more women into the council depending on local opinions.

And more representation from women may or may not even push women's rights. I'm guessing Indian women who get ahead politically would be relatively affluent, and more likely to be conservative. Add to that, the fact that women are consistently (on average) more religious than men, and on a lot of polls, women are more likely to be Pro-Life than men are. So if you just put more women into decision-making roles without any other criteria you might even end up with more anti-abortion laws passing.

These are UK polling figures however the difference is clear:

Quote
In the 2011 YouGov poll 28% of men supported a reduction (in the legal abortion term), 46% of women did. In the 2012 YouGov poll 24% of men supported a reduction, 49% of women did. In the Angus Reid poll 35% of men supported a reduction in the limit, 59% of women did. In the ICM poll 45% of men supported a reduction to 20 weeks, 59% of women did.”

So it's not just a small difference: in some UK polls women were twice as likely to support a reduction in abortion rights, and more women in parliament would likely push the percentage over 50%, meaning it could actually pass. So, no, adding more women doesn't automatically mean awesome liberal women's rights improvements. In America the gender differences aren't generally so big, but 21% of women want a complete ban vs 16% of men, which is a pretty significant difference.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 04:11:04 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Strife26

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8102 on: December 14, 2015, 04:15:14 pm »

So, aside from somehow making children taller, I'm not sure how we set policies to the causation, especially when it's an internalized thing and is something with our psychological makeup as a species.

Progress universally happens because people are willing to try the uncertain.  Sexism is a problem that can be solved like any other problem, you keep trying things until you see what helps.  India found that requiring local governments be half woman made a big difference.  A program that offered apprenticeships to women in a rural region also helped.  Sweden has had big successes with maternity and paternity leave programs (something Bernie Sanders is a big fan of I believe).  Japan is going to use government contracts to put some pressure on the major conglomerates.  The US has even engaged in this in the past.  The black middle class in the US came into existence in large part because the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson administrations deliberately encouraged hiring black people in government.  Judging something by "can you prove this will solve problem" is a bullshit standard that we wouldn't accept anywhere else.  The standard should be "is this something worth trying?"


I think the most obvious and probably most effective (though probably not the most practical) solution would be total obfuscation. Mandate that anything that could indicate race or sex be hidden during the hiring process; face, voice, name, everything.

Alright Harrison Bergeron
Logged
Even the avatars expire eventually.

RedKing

  • Bay Watcher
  • hoo hoo motherfucker
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8103 on: December 14, 2015, 04:44:29 pm »

2edgy4vonnegut
Logged

Remember, knowledge is power. The power to make other people feel stupid.
Quote from: Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8104 on: December 14, 2015, 05:44:36 pm »

Fixing any ONE of those problems will do more than any affirmative action program

1) No it probably wouldn't do more then any affirmative action program.  Plenty of black people aren't born into crack houses in a ghetto.  They outnumber the ghetto crowd pretty heavily.  If you waved a magic wand and got rid of both urban blight and affirmative action you still have a massive problem.  Just look at women.  The distribution of women and men in the "born into poverty" spectrum is pretty similar but the outcomes aren't similar just because women are more likely to be born into poverty then men.

Huh, came across this just now: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21156.pdf
In case you are interested in knowing what solving "any ONE" of these problems will do.  Between $1723 and negative $967 dollars difference in yearly earnings in the mid twenties.

2) You are arguing against a strawman.  The people concerned with racism or sexism are generally the people doing the most to improve the situation of minorities and females.  The movement to educate blacks was big among the abolitionists and they were the ones fighting for "forty acres and a mule" and education while the racists were setting up Jim Crow.  Historically black colleges and the NCAAP were around for half a decade before the culture wars of the 50s and 60s started.  And that has continued until today, just look at Obama, a community organizer who got laws passed to curtail police abuse.  Did he get elected and then blame racism on everything?  Nope, he pushed for improving underperforming schools, giving the poor healthcare, tax incentives for the working poor, greater community college access, reforming college debt and the like.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 06:20:46 pm by mainiac »
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8105 on: December 14, 2015, 05:58:11 pm »

You know, does anybody really think that the endorsement primary http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ is going to be the best predictor of the winner this year? Because according to http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-suggest-trump-will-win-between-8-percent-and-64-percent-of-the-vote/ (those graphs are missing a whole bunch of names for proper analysis), the eventual nominee generally (though not always) polls well in Iowa before winning it, but the thing is that the graphs in the endorsement primary show that the eventual nominee has been at the top of the 'endorsement primary' for the most part and the article makes the point that Trump has 0 endorsements.

However, despite leading in the endorsement primary Bush (with Rubio creeping up behind him, he's been polling pretty low and I'm just not seeing him winning.

Endorsements aren't required to win though, and this hasn't been your typical election year, so I dunno. Maybe I'm overanalyzing here while trying to make sense of it.

Also, did someone pay Trumps doctor to exaggerate? Because 'healthiest president-elect evar'. :P
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 06:07:30 pm by smjjames »
Logged

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8106 on: December 14, 2015, 06:12:17 pm »

I think the winner of the endorsement primary at this point is "undecided".
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Zangi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8107 on: December 14, 2015, 06:22:59 pm »

Trump is gonna Trump on if he gets 0 endorsements anyways.  Nothing else has killed his campaign so far, this ain't likely to either.
Logged
All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu...  This is the truth! This is my belief! ... At least for now...
FMA/FMA:B Recommendation

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8108 on: December 14, 2015, 06:26:54 pm »

I expect that losing a large number of primaries will probably end his campaign despite what he says about an independent bid.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8109 on: December 14, 2015, 06:27:31 pm »

Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8110 on: December 14, 2015, 06:41:23 pm »

I wonder if a Trump nomination would drive big business away from the republican party.  Democrats won the corporate cash game in 2008 as the crashing economy tainted the republican game.  But they came flocking back in 2010 when the republicans had plenty of fodder for their typical fundraising lines and could organize things in SuperPacs.  Maybe a Trump nomination would be so abhorrent that the corporate cash might actually stay away for longer.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8111 on: December 14, 2015, 06:45:06 pm »

After the Corbyn victory in the UK Labour Party elections this year, I don't think endorsements are really all that important. Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall were up to their eyeballs in endorsements from grandees and they didn't count for anything.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 06:48:01 pm by Owlbread »
Logged

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8112 on: December 14, 2015, 06:54:20 pm »

That's a different country with different rules.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8113 on: December 14, 2015, 06:55:16 pm »

I wonder if a Trump nomination would drive big business away from the republican party.  Democrats won the corporate cash game in 2008 as the crashing economy tainted the republican game.  But they came flocking back in 2010 when the republicans had plenty of fodder for their typical fundraising lines and could organize things in SuperPacs.  Maybe a Trump nomination would be so abhorrent that the corporate cash might actually stay away for longer.

There's more to the Republican party going on besides Trump, ya know? Corporate interests play to all levels of government, and I think corporate cash will always care about senate and house races, governorships and so forth. Plus if he wins the presidency along normal voter turn out, that means around half of Americans implicitly endorse him and his ways, at that point in time. I generally think business tends to go with the prevailing political attitudes as long as it works with their bottomline.

Now if he makes our fiscal position and standing with the rest world unstable by his actions, then yeah, I can see businesses pulling their cash away from Republicans on some level. But you also have to factor in what the Republican establishment would do in reaction to Trump elected as a Republican. If they turn on him and essentially treat him like Obama (which is starting to seem more likely by the day to hear the media tell it), business might support them to undermine Trump even further. On the other hand if Trump does what he'd like to do and turn America into the most pro-business nation on Earth, corporations may not fund Republicans if they're actively opposed to Trump. If they decide its in their best interest not to.

And a lot of this relies on what Trump would actually do and say as President. Part of me thinks he might actually be (relatively) quiet as President and rely heavily on his cabinet and adviser's advice. Something about his demeanor in the first Republican debate really made me believe that this is all bluster and not an actual indication of how he would handle himself if elected to office. Like despite what he says he knows how grossly underqualified he is for the job.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 06:57:15 pm by nenjin »
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #8114 on: December 14, 2015, 06:57:30 pm »

I wonder if a Trump nomination would drive big business away from the republican party.  Democrats won the corporate cash game in 2008 as the crashing economy tainted the republican game.  But they came flocking back in 2010 when the republicans had plenty of fodder for their typical fundraising lines and could organize things in SuperPacs.  Maybe a Trump nomination would be so abhorrent that the corporate cash might actually stay away for longer.

Aside from the incenidary rhetoric and the bigotry, I don't really see anything that would drive big business away if Trump was nominated.

After the Corbyn victory in the UK Labour Party elections this year, I don't think endorsements are really all that important. Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall were up to their eyeballs in endorsements from grandees and they didn't count for anything.

Maybe this will be the year that endorsements don't count for much of anything.

That's a different country with different rules.

Is there any practical difference between endorsement by a noble (which is what wikipedia seems to say a grandee is) and an endorsement by a politician?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 07:00:19 pm by smjjames »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 539 540 [541] 542 543 ... 1342