The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Kamala's Southern Strategy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As has been stated here several times over the years, abortion may become a winning ‘hot-button’ social issue for Republicans. Scientific and technological progress doesn’t bode well for the pro-choice position, especially the harm dimension of morality. It is a dimension leftists put greater emphasis on than others do.

New media is exposing another vulnerability for the pro-choice position. It’s difficult to portray abortion as a mere clinical procedure when videos like these find their way out [edit: EldnahYm points out these are likely rubber dolls used in medical training–we are most vulnerable when we don’t know what we don’t know, so I am glad to be now be aware of the existence of such fetal dolls!]:

Again, the stench of sulfur is coming through my computer screen. If the video ended with a few lab coats turning into pillars of salt maybe that would dispel the smell.

Democrat frontrunner Joe Biden seems to grasp as much.

How can I get away with prognosticating given how poor the prospects for my Kamala Harris prediction appear to be? Audacity, of course!

In my defense, the prediction was made long before Jussie Smollett became a household name. The top three searches related to “kamala harris” give some indication of how little good that hate hoax did her:

Being part Indian, she is surely able to appreciate a little karma!

Despite floundering in the first few months, she’s not out of the running yet. Her path to the nomination remains turning in respectable top five finishes in both Iowa and New Hampshire and then winning South Carolina.

From Trends, a map showing which of the top five candidates in terms of search volume have enjoyed a plurality of searches by state since the beginning of 2019 through today:

Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg are manufactured candidates, preferred by the Establishment on account of being sufficiently woke without scaring the rubes in flyover country too much. But there isn’t grassroots interest in either of them.

No potential candidate inspires progressives less than Biden does. Bernie Sanders will likely remain a respectable second placer through primary season because although he has a ceiling well under 50% in every state, his base is the most loyal among the field, but it’s hard to see how he actually wins the nomination.

Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang distinguish themselves from the rest of the field by having demonstrated the ability to offer independent thoughts and discuss novel ideas. Maybe one of them will catch a little fire in the early debates.

When it comes to diversity and intersectionality, Harris currently leads the pack, but that’s only because in the land of the blind the one-eyed woman is queen. The field is ripe for a fully fledged POC like Stacey Abrams or Oprah Winfrey to jump in and immediately shoot to the top of the polls. It’s worth noting that at this point in the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump had not yet even announced his candidacy.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Election 2020, Morality 
Hide 104 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. If (when) we lose in 2020 (2024), Self Determination must begin immidiately

    Any conservative must see the writing on the wall.

    If you do not support Self-Determination, its treason.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Political dissolution includes questions of "when?" and "how?", but I do not think it includes "if?" any longer.

    That said, if the GOP flipped the upper Midwest, it could survive losing Texas.
    , @Charles Pewitt
    Texas will go Democrat because of mass legal immigration and illegal immigration -- it's obvious and the GOP Cheap Labor Faction doesn't care.

    Hyenas ripping off a chunk of meat and scurrying off into the jungle without one care about demography or the nation or Texas.

    It's tedious beyond description.

    This is why I think Teddy Cruz is a horrible politician whore. Teddy Cruz pushes mass legal immigration and he refuses to call for the immediate deportation of all illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    Tweets from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/606850015269548032

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/604268938659258368
  2. You’d think Chief Warren would at least be able to take Injun country in Oklahoma and west-river in the S. Dakota territory. Maybe she’ll get last minute support from the 5 nations of the lower Massachusetts … Of course, I’m still hoping Barry Goldwater pulls out a miracle.

    Seriously, that footage is sick. However, though I don’t know or care even, about the particular issues pushed by these Old Pharts and Young Turds of the Blue Squad, I don’t think black voters in the South, even the church ladies, will make abortion as big an issue as who is the blackest. That’s, as in who will do the most for Black people, period. It’s all tribal nowadays, except with the White people for some odd reason.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Having both a dot and a feather in the race just confuses people.
  3. one-eyed woman is queen

    You mean “half-Afro-haired woman is queen”?

    • Replies: @Truth
    No, that sort of ruins the metaphor as the antecedent phrase; "in the land of the blind" implies nothing about hair.
  4. The chances that those are dead fetuses rather than rubber dolls or something seems exceptionally low.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Interesting. Looking into it a little bit, I suspect you're correct.
  5. As has been stated here several times over the years, abortion may become a winning ‘hot-button’ social issue for Republicans.

    The insistence of Republicans on passing laws prohibiting abortion even in the case of rape and incest just ensure that Republicans’ race into the dustbin of history will be even quicker than otherwise. You don’t have to approve of abortion to perceive this.

    Republicans:

    Open Borders
    “We’re not racist! Really!”
    Outlaw abortion in all cases
    Privatize Social Security
    Iraq War, and others, w/o end
    Cut taxes on billionaires
    Outsource foreign policy to Likud

    Anything I left out?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Deeply held beliefs are what they are. Politically, focusing on the most unpopular--like third trimester abortions--is probably the winning approach since the pussyhats brook no dissent on abortion.

    On the other hand, seeing the right actually launch a counteroffensive--and potentially win in the SCOTUS--seems like fantasy to me. I'd like to see it in reality.
  6. Kamala’s Southern Strategy

    Let’s be honest here – it’s Kamala’s black strategy.

    So, three primaries in a row, the Democrats are going to have a white-black struggle. The last two were won by the black faction (Obama beats Clinton and Clinton beats Sanders). This is completely unscientific, but I have a gut feeling that the black faction isn’t going to win in the Democratic primary this time.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    Blacks pulled a lot of political weight in 2018 looking at data from Florida and Georgia, that said i think the Dems will try very hard to appeal to white leftist and Hispanics and it'll backfire.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, it is. In 2008, Hillary won whites and Hispanics in the Democrat primaries but got crushed by blacks, who monolithically voted for Obama. In 2016, Hillary and Sanders split whites, Sanders won Hispanics, but Hillary dominated among blacks--who again voted near-monolithically--and won the nomination as a result. In a field as crowded as this, getting something approaching monolithic black support will either deliver the nomination or one hell of a Coalition of the Fringes civil war.
    , @follyofwar
    Kamala is a know-it-all unlikeable woman. She can't win once more people get to know her.

    Abrams is just too damn ugly to win. TV is all about being telegenic, especially when it comes to women. Biden showed his senility when he proposed taking her as his VP if he gets the nomination.

    The only woman who has a chance is Tulsi Gabbard, but the media is already pulling out all their tricks to stop her.

  7. @Twinkie

    one-eyed woman is queen
     
    You mean “half-Afro-haired woman is queen”?

    No, that sort of ruins the metaphor as the antecedent phrase; “in the land of the blind” implies nothing about hair.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    No, that sort of ruins the metaphor as the antecedent phrase; “in the land of the blind” implies nothing about hair.
     
    We can change that too: "in the land of the Becky-haired..."
  8. @Truth
    No, that sort of ruins the metaphor as the antecedent phrase; "in the land of the blind" implies nothing about hair.

    No, that sort of ruins the metaphor as the antecedent phrase; “in the land of the blind” implies nothing about hair.

    We can change that too: “in the land of the Becky-haired…”

  9. Doctors willing to perform abortion

    40.2 percent of Jewish doctors say yes, compared with
    1.2 percent of Evangelical Protestants
    9 percent of Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox
    10.1 percent of Non-Evangelical Protestants
    20 percent of Hindus
    26.5 percent of doctors who said they had no religious affiliation

    https://jezebel.com/only-14-percent-of-ob-gyns-will-perform-abortions-5833583

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    9 percent of Roman Catholics
     
    They wouldn’t be Roman Catholics since obtaining, procuring, performing, or assisting in abortions leads to an automatic excommunication without any need for “official” pronouncements. They can call themselves Catholics, but they are not “members in good standing.” And if they show up at Mass and partake in Sacraments, they are adding sacrilege and desecration of the Body and Blood of Our Lord on top. It’s nothing short of heinous. May God render appropriate judgment.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    That matches up quite well with civilian opinions on abortion by religious affiliation.

    Jews uniquely suffer from such horrifying childhood genetic disorders like tay sachs (or at least they used to before eugenics mostly made that a thing of the past) so their perspectives are undoubtedly colored by that.
    , @Robert Dolan
    Most abortion doctors are jewish.

    Most affirmative action lawyers are jewish.
  10. Both Sanders and Harris had a rally at Royal Family Life Center, which is part of the Royal Missionary Baptist Church of North Charleston, SC (a predominately black church). The population of North Charleston is 46.69% African-American, and 37.90% non-Hispanic White.

    Sanders crowd was nearly exclusively younger lower turnout young white men, Harris was full of blacks and elderly whites

    I believe the media is underestimating Harris like they underestimated Gillum in the Florida primary

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Duke84
    I think so too.Blacks make up close to a majority of Democratic voters in many southern states and Harris could be the big winner on Super Tuesday.It worked for Obama.
  11. @Twinkie

    Kamala's Southern Strategy
     
    Let's be honest here - it's Kamala's black strategy.

    So, three primaries in a row, the Democrats are going to have a white-black struggle. The last two were won by the black faction (Obama beats Clinton and Clinton beats Sanders). This is completely unscientific, but I have a gut feeling that the black faction isn't going to win in the Democratic primary this time.

    Blacks pulled a lot of political weight in 2018 looking at data from Florida and Georgia, that said i think the Dems will try very hard to appeal to white leftist and Hispanics and it’ll backfire.

  12. @Kent Nationalist
    Doctors willing to perform abortion

    40.2 percent of Jewish doctors say yes, compared with
    1.2 percent of Evangelical Protestants
    9 percent of Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox
    10.1 percent of Non-Evangelical Protestants
    20 percent of Hindus
    26.5 percent of doctors who said they had no religious affiliation
     
    https://jezebel.com/only-14-percent-of-ob-gyns-will-perform-abortions-5833583

    9 percent of Roman Catholics

    They wouldn’t be Roman Catholics since obtaining, procuring, performing, or assisting in abortions leads to an automatic excommunication without any need for “official” pronouncements. They can call themselves Catholics, but they are not “members in good standing.” And if they show up at Mass and partake in Sacraments, they are adding sacrilege and desecration of the Body and Blood of Our Lord on top. It’s nothing short of heinous. May God render appropriate judgment.

    • Agree: Kent Nationalist
  13. @Oblivionrecurs
    Both Sanders and Harris had a rally at Royal Family Life Center, which is part of the Royal Missionary Baptist Church of North Charleston, SC (a predominately black church). The population of North Charleston is 46.69% African-American, and 37.90% non-Hispanic White.

    Sanders crowd was nearly exclusively younger lower turnout young white men, Harris was full of blacks and elderly whites

    I believe the media is underestimating Harris like they underestimated Gillum in the Florida primary

    I think so too.Blacks make up close to a majority of Democratic voters in many southern states and Harris could be the big winner on Super Tuesday.It worked for Obama.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    You might be right about that.

    I wonder, though, what the dem rules are for allocating delegates in the huge primaries, especially Kamala’s home state of California (almost 500 delegates) and Texas (262 delegates).

    Specifically, we could see three candidates reach 15% of the dem primary vote in California — that’s the threshold to receive delegates in many states. Most likely Harris, Sanders, and Biden, though we are still nine months from the Cali primary.

    Harris should promise Booker a seat on the Supreme Court if he drops out of the race, endorses her, and campaigns with him in New Jersey and the African-heavy southern states. If she could knock out that competition for the African vote and collect as many delegates in CA as her next two challengers combined in early March 2020 (38-19-19%, for example), who knows.

    If either Biden or sanders failed to reach the threshold to win delegates in California, however narrowly, Harris might win a crushing victory in the delegate haul there.

    Bizarre scenario: Harris/Biden. He keeps pretending to be moderate, avoids any groping of young women or girls in public, and reassures just enough gullible white people in swing states. Old creepy joe as the perpetual vice president, a handsy grey eminence whom each president inherits with the furniture.

    , @Oblivionrecurs
    Harris's performance in South Carolina and California will be telling

    From what polling shows she has managed better support out of Hispanics and College Whites than blacks.
  14. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:

    What makes you think it should matter why the progressives support abortion? What makes you think it should matter why the progressives support anything?

    It doesn’t matter. I don’t care about processes, I only care about outcomes.

    If the progressives want to talk about feminism and “a woman’s right to her own body” who gives a shit? As long as they are voting for policies that reduce the number of low IQ proles, and put downward pressure on the illegitimacy rate, who cares? If abortion is lowering the number of women and children on food stamps, then I support it.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    In our mass abortion era, has the number of low IQ proles gone up or down? Illegitimacy rate, up or down? Number of women and children on food stamps, up or down?

    Just wonderin'.

    Arguing about morality is difficult because one doesn't now what another's morality is based on. It is at least partly subjective.

    But practical outcomes are objective, simply facts.

    "I only care about outcomes. ...

    ... If abortion is lowering the number of women and children on food stamps, then I support it."
     
    And if it is having the opposite effect, do you oppose it?
  15. A shrewd right wing billionaire should secretly fund an Abrams run.

    • LOL: eah
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    This may indeed be the only way to prevent a Harris nomination.

    That said, Harris's odds versus Trump are not strong. At that point, what the candidates actually say may start to matter. Trump was elected with the votes of a lot of Rust Belters who had previously plumped for Obama, so there is no reason they cannot recross the color line if Kamala is offering a better deal. Trump's inaction on pretty much every campaign promise has made him vulnerable to this. I'm not sure Harris is smart enough to pick up on this though, and the rigid ideologues around her may prevent it, if they even perceive it.
  16. So, by analogy, if any appendix is not buried by a priest, it had been disrespected. By this mere gesture,appendectomy, across the planet, becomes something more than a surgery. And because it is “more than surgery”, it must be forbidden. OK.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Show me one of those appendices that can listen, dream, and kick the inside of his mother, #175. What does one dream about, different flavors of bile? I've never known an appendix to have had much of a soul either.

    That was such a dumb comment that I don't know whether if it's worse if you're serious, or worse if you just wasted 3 minutes of my time with it.
  17. The voice in that footage is Indian. He has to go back.

    And those are pretty clearly not “clumps of cells.”

  18. Dámela is toast if and when an irrefutable slut shaming campaign gets going in earnest against her.

  19. As for murdering children in the womb — politics simply doesn’t carry that much weight with me. It is a fundamental right to life. If a democrat came out committed to life and I actually believed them, I would take a serious look.

    This matter of infanticide wholesale as legal is more devastating than the founders choice to legalize slavery. It’s a fundamental in contradiction to who the nation is and what we represent – no less a a repeat of the myriad pf societies that engaged in the practice of child sacrifice and perhaps even more egregious as it represents a worship of self. Appeasing our own human angst and desires as opposed to nature or any idea of the divine.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That's a decent sentiment, EC, but you've got to realize this: Even if the blue-squad candidate not just supports the right to life, but actually believes in it, he will get absolutely no where with it as President. If he were just BS'ing, well that works out just GREAT, as he can say "I tried my best." to his sucker-voters, and if he means it, all you'll get is words anyway - he will still pick SC nominations from the hard left.
  20. @Anon
    So, by analogy, if any appendix is not buried by a priest, it had been disrespected. By this mere gesture,appendectomy, across the planet, becomes something more than a surgery. And because it is "more than surgery", it must be forbidden. OK.

    Show me one of those appendices that can listen, dream, and kick the inside of his mother, #175. What does one dream about, different flavors of bile? I’ve never known an appendix to have had much of a soul either.

    That was such a dumb comment that I don’t know whether if it’s worse if you’re serious, or worse if you just wasted 3 minutes of my time with it.

  21. @EliteCommInc.
    As for murdering children in the womb -- politics simply doesn't carry that much weight with me. It is a fundamental right to life. If a democrat came out committed to life and I actually believed them, I would take a serious look.

    This matter of infanticide wholesale as legal is more devastating than the founders choice to legalize slavery. It's a fundamental in contradiction to who the nation is and what we represent - no less a a repeat of the myriad pf societies that engaged in the practice of child sacrifice and perhaps even more egregious as it represents a worship of self. Appeasing our own human angst and desires as opposed to nature or any idea of the divine.

    That’s a decent sentiment, EC, but you’ve got to realize this: Even if the blue-squad candidate not just supports the right to life, but actually believes in it, he will get absolutely no where with it as President. If he were just BS’ing, well that works out just GREAT, as he can say “I tried my best.” to his sucker-voters, and if he means it, all you’ll get is words anyway – he will still pick SC nominations from the hard left.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    You don't get any argument from me.

    Laugh.

    I experienced very little angst in making my comment. I doubt very seriously I would see such a democratic candidate in my life time. But murdering children in the womb just has no place - no place in who we are. And that liberals, no small number of them women are screaming about sensitivity at the same time they are applauding the murder of 800,000 children a year ---

    color me crazy but that's just crazy.
  22. Thoughts?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The environment is what gives me a chuckle.

    Are the Greens in Europe so clueless? Do they really think that migrants from Africa and the Middle East care about climate change?
    , @Jay Fink
    I am not surprised that immigration isn't a top issue for Hispanics. It was foolish for the cuckservatives in 2012 to think being pro-immigration reform would bring Hispanics to the GOP. As Rush Limbaugh said at the time Hispanics don't vote Democrat because of immigration, they vote Dem because they are Santa Claus to them.
    , @Justvisiting
    Notice that the most important issue is the one that does not qualify as an "issue".

    The reason the "experts" are so stupid is that they make these kind of category errors.

    The non-issue is race--blacks (especially black women) will vote for Kamala.

    (In 2016 the "experts" predicted Hillary winning Michigan, Wisconsin, PA based on similar black turnout for Hillary as Obama had. Blacks did not turn out for whitey Hillary--game, set, match. Most of the "experts" still haven't figured it out. If you want proof check out the election night episode of HBO's "The Circus". They quickly interview Donna Brazile as they walk by and they say "what happened in Michigan" and she answered "low turnout in Flint and Detroit".)
  23. This is a strange take.

    My strong impression is that the abortion wars peaked during the late 1980s-early 1990s, with another, smaller crest under G.W. Bush.

    The recent NYT word analysis tool (search for “abortion”) appears to back up that impression: https://media-analytics.op-bit.nz/timeline

    It would be very strange if this issue was to become more relevant at a time when Americans are rapidly approaching European levels of secularism. And grisly videos of abortion have existed for ages.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Maybe we never go from World War F(etus) after WWG, WWT, and WWP(edophile) have all been won. Where do you see the harm moral foundation heading next?
    , @Feryl
    The "culture war" was hottest in the mid-80's thru mid-90's. It's been fading away since then (the current mania for ID politics, and stuff like a college debt jubilee and single payer health care, has nothing to do with "culture").
    , @notanon

    It would be very strange if this issue was to become more relevant at a time when Americans are rapidly approaching European levels of secularism.
     
    it's a way for GOPe to distract their voters from the issues bestTrump brought to the surface.
  24. @216
    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1136367793589424128

    If (when) we lose in 2020 (2024), Self Determination must begin immidiately

    Any conservative must see the writing on the wall.

    If you do not support Self-Determination, its treason.

    Political dissolution includes questions of “when?” and “how?”, but I do not think it includes “if?” any longer.

    That said, if the GOP flipped the upper Midwest, it could survive losing Texas.

    • Replies: @iffen
    it could survive losing Texas.

    How about trying to survive without Texas, Georgia and Florida? :)
    , @Feryl
    I don't think the "classic" GOP can survive on social conservatives and rich(er) old people that much longer. The GOP isn't giving lower class and younger voters what they want (better wages, cheaper housing, single payer healthcare, greater regulation of the markets, etc.). We're only going to have the culture of Leave it to Beaver after decades of gradual restoration of pro-social economic norms (e.g., cutting down on booms and busts, lowering immigration, and preventing rich people from dodging taxes).

    I mean, The GOP since the 80's has claimed that we could get the 50's back, even while the party encouraged decadent elites to buy 3rd and 4th homes instead of putting their resources into a stable and native born workforce who could afford a decent life. You can't off-shore jobs, pay crappy wages, and jack expenses up and then expect people to enjoy it and relax.

    Note that all of these problems are applicable to the neo-lib Dems, too. I think that the Dems and GOP will run boring "centrist" candidates, until neo-liberalism completely collapses via poor fundamentals and/or populist "socialist" revolutions. So far guys like Trump are centrists in populist clothing, since party elites/donors are avowedly against New Deal norms like a regulated market, a native born work-force, and a lack of conspicuous consumption by arrogant elites.
    , @Feryl
    Upper class white people (AKA the people who actually vote in elections) in all 50 states wanted to strangle the damned fed gov in 1984; that would've been the Silent generation for the most part, who inherited the New Deal, then ungratefully set about destroying it so that younger generations would not have the same econ. opportunities and security.

    Whites these days are much more ideologically out of alignment, and furthermore, every time a Silent or financially secure Boomer dies off, the Reaganite forces are further weakened. X-ers and esp. Millennials are much more likely to believe in vigorous enforcement of social/economic norms by the government, and even some Boomers have come around to that view recently, probably because they no longer get all their ideas from Silents.
  25. @EldnahYm
    The chances that those are dead fetuses rather than rubber dolls or something seems exceptionally low.

    Interesting. Looking into it a little bit, I suspect you’re correct.

  26. @Mr McKenna

    As has been stated here several times over the years, abortion may become a winning ‘hot-button’ social issue for Republicans.
     
    The insistence of Republicans on passing laws prohibiting abortion even in the case of rape and incest just ensure that Republicans' race into the dustbin of history will be even quicker than otherwise. You don't have to approve of abortion to perceive this.

    Republicans:

    Open Borders
    "We're not racist! Really!"
    Outlaw abortion in all cases
    Privatize Social Security
    Iraq War, and others, w/o end
    Cut taxes on billionaires
    Outsource foreign policy to Likud
     

    Anything I left out?

    Deeply held beliefs are what they are. Politically, focusing on the most unpopular–like third trimester abortions–is probably the winning approach since the pussyhats brook no dissent on abortion.

    On the other hand, seeing the right actually launch a counteroffensive–and potentially win in the SCOTUS–seems like fantasy to me. I’d like to see it in reality.

  27. @Twinkie

    Kamala's Southern Strategy
     
    Let's be honest here - it's Kamala's black strategy.

    So, three primaries in a row, the Democrats are going to have a white-black struggle. The last two were won by the black faction (Obama beats Clinton and Clinton beats Sanders). This is completely unscientific, but I have a gut feeling that the black faction isn't going to win in the Democratic primary this time.

    Yes, it is. In 2008, Hillary won whites and Hispanics in the Democrat primaries but got crushed by blacks, who monolithically voted for Obama. In 2016, Hillary and Sanders split whites, Sanders won Hispanics, but Hillary dominated among blacks–who again voted near-monolithically–and won the nomination as a result. In a field as crowded as this, getting something approaching monolithic black support will either deliver the nomination or one hell of a Coalition of the Fringes civil war.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    In a field as crowded as this, getting something approaching monolithic black support will either deliver the nomination or one hell of a Coalition of the Fringes civil war.
     
    It's been years since I've run moles among Democrats, so I don't speak with any direct intelligence, but I hear rumblings that young, white liberal activists and older blacks are not meshing well in the party this year.
    , @iffen
    or one hell of a Coalition of the Fringes civil war.

    If this happens, and I think that it is likely, we will know God is still on our side.
    , @Truth
    Donald Trump will win the election and get the highest percentage of black votes since Richard Nixon.

    Additionally, he will not finish his term, Pence or whoever the next-Vice Weirdo will, and AOC will be our next, and final US President.

    You heard it here first.
  28. @Kent Nationalist
    Doctors willing to perform abortion

    40.2 percent of Jewish doctors say yes, compared with
    1.2 percent of Evangelical Protestants
    9 percent of Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox
    10.1 percent of Non-Evangelical Protestants
    20 percent of Hindus
    26.5 percent of doctors who said they had no religious affiliation
     
    https://jezebel.com/only-14-percent-of-ob-gyns-will-perform-abortions-5833583

    That matches up quite well with civilian opinions on abortion by religious affiliation.

    Jews uniquely suffer from such horrifying childhood genetic disorders like tay sachs (or at least they used to before eugenics mostly made that a thing of the past) so their perspectives are undoubtedly colored by that.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    That matches up quite well with civilian opinions on abortion by religious affiliation.
     
    Daniel K Williams in his recent history of the pre-Roe pro-life movement found a noticeable Jewish/Protestant/Catholic cleavage on abortion views in the late '60s.

    Jews of all stripes saw the fetus, although human, as one with lesser status than the mother. Mainline and evangelical Protestants hadn't diverged yet; both were in the mushy middle, wanting to loosen the statutes a bit, and more concerned with the effects on society. Catholics, at least good ones, were pretty much where good Catholics are today.
  29. @216
    Thoughts?

    https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/1136700676116013056

    The environment is what gives me a chuckle.

    Are the Greens in Europe so clueless? Do they really think that migrants from Africa and the Middle East care about climate change?

    • Replies: @216
    Green ideology is superficially about the environment. In reality it is Tumblr IRL.

    Greens are supported more in cities and by women, when it is rural men that tend to interact with the outdoors the most.

    I don't see the GOP as willing to cultivate Green support, I was interested in the forum's thoughts about economic posturing to blacks/hispanics.
    , @Oblivionrecurs
    They might when it destroys West Africa's crops.....well they'll at least blame whitey while moving to Europe
    , @Mr. Rational
    There's a lot of cogdis in the watermelons.  They claim to be concerned about GHG emissions, but demand open borders so that millions of street-shitters can come to the West and multiply their personal fossil fuel consumption several-fold.  And of course, YOU are to blame for all that.
  30. @Anatoly Karlin
    This is a strange take.

    My strong impression is that the abortion wars peaked during the late 1980s-early 1990s, with another, smaller crest under G.W. Bush.

    The recent NYT word analysis tool (search for "abortion") appears to back up that impression: https://media-analytics.op-bit.nz/timeline

    It would be very strange if this issue was to become more relevant at a time when Americans are rapidly approaching European levels of secularism. And grisly videos of abortion have existed for ages.

    Maybe we never go from World War F(etus) after WWG, WWT, and WWP(edophile) have all been won. Where do you see the harm moral foundation heading next?

  31. @Kent Nationalist
    Doctors willing to perform abortion

    40.2 percent of Jewish doctors say yes, compared with
    1.2 percent of Evangelical Protestants
    9 percent of Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox
    10.1 percent of Non-Evangelical Protestants
    20 percent of Hindus
    26.5 percent of doctors who said they had no religious affiliation
     
    https://jezebel.com/only-14-percent-of-ob-gyns-will-perform-abortions-5833583

    Most abortion doctors are jewish.

    Most affirmative action lawyers are jewish.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Most? Do you have a source on either of those?
  32. @Anonymous
    What makes you think it should matter why the progressives support abortion? What makes you think it should matter why the progressives support anything?

    It doesn't matter. I don't care about processes, I only care about outcomes.

    If the progressives want to talk about feminism and "a woman's right to her own body" who gives a shit? As long as they are voting for policies that reduce the number of low IQ proles, and put downward pressure on the illegitimacy rate, who cares? If abortion is lowering the number of women and children on food stamps, then I support it.

    In our mass abortion era, has the number of low IQ proles gone up or down? Illegitimacy rate, up or down? Number of women and children on food stamps, up or down?

    Just wonderin’.

    Arguing about morality is difficult because one doesn’t now what another’s morality is based on. It is at least partly subjective.

    But practical outcomes are objective, simply facts.

    “I only care about outcomes. …

    … If abortion is lowering the number of women and children on food stamps, then I support it.”

    And if it is having the opposite effect, do you oppose it?

    • Replies: @Tanturn
    "But practical outcomes are objective, simply facts."

    It's also an objective fact that illegitimacy rates are much higher today than they were in 1960, and we have microwaves now. So let's ban that too! Conservatives have the same mentality of magical thinking as liberals who assume that since kids in the suburbs score higher on tests, you can improve test scores by busing kids there.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Another possibility: abortion in the USA in the last 46 years since Roe v. wade has tended to kill babies from relatively less intelligent groups that arguably also have a systematic difficulty with impulse control and longer-term thinking (even more than the rest of us ;)

    Thus, on balance, our society’s apparent ongoing decline in intelligence, impulse control / self-restraint, and longer-term thinking would be even worse if all those aborted people had been born — likely much worse when one considers the impact of adding another forty million Africans to our population by now.

    **. Also, how would simple physical safety have changed for the rest of us if we had added forty million Africans to the streets, most without fathers and most taught to hate and resent us? How would politics and the economy likely change? The answer is that we would already be an officially subjugated minority an would face vastly more violence on the streets. **. This is really the question I’d like answered. Do you think we’d be safe with another forty million Africans here, yes or no? (Be sure to throw in estimate for the many millions of kids whom the non-aborted kids would have themselves had by now. Count some grandkids for the ones from the 1970s, given the low average age of first pregnancy in this disproportionately African and latino demographic.)

    Whatever the moral problem with abortion, as a practical matter it is difficult to see a basis for guessing that widespread abortion lowered average intelligence or increased rates of violent and property crime in the USA since the 70s. Quite the contrary.
  33. “How can I get away with prognosticating given how poor the prospects for my Kamala Harris prediction appear to be?”

    What makes you think your Kamala Harris prediction has poor prospects? Dubious search history surveys? For the reasons elaborated in the comments (black voting bloc, Super Tuesday, white candidates fatally subdividing the shrinking white vote), Harris looks very viable, even without any special campaigning effort on her part. She just has to stay “black” and she will be skin-checked into the nomination by the Dems’ most monolithic voters.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    Sure, blacks will vote for her.

    But blacks always vote left to get freebies.

    The problem with Horizontal Harris is that she's a raging CUNT.

    Just an awful mean spirited human being.

    I've watched countless clips of this rotten bitch interrogating a long list of polite white men, and the sheer HATRED she has for white men makes my skin crawl.

    Her treatment of Jeff Sessions was particularly disturbing, but there are many other examples.

    If Harris could slaughter every white person on this earth, she would do it without hesitation.
    , @notanon

    She just has to stay “black”
     
    is she black though (in the US context)?
  34. 216 says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    The environment is what gives me a chuckle.

    Are the Greens in Europe so clueless? Do they really think that migrants from Africa and the Middle East care about climate change?

    Green ideology is superficially about the environment. In reality it is Tumblr IRL.

    Greens are supported more in cities and by women, when it is rural men that tend to interact with the outdoors the most.

    I don’t see the GOP as willing to cultivate Green support, I was interested in the forum’s thoughts about economic posturing to blacks/hispanics.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Green ideology is superficially about the environment. In reality it is Tumblr IRL.
     
    Or Grindr AFRL.
  35. @iffen
    A shrewd right wing billionaire should secretly fund an Abrams run.

    This may indeed be the only way to prevent a Harris nomination.

    That said, Harris’s odds versus Trump are not strong. At that point, what the candidates actually say may start to matter. Trump was elected with the votes of a lot of Rust Belters who had previously plumped for Obama, so there is no reason they cannot recross the color line if Kamala is offering a better deal. Trump’s inaction on pretty much every campaign promise has made him vulnerable to this. I’m not sure Harris is smart enough to pick up on this though, and the rigid ideologues around her may prevent it, if they even perceive it.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I think two things will control what happens. The POC vote has to be jazzed to Obama levels and the white vote has to drop from the Trump inspired level and it is a blowout for any Dem. One of two either way and it is going to be close. If the POC vote is down and Trump can jazz the white vote again, he can win it.
    , @eah
    This may indeed be the only way to prevent a Harris nomination.

    Oh man you cannot be serious -- the Democrats remember 2016; it was not that long ago -- Harris has zero chance vs Trump -- ZERO -- therefore she has zero chance to be the nominee -- Obama was a stuffed shirt; a big nothing -- she is a stuffed blouse; all platitudes and nonsense -- unless someone else emerges, at this point the nominee will be either Biden or Sanders, both of whom should be seen as having a chance vs Trump -- but overall it is a sorry lot, except for Tulsi Gabbard.

  36. @Almost Missouri

    "How can I get away with prognosticating given how poor the prospects for my Kamala Harris prediction appear to be?"
     
    What makes you think your Kamala Harris prediction has poor prospects? Dubious search history surveys? For the reasons elaborated in the comments (black voting bloc, Super Tuesday, white candidates fatally subdividing the shrinking white vote), Harris looks very viable, even without any special campaigning effort on her part. She just has to stay "black" and she will be skin-checked into the nomination by the Dems' most monolithic voters.

    Sure, blacks will vote for her.

    But blacks always vote left to get freebies.

    The problem with Horizontal Harris is that she’s a raging CUNT.

    Just an awful mean spirited human being.

    I’ve watched countless clips of this rotten bitch interrogating a long list of polite white men, and the sheer HATRED she has for white men makes my skin crawl.

    Her treatment of Jeff Sessions was particularly disturbing, but there are many other examples.

    If Harris could slaughter every white person on this earth, she would do it without hesitation.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    What you think of as a bug is in fact a feature to large swathes of the electorate.

    Thanks to decades of embrownening and downdumbing, it's not just blacks who vote that way anymore. Blacks, mestizos, Muslims, subcons, whitecucks, bugyouth, etc. A minority and a minority there and soon you got yourself a majority.
  37. @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, it is. In 2008, Hillary won whites and Hispanics in the Democrat primaries but got crushed by blacks, who monolithically voted for Obama. In 2016, Hillary and Sanders split whites, Sanders won Hispanics, but Hillary dominated among blacks--who again voted near-monolithically--and won the nomination as a result. In a field as crowded as this, getting something approaching monolithic black support will either deliver the nomination or one hell of a Coalition of the Fringes civil war.

    In a field as crowded as this, getting something approaching monolithic black support will either deliver the nomination or one hell of a Coalition of the Fringes civil war.

    It’s been years since I’ve run moles among Democrats, so I don’t speak with any direct intelligence, but I hear rumblings that young, white liberal activists and older blacks are not meshing well in the party this year.

  38. The abortion issue reminds me of the whole cutting down the rainforest thing. Both issues seem supremely important and supremely moral to those raised in certain subcultures. Within both subcultures, it is widely accepted that others, deep down, accept the framing of these as moral issues, and that they disagree only because of selfishness, a desire to put profit or convenience above morality. Outside of these subcultures, people just don’t care. It’s not that they love abortion or cutting down the rainforest. They just don’t see how the taking of life from organisms without preferences of their own (unborn children or trees) is a moral issue, or how their lives will be impacted by these far-off phenomena.

  39. anon[374] • Disclaimer says:

    “Where do you see the harm moral foundation heading next?”

    If abortion is ever threatened, expect the deepstate to deflect by attacking white male representation in traditionally white male areas such as the entertainment industry and military. We’ve already seen some of this with #oscarssowhite and attacks on white male representation in the airforce. We may also see it continue in the corporate world and be framed as white males keeping down others by hogging jobs that aren’t rightfully theirs and harming minority wealth accumulation; they are already doing this with Hollywood casting calls. This will unite both women generally and minorities, although to the detriment of the country as a whole; same happened with Zimbabwe chasing away white farmers with disastrous long-term consequences.

    Alternatively, they could try to censor conservative political content as harmful, despite the obvious hypocrisy of the radical left attacking Christians and rural people for decades with exactly the same language now being directed at them.

    “Strange take”

    Perhaps not so strange. America’s demographics are rapidly changing, producing a purity spiral whereby different groups must continually find issues to prove their moral worth over other groups. I suspect NYT mentions of “abortion” to now skyrocket, reversing the trend you noted. Further, it wouldn’t surprise me to see some future POC coalition restrict abortion rights in the third trimester as abortion is an issue most heavily promoted by their white Becky rivals in the diverse coalition, even if minorities may benefit more from it.

    “Self Determination must begin immediately”

    I like ‘self-determination’ in the context of the purity spiral. If you can frame it as a right that all people have and something The Other wishes to take from you, that would run with the progressive grain in terms of expanding rights and recognition of increasingly niche groups.

    “The insistence of Republicans on passing laws prohibiting abortion even in the case of rape and incest … ”

    Republicans have, unfortunately, never been particularly bright. If we get self-determination, it will likely be as a result of pigheadedness on the part of the GOP and not as the result of some crafty, well-executed plan. Extreme abortion restrictions may alienate the rest of the continent while simultaneously polarizing the population to the point where self-determination becomes a real possibility. In that context, it may work … unintentionally.

  40. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:

    Will blacks necessarily recognize Harris as black? She was raised by her Indian mother in Montreal IIRC. She looks sort of generically non-white but not obviously black. Culturally she just comes across as a typical yuppie albeit now trying to affect an inner-city background (and embarrassing herself in the process).

    Obama was not really culturally black either but he could fake it pretty well. He also looked black and very wisely married a black woman, which gave him a lot of credibility I think.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah, one problem for Harris is that she doesn't have children--and if she did, they'd almost certainly be perceived as white by third-party observers.
    , @gman
    I think the real problem for Kamala is that she isn't married to a black man. As Oshay Duke Jackson (see youtube link below) points out, she went to Howard, "didn't find a brother there" and in her old age married a white guy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDwvC7TOyI
  41. @Duke84
    I think so too.Blacks make up close to a majority of Democratic voters in many southern states and Harris could be the big winner on Super Tuesday.It worked for Obama.

    You might be right about that.

    I wonder, though, what the dem rules are for allocating delegates in the huge primaries, especially Kamala’s home state of California (almost 500 delegates) and Texas (262 delegates).

    Specifically, we could see three candidates reach 15% of the dem primary vote in California — that’s the threshold to receive delegates in many states. Most likely Harris, Sanders, and Biden, though we are still nine months from the Cali primary.

    Harris should promise Booker a seat on the Supreme Court if he drops out of the race, endorses her, and campaigns with him in New Jersey and the African-heavy southern states. If she could knock out that competition for the African vote and collect as many delegates in CA as her next two challengers combined in early March 2020 (38-19-19%, for example), who knows.

    If either Biden or sanders failed to reach the threshold to win delegates in California, however narrowly, Harris might win a crushing victory in the delegate haul there.

    Bizarre scenario: Harris/Biden. He keeps pretending to be moderate, avoids any groping of young women or girls in public, and reassures just enough gullible white people in swing states. Old creepy joe as the perpetual vice president, a handsy grey eminence whom each president inherits with the furniture.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    At his age would Biden even be interested in being VP again? He probably has a "been there done that" attitude about it.
  42. anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    “Harris should promise Booker a seat on the Supreme Court if he drops out of the race, endorses her, and campaigns with him in New Jersey and the African-heavy southern states.”

    No, she shouldn’t. He’s a nobody and a potential liability because he comes off as gay – rumored adulterer, too. Chances are he’ll drop out before she has to promise him anything other than perhaps a lowly cabinet spot. She should be campaigning for Obama’s endorsement, but he’s a waffle so she’ll only get it if it looks like she has a shot at winning in advance. Hillary’s endorsement would also help her with SWPLs, which she needs to be concerned with because she’s not authentically black and may, therefore, lose the black vote to Obama’s VP, Joe Biden.

    A good running mate, and possible endorsement, for Kamala Harris would be Gavin Newsom, the tall white physically attractive and photogenic CA governor who would help her with the white female demographic and counter her childless, feminist schoolmarm image which she definitely needs to work on. Polls indicate Trump may have the easiest time beating her, so she needs to work on her image. Hanging out with loser blue-haired SJW feminists isn’t a good way to do that. Being in the same room as Hillary, Newsom, and moderates like Gabbard and Yang might help her in that respect. She also might want to consider an interview with a guy like Joe Rogan, although she needs to be thoroughly prepared for that because he’ll bring up her past as a prosecutor.

    Point: Her image needs work. Hillary didn’t bother and lost as a result. If Harris wants to be taken seriously, she needs to act as though she takes running for president seriously. Blacks are much more likely to vote for her if she’s seen as the democrat consensus candidate who can beat Donald Trump. She need not go full race warrior to do that, she just needs to have gravitas and likability + good endorsements.

  43. @Achmed E. Newman
    You'd think Chief Warren would at least be able to take Injun country in Oklahoma and west-river in the S. Dakota territory. Maybe she'll get last minute support from the 5 nations of the lower Massachusetts ... Of course, I'm still hoping Barry Goldwater pulls out a miracle.

    Seriously, that footage is sick. However, though I don't know or care even, about the particular issues pushed by these Old Pharts and Young Turds of the Blue Squad, I don't think black voters in the South, even the church ladies, will make abortion as big an issue as who is the blackest. That's, as in who will do the most for Black people, period. It's all tribal nowadays, except with the White people for some odd reason.

    Having both a dot and a feather in the race just confuses people.

  44. @216
    Green ideology is superficially about the environment. In reality it is Tumblr IRL.

    Greens are supported more in cities and by women, when it is rural men that tend to interact with the outdoors the most.

    I don't see the GOP as willing to cultivate Green support, I was interested in the forum's thoughts about economic posturing to blacks/hispanics.

    Green ideology is superficially about the environment. In reality it is Tumblr IRL.

    Or Grindr AFRL.

  45. @Audacious Epigone
    That matches up quite well with civilian opinions on abortion by religious affiliation.

    Jews uniquely suffer from such horrifying childhood genetic disorders like tay sachs (or at least they used to before eugenics mostly made that a thing of the past) so their perspectives are undoubtedly colored by that.

    That matches up quite well with civilian opinions on abortion by religious affiliation.

    Daniel K Williams in his recent history of the pre-Roe pro-life movement found a noticeable Jewish/Protestant/Catholic cleavage on abortion views in the late ’60s.

    Jews of all stripes saw the fetus, although human, as one with lesser status than the mother. Mainline and evangelical Protestants hadn’t diverged yet; both were in the mushy middle, wanting to loosen the statutes a bit, and more concerned with the effects on society. Catholics, at least good ones, were pretty much where good Catholics are today.

  46. @Duke84
    I think so too.Blacks make up close to a majority of Democratic voters in many southern states and Harris could be the big winner on Super Tuesday.It worked for Obama.

    Harris’s performance in South Carolina and California will be telling

    From what polling shows she has managed better support out of Hispanics and College Whites than blacks.

  47. @Audacious Epigone
    The environment is what gives me a chuckle.

    Are the Greens in Europe so clueless? Do they really think that migrants from Africa and the Middle East care about climate change?

    They might when it destroys West Africa’s crops…..well they’ll at least blame whitey while moving to Europe

  48. @Audacious Epigone
    Political dissolution includes questions of "when?" and "how?", but I do not think it includes "if?" any longer.

    That said, if the GOP flipped the upper Midwest, it could survive losing Texas.

    it could survive losing Texas.

    How about trying to survive without Texas, Georgia and Florida? 🙂

  49. @Almost Missouri
    This may indeed be the only way to prevent a Harris nomination.

    That said, Harris's odds versus Trump are not strong. At that point, what the candidates actually say may start to matter. Trump was elected with the votes of a lot of Rust Belters who had previously plumped for Obama, so there is no reason they cannot recross the color line if Kamala is offering a better deal. Trump's inaction on pretty much every campaign promise has made him vulnerable to this. I'm not sure Harris is smart enough to pick up on this though, and the rigid ideologues around her may prevent it, if they even perceive it.

    I think two things will control what happens. The POC vote has to be jazzed to Obama levels and the white vote has to drop from the Trump inspired level and it is a blowout for any Dem. One of two either way and it is going to be close. If the POC vote is down and Trump can jazz the white vote again, he can win it.

  50. @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, it is. In 2008, Hillary won whites and Hispanics in the Democrat primaries but got crushed by blacks, who monolithically voted for Obama. In 2016, Hillary and Sanders split whites, Sanders won Hispanics, but Hillary dominated among blacks--who again voted near-monolithically--and won the nomination as a result. In a field as crowded as this, getting something approaching monolithic black support will either deliver the nomination or one hell of a Coalition of the Fringes civil war.

    or one hell of a Coalition of the Fringes civil war.

    If this happens, and I think that it is likely, we will know God is still on our side.

  51. @216
    Thoughts?

    https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/1136700676116013056

    I am not surprised that immigration isn’t a top issue for Hispanics. It was foolish for the cuckservatives in 2012 to think being pro-immigration reform would bring Hispanics to the GOP. As Rush Limbaugh said at the time Hispanics don’t vote Democrat because of immigration, they vote Dem because they are Santa Claus to them.

  52. @RadicalCenter
    You might be right about that.

    I wonder, though, what the dem rules are for allocating delegates in the huge primaries, especially Kamala’s home state of California (almost 500 delegates) and Texas (262 delegates).

    Specifically, we could see three candidates reach 15% of the dem primary vote in California — that’s the threshold to receive delegates in many states. Most likely Harris, Sanders, and Biden, though we are still nine months from the Cali primary.

    Harris should promise Booker a seat on the Supreme Court if he drops out of the race, endorses her, and campaigns with him in New Jersey and the African-heavy southern states. If she could knock out that competition for the African vote and collect as many delegates in CA as her next two challengers combined in early March 2020 (38-19-19%, for example), who knows.

    If either Biden or sanders failed to reach the threshold to win delegates in California, however narrowly, Harris might win a crushing victory in the delegate haul there.

    Bizarre scenario: Harris/Biden. He keeps pretending to be moderate, avoids any groping of young women or girls in public, and reassures just enough gullible white people in swing states. Old creepy joe as the perpetual vice president, a handsy grey eminence whom each president inherits with the furniture.

    At his age would Biden even be interested in being VP again? He probably has a “been there done that” attitude about it.

  53. @Audacious Epigone
    The environment is what gives me a chuckle.

    Are the Greens in Europe so clueless? Do they really think that migrants from Africa and the Middle East care about climate change?

    There’s a lot of cogdis in the watermelons.  They claim to be concerned about GHG emissions, but demand open borders so that millions of street-shitters can come to the West and multiply their personal fossil fuel consumption several-fold.  And of course, YOU are to blame for all that.

    • Replies: @iffen
    watermelons

    Ha! Good one, I just got it.

    BTW, cogdis is a beneficial human trait, mileage varies.

  54. @Achmed E. Newman
    That's a decent sentiment, EC, but you've got to realize this: Even if the blue-squad candidate not just supports the right to life, but actually believes in it, he will get absolutely no where with it as President. If he were just BS'ing, well that works out just GREAT, as he can say "I tried my best." to his sucker-voters, and if he means it, all you'll get is words anyway - he will still pick SC nominations from the hard left.

    You don’t get any argument from me.

    Laugh.

    I experienced very little angst in making my comment. I doubt very seriously I would see such a democratic candidate in my life time. But murdering children in the womb just has no place – no place in who we are. And that liberals, no small number of them women are screaming about sensitivity at the same time they are applauding the murder of 800,000 children a year —

    color me crazy but that’s just crazy.

  55. @Mr. Rational
    There's a lot of cogdis in the watermelons.  They claim to be concerned about GHG emissions, but demand open borders so that millions of street-shitters can come to the West and multiply their personal fossil fuel consumption several-fold.  And of course, YOU are to blame for all that.

    watermelons

    Ha! Good one, I just got it.

    BTW, cogdis is a beneficial human trait, mileage varies.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    watermelons

    Ha! Good one, I just got it.

     
    I thought it was stock meming:  green on the outside, red on the inside.  Been using it for years.
  56. @iffen
    watermelons

    Ha! Good one, I just got it.

    BTW, cogdis is a beneficial human trait, mileage varies.

    watermelons

    Ha! Good one, I just got it.

    I thought it was stock meming:  green on the outside, red on the inside.  Been using it for years.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Been using it for years.

    No doubt. I don't get out much, especially in some circles.
  57. @Almost Missouri
    In our mass abortion era, has the number of low IQ proles gone up or down? Illegitimacy rate, up or down? Number of women and children on food stamps, up or down?

    Just wonderin'.

    Arguing about morality is difficult because one doesn't now what another's morality is based on. It is at least partly subjective.

    But practical outcomes are objective, simply facts.

    "I only care about outcomes. ...

    ... If abortion is lowering the number of women and children on food stamps, then I support it."
     
    And if it is having the opposite effect, do you oppose it?

    “But practical outcomes are objective, simply facts.”

    It’s also an objective fact that illegitimacy rates are much higher today than they were in 1960, and we have microwaves now. So let’s ban that too! Conservatives have the same mentality of magical thinking as liberals who assume that since kids in the suburbs score higher on tests, you can improve test scores by busing kids there.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    So if you actually believe that this is all random coincidence, then then you are equally skeptical that abortion reduces illegitimate births and families on food stamps, while increasing national IQ, right?

    Indeed you must be even more skeptical of the arguments in favor of abortion, because the empirical facts all happen to go against them. And obviously, you wouldn't indulge in any "magical thinking".
  58. @216
    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1136367793589424128

    If (when) we lose in 2020 (2024), Self Determination must begin immidiately

    Any conservative must see the writing on the wall.

    If you do not support Self-Determination, its treason.

    Texas will go Democrat because of mass legal immigration and illegal immigration — it’s obvious and the GOP Cheap Labor Faction doesn’t care.

    Hyenas ripping off a chunk of meat and scurrying off into the jungle without one care about demography or the nation or Texas.

    It’s tedious beyond description.

    This is why I think Teddy Cruz is a horrible politician whore. Teddy Cruz pushes mass legal immigration and he refuses to call for the immediate deportation of all illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    Tweets from 2015:

  59. eah says:
    @Almost Missouri
    This may indeed be the only way to prevent a Harris nomination.

    That said, Harris's odds versus Trump are not strong. At that point, what the candidates actually say may start to matter. Trump was elected with the votes of a lot of Rust Belters who had previously plumped for Obama, so there is no reason they cannot recross the color line if Kamala is offering a better deal. Trump's inaction on pretty much every campaign promise has made him vulnerable to this. I'm not sure Harris is smart enough to pick up on this though, and the rigid ideologues around her may prevent it, if they even perceive it.

    This may indeed be the only way to prevent a Harris nomination.

    Oh man you cannot be serious — the Democrats remember 2016; it was not that long ago — Harris has zero chance vs Trump — ZERO — therefore she has zero chance to be the nominee — Obama was a stuffed shirt; a big nothing — she is a stuffed blouse; all platitudes and nonsense — unless someone else emerges, at this point the nominee will be either Biden or Sanders, both of whom should be seen as having a chance vs Trump — but overall it is a sorry lot, except for Tulsi Gabbard.

    • Replies: @eah
    Who knows? -- Trump vs Carlson for the Republican nomination would be epic.

    https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/1137108742254735360
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Obama was a stuffed shirt ... she is a stuffed blouse"
     
    Obama won.
  60. eah says:

    Kamala

    Please consider not referring to these politicians familiarly, ie by only a first name: “Kamala” — when not ignoring Whites, politicians like Harris marginalize or denigrate them and their interests — she isn’t your friend.

    It annoyed me when Sailer repeatedly called Jussie Smollett by only his first name: “Jussie” — even though his hate hoax was aimed squarely at Whites: it was bound to stir up animosity toward white people, and he knew it.

    I appreciate your work and read it regularly.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Duly noted. I do it primarily for convenience--"Hillary" is more distinct than "Clinton" because of Bill. Harris is a common surname but Kamala is a distinct first name, etc.
  61. @Mr. Rational

    watermelons

    Ha! Good one, I just got it.

     
    I thought it was stock meming:  green on the outside, red on the inside.  Been using it for years.

    Been using it for years.

    No doubt. I don’t get out much, especially in some circles.

  62. @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, it is. In 2008, Hillary won whites and Hispanics in the Democrat primaries but got crushed by blacks, who monolithically voted for Obama. In 2016, Hillary and Sanders split whites, Sanders won Hispanics, but Hillary dominated among blacks--who again voted near-monolithically--and won the nomination as a result. In a field as crowded as this, getting something approaching monolithic black support will either deliver the nomination or one hell of a Coalition of the Fringes civil war.

    Donald Trump will win the election and get the highest percentage of black votes since Richard Nixon.

    Additionally, he will not finish his term, Pence or whoever the next-Vice Weirdo will, and AOC will be our next, and final US President.

    You heard it here first.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    Haha. And last. You might end up partially correct. But no way all three.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Bookmarked.

    I like audacious predictions!
  63. @eah
    This may indeed be the only way to prevent a Harris nomination.

    Oh man you cannot be serious -- the Democrats remember 2016; it was not that long ago -- Harris has zero chance vs Trump -- ZERO -- therefore she has zero chance to be the nominee -- Obama was a stuffed shirt; a big nothing -- she is a stuffed blouse; all platitudes and nonsense -- unless someone else emerges, at this point the nominee will be either Biden or Sanders, both of whom should be seen as having a chance vs Trump -- but overall it is a sorry lot, except for Tulsi Gabbard.

    Who knows? — Trump vs Carlson for the Republican nomination would be epic.

    • Agree: follyofwar
  64. My suspicion is that Kamala is playing for the VP slot.

    Biden’s gotta throw the Rainbow coalition a bone to get through the convention, Harris is stronger than any of the others, and she’s taken good care to make herself acceptable to the Israel Lobby.

    As far as the Israel Lobby is concerned, a Trump/Pence vs Biden/Harris match up is ‘heads we win, tails you lose.’ It’ll be a rerun of 2016. No matter what the outcome, Israel comes out on top.

    For her part, Harris has to realize that (a) she can’t win the nomination herself, (b) Biden’s so old he may keel over and make her president anyway, and if worst comes to worst, and he lives out his terms, then she’s the anointed heir. Watch for her to get the VP slot, then once the general election is won, start furiously rowing for the center.

  65. @eah
    This may indeed be the only way to prevent a Harris nomination.

    Oh man you cannot be serious -- the Democrats remember 2016; it was not that long ago -- Harris has zero chance vs Trump -- ZERO -- therefore she has zero chance to be the nominee -- Obama was a stuffed shirt; a big nothing -- she is a stuffed blouse; all platitudes and nonsense -- unless someone else emerges, at this point the nominee will be either Biden or Sanders, both of whom should be seen as having a chance vs Trump -- but overall it is a sorry lot, except for Tulsi Gabbard.

    “Obama was a stuffed shirt … she is a stuffed blouse”

    Obama won.

    • Replies: @eah
    Obama won.

    Against McCain and Romney -- in 2008 he beat a weak, disliked, war-mongering RINO after 8 years of a relatively unpopular, war-mongering Bush -- in 2012, as an incumbent he beat a vulture capitalist plutocrat.

    To point out the obvious (necessary with you apparently): Kamala Harris is not Barack Obama, and the election will be in 2020 -- I think many people find it significantly easier to support a man for President than a woman (it's the whole Commander-in-Chief thing) -- also the white racial guilt that helped massively to put Obama in office has thinned considerably, and Obama's own racial demagoguery, eg in the George Zimmerman and Michael Brown cases, is partly responsible for that.

    To forestall the obvious question: if he could run again, maybe Obama would beat Trump -- I don't know, and neither do you -- in any case, it's irrelevant.

    But Harris has zero chance.

  66. @Tanturn
    "But practical outcomes are objective, simply facts."

    It's also an objective fact that illegitimacy rates are much higher today than they were in 1960, and we have microwaves now. So let's ban that too! Conservatives have the same mentality of magical thinking as liberals who assume that since kids in the suburbs score higher on tests, you can improve test scores by busing kids there.

    So if you actually believe that this is all random coincidence, then then you are equally skeptical that abortion reduces illegitimate births and families on food stamps, while increasing national IQ, right?

    Indeed you must be even more skeptical of the arguments in favor of abortion, because the empirical facts all happen to go against them. And obviously, you wouldn’t indulge in any “magical thinking”.

    • Replies: @Tanturn
    "So if you actually believe that this is all random coincidence, then then you are equally skeptical that abortion reduces illegitimate births and families on food stamps, while increasing national IQ, right? Indeed you must be even more skeptical of the arguments in favor of abortion, because the empirical facts all happen to go against them."

    No. The evidence for abortion reducing illegitimate births is not some fuzzy correlation, it's direct measurement of a causal mechanism. 14% of women who get abortions are married, compared to about 60% for the general population:

    https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014

    Forcing those births to go to term would result in more illegitimate children being born. Yes, it's theoretically possible that banning abortion would lead to those conceptions not happening, but I don't see any reason whatsoever to make that assumption. This is Occam's Razor. The women who get abortions are the ones too dumb to use birth control or practice abstinence. They aren't going to magically get smarter once you ban abortion.
  67. eah says:
    @Almost Missouri

    "Obama was a stuffed shirt ... she is a stuffed blouse"
     
    Obama won.

    Obama won.

    Against McCain and Romney — in 2008 he beat a weak, disliked, war-mongering RINO after 8 years of a relatively unpopular, war-mongering Bush — in 2012, as an incumbent he beat a vulture capitalist plutocrat.

    To point out the obvious (necessary with you apparently): Kamala Harris is not Barack Obama, and the election will be in 2020 — I think many people find it significantly easier to support a man for President than a woman (it’s the whole Commander-in-Chief thing) — also the white racial guilt that helped massively to put Obama in office has thinned considerably, and Obama’s own racial demagoguery, eg in the George Zimmerman and Michael Brown cases, is partly responsible for that.

    To forestall the obvious question: if he could run again, maybe Obama would beat Trump — I don’t know, and neither do you — in any case, it’s irrelevant.

    But Harris has zero chance.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    For reasons already discussed—mainly that white candidates are splitting the already attenuated white vote while blacks vote monolithically—Harris's chances to win the Dem nomination are good. Whoever wins the Dem nomination will be running against an old embattled President who hasn't kept his most important campaign promises, and that Dem will be running with the full-throated backing of all broadcast TV, most cable networks, newspapers, news sites, Hollywood, NYC, DC, the academy, the alphabet agencies, the urban vote counters, the Bar Associations, quaNGOs, Faceberg, Apple, Google, Twitter and 99% of everything else that influences voters, and some very deep pocketed donors with plenty of extracurricular resources to draw on. Whoever that Dem is has a decent shot at winning.

    Harris can be that Dem.
  68. @Truth
    Donald Trump will win the election and get the highest percentage of black votes since Richard Nixon.

    Additionally, he will not finish his term, Pence or whoever the next-Vice Weirdo will, and AOC will be our next, and final US President.

    You heard it here first.

    Haha. And last. You might end up partially correct. But no way all three.

  69. @Robert Dolan
    Most abortion doctors are jewish.

    Most affirmative action lawyers are jewish.

    Most? Do you have a source on either of those?

  70. @Anonymous
    Will blacks necessarily recognize Harris as black? She was raised by her Indian mother in Montreal IIRC. She looks sort of generically non-white but not obviously black. Culturally she just comes across as a typical yuppie albeit now trying to affect an inner-city background (and embarrassing herself in the process).

    Obama was not really culturally black either but he could fake it pretty well. He also looked black and very wisely married a black woman, which gave him a lot of credibility I think.

    Yeah, one problem for Harris is that she doesn’t have children–and if she did, they’d almost certainly be perceived as white by third-party observers.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    That's also Tulsi Gabbard's problem. Having children, at least one child, represents that one has a stake in the future. Just look at Europe's childless leaders - Merkel, Edna May, and Macron - they haven't done much to preserve Europe's heritage, have they?
  71. @Truth
    Donald Trump will win the election and get the highest percentage of black votes since Richard Nixon.

    Additionally, he will not finish his term, Pence or whoever the next-Vice Weirdo will, and AOC will be our next, and final US President.

    You heard it here first.

    Bookmarked.

    I like audacious predictions!

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    I suspect he will be half-right, as is usually the case.
  72. @eah
    Kamala

    Please consider not referring to these politicians familiarly, ie by only a first name: "Kamala" -- when not ignoring Whites, politicians like Harris marginalize or denigrate them and their interests -- she isn't your friend.

    It annoyed me when Sailer repeatedly called Jussie Smollett by only his first name: "Jussie" -- even though his hate hoax was aimed squarely at Whites: it was bound to stir up animosity toward white people, and he knew it.

    I appreciate your work and read it regularly.

    https://twitter.com/SenKamalaHarris/status/1124415542369112064

    Duly noted. I do it primarily for convenience–“Hillary” is more distinct than “Clinton” because of Bill. Harris is a common surname but Kamala is a distinct first name, etc.

  73. @216
    Thoughts?

    https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/1136700676116013056

    Notice that the most important issue is the one that does not qualify as an “issue”.

    The reason the “experts” are so stupid is that they make these kind of category errors.

    The non-issue is race–blacks (especially black women) will vote for Kamala.

    (In 2016 the “experts” predicted Hillary winning Michigan, Wisconsin, PA based on similar black turnout for Hillary as Obama had. Blacks did not turn out for whitey Hillary–game, set, match. Most of the “experts” still haven’t figured it out. If you want proof check out the election night episode of HBO’s “The Circus”. They quickly interview Donna Brazile as they walk by and they say “what happened in Michigan” and she answered “low turnout in Flint and Detroit”.)

  74. “Where do you see the harm moral foundation heading next?”

    Open borders.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  75. @eah
    Obama won.

    Against McCain and Romney -- in 2008 he beat a weak, disliked, war-mongering RINO after 8 years of a relatively unpopular, war-mongering Bush -- in 2012, as an incumbent he beat a vulture capitalist plutocrat.

    To point out the obvious (necessary with you apparently): Kamala Harris is not Barack Obama, and the election will be in 2020 -- I think many people find it significantly easier to support a man for President than a woman (it's the whole Commander-in-Chief thing) -- also the white racial guilt that helped massively to put Obama in office has thinned considerably, and Obama's own racial demagoguery, eg in the George Zimmerman and Michael Brown cases, is partly responsible for that.

    To forestall the obvious question: if he could run again, maybe Obama would beat Trump -- I don't know, and neither do you -- in any case, it's irrelevant.

    But Harris has zero chance.

    For reasons already discussed—mainly that white candidates are splitting the already attenuated white vote while blacks vote monolithically—Harris’s chances to win the Dem nomination are good. Whoever wins the Dem nomination will be running against an old embattled President who hasn’t kept his most important campaign promises, and that Dem will be running with the full-throated backing of all broadcast TV, most cable networks, newspapers, news sites, Hollywood, NYC, DC, the academy, the alphabet agencies, the urban vote counters, the Bar Associations, quaNGOs, Faceberg, Apple, Google, Twitter and 99% of everything else that influences voters, and some very deep pocketed donors with plenty of extracurricular resources to draw on. Whoever that Dem is has a decent shot at winning.

    Harris can be that Dem.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Trump isn't going to know exactly how to handle someone like Harris. A lot of his stock tactics run the risk of backfiring against someone like her. Her best strategy will be to be as generic as possible and let the Establishment do the work for her. It got Obama into the presidency. I see little reason it won't do the same for her.
  76. @Almost Missouri
    For reasons already discussed—mainly that white candidates are splitting the already attenuated white vote while blacks vote monolithically—Harris's chances to win the Dem nomination are good. Whoever wins the Dem nomination will be running against an old embattled President who hasn't kept his most important campaign promises, and that Dem will be running with the full-throated backing of all broadcast TV, most cable networks, newspapers, news sites, Hollywood, NYC, DC, the academy, the alphabet agencies, the urban vote counters, the Bar Associations, quaNGOs, Faceberg, Apple, Google, Twitter and 99% of everything else that influences voters, and some very deep pocketed donors with plenty of extracurricular resources to draw on. Whoever that Dem is has a decent shot at winning.

    Harris can be that Dem.

    Trump isn’t going to know exactly how to handle someone like Harris. A lot of his stock tactics run the risk of backfiring against someone like her. Her best strategy will be to be as generic as possible and let the Establishment do the work for her. It got Obama into the presidency. I see little reason it won’t do the same for her.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    But how many damning statements does KH have on the record?  And her mentors?  After 8 years of Obama, any hateful stuff from Willy Brown is going to be taken a lot more seriously than the dismissive response Jeremiah Wright got.
  77. @Audacious Epigone
    Trump isn't going to know exactly how to handle someone like Harris. A lot of his stock tactics run the risk of backfiring against someone like her. Her best strategy will be to be as generic as possible and let the Establishment do the work for her. It got Obama into the presidency. I see little reason it won't do the same for her.

    But how many damning statements does KH have on the record?  And her mentors?  After 8 years of Obama, any hateful stuff from Willy Brown is going to be taken a lot more seriously than the dismissive response Jeremiah Wright got.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    It seems to me just the opposite. The Rev. Wright flap showed how much a candidate could actually get away with. Despite the media storm, Obama paid no price for Wright. That moved the goalposts so that Wright-esque stuff is now the inner bound, not the outer bound.

    In an odd way, the Trump's pussy grab flap was the Repub response to Wright. Like, okay you're not gonna censure "God damn America"? Well we're not gonna censure "grab her by the pussy"! Take that!

    And now several more years of outrage have elapsed. Every week the Left works to widen the Overton window on their side. Currently, they are fairly open about calling for white genocide. The only significant push back is from fellow Leftists saying, shhh, not so soon or you'll alert them before we're ready.

    If open calls for genocide are not censurable, then what is?

    The answer, I contend, is nothing.

    Keep in mind, even at the height of the Holocaust*, Hitler never openly called for Jewish genocide.

    So in other words, the rhetorical needle is already past the Nazi Germany 1944 point.

    tl;dr: There are no "damning statements" anymore. Nothing will be "taken a lot more seriously". Unless maybe if it is said by a straight white male.

    *This is irrespective of how revisionist your Holocaust views are. I.e., even conventional Jewish Holocaust historians don't claim that Hitler ever made a speech saying, "Now we're gonna gas the Jews!"
  78. @Robert Dolan
    Sure, blacks will vote for her.

    But blacks always vote left to get freebies.

    The problem with Horizontal Harris is that she's a raging CUNT.

    Just an awful mean spirited human being.

    I've watched countless clips of this rotten bitch interrogating a long list of polite white men, and the sheer HATRED she has for white men makes my skin crawl.

    Her treatment of Jeff Sessions was particularly disturbing, but there are many other examples.

    If Harris could slaughter every white person on this earth, she would do it without hesitation.

    What you think of as a bug is in fact a feature to large swathes of the electorate.

    Thanks to decades of embrownening and downdumbing, it’s not just blacks who vote that way anymore. Blacks, mestizos, Muslims, subcons, whitecucks, bugyouth, etc. A minority and a minority there and soon you got yourself a majority.

  79. @Mr. Rational
    But how many damning statements does KH have on the record?  And her mentors?  After 8 years of Obama, any hateful stuff from Willy Brown is going to be taken a lot more seriously than the dismissive response Jeremiah Wright got.

    It seems to me just the opposite. The Rev. Wright flap showed how much a candidate could actually get away with. Despite the media storm, Obama paid no price for Wright. That moved the goalposts so that Wright-esque stuff is now the inner bound, not the outer bound.

    In an odd way, the Trump’s pussy grab flap was the Repub response to Wright. Like, okay you’re not gonna censure “God damn America”? Well we’re not gonna censure “grab her by the pussy”! Take that!

    And now several more years of outrage have elapsed. Every week the Left works to widen the Overton window on their side. Currently, they are fairly open about calling for white genocide. The only significant push back is from fellow Leftists saying, shhh, not so soon or you’ll alert them before we’re ready.

    If open calls for genocide are not censurable, then what is?

    The answer, I contend, is nothing.

    Keep in mind, even at the height of the Holocaust*, Hitler never openly called for Jewish genocide.

    So in other words, the rhetorical needle is already past the Nazi Germany 1944 point.

    tl;dr: There are no “damning statements” anymore. Nothing will be “taken a lot more seriously”. Unless maybe if it is said by a straight white male.

    *This is irrespective of how revisionist your Holocaust views are. I.e., even conventional Jewish Holocaust historians don’t claim that Hitler ever made a speech saying, “Now we’re gonna gas the Jews!”

  80. @Audacious Epigone
    Bookmarked.

    I like audacious predictions!

    I suspect he will be half-right, as is usually the case.

  81. @Almost Missouri
    So if you actually believe that this is all random coincidence, then then you are equally skeptical that abortion reduces illegitimate births and families on food stamps, while increasing national IQ, right?

    Indeed you must be even more skeptical of the arguments in favor of abortion, because the empirical facts all happen to go against them. And obviously, you wouldn't indulge in any "magical thinking".

    “So if you actually believe that this is all random coincidence, then then you are equally skeptical that abortion reduces illegitimate births and families on food stamps, while increasing national IQ, right? Indeed you must be even more skeptical of the arguments in favor of abortion, because the empirical facts all happen to go against them.”

    No. The evidence for abortion reducing illegitimate births is not some fuzzy correlation, it’s direct measurement of a causal mechanism. 14% of women who get abortions are married, compared to about 60% for the general population:

    https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014

    Forcing those births to go to term would result in more illegitimate children being born. Yes, it’s theoretically possible that banning abortion would lead to those conceptions not happening, but I don’t see any reason whatsoever to make that assumption. This is Occam’s Razor. The women who get abortions are the ones too dumb to use birth control or practice abstinence. They aren’t going to magically get smarter once you ban abortion.

    • Replies: @Tanturn
    Put it another way:

    Two guys in 1980 are arguing about how to counter ICBMs. One arrives with test data showing the ICBMs can be intercepted. The other says that, fifty years ago, there was no anti-ballistic missile defense, and no threat from ICBMs, so that if you get rid of anti-ballistic missle defense the threat of ICBMs would disappear. Both are presenting "empirical facts" but only one is making a rational argument.

    , @Almost Missouri

    "it’s theoretically possible that banning abortion would lead to those conceptions not happening, but I don’t see any reason whatsoever to make that assumption."
     
    Because those conceptions didn't used to happen. So it's not really an "assumption". It's just what actually happened.

    A lot of this kind of abortionist reasoning relies on an assumption that conceptions are somehow static, or "inelastic" in economic terms. (No sniggering.) In reality, of course, sex and conception are highly elastic on both the micro- and macro- levels. (Still no sniggering, please.) Abortion may end x number of illegitimate conceptions, but if illegitimate conceptions climb by 3x, then abortion will not have the salutary effect you hope for. (Leaving aside the ethical question.)

    Try this on Occam's Razor: more abortion is strongly correlated with more illegitimacy. (Also with all those other things previously mentioned, but if you want to focus on illegitimacy, okay.) Yes, correlation is not causation, but it is good hint.
  82. @Tanturn
    "So if you actually believe that this is all random coincidence, then then you are equally skeptical that abortion reduces illegitimate births and families on food stamps, while increasing national IQ, right? Indeed you must be even more skeptical of the arguments in favor of abortion, because the empirical facts all happen to go against them."

    No. The evidence for abortion reducing illegitimate births is not some fuzzy correlation, it's direct measurement of a causal mechanism. 14% of women who get abortions are married, compared to about 60% for the general population:

    https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014

    Forcing those births to go to term would result in more illegitimate children being born. Yes, it's theoretically possible that banning abortion would lead to those conceptions not happening, but I don't see any reason whatsoever to make that assumption. This is Occam's Razor. The women who get abortions are the ones too dumb to use birth control or practice abstinence. They aren't going to magically get smarter once you ban abortion.

    Put it another way:

    Two guys in 1980 are arguing about how to counter ICBMs. One arrives with test data showing the ICBMs can be intercepted. The other says that, fifty years ago, there was no anti-ballistic missile defense, and no threat from ICBMs, so that if you get rid of anti-ballistic missle defense the threat of ICBMs would disappear. Both are presenting “empirical facts” but only one is making a rational argument.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Except abortion and other forms of infanticide have existed as long a birth has, so it's not really an accurate allegory.
  83. @Tanturn
    "So if you actually believe that this is all random coincidence, then then you are equally skeptical that abortion reduces illegitimate births and families on food stamps, while increasing national IQ, right? Indeed you must be even more skeptical of the arguments in favor of abortion, because the empirical facts all happen to go against them."

    No. The evidence for abortion reducing illegitimate births is not some fuzzy correlation, it's direct measurement of a causal mechanism. 14% of women who get abortions are married, compared to about 60% for the general population:

    https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014

    Forcing those births to go to term would result in more illegitimate children being born. Yes, it's theoretically possible that banning abortion would lead to those conceptions not happening, but I don't see any reason whatsoever to make that assumption. This is Occam's Razor. The women who get abortions are the ones too dumb to use birth control or practice abstinence. They aren't going to magically get smarter once you ban abortion.

    “it’s theoretically possible that banning abortion would lead to those conceptions not happening, but I don’t see any reason whatsoever to make that assumption.”

    Because those conceptions didn’t used to happen. So it’s not really an “assumption”. It’s just what actually happened.

    A lot of this kind of abortionist reasoning relies on an assumption that conceptions are somehow static, or “inelastic” in economic terms. (No sniggering.) In reality, of course, sex and conception are highly elastic on both the micro- and macro- levels. (Still no sniggering, please.) Abortion may end x number of illegitimate conceptions, but if illegitimate conceptions climb by 3x, then abortion will not have the salutary effect you hope for. (Leaving aside the ethical question.)

    Try this on Occam’s Razor: more abortion is strongly correlated with more illegitimacy. (Also with all those other things previously mentioned, but if you want to focus on illegitimacy, okay.) Yes, correlation is not causation, but it is good hint.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    more abortion is strongly correlated with more illegitimacy.
     
    Relaxing Jim Crow constraints on black behavior and putting them on welfare caused illegitimacy to rise long before Roe v. Wade.  Black illegitimacy was at a crisis level in the early 1960's, as none other than Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned about.

    tl;dr Your correlation is bogus; the problem is due to other factors entirely.

    , @Tanturn
    "Because those conceptions didn’t used to happen. So it’s not really an “assumption”. It’s just what actually happened. ... Abortion may end x number of illegitimate conceptions, but if illegitimate conceptions climb by 3x"

    Ending abortion won't magically bring social attitudes back to the 1960s. Of course it is possible to prevent those conceptions, but banning abortion won't do it. Social shame will, but the mainstream right has largely abandoned it because they are too weak and PC to do it. Just look at the whole Bristol Palin fiasco.

    "Try this on Occam’s Razor: more abortion is strongly correlated with more illegitimacy. (Also with all those other things previously mentioned, but if you want to focus on illegitimacy, okay.) Yes, correlation is not causation, but it is good hint."

    This correlation is not particularly strong: just look at Latin America. I agree there is a causation, but you're getting the arrow of causality backwards. It is the culture of promiscuity that led to legal abortion, not the other way around.
  84. @Tanturn
    Put it another way:

    Two guys in 1980 are arguing about how to counter ICBMs. One arrives with test data showing the ICBMs can be intercepted. The other says that, fifty years ago, there was no anti-ballistic missile defense, and no threat from ICBMs, so that if you get rid of anti-ballistic missle defense the threat of ICBMs would disappear. Both are presenting "empirical facts" but only one is making a rational argument.

    Except abortion and other forms of infanticide have existed as long a birth has, so it’s not really an accurate allegory.

  85. @Almost Missouri

    "it’s theoretically possible that banning abortion would lead to those conceptions not happening, but I don’t see any reason whatsoever to make that assumption."
     
    Because those conceptions didn't used to happen. So it's not really an "assumption". It's just what actually happened.

    A lot of this kind of abortionist reasoning relies on an assumption that conceptions are somehow static, or "inelastic" in economic terms. (No sniggering.) In reality, of course, sex and conception are highly elastic on both the micro- and macro- levels. (Still no sniggering, please.) Abortion may end x number of illegitimate conceptions, but if illegitimate conceptions climb by 3x, then abortion will not have the salutary effect you hope for. (Leaving aside the ethical question.)

    Try this on Occam's Razor: more abortion is strongly correlated with more illegitimacy. (Also with all those other things previously mentioned, but if you want to focus on illegitimacy, okay.) Yes, correlation is not causation, but it is good hint.

    more abortion is strongly correlated with more illegitimacy.

    Relaxing Jim Crow constraints on black behavior and putting them on welfare caused illegitimacy to rise long before Roe v. Wade.  Black illegitimacy was at a crisis level in the early 1960’s, as none other than Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned about.

    tl;dr Your correlation is bogus; the problem is due to other factors entirely.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    White illegitimacy matters too, and it's less driven by federal welfare.

    Unlike simple mechanical devices, social trends are complex, driven by and driving multiple interrelated aspects, not all of which are addressable or even perceivable.

    Ultimately, a social policy question boils down to, "what're ya gonna do about it?"

    Bemoan "culture"? Wait for a new age? Or grab the bull by whatever part you can get a purchase on?
  86. @Anonymous
    Will blacks necessarily recognize Harris as black? She was raised by her Indian mother in Montreal IIRC. She looks sort of generically non-white but not obviously black. Culturally she just comes across as a typical yuppie albeit now trying to affect an inner-city background (and embarrassing herself in the process).

    Obama was not really culturally black either but he could fake it pretty well. He also looked black and very wisely married a black woman, which gave him a lot of credibility I think.

    I think the real problem for Kamala is that she isn’t married to a black man. As Oshay Duke Jackson (see youtube link below) points out, she went to Howard, “didn’t find a brother there” and in her old age married a white guy.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Yes, this is a problem for her (with black voters), but ...

    1) who else are black voters gonna vote for? Kamala is maybe 40% black and pretending to be 80%. Everyone else is about zero% black and not bothering to pretend at all.

    2) her handlers no doubt recognize the political liability her white husband presents* (with black voters), so expect him to keep a very low profile during the campaign and her to run as a defacto strong single black woman! Some BS excuse will be made for his absence from the campaign, such as, he doesn't like the political spotlight, or he is attending to his work/business/mother/sickle cell anemia/whatever, but you'll know the real reason is that the Kamala Reparations Harris BlackityBlack Campaign just doesn't have room on the stump for a white guy.

    *Take a moment to reflect on the fact that in the current year, marrying white is a potentially disqualifying electoral mistake for the office of President of the United States!
  87. @Almost Missouri

    "it’s theoretically possible that banning abortion would lead to those conceptions not happening, but I don’t see any reason whatsoever to make that assumption."
     
    Because those conceptions didn't used to happen. So it's not really an "assumption". It's just what actually happened.

    A lot of this kind of abortionist reasoning relies on an assumption that conceptions are somehow static, or "inelastic" in economic terms. (No sniggering.) In reality, of course, sex and conception are highly elastic on both the micro- and macro- levels. (Still no sniggering, please.) Abortion may end x number of illegitimate conceptions, but if illegitimate conceptions climb by 3x, then abortion will not have the salutary effect you hope for. (Leaving aside the ethical question.)

    Try this on Occam's Razor: more abortion is strongly correlated with more illegitimacy. (Also with all those other things previously mentioned, but if you want to focus on illegitimacy, okay.) Yes, correlation is not causation, but it is good hint.

    “Because those conceptions didn’t used to happen. So it’s not really an “assumption”. It’s just what actually happened. … Abortion may end x number of illegitimate conceptions, but if illegitimate conceptions climb by 3x”

    Ending abortion won’t magically bring social attitudes back to the 1960s. Of course it is possible to prevent those conceptions, but banning abortion won’t do it. Social shame will, but the mainstream right has largely abandoned it because they are too weak and PC to do it. Just look at the whole Bristol Palin fiasco.

    “Try this on Occam’s Razor: more abortion is strongly correlated with more illegitimacy. (Also with all those other things previously mentioned, but if you want to focus on illegitimacy, okay.) Yes, correlation is not causation, but it is good hint.”

    This correlation is not particularly strong: just look at Latin America. I agree there is a causation, but you’re getting the arrow of causality backwards. It is the culture of promiscuity that led to legal abortion, not the other way around.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    How does one reverse the "culture of promiscuity"? Leave it alone? Or constrain and penalize it?
    , @notanon

    Ending abortion won’t magically bring social attitudes back to the 1960s. Of course it is possible to prevent those conceptions, but banning abortion won’t do it.
     
    abortion isn't really about abortion per se.

    abortion on demand is a necessary precondition for promiscuity.

    without abortion there would be less promiscuity.

    which is why libertines (masquerading as male feminists) support it so strongly.
  88. @Twinkie

    Kamala's Southern Strategy
     
    Let's be honest here - it's Kamala's black strategy.

    So, three primaries in a row, the Democrats are going to have a white-black struggle. The last two were won by the black faction (Obama beats Clinton and Clinton beats Sanders). This is completely unscientific, but I have a gut feeling that the black faction isn't going to win in the Democratic primary this time.

    Kamala is a know-it-all unlikeable woman. She can’t win once more people get to know her.

    Abrams is just too damn ugly to win. TV is all about being telegenic, especially when it comes to women. Biden showed his senility when he proposed taking her as his VP if he gets the nomination.

    The only woman who has a chance is Tulsi Gabbard, but the media is already pulling out all their tricks to stop her.

  89. @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah, one problem for Harris is that she doesn't have children--and if she did, they'd almost certainly be perceived as white by third-party observers.

    That’s also Tulsi Gabbard’s problem. Having children, at least one child, represents that one has a stake in the future. Just look at Europe’s childless leaders – Merkel, Edna May, and Macron – they haven’t done much to preserve Europe’s heritage, have they?

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Truth
    That's because they aren't women..
  90. @Tanturn
    "Because those conceptions didn’t used to happen. So it’s not really an “assumption”. It’s just what actually happened. ... Abortion may end x number of illegitimate conceptions, but if illegitimate conceptions climb by 3x"

    Ending abortion won't magically bring social attitudes back to the 1960s. Of course it is possible to prevent those conceptions, but banning abortion won't do it. Social shame will, but the mainstream right has largely abandoned it because they are too weak and PC to do it. Just look at the whole Bristol Palin fiasco.

    "Try this on Occam’s Razor: more abortion is strongly correlated with more illegitimacy. (Also with all those other things previously mentioned, but if you want to focus on illegitimacy, okay.) Yes, correlation is not causation, but it is good hint."

    This correlation is not particularly strong: just look at Latin America. I agree there is a causation, but you're getting the arrow of causality backwards. It is the culture of promiscuity that led to legal abortion, not the other way around.

    How does one reverse the “culture of promiscuity”? Leave it alone? Or constrain and penalize it?

    • Replies: @216
    Modernity has caused a rise in male sexlessness, the only question is whether this can be extended to women.

    The social controls of rural village life cannot be easily transposed into an urban existence depedent on credentialism and labor market mobility.

    Manospheric trops of men increasing their SMV/MMV in their 30s may be misguided, in that it alienates older women. Younger beta males have minimal options to influence female behavior, but younger women do respond to the social cues of older women. Inner Hajnal line areas traditionally have small age gaps in marriage, and feminists in the present day tend to favor small gaps as "power dynamics".

    So perhaps younger men need to police the behavior of older male "sugar daddies", in addition to policing their own thirst.
  91. 216 says:
    @Almost Missouri
    How does one reverse the "culture of promiscuity"? Leave it alone? Or constrain and penalize it?

    Modernity has caused a rise in male sexlessness, the only question is whether this can be extended to women.

    The social controls of rural village life cannot be easily transposed into an urban existence depedent on credentialism and labor market mobility.

    Manospheric trops of men increasing their SMV/MMV in their 30s may be misguided, in that it alienates older women. Younger beta males have minimal options to influence female behavior, but younger women do respond to the social cues of older women. Inner Hajnal line areas traditionally have small age gaps in marriage, and feminists in the present day tend to favor small gaps as “power dynamics”.

    So perhaps younger men need to police the behavior of older male “sugar daddies”, in addition to policing their own thirst.

  92. @gman
    I think the real problem for Kamala is that she isn't married to a black man. As Oshay Duke Jackson (see youtube link below) points out, she went to Howard, "didn't find a brother there" and in her old age married a white guy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDwvC7TOyI

    Yes, this is a problem for her (with black voters), but …

    1) who else are black voters gonna vote for? Kamala is maybe 40% black and pretending to be 80%. Everyone else is about zero% black and not bothering to pretend at all.

    2) her handlers no doubt recognize the political liability her white husband presents* (with black voters), so expect him to keep a very low profile during the campaign and her to run as a defacto strong single black woman! Some BS excuse will be made for his absence from the campaign, such as, he doesn’t like the political spotlight, or he is attending to his work/business/mother/sickle cell anemia/whatever, but you’ll know the real reason is that the Kamala Reparations Harris BlackityBlack Campaign just doesn’t have room on the stump for a white guy.

    *Take a moment to reflect on the fact that in the current year, marrying white is a potentially disqualifying electoral mistake for the office of President of the United States!

  93. @Mr. Rational

    more abortion is strongly correlated with more illegitimacy.
     
    Relaxing Jim Crow constraints on black behavior and putting them on welfare caused illegitimacy to rise long before Roe v. Wade.  Black illegitimacy was at a crisis level in the early 1960's, as none other than Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned about.

    tl;dr Your correlation is bogus; the problem is due to other factors entirely.

    White illegitimacy matters too, and it’s less driven by federal welfare.

    Unlike simple mechanical devices, social trends are complex, driven by and driving multiple interrelated aspects, not all of which are addressable or even perceivable.

    Ultimately, a social policy question boils down to, “what’re ya gonna do about it?”

    Bemoan “culture”? Wait for a new age? Or grab the bull by whatever part you can get a purchase on?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Unlike simple mechanical devices, social trends are complex, driven by and driving multiple interrelated aspects, not all of which are addressable or even perceivable.
     
    Take care of the big things and the small things will fall into place.

    White illegitimacy matters too, and it’s less driven by federal welfare.
     
    Mostly it's driven by the untouchability of blacks, and the unacceptability of criticizing them for literally anything (including criminality).  But if black illegitimacy is "racist" to even mention, then it is difficult to condemn in our own.  The solution is to break down the system which sacralizes blacks.

    There's potential for some memetic jiu-jitsu upon the left.  Co-opting pro-choice to not just allow but DEMAND that all the Angel Adamses act responsibly, and cut off welfare for subsequent illegitimate children, would attract support across the board.  This almost succeeded in my state but was shot down by "pro-life".

    Putting American men back to work so they can support traditional families is necessary to this, and I'm glad to see that Trump is pushing that direction with no small amount of success.


    Ultimately, a social policy question boils down to, “what’re ya gonna do about it?”
     
    In a nutshell, Make America Racist Again.
  94. @follyofwar
    That's also Tulsi Gabbard's problem. Having children, at least one child, represents that one has a stake in the future. Just look at Europe's childless leaders - Merkel, Edna May, and Macron - they haven't done much to preserve Europe's heritage, have they?

    That’s because they aren’t women..

  95. @Almost Missouri
    White illegitimacy matters too, and it's less driven by federal welfare.

    Unlike simple mechanical devices, social trends are complex, driven by and driving multiple interrelated aspects, not all of which are addressable or even perceivable.

    Ultimately, a social policy question boils down to, "what're ya gonna do about it?"

    Bemoan "culture"? Wait for a new age? Or grab the bull by whatever part you can get a purchase on?

    Unlike simple mechanical devices, social trends are complex, driven by and driving multiple interrelated aspects, not all of which are addressable or even perceivable.

    Take care of the big things and the small things will fall into place.

    White illegitimacy matters too, and it’s less driven by federal welfare.

    Mostly it’s driven by the untouchability of blacks, and the unacceptability of criticizing them for literally anything (including criminality).  But if black illegitimacy is “racist” to even mention, then it is difficult to condemn in our own.  The solution is to break down the system which sacralizes blacks.

    There’s potential for some memetic jiu-jitsu upon the left.  Co-opting pro-choice to not just allow but DEMAND that all the Angel Adamses act responsibly, and cut off welfare for subsequent illegitimate children, would attract support across the board.  This almost succeeded in my state but was shot down by “pro-life”.

    Putting American men back to work so they can support traditional families is necessary to this, and I’m glad to see that Trump is pushing that direction with no small amount of success.

    Ultimately, a social policy question boils down to, “what’re ya gonna do about it?”

    In a nutshell, Make America Racist Again.

  96. @Almost Missouri
    In our mass abortion era, has the number of low IQ proles gone up or down? Illegitimacy rate, up or down? Number of women and children on food stamps, up or down?

    Just wonderin'.

    Arguing about morality is difficult because one doesn't now what another's morality is based on. It is at least partly subjective.

    But practical outcomes are objective, simply facts.

    "I only care about outcomes. ...

    ... If abortion is lowering the number of women and children on food stamps, then I support it."
     
    And if it is having the opposite effect, do you oppose it?

    Another possibility: abortion in the USA in the last 46 years since Roe v. wade has tended to kill babies from relatively less intelligent groups that arguably also have a systematic difficulty with impulse control and longer-term thinking (even more than the rest of us 😉

    Thus, on balance, our society’s apparent ongoing decline in intelligence, impulse control / self-restraint, and longer-term thinking would be even worse if all those aborted people had been born — likely much worse when one considers the impact of adding another forty million Africans to our population by now.

    **. Also, how would simple physical safety have changed for the rest of us if we had added forty million Africans to the streets, most without fathers and most taught to hate and resent us? How would politics and the economy likely change? The answer is that we would already be an officially subjugated minority an would face vastly more violence on the streets. **. This is really the question I’d like answered. Do you think we’d be safe with another forty million Africans here, yes or no? (Be sure to throw in estimate for the many millions of kids whom the non-aborted kids would have themselves had by now. Count some grandkids for the ones from the 1970s, given the low average age of first pregnancy in this disproportionately African and latino demographic.)

    Whatever the moral problem with abortion, as a practical matter it is difficult to see a basis for guessing that widespread abortion lowered average intelligence or increased rates of violent and property crime in the USA since the 70s. Quite the contrary.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  97. @Anatoly Karlin
    This is a strange take.

    My strong impression is that the abortion wars peaked during the late 1980s-early 1990s, with another, smaller crest under G.W. Bush.

    The recent NYT word analysis tool (search for "abortion") appears to back up that impression: https://media-analytics.op-bit.nz/timeline

    It would be very strange if this issue was to become more relevant at a time when Americans are rapidly approaching European levels of secularism. And grisly videos of abortion have existed for ages.

    The “culture war” was hottest in the mid-80’s thru mid-90’s. It’s been fading away since then (the current mania for ID politics, and stuff like a college debt jubilee and single payer health care, has nothing to do with “culture”).

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Polling shows cultural issues are rated more important than ever before. I keep looking for material concerns to pop up, but they never do. Even "the economy", which used to dominate the most important issue polling every time throughout the 90s, 00s, and mid 2010s, no longer reliably does so.
  98. @Audacious Epigone
    Political dissolution includes questions of "when?" and "how?", but I do not think it includes "if?" any longer.

    That said, if the GOP flipped the upper Midwest, it could survive losing Texas.

    I don’t think the “classic” GOP can survive on social conservatives and rich(er) old people that much longer. The GOP isn’t giving lower class and younger voters what they want (better wages, cheaper housing, single payer healthcare, greater regulation of the markets, etc.). We’re only going to have the culture of Leave it to Beaver after decades of gradual restoration of pro-social economic norms (e.g., cutting down on booms and busts, lowering immigration, and preventing rich people from dodging taxes).

    I mean, The GOP since the 80’s has claimed that we could get the 50’s back, even while the party encouraged decadent elites to buy 3rd and 4th homes instead of putting their resources into a stable and native born workforce who could afford a decent life. You can’t off-shore jobs, pay crappy wages, and jack expenses up and then expect people to enjoy it and relax.

    Note that all of these problems are applicable to the neo-lib Dems, too. I think that the Dems and GOP will run boring “centrist” candidates, until neo-liberalism completely collapses via poor fundamentals and/or populist “socialist” revolutions. So far guys like Trump are centrists in populist clothing, since party elites/donors are avowedly against New Deal norms like a regulated market, a native born work-force, and a lack of conspicuous consumption by arrogant elites.

  99. @Audacious Epigone
    Political dissolution includes questions of "when?" and "how?", but I do not think it includes "if?" any longer.

    That said, if the GOP flipped the upper Midwest, it could survive losing Texas.

    Upper class white people (AKA the people who actually vote in elections) in all 50 states wanted to strangle the damned fed gov in 1984; that would’ve been the Silent generation for the most part, who inherited the New Deal, then ungratefully set about destroying it so that younger generations would not have the same econ. opportunities and security.

    Whites these days are much more ideologically out of alignment, and furthermore, every time a Silent or financially secure Boomer dies off, the Reaganite forces are further weakened. X-ers and esp. Millennials are much more likely to believe in vigorous enforcement of social/economic norms by the government, and even some Boomers have come around to that view recently, probably because they no longer get all their ideas from Silents.

  100. @Anatoly Karlin
    This is a strange take.

    My strong impression is that the abortion wars peaked during the late 1980s-early 1990s, with another, smaller crest under G.W. Bush.

    The recent NYT word analysis tool (search for "abortion") appears to back up that impression: https://media-analytics.op-bit.nz/timeline

    It would be very strange if this issue was to become more relevant at a time when Americans are rapidly approaching European levels of secularism. And grisly videos of abortion have existed for ages.

    It would be very strange if this issue was to become more relevant at a time when Americans are rapidly approaching European levels of secularism.

    it’s a way for GOPe to distract their voters from the issues bestTrump brought to the surface.

  101. @Almost Missouri

    "How can I get away with prognosticating given how poor the prospects for my Kamala Harris prediction appear to be?"
     
    What makes you think your Kamala Harris prediction has poor prospects? Dubious search history surveys? For the reasons elaborated in the comments (black voting bloc, Super Tuesday, white candidates fatally subdividing the shrinking white vote), Harris looks very viable, even without any special campaigning effort on her part. She just has to stay "black" and she will be skin-checked into the nomination by the Dems' most monolithic voters.

    She just has to stay “black”

    is she black though (in the US context)?

  102. @Tanturn
    "Because those conceptions didn’t used to happen. So it’s not really an “assumption”. It’s just what actually happened. ... Abortion may end x number of illegitimate conceptions, but if illegitimate conceptions climb by 3x"

    Ending abortion won't magically bring social attitudes back to the 1960s. Of course it is possible to prevent those conceptions, but banning abortion won't do it. Social shame will, but the mainstream right has largely abandoned it because they are too weak and PC to do it. Just look at the whole Bristol Palin fiasco.

    "Try this on Occam’s Razor: more abortion is strongly correlated with more illegitimacy. (Also with all those other things previously mentioned, but if you want to focus on illegitimacy, okay.) Yes, correlation is not causation, but it is good hint."

    This correlation is not particularly strong: just look at Latin America. I agree there is a causation, but you're getting the arrow of causality backwards. It is the culture of promiscuity that led to legal abortion, not the other way around.

    Ending abortion won’t magically bring social attitudes back to the 1960s. Of course it is possible to prevent those conceptions, but banning abortion won’t do it.

    abortion isn’t really about abortion per se.

    abortion on demand is a necessary precondition for promiscuity.

    without abortion there would be less promiscuity.

    which is why libertines (masquerading as male feminists) support it so strongly.

  103. How can I get away with prognosticating given how poor the prospects for my Kamala Harris prediction appear to be?

    you may end up being right.

    there’s a candidate’s actual “weight” or lack of it in Kamala’s case and then there’s who shows up to vote (or in some places those who miscount the votes).

    my prediction is still the same Biden clearly ahead until all the kid videos finally catch up with him and then everything gets thrown in the air.

    Sanders/Gabbard would be the best imo – best in the sense that the corrupt media’s treatment of Trump woke up a lot of people on the Right and the media would do the same to Gabbard thus potentially waking up a lot of people on the Left – then at least i could bond with my SJW relatives over a mutual hatred of the media.

  104. @Feryl
    The "culture war" was hottest in the mid-80's thru mid-90's. It's been fading away since then (the current mania for ID politics, and stuff like a college debt jubilee and single payer health care, has nothing to do with "culture").

    Polling shows cultural issues are rated more important than ever before. I keep looking for material concerns to pop up, but they never do. Even “the economy”, which used to dominate the most important issue polling every time throughout the 90s, 00s, and mid 2010s, no longer reliably does so.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS