Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's a good question, actually. Some say that if the USA wants to defeat the IS, they should invade on the ground and just do it. But others say (and I think I agree) that invading that area would make us into the target of opposition, and that we can't restore sane governance to the area without the cooperation of the Muslims there who want and fight for their freedom. Most candidates of both parties seem to agree with this. The Republicans complain about Obama's policy, and then just offer the same policy he's already doing.

So I don't know how long it will take. There is some progress in Iraq, but regaining Syria is impossible as long as Assad is in power/the civil war & proxy war continues.

It could take a whole saeculum before people get tired of an Islamic State. A Khalifa, especially in Africa, may turn out to be something the West may have to contain the way it did Communism, until the people who live there get tired of it and get it out of their system. It will take time, but the best way to subvert Islamic States may be to encourage missionaries who go in preparing to die to spread Christianity through "home churches" the way home churches operate in Iran and China. Maybe it's easier to propagate one's own faith than to other people's religions.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

In the South, Democrats most certainly DID pass laws confiscating guns from African-Americans, free as well as slave, post-bellum Jim Crow as well as antebellum. We ignore the Dixiecrat heritage of the Dems . at our peril--the latest instance of it being the Clinton's pandering to fears of black crime during Bill's Administration.

There was no such pandering and the Democrats of today are not the Southern Democrats back before the third great revolution began. To compare today's Democrats to those of Dixie in the past is ridiculous.

And even in the North in liberal Democratic jurisdictions, the combination of laws and policies that embroil African-American males in the criminal justice system for most of their lives makes it illegal for them to possess firearms while under (lengthy) parole. Of course that doesn't stop African Americans from getting firearms anyway since they DO feel a need to be able to defend themselves.

Having guns to protect yourself is ridiculous nonsense. African-Americans who commit crime have no business having guns, nor do Americans of any kind who commit crimes.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I think Utah Republicans will likely endorse Cruz. And Utah Dems, Bernie. Hillary has too much sleaze associated with her for Mormons to tolerate her. If Hillary is the nominee, Utahans will find even Trump preferable to Hillary. Trump may not be terribly religious, but balanced against his divorces is the fact that his success in business is something Mormons can respect. (Which, by the way, will help Trump in Nevada and Arizona, too). Utah has not voted Democratic for President since, I believe, 1964. And I don't think Trump is sleazy enough for that to change. Mormons were heavily involved in the growth of the Las Vegas gambling industry too. Just because Mormons are against gambling themselves, dosen't mean that they aren't happy to see Gentiles gamble.

Trump is far, far more sleazy than Secretary Clinton. He is the epitome of a crony capitalist. But I have no confidence in Utah voting Democratic regardless of who the candidates are.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It's become so obvious to poor whites that they are in the same boat as African Americans that this time around they may actually help African Americans row and bail instead of trying to throw them overboard.

As long as Clinton supporters and operatives do not succeed in turning the situation into racial minorities and women vs. poor white men.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Affirmative action can be changed to affirmative action for children from poor families, not by race.

I fear this is going to be a hard sell based on a program on Minnesota Public Radio I listened to a few weeks ago. It seems like a lot of Blacks assume that any purely economic measure will inevitably favor poor whites over poor blacks because of implicit racial bias.

There have been a number of posts speculating on the voting patterns of 'poor whites'.
It is not obvious to me as to how to sort this out, but just found the following article that may be related to discussion.

The Politics of Financial Insecurity
http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/...participation/


… "After the 2014 midterm election in which the GOP scored major gains in Congress and the statehouses, a particular theme of post-election analyses focused on the relatively low levels of support Democratic candidates received from white working class voters. It is true that Republican candidates were preferred to Democratic candidates among whites in all but the least financially secure group. But the overall relationship between financial situation, partisan choice and political engagement among the general public is evident among whites as well. Republican support declines as financial insecurity increases, while Democratic support is relatively flat. About three-in-ten (31%) of the least financially secure white adults declined to express a candidate preference in 2014, compared with just 6% among the most secure.
Financial Security and Political Values
Financial insecurity is associated with a lack of support for the Republican Party, but it does not translate into correspondingly greater levels of allegiance for the Democrats. Why is this? Part of the answer might be found in the political values of those who are financially secure and those who are not.”….

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'm just a short stone throw away from the Republicans. I'm within throwing range of most working class Democrats and those who truly represent them.

Meaning what, exactly? Based on all the post you made over the years, you demagogue one party that is certainly guilty, but let the other much-more-guilty party off the hook. Why?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Pretty hard to claim that your looking out for them while a policy like Affirmative Action is still in place.

AA is still needed, but should be class based rather than race based. Disadvantage comes in all colors, religions, and ethnic backgrounds.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

When it comes to guns, Progressives have a history of walking right into the Republican narrative. We need to decode guns. Guns as a political issue have always been about selling fear of those who the issue makes of having guns. In the 1900s, when New York's Sullivan Act was passed, the fear was about European immigrants (anarchists!) having access to guns. In the 1960s, the fear (and dog whistle) was of African Americans (militants!) having access to guns--with spin-offs ranging from a ban on mail order guns in the mid 60s to the massacre of Black Panthers in the early 1970s in Chicago. Today, it is poor whites who are being dog whistled by the educated classes as the threat when guns are mentioned--via mass shootings, which though spectacular are a mimiscule fraction of the number of gun deaths. Which is why Bernie Sanders has been leery of identifying too much with the anti-gun moral panic, which is directed at poor white voters he wants to attract.
Real concern about guns and a real campaign against gun deaths would start by centering on gun suicides, which would be compassionate, and on taking guns from people whose danger to self and others increases if they possess guns. Which is not happening, obviously. Poor whites "get" from this that they are being attacked by Democrats the same way that African Americans "got" that they were being attacked by conservatives over guns in the 1960s. The gun issue in this country has always been in this country about identifying specific groups in the population who are "too dangerous" to be allowed to bear arms. Now it's poor whites turn.

Here in Virginia, we can't even agree that people on the terrorism watch list should be restricted from buying guns ... or even subject to vetting. The irrationality that centers around the subject is scary. I was stunned that bills to OK guns in bars and, later, guns in church would actually pass and be signed. They did and they were.

It's hard to stay quiet.

Caveat - this is regarding polls, so YMMV.

In any case, Rubio now pulling 2nd in NH.

My call for NH therefore strengthens. My call was:
1st - Trump
2nd - Rubio
3rd - Cruz

Originally Posted by radind

There have been a number of posts speculating on the voting patterns of 'poor whites'.
It is not obvious to me as to how to sort this out, but just found the following article that may be related to discussion.

Thank you for calling this to our attention.

One point:

Notably, the least financially secure have a mixed view of government performance. About half (49%) say the “government is almost always wasteful and inefficient,” while nearly as many (48%) say government “often does a better job than people give it credit for.” But among the two most financially secure groups, roughly six-in-ten fault the government for being wasteful and inefficient.

It is easy to see why high-income white people would be more hostile to government spending: they are the ones who get taxed. Government may be spending on welfare, which keeps people from taking jobs with abysmal pay and working conditions (let us say as household servants) instead of seeking more out of life. High-income non-whites are more likely to work in the public sector and thus rely upon a taxpayer-funded paycheck or be employed in a business that depends heavily upon welfare payments or other subsidies by customers or clients. A small businessperson (more likely to be a member of an identifiable minority group) whose grocery store depends heavily upon TANF or SNAP or a physician whose clients depend heavily upon Medicaid or Medicare isn't likely to bite the hand who feeds him.

Although low-income white people are as likely to end up on welfare or disability (in fact, disability payments are low income) they are especially likely to be hostile to immigrants:

On only one item – perceptions of the economic impact of immigrants – are the least financially secure more conservative than those who are better off: 44% of the least secure say immigrants are a burden on the U.S. because “they take our jobs, housing and health care.” That is considerably higher than the share of the most financially secure (27%) who express this view. Yet negative views about immigrants are more strongly correlated with vote preference among the financially secure than among the insecure.

Republicans have been using this wedge issue to get the votes of people as likely to hold liberal as conservative views on economics. Minorities visibly doing better than poor whites may not be so troublesome to not-so-poor whites; middle-class whites may have some leeriness about one of their kids dating a Hispanic until that Hispanic kid shows a strong work ethic and good grades in school. But the Hispanic (or black or Asian) who visibly does better than poor whites offends the sensibilities of poor whites who assume that their time (as white people) has come, and they can't understand why they are poor. Republicans play that resentment well. If they can't make strong appeals on homophobia or abortion, they can appeal to low-end bigotry.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here in Virginia, we can't even agree that people on the terrorism watch list should be restricted from buying guns ... or even subject to vetting. The irrationality that centers around the subject is scary. I was stunned that bills to OK guns in bars and, later, guns in church would actually pass and be signed. They did and they were.

It's hard to stay quiet.

To temporarily restrain an individual right should require probable cause and all sorts of due process. Permanent restraint should require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and even more due process. Getting on the terrorist no fly list requires the whim of an anonymous bureaucrat and lacks a solid procedure for getting off the list. In terms of rule of law, disregarding individual rights on whim is a non-starter. A major point of individual rights is to limit the powers of government.

The no fly list, I think, is supposed to be a quick response tool. If there is any reason for suspicion, one might want to keep a possible terrorist of airplanes. Vague suspicion is a much lower threshold than probable cause or proof beyond reasonable doubt, which properly require judges and often juries to establish.

I could see a list of folk who are stripped of their right to bear arms, but it ought to be a separate list, and the Constitution's due process amendments should not be ignored. There are centuries of precedent setting the proper due process required for disregarding individual rights.

The core values aspect runs a lot deeper. Some see the right to defend one's self as basic. Others see the presence of weapons in public as a threat. I can see how either belief can come to be held with immovable fervor. All one has to do is imagine one's self in a situation where weapons might be used and it is ever so easy to imagine the situation turning upside down if either a good guy has a weapon or a bad guy doesn't. I have trouble seeing how either faction can be so unable to perceive and respect the other's perspective. Both sets of values have some element of common sense about them. Both sets might work for the best depending on one's local culture and environment. Still, an apparent inability to comprehend very simple basic perspectives turns any conversation on the subject into a values locked nightmare.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

AA is still needed, but should be class based rather than race based. Disadvantage comes in all colors, religions, and ethnic backgrounds.

This would be a better approach overall.

Originally Posted by radind

This would be a better approach overall.

Maybe if liberals are moving in that direction, that might answer Classic Xer's concerns about liberals' interest in poor white people. Or at least deflate his argument, which was a good point. I would guess, however, that many liberals will agree with class rather than race AA when the African-Americans agree.

Originally Posted by B Butler

To temporarily restrain an individual right should require probable cause and all sorts of due process. Permanent restraint should require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and even more due process. Getting on the terrorist no fly list requires the whim of an anonymous bureaucrat and lacks a solid procedure for getting off the list. In terms of rule of law, disregarding individual rights on whim is a non-starter. A major point of individual rights is to limit the powers of government.

The no fly list, I think, is supposed to be a quick response tool. If there is any reason for suspicion, one might want to keep a possible terrorist of airplanes. Vague suspicion is a much lower threshold than probable cause or proof beyond reasonable doubt, which properly require judges and often juries to establish.

I could see a list of folk who are stripped of their right to bear arms, but it ought to be a separate list, and the Constitution's due process amendments should not be ignored. There are centuries of precedent setting the proper due process required for disregarding individual rights.

The core values aspect runs a lot deeper. Some see the right to defend one's self as basic. Others see the presence of weapons in public as a threat. I can see how either belief can come to be held with immovable fervor. All one has to do is imagine one's self in a situation where weapons might be used and it is ever so easy to imagine the situation turning upside down if either a good guy has a weapon or a bad guy doesn't. I have trouble seeing how either faction can be so unable to perceive and respect the other's perspective. Both sets of values have some element of common sense about them. Both sets might work for the best depending on one's local culture and environment. Still, an apparent inability to comprehend very simple basic perspectives turns any conversation on the subject into a values locked nightmare.

I don't see the 2nd as a right to self defense, personally. We have that right already without involving guns at all. Citing it as a justification for wide-spread ownership of guns is a bit specious. So far, we've avoided mass gun-toting during bad times, but the next time the economy falls apart or strife rises from <pick any source you like>, we'll see if 300 million guns are a good idea. If it goes bad, it will go very bad.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't see the 2nd as a right to self defense, personally. We have that right already without involving guns at all. Citing it as a justification for wide-spread ownership of guns is a bit specious. So far, we've avoided mass gun-toting during bad times, but the next time the economy falls apart or strife rises from <pick any source you like>, we'll see if 300 million guns are a good idea. If it goes bad, it will go very bad.

Sure, one has a right when unarmed to defend one's self against a guy that is armed. Lotsa luck.

I remember one session in a martial arts class where we were practicing unarmed moves against armed opponents, knives, clubs, etc... We started in neutral stance, legs spread to shoulder width, arms in front of us palm down. The defense involved moving out of the way of the attack, a double block to make sure the weapon was neutralized, followed up by a no nonsense strike intended to disable with absolutely no regard to polite civility. If one is desperate enough to go against the odds, one can't take half measures.

Then we got to 'gun'. Without instruction, I changed my opening stance. I shifted to forearms up in the air palms open and towards the opponent. The instructor wasn't entirely amused, but it seemed more realistic to me. One ought to practice initiating any moves from a realistic opening stance. If the other guy has a gun and is close enough that these moves would supposedly work, one doesn't want to telegraph that one is a martial artist who might be thinking about trying something stupid.

Many believe that if everything does go to pot, that it would be beneficial if good people had guns as well as the bad people. Depending on one's values, one can imagine different situations that will inevitably justify one's values. I know you don't believe in being ready to defend yourself. That's the government's job. You think they will be there to do it. There are many who believe you sadly mistaken. To truly resolve such a deeply divisive values question might require a real crisis where the question is put to the test. I'd rather not. I'm hoping the spiral of violence remains cold, the issue untested in the real world, the question debated rather than resolved.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Sure, one has a right when unarmed to defend one's self against a guy that is armed. Lotsa luck.

I remember one session in a martial arts class where we were practicing unarmed moves against armed opponents, knives, clubs, etc... We started in neutral stance, legs spread to shoulder width, arms in front of us palm down. The defense involved moving out of the way of the attack, a double block to make sure the weapon was neutralized, followed up by a no nonsense strike intended to disable with absolutely no regard to polite civility. If one is desperate enough to go against the odds, one can't take half measures.

Then we got to 'gun'. Without instruction, I changed my opening stance. I shifted to forearms up in the air palms open and towards the opponent. The instructor wasn't entirely amused, but it seemed more realistic to me. One ought to practice initiating any moves from a realistic opening stance. If the other guy has a gun and is close enough that these moves would supposedly work, one doesn't want to telegraph that one is a martial artist who might be thinking about trying something stupid.

Many believe that if everything does go to pot, that it would be beneficial if good people had guns as well as the bad people. Depending on one's values, one can imagine different situations that will inevitably justify one's values. I know you don't believe in being ready to defend yourself. That's the government's job. You think they will be there to do it. There are many who believe you sadly mistaken. To truly resolve such a deeply divisive values question might require a real crisis where the question is put to the test. I'd rather not. I'm hoping the spiral of violence remains cold, the issue untested in the real world, the question debated rather than resolved.

The fact that we are awash in guns is the only reason this is germane in the first place.

While we are on the topic of poor Whites, I was listening to a show on public radio today about Harper Lee's new book and one of the people on the show, a Southern liberal, made a point that really struck me about how Northern White liberals have particularly demonized poor Southern Whites, "white trash", as almost the primary source of racism, and that people misunderstand both the new book and To Kill A Mockingbird because of it. Atticus Finch did not change and become a racist, he was always a racist, just a fairly well-off, benevolent racist. But we Northern liberals don't see that because we have singled out "white trash" as the font of most racism.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There was no such pandering and the Democrats of today are not the Southern Democrats back before the third great revolution began. To compare today's Democrats to those of Dixie in the past is ridiculous.

Having guns to protect yourself is ridiculous nonsense. African-Americans who commit crime have no business having guns, nor do Americans of any kind who commit crimes.

For middle class whites like most of us maybe, who have police who come promptly and are professional and polite maybe, but not for African Americans and increasingly not for poor whites either.
When and where police have a habit of showing up after a crime has been committed or show up with such overwhelming force that the person who called the police can be in as much risk as the perp (I realise that this is not common, but this is the perception and it does sometimes happen) and a segment of the population can't get out of trouble with the law, often for offences they did NOT commit), then people need weapons with which to defend themselves. If you would understand some of the dilemmas that African-Americans face these days, read "On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City" by Alice Goffman. The cellphone videos have given us a window on this reality.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Sure, one has a right when unarmed to defend one's self against a guy that is armed. Lotsa luck.

I remember one session in a martial arts class where we were practicing unarmed moves against armed opponents, knives, clubs, etc... We started in neutral stance, legs spread to shoulder width, arms in front of us palm down. The defense involved moving out of the way of the attack, a double block to make sure the weapon was neutralized, followed up by a no nonsense strike intended to disable with absolutely no regard to polite civility. If one is desperate enough to go against the odds, one can't take half measures.

Then we got to 'gun'. Without instruction, I changed my opening stance. I shifted to forearms up in the air palms open and towards the opponent. The instructor wasn't entirely amused, but it seemed more realistic to me. One ought to practice initiating any moves from a realistic opening stance. If the other guy has a gun and is close enough that these moves would supposedly work, one doesn't want to telegraph that one is a martial artist who might be thinking about trying something stupid.

Many believe that if everything does go to pot, that it would be beneficial if good people had guns as well as the bad people. Depending on one's values, one can imagine different situations that will inevitably justify one's values. I know you don't believe in being ready to defend yourself. That's the government's job. You think they will be there to do it. There are many who believe you sadly mistaken. To truly resolve such a deeply divisive values question might require a real crisis where the question is put to the test. I'd rather not. I'm hoping the spiral of violence remains cold, the issue untested in the real world, the question debated rather than resolved.

The last time gun ownership figured into a real crisis was in 1860. At that time, the existence of "well ordered militia" to use the constitution's language made a quick recourse to war on the part of both the North and the South possible. (Note: These were trained organised militia who drilled once a week, not just men who happened to own guns).
The upshot of this crisis was that gun ownership did not disappear in the Gilded Age, but except for the South where they turned into terrorist insurgents (Ku Klux Klan, Red Shirts, Redeemers), organised militias pretty much got subsumed into the National Guard and severely downsized.
Would we have been better off without those militias?
We might not have had a Civil War. But we very well might have had the Supreme Court strike down laws against slavery in Northern states and the US become 100% slave if there hadn't been a Civil War.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't see the 2nd as a right to self defense, personally. We have that right already without involving guns at all. Citing it as a justification for wide-spread ownership of guns is a bit specious. So far, we've avoided mass gun-toting during bad times, but the next time the economy falls apart or strife rises from <pick any source you like>, we'll see if 300 million guns are a good idea. If it goes bad, it will go very bad.

The Civil War showed us just how bad it can go.

Originally Posted by Odin

I fear this is going to be a hard sell based on a program on Minnesota Public Radio I listened to a few weeks ago. It seems like a lot of Blacks assume that any purely economic measure will inevitably favor poor whites over poor blacks because of implicit racial bias.

That's a bias and assumption that will have to be spoken to. Martin Luther King was starting to speak to it when he was gunned down.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe if liberals are moving in that direction, that might answer Classic Xer's concerns about liberals' interest in poor white people. Or at least deflate his argument, which was a good point. I would guess, however, that many liberals will agree with class rather than race AA when the African-Americans agree.

The African Americans and Hispanic Americans probably won't ever agree.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Sure, one has a right when unarmed to defend one's self against a guy that is armed. Lotsa luck.

I remember one session in a martial arts class where we were practicing unarmed moves against armed opponents, knives, clubs, etc... We started in neutral stance, legs spread to shoulder width, arms in front of us palm down. The defense involved moving out of the way of the attack, a double block to make sure the weapon was neutralized, followed up by a no nonsense strike intended to disable with absolutely no regard to polite civility. If one is desperate enough to go against the odds, one can't take half measures.

A kick to the groin would disable an attacker long enough to strip the attacker of his weapons... and give one a chance to get away, most likely with the weapons so that one could be sure that they would never be used against one. Down a drain would be good for ensuring that there would be no ambiguity about an intent to steal. Second best would be turning the weapons over to the legitimate authorities.

Then we got to 'gun'. Without instruction, I changed my opening stance. I shifted to forearms up in the air palms open and towards the opponent. The instructor wasn't entirely amused, but it seemed more realistic to me. One ought to practice initiating any moves from a realistic opening stance. If the other guy has a gun and is close enough that these moves would supposedly work, one doesn't want to telegraph that one is a martial artist who might be thinking about trying something stupid.

You had no obligation to surrender to the crook, and there is no guarantee that the crook won't shoot anyway. Escape is the objective, and leaving the crook with a temporarily-crippling pain suggesting that he can no longer sire a child sounds like the optimum.

Many believe that if everything does go to pot, that it would be beneficial if good people had guns as well as the bad people. Depending on one's values, one can imagine different situations that will inevitably justify one's values. I know you don't believe in being ready to defend yourself. That's the government's job. You think they will be there to do it. There are many who believe you sadly mistaken. To truly resolve such a deeply divisive values question might require a real crisis where the question is put to the test. I'd rather not. I'm hoping the spiral of violence remains cold, the issue untested in the real world, the question debated rather than resolved.

I'd probably Mace the crook if Mace were legal in my state.

The crook typically has the advantage of surprise and an intention to do harm. Have a second wallet full of expired or void credit cards and some expendable cash, and throw it over the crook's head. You will get a chance to escape. Getting out of the situation is the best that you can hope for.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe if liberals are moving in that direction, that might answer Classic Xer's concerns about liberals' interest in poor white people. Or at least deflate his argument, which was a good point. I would guess, however, that many liberals will agree with class rather than race AA when the African-Americans agree.

The Supreme Court will be moving in that direction eventually as society continues to move in a more libertarian direction.