#i hope 2 see changes by next elections. who knows maybe non voters will vote. maybe 18 yr olds are more progressive idk

[willowchild]

It's actually so sad to see more and more people in your country becoming far right, hateful and either violent or a violence apologist.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to an emergency edition of FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Very early Friday morning, President Trump tweeted that he and First Lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19. That news came just after reports on Thursday that White House senior advisor Hope Hicks had tested positive.

There’s a lot we still don’t know at this point, including the extent of White House staff affected or the severity of the president’s symptoms, but with about a month until Election Day, this is … an October surprise, to say the least.

Let’s start with one of the big questions: What does this mean for the election?

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): So for some reason I’m finding it hard to think through the electoral implications this morning. Maybe I need even more coffee. My thoughts right now are mostly some combination of:

Seriously how the F*CK does this happen? Shouldn’t everybody in the president’s orbit have been tested constantly?

And, OF COURSE this happened because 2020 and because the president clearly was not taking that many precautions

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): My overall answer is, “I have no idea how this affects the election.” This is truly unprecedented, as far as I know, in American elections — the president getting a serious virus weeks before the election. I can’t think of any leader abroad who has gotten a virus like this weeks before the election either (though I am not an expert on elections outside of the United States).

So while I have some general thoughts, I wanted to lay that out first. I truly have no idea what to expect, how voters will react to Trump’s positive test, how the media will cover it or how other candidates will react.

I.

Don’t.

Know.

ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): Yeah — it’s such a black box and honestly so dependent on what happens next. Does Trump get really sick? Does he stay mostly asymptomatic? How far did the virus spread in the White House? All questions we can’t answer right now, of course. But hugely important for how people respond.

natesilver: Yeah. We’re going to be saying “I don’t know” a lot in this chat. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with thinking through the electoral implications. There’s an election happening literally NOW — millions of people have already voted. So Americans are wrestling with this stuff. We just don’t have a lot of good answers.

ameliatd: And, of course, there’s an open question about whether Joe Biden will test positive, after he and Trump were at the debate together on Tuesday.

natesilver: Right, and one thing I’m not sure people realize is that there can be several days between exposure and a positive test. So we won’t know for sure which people have or don’t have COVID-19 for a bit here.

ameliatd: In the meantime, though, this does mean that Trump can’t campaign for at a while, right? And what about the debates, which were supposed to be on Oct. 15 and 22? Do those still happen?

How much does it matter if Trump can’t campaign, though? This was already a deeply bizarre year and I’m not sure his rallies were going to put him over the edge.

natesilver: Zoom debates?

ameliatd: Everyone wanted that automatic mute last time!

natesilver: At a very basic, square-one level, COVID-19 is a huge liability for the president, and so placing more focus on COVID-19 probably isn’t great for him. But I don’t know how useful that is as a prior. Could Trump getting COVID-19 change his messaging around the virus and pandemic? Maybe. But this is Donald Trump we’re talking about. He’s not inclined to be overly disciplined or deferential to scientists, etc. He’s pretty unpredictable, and we don’t yet know a lot about how serious his symptoms are. And this is a bad disease that can have cognitive effects in addition to physical ones.

Also in terms of very, basic, non-debatable priors: the president’s re-election bid was in DEEP trouble going into this, at least by conventional measures. And the smattering of post-debate polls we’d gotten had been particularly bad for him. So just worth keeping that in mind.

sarah: Absolutely. But on the question of how this happened … The Trump campaign has not taken precautions seriously. They’ve continued to hold large, in-person events. And they’ve even mocked the Biden campaign for wearing masks.

Is one possible scenario from this that Americans take the coronavirus more seriously? Views on COVID-19 and Trump’s response to it are polarized by party, but how could Trump’s positive test change public opinion?

ameliatd: I think what happens with public opinion really depends on how sick Trump gets. As I wrote over the summer, a big part of the reason Republicans are not as into COVID-19 restrictions is that they are much, much less likely to view the virus as a personal health threat to them.

And research has indicated that Trump downplaying the virus is probably a significant driver of that. So I could see this playing out at least two ways …

Trump gets moderately or very sick and this does prompt Republicans to think, “Oh geez, this actually is serious and if it could happen to Trump it could happen to me”;

Trump remains mostly asymptomatic and it bolsters the idea that this is actually not such a big deal.

perry: So, writing this on Friday morning, here’s what I expect …

The overwhelming majority of people, even those who are older, don’t die from COVID-19. So the most likely outcome is that Trump and some of his staffers have COVID-19, stay somewhat distanced from everyone for two weeks and then Trump returns to campaigning for reelection (I am not sure if he has the big rallies, but I wouldn’t rule that out.) I am not even sure the next two debates have to be canceled — particularly the Oct 22 one. And basically nothing has shaken Trump’s job approval ratings or really the race overall. I don’t really expect this to shift things either.

The president testing positive for COVID-19 is obviously hugely significant, but it’s not revelatory. We already knew Trump was not taking the virus seriously enough. Now, we have a much more obvious manifestation of that fact, but nothing is really different. Biden may not be able to attack Trump as bluntly on COVID now, for decorum reasons, but this positive test reinforces Biden’s message that Trump has let this crisis get out of hand. So this matters, but I’m not sure it matters electorally in terms of shifting a lot of people’s votes.

ameliatd: I know we’re thinking way down the line now, but is it possible that battling and surviving COVID-19 could actually make Trump more popular in some corners? Especially if he doesn’t get very sick?

natesilver: Amelia, I’m not sure I really buy that. I mean, somehow if it made the president into a more empathetic person, maybe, I suppose? But (i) I’m not sure that’s how he’s likely to react as opposed to sending 6,000 tweets about the “China Virus” or something; and (ii) he’s been trying to project a lot of macho-ness/dominance and to portray Biden as old and feeble and I’m not sure how contracting a serious disease himself fits into that.

ameliatd: Well, but if he contracts a serious disease and doesn’t get very sick and recovers fairly quickly — that certainly doesn’t seem as bad for him.

natesilver: I guess if he recovers in a couple of weeks, which is still what happens for most people, maybe he’ll say he kicked COVID’s ass and/or it wasn’t that serious. But I don’t think that necessarily affects anything electorally.

ameliatd: So, is the main impact potentially less about politics and more about the way Americans think about the virus? Either prompting Republicans to take it more seriously or reinforcing their sense that this really isn’t a big deal?

There was research back in March indicating that COVID-19 spreading at CPAC helped drive a brief moment when Republicans and Democrats were on the same page about the seriousness of the virus.

perry: So I don’t buy this idea that Trump will get COVID-19, be fine and then start calling it “Fake News.” We just learned Ronna McDaneil, the RNC chair, has also tested positive. So has Hope Hicks, a top Trump adviser. I think enough people in Trump’s circle may have the virus that THOSE PEOPLE start taking this more seriously, basically forcing him to as well.

natesilver: This is one sort of message we might hear, I guess:

Remember: China gave this virus to our President @realDonaldTrump and First Lady @FLOTUS.  

WE MUST HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

— Kelly Loeffler (@KLoeffler) October 2, 2020

sarah: But this question of whether it will change how seriously people perceive the coronavirus is an interesting one. Americans overall, as we saw in our debate polling with Ipsos, listed the coronavirus as their No. 1 issue:

COVID-19 and the economy are Americans’ top two issues

Share of respondents who named each issue as the top one facing the U.S., according to a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll

issue share of all Respondents COVID-19 31.7%

–

The economy 21.6

–

Health care 7.9

–

Racial inequality 7.4

–

Climate change 5.2

–

Violent crime 4.8

–

The Supreme Court 4.5

–

Economic inequality 3.0

–

Immigration 2.8

–

Education 2.6

–

Abortion 2.3

–

Gun policy 1.9

–

Other 1.6

–

Data comes from polling done by Ipsos for FiveThirtyEight, using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, a probability-based online panel that is recruited to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted Sept. 21-28 among a general population sample of adults, with 3,133 respondents and a margin of error of +/- 1.9 percentage points.

However, among potential Trump supporters a much smaller share (15.5 percent) said the coronavirus was their most important issue, many more were concerned about the economy:

Potential Trump voters care most about the economy

Among respondents who were more likely to vote for Trump than Biden, share who named each issue as the top one facing the U.S., according to a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll

issue share of trump supporters The economy 38.4%

–

COVID-19 15.5

–

Violent crime 9.5

–

The Supreme Court 6.2

–

Abortion 5.4

–

Health care 4.9

–

Immigration 4.8

–

Education 3.9

–

Gun policy 3.4

–

Other 2.4

–

Racial inequality 1.8

–

Economic inequality 1.6

–

Climate change 0.5

–

Respondents were asked to rate how likely they were to vote for each candidate on a scale of 0-10. Respondents were deemed more likely to vote for whichever candidate they gave a higher score. Respondents who gave both candidates the same score are not included.

Data comes from polling done by Ipsos for FiveThirtyEight, using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, a probability-based online panel that is recruited to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted Sept. 21-28 among a general population sample of adults, with 3,133 respondents and a margin of error of +/- 1.9 percentage points.

I think you could argue that the economy is probably linked to coronavirus among Trump supporters, but this could be a moment that has public health repercussions, yes?

ameliatd: Well, there was a jobs report this morning — one that I suspect is now going to get a LOT less attention. It was kinda positive — if you can consider the unemployment rate falling just under 8 percent positive.

perry: I think there could be a bunch of real, important health outcomes from this …

GOP governors and mayors may be a bit more hesitant to lift COVID restrictions;

Democratic mayors and governors may cite Trump’s positive test as part of their messaging on keeping restrictions in place;

Republican voters may become a bit less dismissive of COVID, in part because GOP elites take it more seriously;

Overall, this news could be important and have a positive impact in terms of Americans taking the virus more seriously.

ameliatd: Yeah, I’m also wondering if this will change the way Republican governors approach restrictions, which are all but completely lifted in some states.

Although I do think it’s important to note that the vast majority of Americans say they’ve been complying with public health guidelines like mask-wearing, even if Republicans are much less likely to agree with government restrictions on businesses.

perry: To take an example: Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, is never going to give a press conference and say something like, “I was downplaying COVID-19 but then Trump got it and it reinforced how serious this was.” At least, I think that will never happen?

natesilver: I suppose I’m skeptical that this will necessarily change all that much. As you can see from the Kelly Loeffler tweet above, there are lots of partisan responses that don’t necessarily involve taking the disease more seriously per se.

Now, if Trump said something like what Perry just layed out, i.e. “I wasn’t taking this seriously enough, and I now understand the error of my ways…” then OK! That could make a difference! But I’m not sure that’s necessarily the most likely outcome.

ameliatd: But for regular people, I think a lot of this is about the gut-level fear that this might happen to them. Trump downplaying it, not wearing a mask, and not getting sick almost certainly helped reinforce the feeling among Republicans that it’s not a big deal. So I also think the way this is presented in conservative media, how visible Trump’s illness is — all of that matters for how people respond.

It’s true that the partisan response is pretty baked in at this point. But if Trump gets really sick, I could see that changing. Of course, if Republican governors start being more cautious with restrictions again and more people lose their jobs — that raises questions for whether a new stimulus package might actually get off the ground, too. I remain skeptical that will happen! But maybe there’s more pressure to break the stalemate in Congress?

sarah: There are a number of possibilities here, the most pressing one, of course, is that Trump can’t campaign — not to mention if Vice President Mike Pence has to step in. What should we be looking for as this story develops?

ameliatd: Trump’s symptoms are obviously a big one. And if they’re serious, there might be calls to take him off the ballot.

Also, Biden’s testing status — which we should know sooner than Trump’s symptoms, I would think.

natesilver: Right, part of what makes this tough to predict — and I’m not against prediction! — is that we don’t yet know if Trump will have a mild or severe case, how many people in his orbit are also infected, whether Biden is infected, etc.

perry: Assuming Trump recovers, what does his campaign look like on Oct. 16? Is he still holding big rallies? Is he wearing a mask? Are his staffers? Does the Oct. 22 debate take place, and in person? What about the Oct. 15 one? Is he further dismissing the virus because he survived it?

natesilver: Let’s also keep in mind that the recovery process isn’t quick for some people. It can take months, or longer — long-term COVID symptoms are scary.

[everythingthatsgoingon]

TO ALL NON-VOTERS : FUCK YOU.

Voting DOES change things.

Yesterday MY VOTE made all the difference.

Parliamentary elections in France yesterday yielded a record abstention rate of over 52%.

I, unlike a majority of my fellow citizens, went to the polls. I still wasn't decided regarding who I was going to vote for when I entered the voting booth. Should I vote for the candidate whose convictions were closet to mine, or vote "useful" by picking one of the candidates most likely to make it to the second turn?

For our presidential elections two month ago, I had picked the first option. I didn't have any regrets regarding this decision, but I had also been weighted by the realization that my single vote didn't seem to have any impact. However, this time, it was different, because I didn't have a clear view of the situation : all opinion polls had been done nationaly, not constituency by constituency, meaning while I knew (using logic and considering previous election results, national polls and traditional voting patterns) which 4 candidates out of the dozen I could choose from were likely favourites, I didn't know who among them were expected to rank first and second (and given the terms needing to be met to get to the second turn, it was unlikely a third candidate would manage to pass).

So as I was staring at the names I hadn't yet discarded, I thought : I know which 2 candidates among the 4 favourites I would like to be able to choose from next week, in order to have a real decision to make and not to already know whose ballot I am going to cast as soon as the results come in. One of them is all but assured to get to the next turn, if previous election results are any proof, but the other not so much. I don't really like the person all that much, but this is the vote that makes the most sense.

With that decision made, I tucked the paper I had picked in the envelope, threw the others away, and got out of the booth.

The decision left a bitter aftertaste on my tongue, but I knew I had done what made the most sense.

Then the results came in.

The candidate I had voted for had made it to the second turn with a less-than-10-ballots advantage over the third candidate, both of whom having recieved thousands of votes in total.

Because of my ballot, and those of a handful others who were probably just as undecided as I was, I got the results I was hoping for : maybe not my favourite candidates, but a real choice to make next Sunday.

Had just 10 persons in my constituency not failed to cast their ballots yesterday, the result might have been completly different.

Any doubts the results of the presidential election might have instilled in me faded away to nothing, while my conviction was strengthened : VOTING MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

Maybe we don't always like or agree with the candidate that we end up choosing. Maybe all options seem bad sometimes. And yes, the voting system could use changing, with a proportional system for our Parliamentary election here in France for instance. But we DO get to CHOOSE. We get to mitigate the situation as best we can, and thats more than many others around the world can say.

So when you say "voting doesn't change anything", you're wrong. Yesterday I and just a few others prevented a candidate I really, really did not want to see become my constituency's representative from getting any closer to that Parliament seat. And believe me, given the radically different political opinions of the candidates that ranked 2nd and 3rd in my constituency, they would definitely not have similar votes when it were time to decide on new legislation, so it does matter who we elect as our representative.

Others fought and gave up their lives for this right, so take 5 minutes of your day and GO VOTE.

[patriotsnet]

How Do Republicans Feel About The Wall

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-do-republicans-feel-about-the-wall/

How Do Republicans Feel About The Wall

Half Of Republicans Believe False Accounts Of Deadly Us Capitol Riot

How do Hispanic Americans truly feel about the border wall?

7 Min Read

WASHINGTON -Since the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies have pushed false and misleading accounts to downplay the event that left five dead and scores of others wounded. His supporters appear to have listened.

Three months after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol to try to overturn his November election loss, about half of Republicans believe the siege was largely a non-violent protest or was the handiwork of left-wing activists trying to make Trump look bad, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll has found.

Six in 10 Republicans also believe the false claim put out by Trump that Novembers presidential election was stolen from him due to widespread voter fraud, and the same proportion of Republicans think he should run again in 2024, the March 30-31 poll showed.

Since the Capitol attack, Trump, many of his allies within the Republican Party and right-wing media personalities have publicly painted a picture of the days events jarringly at odds with reality.

Hundreds of Trumps supporters, mobilized by the former presidents false claims of a stolen election, climbed walls of the Capitol building and smashed windows to gain entry while lawmakers were inside voting to certify President Joe Bidens election victory. The rioters – many of them sporting Trump campaign gear and waving flags – also included known white supremacist groups such as the Proud Boys.

DANGEROUS SPIN ON REALITY

They Just Come For Show

The four House Republicans were unfamiliar with the history of the fight over Santa Ana.

It was not addressed by the Border Patrol agents who led the morning excursion. And by the time E&E News connected with Chapman, the delegation had departed the refuge for a briefing on Border Patrol activities at the local headquarters of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Later, when asked whether Westerman thought the environmental impact of installing a wall at Santa Ana and in other refuge areas was a necessary sacrifice to stop the flow of illegal immigration, the lawmaker said it didnt sound unreasonable.

One hundred and fifty feet kind of sounds like what the right of way would be on a levee, but I dont know, he said. Obviously, if youre going to build a wall, theres going to be clearing. And from what Ive seen, stories Ive heard about human trafficking, the rapes, the deaths yeah, I think its worth building the deterrents.

At the National Butterfly Center a 100-acre nature preserve that was also exempted from having a border wall built on its land in the same 2019 spending package Executive Director Marianna Trevino Wright said she thought the GOP lawmakers were ignorant by choice.

I think they have no idea, Trevino Wright asserted. They come just for show. Theyre not interested.

The real litterbugs, she contended, were the officers with Border Patrol.

There’s Something Happening Here

But he uses a different touchstone: Occupy Wall Street, the left-leaning anti-establishment movement that blossomed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

“This is Occupy Wall Street Part 2, but this time it is on their turf, and there are real financial consequences,” he said. LeGate, who received a $100,000 Thiel fellowship to drop out of college and start a company when he was 18 years old in 2013, has been watching the WallStreetBets Reddit discussion for several years.

He said he is seeing increasing frustration and anger, which is exploding in the Covid pandemic era and it is bringing together the traditional political left and right.

“People were willing to take a risk on Trump and now they’re willing to take a risk in the markets,” he said. “A lot of people just want to see the world burn right now, and they’re enjoying watching it happen.”

He said he’s already seeing people on the WallStreetBets Reddit page looking for new targets and there are two themes. First, they’re looking for highly shorted stocks where big hedge funds might have a lot of leverage. And second, they’re looking for nostalgia plays to bring back the companies from their youth. That’s why Nokia, Blackberry and Blockbuster are all getting attention.

Border Walls In The Middle East

One major proof of concept that Republicans supporting a Mexican border wall cite is the success of similar walls in the Middle East. For example, walls along the Israeli-Palestinian border reportedly cut down illegal immigration between the countries. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who is also the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, stated that he was impressed with a system of fences he had inspected along the Israeli border with Palestinian territories. Johnson stated Im always looking for best practices. Its been incredibly effective. They had thousands of illegal immigrants; its down to the teens.

House Republicans Propose $10 Billion For Trumps Border Wall

House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a plan to provide $10 billion for President Donald Trumps border wall with Mexico, a bill unlikely to clear the Senate but which could fuel a shutdown fight in December.

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul said his panel will vote on the legislation next week. The bill also would add 10,000 more border patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers, tap the National Guard to patrol the southern border and target people who have overstayed visas.

Now that we have a partner in the White House who has made this a top priority, its time to send a bill to President Trumps desk so we can deliver the American people the security they have long demanded and deserve, McCaul said in a statement.

The bill represents Republicans opening salvo in both the looming year-end government funding fight and high-stakes negotiations over undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

It almost certainly wont pass the Senate, where at least eight Democrats would be needed to clear a 60-vote threshold.

Partisans Approve Their Partys Approach To Shutdown Negotiations Disapprove Of Other Partys

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 76% approve of how Trump is handling shutdown talks, including 50% who say they strongly approve of Trumps approach. In contrast, just 4% of Democrats approve of Trumps handling of the negotiations, while 93% disapprove .

The overall pattern is similar in views of Republican leaders in Congress: 69% of Republicans approve of their partys leaders handling of negotiations, while just 10% of Democrats approve.

And while about seven-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners approve of the way Democratic leaders in Congress are handling the shutdown negotiations, just 11% of Republicans say the same.

Republicans Pray For A Border Crisis To Bring Biden Down

Joe Biden and his programs are popular. Republicans cant lay a glove on him. So theyve settled on immigration as the way to drag him into the mud.

Guillermo Arias/Getty

Republicans are crazy about immigration. No, really. The issue makes them loco. Just listen to the things theyre saying. Many of them have lost touch with reality.

Or maybe Republicans are crazy like a fox. The GOP seems to have once again pinned all of its hopes for retaking powerin this case, by winning back control of the Senate in the 2022 midterm elections and possibly regaining seats in the House of Representativeson the immigration issue. If either of those things happen, Republicans will be in decent shape to try to retake the White House in 2024.

President Joe Biden has only been in office for about 60 days, and Republicans who want to attack him and his administration dont have a lot of material with which to work.

Thats what some of the current fearmongering over the situation at the U.S.-Mexico borderabout half of itis all about. The other half is made up of good ol fashioned nativism and racism. Thats one reason why Republicans act like the prospect of what could turn out to be 100,000 would-be refugees from Central America mostly women and children is the end of Western civilization as we know it.

Here we are again. And the same Republicans who were quiet and subdued when former President Donald Trump confronted this same problem now cant stop talking about this being a crisis.

Republicans Spent Two Years Resisting Trumps Border Wall What Changed

Since the government shutdown 25 days ago, Republicans have largely defended the need for a border wall. While there appear to be some cracks in support, most are standing by the presidents insistence on funding.

As recently as September, The Washington Post described it this way:

The same Republican lawmakers who rushed through the tax bill Trump wanted, confirmed his first Supreme Court pick and are fighting to defend his second, and have remained largely deferential amid multiple scandals, have taken a far different approach when it comes to one of Trumps most memorable campaign promises deeming the wall to be impractical, unrealistic and too costly.

Most GOP lawmakers didnt come right out and say that, of course.

Instead, for the first two years of Trumps presidency, GOP lawmakers avoided the wall debate completely. In September 2017, USA Today took on the laborious task of surveying every member of Congress to determine their position on Trumps wall. At the time, the White House was requesting $1.6 billion to begin wall construction. The survey found that just 69 of the 292 Republicans in Congress said they supported Trumps funding request. Three outright opposed it, but the majority avoided answering the question directly.

Shortly after Trumps inauguration, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham , Trumps onetime nemesis turned close ally, told Politico that the border wall is probably not a smart investment.

Every Congressperson Along Southern Border Opposes Border Wall Funding

How would Republicans build Donald Trump’s wall? BBC News

Nine congressional representatives serve the districts that line the 2,000-mile southern border. They are men, women, freshman politicians and Washington veterans. The Democrats among them span liberal ideologies, while one of them is a Republican.

But they all have one thing in common: each is against President Donald Trump‘s border wall.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a multi-bill package that provided funding for federal agencies and reinstated Department of Homeland Security appropriations without offering any new border wall funding. All nine of the politicians serving in districts along the border voted in favor of the bills, which were an effective rebuke of the Trump administration’s request for $5.7 billion in border wall funding.

“It’s a 4th-century solution to a 21st century problem,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, a Democrat and one of the lawmakers along the southern border who voted against funding the wall.

Gonzalez doesn’t oppose border security. He said, “Nobody wants stronger border control than me.” But he’s against adding to the existing border wall because he doesn’t “think it brings real border security and it comes at a major cost to taxpayers,” the lawmaker said Tuesday in a telephone interview with CBS News.

“At the time I thought we were going to be able to have a reasonable conversation,” Gonzalez said. “I had no idea it was going to get this crazy.”

Everybody Look What’s Going Down

Holmes believes the key to understanding the power of this new movement is the gamification of investing melded with an anti-elite fervor. Sticking it to hedge funds and potentially making a lot of money is, simply, fun. And if you believe its also the right thing to do, and thrive on the engagement of a community of like-minded traders, so much the better.

“When things really get going is when the fun meets the purpose,” Holmes said. “This is the perfect storm of those two.”

His warning to Wall Street is: understand this. Be willing to scrutinize yourself. This not going away, and it is probably bigger than you think.

“People need to take the time to understand the social dynamics of this. What are the problems that have created this class of retail investor who seek to completely destroy your industry, and how do you remedy that?” Holmes said.

Holmes said he has spent the past decade watching American politics turned inside out. An earlier generation of politicians spent their time raising money at country club ballrooms from hundreds of donors writing $500 or $1,000 checks.

But now they spend their time on the internet raising money from millions of donors making $5 and $20 contributions. In politics, the retail money turned out to be bigger much bigger — than the institutional money. And that’s driven massive political spending inflation: the big Senate campaigns that once cost $15 million now cost $100 million.

There’s Battle Lines Being Drawn

But what explains that nostalgic impulse in the midst of a revolution? It is the same emotion that animated the MAGA movement which, after all, stood for make America great, again. It is a desire to return to an earlier time that the members of the movement remember as better than today.

“There’s a feeling I sense across society that people want to go back to a simpler time,” LeGate said. “No one likes Covid. People don’t feel the economy is fair. Everything looks better in hindsight.”

And he argues that efforts to regulate trading will feel to Reddit traders more like suppression, and could fuel more anger.

“If someone on Main Street loses half their portfolio in a day, nothing’s going to happen. But if a hedge fund does, they literally stop the trading,” he said. “I myself question whether this is really about protecting the individual investor or protecting the hedge fund.”

Public Disapproves Of How Shutdown Negotiations Are Being Handled

Most Americans offer negative evaluations of the way that the nations political leaders in both parties Donald Trump, Democratic congressional leaders and Republican congressional leaders are handling negotiations over the shutdown.

Overall, just 36% of the public approves of how Trump is handling negotiations over the government shutdown, including 23% who say they strongly approve. About six-in-ten disapprove of Trumps approach to the negotiations, including 53% who say they strongly disapprove.

Views of how Republican leaders in Congress are handling shutdown negotiations generally parallel evaluations of Trump. Six-in-ten Americans say they disapprove of the way Republican congressional leaders are handling negotiations, while just 36% say they approve. However, fewer Americans characterize their views of GOP leaders handling of negotiations as strong approval or disapproval than say this about the president.

Public views of Democratic leaders handling of the shutdown talks are somewhat more positive than views of Trump or GOP leaders. Still, more disapprove than approve .

Intensity Of Trumps Support Increases

Also in the poll, 46 percent of voters approve of President Trumps job performance, which is consistent with the other NBC/WSJ polls over the past year and a half.

But other numbers in the survey his strong job approval ticking up to its all-time high, his positive rating jumping to its highest level since after his inauguration prompts GOP pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies to call this Trumps best NBC/WSJ poll in three years.

Still, 49 percent of all voters say they are very uncomfortable about Trump when it comes to his re-election bid in 2020.

Thats compared with 43 percent who are very uncomfortable with Sanders, 36 percent with Warren and 35 percent with Biden.

Klobuchar: Trump’s Actions Are Like A ‘global Watergate’ Scandal

Today, as Democrats in the House of Representatives move toward bringing articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, with the next Judiciary Committee hearing of evidence set for Monday, few Democrats are still clinging to the hope that Republicans will reach a breaking point with Trump like they did with Nixon.

“I really don’t think there is any fact that would change their minds,” Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told NBC News.

Why? Two key changes since Nixon: a massive divide in American political life we hate the other team more than ever before and a media climate that fuels and reinforces that chasm, powered by Fox News on the Republican side.

Himes said he was “a little stunned by the unanimity on the Republican side,” especially among retiring lawmakers who don’t have to worry about surviving a GOP primary had they gone against Trump. “We’re in a place right now where all that matters to my Republican colleagues is the defense of the president,” he added.

No Republican congressmen have said they support impeachment. In the Senate, the entire GOP voted to condemn the impeachment inquiry, except for three moderates: Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The three have stopped short of saying they support Trump’s impeachment, however, and it would take at least 20 Republican senators to vote to convict him in a Senate trial for removal to succeed.

What Do Republicans Believe In

Do all Republicans believe the same things? Of course not. Rarely do members of a single political group agree on all issues. Even among Republicans, there are differences of opinion. As a group, they do not agree on every issue.

Some folks vote Republican because of fiscal concerns. Often, that trumps concerns they may have about social issues. Others are less interested in the fiscal position of the party. They vote they way they do because of religion. They believe Republicans are the party of morality. Some simply want less government. They believe only Republicans can solve the problem of big government. Republicans spend less . They lower taxes: some people vote for that alone.

However, the Republican Party does stand for certain things. So I’m answering with regard to the party as a whole. Call it a platform. Call them core beliefs. The vast majority of Republicans adhere to certain ideas.

So what do Republicans believe? Here are their basic tenets:

Questions Ahead Of The Democratic National Convention

Andrew Redleaf, founder of the hedge fund company Whitebox Advisors, has been a Republican donor in the past. He gave to the campaign of 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He calls himself a libertarian conservative who favors free trade and immigration.

This year, he’s given money to the Lincoln Project, a group of conservative never-Trumpers who are running scathing ads against the president in swing states.

“I’d like there to be a right-of-center, limited-government party … which is not the Trumpist Republican Party,” Redleaf says.

Redleaf is wary of Democrats and has no particular affection for Biden.

But the former vice president is a known commodity on Wall Street and is widely seen as a more centrist, acceptable alternative to more liberal Democrats who ran for president, such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Biden has also been a top recipient of financial industry money for decades as a senator from Delaware, home to financial and credit card companies.

“He’s not somebody that the industry is particularly afraid of,” Bryner says. “So I think that we would see them kind of hopeful that he would be a more moderating influence, whereas Trump can be quite unpredictable.”

Widening Party Divide Over Expanding The Border Wall

El Chapo financing Trump border wall is a yes vote: GOP lawmaker

Public views of a U.S.-Mexico border wall have changed little over the past three years. But the partisan gap has widened, as Republicans have become more supportive of a border wall, while Democratic support has declined.

Currently, 58% of Americans oppose substantially expanding the wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, while 40% favor the proposal.

Since early 2016, roughly six-in-ten Americans have opposed building or expanding the border wall .

Yet partisan differences are now wider than they have ever been. Today, 82% of Republicans and Republican leaners favor substantially expanding the wall along the U.S-Mexico border. Over the past year alone, Republican support for expanding the border wall has increased 10 percentage points . Over the same period, the share of Democrats who favor expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall has declined from 13% to 6%.

Conservative Republicans and Republican leaners overwhelmingly favor expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall . Moderate and liberal Republicans are somewhat less supportive .

Overwhelming shares of both liberal Democrats and conservative and moderate Democrats oppose expanding the border wall.

As in the past, opinions about expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall are divided by race, education and age. Whites are more than twice as likely as blacks or Hispanics to favor expanding the border wall.

Why Do Republicans Behave The Way They Do

Why are the Republicans so mean-spirited when it comes to the poor and so indulgent when it comes to the rich?

Why are the Republicans so mean-spirited when it comes to the poor and so indulgent when it comes to the rich? Thats the incessant question as posed by liberals today about the partys now enacted tax reform. Not only does the bill include another attack on Obamacare, but it provides the pretext the need to reduce deficits to go after other long-held goals, the end of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. 

The answer should be obvious by now. Republicans behave as they do because they can get away with it! Its no more complicated than that. 

Contrary to liberal opinion, Republican politics isnt out of the mainstream provided we push the clock back sufficiently. A political economy without social services and entitlements is in fact the default position of the capitalist mode of production from its inception. If recent comments from Republican Sens. Orin Hatch and Charles Grassley sound like characters from a Charles Dickens novel their barely disguised contempt for the working poor that should come as no surprise. Such attitudes were almost de rigueur for ruling elites in capitals long ascent. The constant refrain of the rich Why should we be taxed to pay for the education of the children of the irresponsible poor?  explains why public school education became a widely accepted norm only in the 20th century. 

How Dems aided and abetted

What Republicans And Democrats Have In Common On Wall Street Regulation

The Democratic and Republican parties disagree on most major issues. When it comes to Wall Street, however, it’s a mixed bag. Take the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

Democrats believe the bill has reined in the type of out-of-control behavior that led to the near collapse of the banking industry in 2008 and prevented a similar crisis. Republicans have criticized the legislation calling it “the Democrats legislative Godzilla.” They feel the financial regulations have made it too difficult for small lenders and community banks and has indirectly slowed the growth of small businesses. 

Regulation of the financial services industry has been a major issue not only in the current presidential election but in house and senate races. Democrats believe that the electorate largely sides with them that banks have overstepped and that they can use their position to win votes and take back the Senate. Republicans currently hold a majority 54 votes. Because of gerrymandering rules, Democrats will have a tougher time retaking the House.  

Dodd-Frank was intended to increase transparency and accountability in the financial services industry and to protect consumers. Among other things, the bill created a new consumer protection agency and standards for a number of common financial services products. 

A Shift In Immigration Thinking

Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois is one of the Houses most outspoken Democrats on immigration reform, and she understands this shift, and believes it is essential. Lives are at stake and the lives of Dreamers are more important to me than bricks, Gutierrez said. If advocates would reject any money for Trumps wall in exchange for freedom and legalization and eventual citizenship for the Dreamers, I understand their choice, but for my part, I would lay bricks myself if I thought it would save the Dreamers. For me, the very real attacks on legal immigration are far greater threats than bricks and drones and technology on the border.

This shift has also led Democratic views on a border wall to soften in general. As Trump has become less demanding, Democrats have begun to consider what type of barrier, and what size, they would be willing to agree to if push came to shove. The 2,000 mile wall that Democrats had feared would be a looming symbol of America turning inward on itself is becoming something closer to the 2006 plan; some new barriers, some new monitoring technology, and that is somewhat agreeable to Democrats, especially if they can garner support in other arenas in exchange for it.

[statetalks]

How Do Republicans Feel About The Wall

Half Of Republicans Believe False Accounts Of Deadly Us Capitol Riot

How do Hispanic Americans truly feel about the border wall?

7 Min Read

WASHINGTON -Since the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies have pushed false and misleading accounts to downplay the event that left five dead and scores of others wounded. His supporters appear to have listened.

Three months after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol to try to overturn his November election loss, about half of Republicans believe the siege was largely a non-violent protest or was the handiwork of left-wing activists trying to make Trump look bad, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll has found.

Six in 10 Republicans also believe the false claim put out by Trump that Novembers presidential election was stolen from him due to widespread voter fraud, and the same proportion of Republicans think he should run again in 2024, the March 30-31 poll showed.

Since the Capitol attack, Trump, many of his allies within the Republican Party and right-wing media personalities have publicly painted a picture of the days events jarringly at odds with reality.

Hundreds of Trumps supporters, mobilized by the former presidents false claims of a stolen election, climbed walls of the Capitol building and smashed windows to gain entry while lawmakers were inside voting to certify President Joe Bidens election victory. The rioters – many of them sporting Trump campaign gear and waving flags – also included known white supremacist groups such as the Proud Boys.

DANGEROUS SPIN ON REALITY

They Just Come For Show

The four House Republicans were unfamiliar with the history of the fight over Santa Ana.

It was not addressed by the Border Patrol agents who led the morning excursion. And by the time E&E News connected with Chapman, the delegation had departed the refuge for a briefing on Border Patrol activities at the local headquarters of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Later, when asked whether Westerman thought the environmental impact of installing a wall at Santa Ana and in other refuge areas was a necessary sacrifice to stop the flow of illegal immigration, the lawmaker said it didnt sound unreasonable.

One hundred and fifty feet kind of sounds like what the right of way would be on a levee, but I dont know, he said. Obviously, if youre going to build a wall, theres going to be clearing. And from what Ive seen, stories Ive heard about human trafficking, the rapes, the deaths yeah, I think its worth building the deterrents.

At the National Butterfly Center a 100-acre nature preserve that was also exempted from having a border wall built on its land in the same 2019 spending package Executive Director Marianna Trevino Wright said she thought the GOP lawmakers were ignorant by choice.

I think they have no idea, Trevino Wright asserted. They come just for show. Theyre not interested.

The real litterbugs, she contended, were the officers with Border Patrol.

There’s Something Happening Here

But he uses a different touchstone: Occupy Wall Street, the left-leaning anti-establishment movement that blossomed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

“This is Occupy Wall Street Part 2, but this time it is on their turf, and there are real financial consequences,” he said. LeGate, who received a $100,000 Thiel fellowship to drop out of college and start a company when he was 18 years old in 2013, has been watching the WallStreetBets Reddit discussion for several years.

He said he is seeing increasing frustration and anger, which is exploding in the Covid pandemic era and it is bringing together the traditional political left and right.

“People were willing to take a risk on Trump and now they’re willing to take a risk in the markets,” he said. “A lot of people just want to see the world burn right now, and they’re enjoying watching it happen.”

He said he’s already seeing people on the WallStreetBets Reddit page looking for new targets and there are two themes. First, they’re looking for highly shorted stocks where big hedge funds might have a lot of leverage. And second, they’re looking for nostalgia plays to bring back the companies from their youth. That’s why Nokia, Blackberry and Blockbuster are all getting attention.

Border Walls In The Middle East

One major proof of concept that Republicans supporting a Mexican border wall cite is the success of similar walls in the Middle East. For example, walls along the Israeli-Palestinian border reportedly cut down illegal immigration between the countries. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who is also the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, stated that he was impressed with a system of fences he had inspected along the Israeli border with Palestinian territories. Johnson stated Im always looking for best practices. Its been incredibly effective. They had thousands of illegal immigrants; its down to the teens.

House Republicans Propose $10 Billion For Trumps Border Wall

House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a plan to provide $10 billion for President Donald Trumps border wall with Mexico, a bill unlikely to clear the Senate but which could fuel a shutdown fight in December.

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul said his panel will vote on the legislation next week. The bill also would add 10,000 more border patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers, tap the National Guard to patrol the southern border and target people who have overstayed visas.

Now that we have a partner in the White House who has made this a top priority, its time to send a bill to President Trumps desk so we can deliver the American people the security they have long demanded and deserve, McCaul said in a statement.

The bill represents Republicans opening salvo in both the looming year-end government funding fight and high-stakes negotiations over undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

It almost certainly wont pass the Senate, where at least eight Democrats would be needed to clear a 60-vote threshold.

Partisans Approve Their Partys Approach To Shutdown Negotiations Disapprove Of Other Partys

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 76% approve of how Trump is handling shutdown talks, including 50% who say they strongly approve of Trumps approach. In contrast, just 4% of Democrats approve of Trumps handling of the negotiations, while 93% disapprove .

The overall pattern is similar in views of Republican leaders in Congress: 69% of Republicans approve of their partys leaders handling of negotiations, while just 10% of Democrats approve.

And while about seven-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners approve of the way Democratic leaders in Congress are handling the shutdown negotiations, just 11% of Republicans say the same.

Republicans Pray For A Border Crisis To Bring Biden Down

Joe Biden and his programs are popular. Republicans cant lay a glove on him. So theyve settled on immigration as the way to drag him into the mud.

Guillermo Arias/Getty

Republicans are crazy about immigration. No, really. The issue makes them loco. Just listen to the things theyre saying. Many of them have lost touch with reality.

Or maybe Republicans are crazy like a fox. The GOP seems to have once again pinned all of its hopes for retaking powerin this case, by winning back control of the Senate in the 2022 midterm elections and possibly regaining seats in the House of Representativeson the immigration issue. If either of those things happen, Republicans will be in decent shape to try to retake the White House in 2024.

President Joe Biden has only been in office for about 60 days, and Republicans who want to attack him and his administration dont have a lot of material with which to work.

Thats what some of the current fearmongering over the situation at the U.S.-Mexico borderabout half of itis all about. The other half is made up of good ol fashioned nativism and racism. Thats one reason why Republicans act like the prospect of what could turn out to be 100,000 would-be refugees from Central America mostly women and children is the end of Western civilization as we know it.

Here we are again. And the same Republicans who were quiet and subdued when former President Donald Trump confronted this same problem now cant stop talking about this being a crisis.

Republicans Spent Two Years Resisting Trumps Border Wall What Changed

Since the government shutdown 25 days ago, Republicans have largely defended the need for a border wall. While there appear to be some cracks in support, most are standing by the presidents insistence on funding.

As recently as September, The Washington Post described it this way:

The same Republican lawmakers who rushed through the tax bill Trump wanted, confirmed his first Supreme Court pick and are fighting to defend his second, and have remained largely deferential amid multiple scandals, have taken a far different approach when it comes to one of Trumps most memorable campaign promises deeming the wall to be impractical, unrealistic and too costly.

Most GOP lawmakers didnt come right out and say that, of course.

Instead, for the first two years of Trumps presidency, GOP lawmakers avoided the wall debate completely. In September 2017, USA Today took on the laborious task of surveying every member of Congress to determine their position on Trumps wall. At the time, the White House was requesting $1.6 billion to begin wall construction. The survey found that just 69 of the 292 Republicans in Congress said they supported Trumps funding request. Three outright opposed it, but the majority avoided answering the question directly.

Shortly after Trumps inauguration, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham , Trumps onetime nemesis turned close ally, told Politico that the border wall is probably not a smart investment.

Every Congressperson Along Southern Border Opposes Border Wall Funding

How would Republicans build Donald Trump’s wall? BBC News

Nine congressional representatives serve the districts that line the 2,000-mile southern border. They are men, women, freshman politicians and Washington veterans. The Democrats among them span liberal ideologies, while one of them is a Republican.

But they all have one thing in common: each is against President Donald Trump‘s border wall.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a multi-bill package that provided funding for federal agencies and reinstated Department of Homeland Security appropriations without offering any new border wall funding. All nine of the politicians serving in districts along the border voted in favor of the bills, which were an effective rebuke of the Trump administration’s request for $5.7 billion in border wall funding.

“It’s a 4th-century solution to a 21st century problem,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, a Democrat and one of the lawmakers along the southern border who voted against funding the wall.

Gonzalez doesn’t oppose border security. He said, “Nobody wants stronger border control than me.” But he’s against adding to the existing border wall because he doesn’t “think it brings real border security and it comes at a major cost to taxpayers,” the lawmaker said Tuesday in a telephone interview with CBS News.

“At the time I thought we were going to be able to have a reasonable conversation,” Gonzalez said. “I had no idea it was going to get this crazy.”

Everybody Look What’s Going Down

Holmes believes the key to understanding the power of this new movement is the gamification of investing melded with an anti-elite fervor. Sticking it to hedge funds and potentially making a lot of money is, simply, fun. And if you believe its also the right thing to do, and thrive on the engagement of a community of like-minded traders, so much the better.

“When things really get going is when the fun meets the purpose,” Holmes said. “This is the perfect storm of those two.”

His warning to Wall Street is: understand this. Be willing to scrutinize yourself. This not going away, and it is probably bigger than you think.

“People need to take the time to understand the social dynamics of this. What are the problems that have created this class of retail investor who seek to completely destroy your industry, and how do you remedy that?” Holmes said.

Holmes said he has spent the past decade watching American politics turned inside out. An earlier generation of politicians spent their time raising money at country club ballrooms from hundreds of donors writing $500 or $1,000 checks.

But now they spend their time on the internet raising money from millions of donors making $5 and $20 contributions. In politics, the retail money turned out to be bigger much bigger — than the institutional money. And that’s driven massive political spending inflation: the big Senate campaigns that once cost $15 million now cost $100 million.

There’s Battle Lines Being Drawn

But what explains that nostalgic impulse in the midst of a revolution? It is the same emotion that animated the MAGA movement which, after all, stood for make America great, again. It is a desire to return to an earlier time that the members of the movement remember as better than today.

“There’s a feeling I sense across society that people want to go back to a simpler time,” LeGate said. “No one likes Covid. People don’t feel the economy is fair. Everything looks better in hindsight.”

And he argues that efforts to regulate trading will feel to Reddit traders more like suppression, and could fuel more anger.

“If someone on Main Street loses half their portfolio in a day, nothing’s going to happen. But if a hedge fund does, they literally stop the trading,” he said. “I myself question whether this is really about protecting the individual investor or protecting the hedge fund.”

Public Disapproves Of How Shutdown Negotiations Are Being Handled

Most Americans offer negative evaluations of the way that the nations political leaders in both parties Donald Trump, Democratic congressional leaders and Republican congressional leaders are handling negotiations over the shutdown.

Overall, just 36% of the public approves of how Trump is handling negotiations over the government shutdown, including 23% who say they strongly approve. About six-in-ten disapprove of Trumps approach to the negotiations, including 53% who say they strongly disapprove.

Views of how Republican leaders in Congress are handling shutdown negotiations generally parallel evaluations of Trump. Six-in-ten Americans say they disapprove of the way Republican congressional leaders are handling negotiations, while just 36% say they approve. However, fewer Americans characterize their views of GOP leaders handling of negotiations as strong approval or disapproval than say this about the president.

Public views of Democratic leaders handling of the shutdown talks are somewhat more positive than views of Trump or GOP leaders. Still, more disapprove than approve .

Intensity Of Trumps Support Increases

Also in the poll, 46 percent of voters approve of President Trumps job performance, which is consistent with the other NBC/WSJ polls over the past year and a half.

But other numbers in the survey his strong job approval ticking up to its all-time high, his positive rating jumping to its highest level since after his inauguration prompts GOP pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies to call this Trumps best NBC/WSJ poll in three years.

Still, 49 percent of all voters say they are very uncomfortable about Trump when it comes to his re-election bid in 2020.

Thats compared with 43 percent who are very uncomfortable with Sanders, 36 percent with Warren and 35 percent with Biden.

Klobuchar: Trump’s Actions Are Like A ‘global Watergate’ Scandal

Today, as Democrats in the House of Representatives move toward bringing articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, with the next Judiciary Committee hearing of evidence set for Monday, few Democrats are still clinging to the hope that Republicans will reach a breaking point with Trump like they did with Nixon.

“I really don’t think there is any fact that would change their minds,” Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told NBC News.

Why? Two key changes since Nixon: a massive divide in American political life we hate the other team more than ever before and a media climate that fuels and reinforces that chasm, powered by Fox News on the Republican side.

Himes said he was “a little stunned by the unanimity on the Republican side,” especially among retiring lawmakers who don’t have to worry about surviving a GOP primary had they gone against Trump. “We’re in a place right now where all that matters to my Republican colleagues is the defense of the president,” he added.

No Republican congressmen have said they support impeachment. In the Senate, the entire GOP voted to condemn the impeachment inquiry, except for three moderates: Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The three have stopped short of saying they support Trump’s impeachment, however, and it would take at least 20 Republican senators to vote to convict him in a Senate trial for removal to succeed.

What Do Republicans Believe In

Do all Republicans believe the same things? Of course not. Rarely do members of a single political group agree on all issues. Even among Republicans, there are differences of opinion. As a group, they do not agree on every issue.

Some folks vote Republican because of fiscal concerns. Often, that trumps concerns they may have about social issues. Others are less interested in the fiscal position of the party. They vote they way they do because of religion. They believe Republicans are the party of morality. Some simply want less government. They believe only Republicans can solve the problem of big government. Republicans spend less . They lower taxes: some people vote for that alone.

However, the Republican Party does stand for certain things. So I’m answering with regard to the party as a whole. Call it a platform. Call them core beliefs. The vast majority of Republicans adhere to certain ideas.

So what do Republicans believe? Here are their basic tenets:

Questions Ahead Of The Democratic National Convention

Andrew Redleaf, founder of the hedge fund company Whitebox Advisors, has been a Republican donor in the past. He gave to the campaign of 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He calls himself a libertarian conservative who favors free trade and immigration.

This year, he’s given money to the Lincoln Project, a group of conservative never-Trumpers who are running scathing ads against the president in swing states.

“I’d like there to be a right-of-center, limited-government party … which is not the Trumpist Republican Party,” Redleaf says.

Redleaf is wary of Democrats and has no particular affection for Biden.

But the former vice president is a known commodity on Wall Street and is widely seen as a more centrist, acceptable alternative to more liberal Democrats who ran for president, such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Biden has also been a top recipient of financial industry money for decades as a senator from Delaware, home to financial and credit card companies.

“He’s not somebody that the industry is particularly afraid of,” Bryner says. “So I think that we would see them kind of hopeful that he would be a more moderating influence, whereas Trump can be quite unpredictable.”

Widening Party Divide Over Expanding The Border Wall

El Chapo financing Trump border wall is a yes vote: GOP lawmaker

Public views of a U.S.-Mexico border wall have changed little over the past three years. But the partisan gap has widened, as Republicans have become more supportive of a border wall, while Democratic support has declined.

Currently, 58% of Americans oppose substantially expanding the wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, while 40% favor the proposal.

Since early 2016, roughly six-in-ten Americans have opposed building or expanding the border wall .

Yet partisan differences are now wider than they have ever been. Today, 82% of Republicans and Republican leaners favor substantially expanding the wall along the U.S-Mexico border. Over the past year alone, Republican support for expanding the border wall has increased 10 percentage points . Over the same period, the share of Democrats who favor expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall has declined from 13% to 6%.

Conservative Republicans and Republican leaners overwhelmingly favor expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall . Moderate and liberal Republicans are somewhat less supportive .

Overwhelming shares of both liberal Democrats and conservative and moderate Democrats oppose expanding the border wall.

As in the past, opinions about expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall are divided by race, education and age. Whites are more than twice as likely as blacks or Hispanics to favor expanding the border wall.

Why Do Republicans Behave The Way They Do

Why are the Republicans so mean-spirited when it comes to the poor and so indulgent when it comes to the rich?

Why are the Republicans so mean-spirited when it comes to the poor and so indulgent when it comes to the rich? Thats the incessant question as posed by liberals today about the partys now enacted tax reform. Not only does the bill include another attack on Obamacare, but it provides the pretext the need to reduce deficits to go after other long-held goals, the end of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. 

The answer should be obvious by now. Republicans behave as they do because they can get away with it! Its no more complicated than that. 

Contrary to liberal opinion, Republican politics isnt out of the mainstream provided we push the clock back sufficiently. A political economy without social services and entitlements is in fact the default position of the capitalist mode of production from its inception. If recent comments from Republican Sens. Orin Hatch and Charles Grassley sound like characters from a Charles Dickens novel their barely disguised contempt for the working poor that should come as no surprise. Such attitudes were almost de rigueur for ruling elites in capitals long ascent. The constant refrain of the rich Why should we be taxed to pay for the education of the children of the irresponsible poor?  explains why public school education became a widely accepted norm only in the 20th century. 

How Dems aided and abetted

What Republicans And Democrats Have In Common On Wall Street Regulation

The Democratic and Republican parties disagree on most major issues. When it comes to Wall Street, however, it’s a mixed bag. Take the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

Democrats believe the bill has reined in the type of out-of-control behavior that led to the near collapse of the banking industry in 2008 and prevented a similar crisis. Republicans have criticized the legislation calling it “the Democrats legislative Godzilla.” They feel the financial regulations have made it too difficult for small lenders and community banks and has indirectly slowed the growth of small businesses. 

Regulation of the financial services industry has been a major issue not only in the current presidential election but in house and senate races. Democrats believe that the electorate largely sides with them that banks have overstepped and that they can use their position to win votes and take back the Senate. Republicans currently hold a majority 54 votes. Because of gerrymandering rules, Democrats will have a tougher time retaking the House.  

Dodd-Frank was intended to increase transparency and accountability in the financial services industry and to protect consumers. Among other things, the bill created a new consumer protection agency and standards for a number of common financial services products. 

A Shift In Immigration Thinking

Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois is one of the Houses most outspoken Democrats on immigration reform, and she understands this shift, and believes it is essential. Lives are at stake and the lives of Dreamers are more important to me than bricks, Gutierrez said. If advocates would reject any money for Trumps wall in exchange for freedom and legalization and eventual citizenship for the Dreamers, I understand their choice, but for my part, I would lay bricks myself if I thought it would save the Dreamers. For me, the very real attacks on legal immigration are far greater threats than bricks and drones and technology on the border.

This shift has also led Democratic views on a border wall to soften in general. As Trump has become less demanding, Democrats have begun to consider what type of barrier, and what size, they would be willing to agree to if push came to shove. The 2,000 mile wall that Democrats had feared would be a looming symbol of America turning inward on itself is becoming something closer to the 2006 plan; some new barriers, some new monitoring technology, and that is somewhat agreeable to Democrats, especially if they can garner support in other arenas in exchange for it.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-do-republicans-feel-about-the-wall/

[bootycallreverie]

"Please can we not make her mayor?"

I woke up today to this fascinating question regarding Cllr. Ana Bailão’s votes to uphold systemic oppression within the Toronto Police. “Please can we not make her mayor?”

It was a deceptively complex question that got me thinking of some of the fundamentals of activism, social change and politics, that I wanted to unpack this question bit by bit.

I’ve cut it into five sections: PLEASE, CAN, WE, NOT MAKE HER, MAYOR.

///

1. PLEASE

I assume this softens the meaning of the phrase - “I want her out of politics” is pretty harsh – especially in the context of a man publicly critiquing a woman. Yet it shows us something important – we are implying we need permission to participate in politics.

Why are we asking for permission? And to whom is this appeal directed? Last time I checked, I don’t need permission to do most things in life, including participating in the political process. Our US-based friends did not ask for permission when they recently revolted against their governments; they did it even though they faced police brutality, neo-Nazi paramilitaries, psychological warfare, a global pandemic and more.

The “please” comes out of the respectability politics that makes “Ontario” as a political entity so curious. “Please don’t gut our healthcare!” is not coming from a position of strength. (Anyway, it’s much easier for progressives to walk back overzealousness in the name of justice than it is for people to walk back bigotry.)

To best challenge power, we must never apologize for having ambitious convictions. We need to champion big ideas, even if they’re ahead of the curve. Two months ago, police reform would have been considered impossible in America. And they were right, it was impossible...under the existing model. So they changed the model.

Change – especially lasting change – comes from the grassroots, so while it’s not a bad thing to support progressive political candidates, parties and organizations, it is *significantly* more important to support issues-based activists and organizations (i.e. if you give $10 monthly to the NDP, why not also give $10 to your favourite advocacy group?). Issues-based groups are formed to challenge one specific cog of power at a time and can therefore deliver deep, fundamental and long-lasting impacts. (Plus…this is a great way for potential candidates to gain some experience; get those ppl knocking on doors now and they’ll do much better in 2022.)

2. CAN

If we are asking “do we, as a community, have the capacity to elect someone better?” The answer to this is yes, but if we’re instead asking “will someone within the existing structure please FINALLY get off their ass and challenge her?” then we might ask ourselves why this hasn’t already happened. The civic left has largely allowed Cllr. Bailão (and, to a lesser extent, Mayor Wonderbread, who is merely a pathetic, respectable version of Rob Ford) to go unchallenged because she’s been deemed impossible to beat, but by not challenging her, the civic left has allowed her career to continue essentially unfettered because they don’t want to spend resources on a race they’re unlikely to win. If only there were some other downtown districts where a new, young generation of activists can start to build their careers…except the seats available are full with straight white boy progressives.

Why does the civic left protect Gord Perks, Joe Cressy and Mike Layton? Like…honestly…I just don't see what the big deal about Joe Cressy is. He bumped Ausma Malik out of the 2018 election instead of doing the right thing and making way for a supremely talented racialized woman like I'd hope someone committed to true justice would. There is even a movement in the democratic party to ask white men to not run in safe seats. [This paragraph and the next have been edited for tone, thank you to Colin Burns for encouraging me to rethink my words and my misdirected anger, my frustration naturally lies with Cllr. Bailāo's behaviour.]

Gord Perks verged into alt-left territory last year as a free-speech absolutist and consequently an apologist for bigotry when he should have defended trans folk. He even shared his disappointing thoughts publicly (yup, he did, they’re still up, don’t @ me on this one, you’ll regret it: http://gordperks.ca/toronto-public-library-chief-librarians-decision/) so considering who he seems to be, we can do better after 14 years? (TL;DR – there’s need for renewal in a lot of parts of our movements, and the labour movement is no exception.)

Mike Layton is a lovely man with his heart in the right place. I’ve volunteered for him and would gladly do it again. It therefore pains me to recognize that his last name is more than a name. I’m happy for everything he (and his team) has contributed in a rapidly changing district. My concern is that lefties can’t afford to support dynasties in the same way that liberals and conservatives can, especially in downtown districts where our odds of winning are good and where we ought to be supporting talented Black, Trans, Indigenous, disAbled and economically-disadvantaged candidates that are already on the front lines of social change. (This list is illustrative, not exhaustive.) By the time of the next election, Mike Layton will have been there for 12 years. Perhaps it’s time for him to open an opportunity for others.

3. WE

Who is “we”? Is it people in this district? Is it people in Toronto? Is it progressives? Whoever can identify this “we” and mobilize them will have the best shot of defeating her. This is the “coalition” people describe as needed to win election. Of course, this includes whoever’s running for office and their team. That organizing work needs to start right now if there’s going to be any chance of a lefty winning this seat in 2022. (If you think she isn’t already considering her council seat successor, remember that her old boss was Mario Silva, who was *coincidentally* Davenport’s City Councillor and MP for a combined 16 years.)

4. NOT MAKE HER

This is maybe the biggest hurdle to get over since “NOT ANA BAILAO” is not an option on the ballot. Considering there are no formal (lol) parties or slates on council, her name recognition is her biggest electoral asset, so a keep-it-safe campaign won’t work. Plus her public image is fairly non-toxic, so as pissed off as we all are, most people won’t be swayed by a STOP BAILAO campaign from the left (the trope of the conservative woman can be very powerful – thanks Maggie – so expect her campaign to lean pretty typically right).

When we say “Cllr. Bailão should not be Mayor” we rob ourselves of the ability to say “I think this person would make a great mayor” or “these are the some of the values I want in a mayor.” – and I don’t mean just of the City Council types. (At this point, Josh Marlow is the other councilor to watch.)

I hate hearing “why can’t we have AOC or Jacinta Arden or Anne Hidalgo or Ilhan Omar?” They didn’t come out of thin air. We already have those people here, we just haven’t elevated them to where they can make a difference and this is why. (Also, lefties, let’s seriously push for term limits and ranked ballots…especially the term limits, most ppl out there love the idea, it costs zero dollars and ensures districts have a healthy amount of turnover.)

5. MAYOR

Toronto City Council is a “weak mayor” system. The Mayor need council approval for pretty much everything important. The Mayor will find success or failure on how well he can build a team of reliable allies on council. It’s something thing Mayor Wonderbread does too well: his allies don’t offer a lot of different views. A hypothetical Mayor Bailão would probably do similar.

So then how rigid should a politician be? Are they supposed to be trustees, where we trust them to do what’s best for us and we have a check-in every 4 years? Or are they supposed to be conduits of public opinion with little regard for context? Or is a councillor meant to reflect the demographics of their district, even though they can only truly embody one set of lived experiences as an individual? Or perhaps, in the case of Cllr. Bailão, someone not dedicated to steering the ship but merely running the engine, not caring where it sails even though we've seen icebergs on the horizon? We’ve grown up in a SimCity generation where we think the mayor can make whatever they want happen. As great as that might sound sometimes, in a democracy, accountability matters. But it must come with a recognition that SimCity mayors don't fear the wrath of the voters.

///

I want to recognize that a 10% reallocation is fucking pathetic and still Toronto council couldn’t do it…but at least we know where we stand, and with whom.

We often look at politics as a sport or a soap opera, and it feels great when your team scores points or your favourite character delivers a knockout performance. Even I was like “dang girl” when Nancy Pelosi defiantly ripped up the President’s speech. I was also touched by Jagmeet Singh’s touching display of emotion the day after he was ejected from the House of Commons for calling out bigotry. But that’s not politics, that’s a long running TV drama series, so as disappointed as I am in what happened, I’m not gonna yell at her in the street because White Man Raging is not a great look these days…or ever.

So let’s not make this about my neighbour, Cllr. Ana Bailão. Let’s make it about the system of oppression she has willingly chosen to uphold and tearing that motherfucker down piece by piece.

[nikkifinnie-blog]

Hardcore punk band, War On Women release new album, Capture The Flag!

Taking their name from a phrase first coined by feminist writer Andrea Dworkin to describe certain Republican policies, US feminist hardcore band War On Women were formed in 2010 by Shawna Potter and Brooks Harlan, they released Improvised Weapons in 2012 and their debut album in 2015 on Bridge Nine Records. Their new album, Capture The Flag, has just been released to positive response with Pitchfork.com commenting ‘War On Women state the facts. They are self-righteous. They point fingers. Activism is prominently at the heart of their screeds against the systematic plagues of patriarchy, racism, and capitalism. The enemy is everywhere. War On Women prioritise taking it down (1)’. I was fortunate enough to witness War On Women live in the summer of 2016 and wrote at the time…’Shawna Potter’s experience in drama means the lyrics are delivered within an unusually full spectrum of communication as she commands your attention with her stage presence...To be honest I don’t think I’ve seen a better front person.’ That opinion still stands! With a new album out and an extremely tumultuous last 18 months in the USA and Europe it seemed a good move to catch up with Shawna (via email) and find out how things have been going for the band. It was summer 2016 when we last spoke, a lot has happened in under two years! Let's start with band changes! You, Brooks (Harlan) and Sue (Werner) are still there and have been joined by Jennifer Vito on guitar and Ben Jones on drums (2)-what sort of new resources have Jennifer and Ben brought to the WoW sound? Have they bought new styles and influences into the mix? Has the WoW sound changed from the first album at all? We're really happy to have Jennifer and Ben in the band, they're great players and great people, so it's made the transition easy for sure. Capture the Flag was already being written and recorded before they officially joined, so while this record is the next step/progression for the band, I'm also excited to see what our next album sounds like with them more involved. Three years on from your eponymous debut album you have released Capture The Flag, I would understand the title to imply a cultural struggle over who defines the USA and it's trajectory-is that fair? Definitely. Who gets to call themselves a patriot? Who has a right to this land? What does it mean to be American? I think these are things we need to think about and agree on if we're ever going to avoid another regime like our current one. On previous releases you have dealt with important issues from a feminist perspective; rape, toxic masculinity, the gender pay gap, the disappearance and deaths of women in Mexico, objectification, sexual harassment. What sort of subject matter have you engaged with on Capture The Flag? I never want to make the same record twice, and that includes subject matter, so I find that limitation can inspire some creativity - how do you talk about reproductive rights after writing ‘Roe V World’? I did it by taking a different angle, what happens if you do end up giving birth? The GOP only cares about your kid when you are the incubator, just another excuse to not give women full autonomy as human beings. Always putting someone else first. Did the Republican victory in the Presidential elections change your lyrical perspective at all? I think I mean did the structures of oppression come more clearly into view as systems reproducing themselves through the lives of individuals? It did affect me, but in the sense that I felt overwhelmed and exhausted. I've been working on these issues and singing about them non-stop for years, and yet here we were. And frankly looking at 45's face was making me feel sick. So while I took in as much as I could about current events, I think I wanted to avoid writing anything that was too topical, that would be dated by the time the record came out. So while I did end up writing a bit about Trump, the song "Predator in Chief" can be about any man in a powerful position that uses it to abuse others. Great cover by the way, I liked the intersectionality... is that Angela Davis depicted? No, I don't believe so. But I'm very grateful to our friend Ryan Patterson (Coliseum/Fotocrime/Shirtkiller) for doing the design. After getting the first pass I definitely said "Less white ladies!" It's important that the album cover reflects a nod to history, who has been fighting and who is now fighting to actually make this country great. I read that you have an educational resource/work book based around Capture The Flag's lyrics, can you tell us a bit more about that? Was it a response to how the first album was used (3)? Yes, there were a few tags on social media that mentioned teachers and professors using our lyrics in class. I thought, why not encourage that more by making it easy on them? So I worked with a few friends to come up with a pdf booklet that includes our lyrics, back stories, quotes, resources, and prompting questions for each song. Anyone can download it at the Bridge Nine Bandcamp page,https://bridge9.bandcamp.com/album/capture-the-flag. I read an article where you commented that you knew you were going into a sexist culture when you did the Vans Warped Tour last year-and that was exactly why you did it, to let some light in (4)! How did it go? Were you pleasantly surprised, did the other bands get on board? Yes, there were plenty of supportive bands that "got it," and I'm sure the ones that didn't just avoided us. There were no arguments backstage or anything. A volunteer we brought out with us to run the Safer Scenes program, Kira-Lynn Ferderber, taught a bystander intervention class off hours for any bands and staff that wanted to show up. Major shout out to all the bands that attended. Overall, the entire experience was good and I'm glad we did it. I make it a point to say every festival can do better, and frankly as audience members we have a lot of power too. If anyone out there cares about making the festival experience a welcoming and non-rapey one, then take a bystander intervention class! How did generally young, straight, white male crowds respond-were they able to grasp what was going on as you presented a feminist perspective, challenging sexism and taking apart their sense of entitlement!? Having seen you live I imagine they must have been terrified! Ha! I don't know about terrified... well, every now and again someone would tell me they were simultaneously afraid and turned on, which I actually really love. I am happy to confuse, if nothing else, and I know I am (or can be) a sexual subject on stage, never an object. But I think any men that really didn't care or get it would just watch something else, there is no reason in the circus that is Warped Tour to keep standing there if you're not into something. So for that reason, we might have avoided some run of the mill heckling. But there were plenty of men and boys who told us they were surprised to realise that they liked our band, and even "got it" after seeing us play live. I don't think even I'd be interested in watching a band of feminist killjoys if the music sucked, so we've got that going for us. Did you get much feedback from women and LGBTQI+ people-they must have been really encouraged!? Yes! All the young trans- and non-binary people, some out and some not out and/or still discovering themselves, they made a point to come say ‘Hi’ to us and talk with us and that was always really wonderful. For some, not only might Warped have been their first show ever, but then to have an overtly trans-supportive band they can watch and feel comfortable in the crowd with? That's a beautiful thing that I feel lucky we could share with them. On the Warped Tour you took a couple of people along to educate in preventing sexual harassment and in bystander intervention (3), did they have positive interactions? I only know what they told me, since I couldn't table all day or I'd lose my voice. They told me of mostly positive interactions, just teaching people basic bystander skills they could use that day at the festival if something came up, or back home the next time they were in a public space. There were some negative experiences, as in someone would come over and question the importance of what they were doing, but the positives far outweighed the negatives. OK, time to talk about the elephant in the room (lame political symbol joke)! The Republicans won the 2016 election which means the USA has Trump as President. Over here we had our version with Brexit. The Leave result seemed to emboldened some racists and xenophobes, what sort of cultural effect did the Trump win have in the USA? Has there been any experiential shift? Same, the bigots are emboldened for sure. But everyone else is a little more awake now, too, realised that they have to fight for what they believe in, it's not just a given anymore. So I have a ton of people approaching me for safer space workshops, who want to learn bystander intervention skills. It's a great way to take control of your own little corner of the world, when everything else seems too overwhelming to handle. Apart from college educated women, the majority in all categories of white voters seemed to have voted Trump including 62% of non college educated white women (5)! What did you feel that revealed about white American identity and white female self esteem that they voted for a man who had been caught boasting about sexual assault? Internalised sexism is a hell of a drug. I mean, people really think they can get ahead as an individual if they rally around the ones oppressing the group they belong to. You see it with sexism, racism, etc. People will tie their worth to the nearest white male, hoping some of that privilege and confidence and ease of moving through the world will rub off on them, and maybe it does for a time, but at what cost? And what happens when things inevitably go south? They will choose their own, these white men, they won't have the back of any women or men of colour when it comes down to it. In January, a year after Trump was inaugurated, there were still big protests in the USA for women's rights and against misogyny and racism (6), has Trump's presidency united feminists and created a lot of male allies-a 'If not me who, if not now when' moment?   Yes, it has. We must keep moving toward a non-violent society, but we're on our way. Victims are being believed more and more, abusers are being taken down, and while keeping all that up the next step is actual accountability and rehabilitation for the ones who have caused harm. All while we avoid creating "untouchable, all-powerful men" by diversifying every meeting, company, board room, movie, etc etc. And has it led to alliances of resistance with other groupings of people? It seems like people get it, that marginalised groups of people, if we fought together, would greatly outnumber the supposed "majority." I feel it in the workshops I run, people know that they must stick up for each other, because who else will do it? You had Kathleen Hanna join you on vocals for the track 'YDTMHTL', did that have a sense of joining the dots, linking up with another artist whose music has also been about female empowerment and challenging gender stereotypes? For me, I just felt lucky enough to work with someone I have admired since Junior High. Really, it was surreal. I must confess, I was being selfish and thinking more about the joy of recording with her than what it might mean for others to hear us link up! What current bands should we be checking out? Krimewatch, Downtrodder, Gouge Away, HIRS, Sick Shit. What plans do WoW have for the rest of 2018? Any trips to Europe? Definitely some touring, and if we can't come to Europe this year then we'll see you next year! Big thanks to Shawna for time, thoughts and words. Photos courtesy of Bridge Nine Records. Bibliography. (1)Pelly, J. (2018), War On Women, ‘Capture The Flag’ https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/war-on-women-capture-the-flag/ (2)’War On Women’, http://www.bridge9.com/waronwomen (3)Westcott, L. (2018), ‘Punk Icon Kathleen Hanne Has Something To Say About Being The ‘Right Kind’ of Feminist’ https://www.popsugar.com/news/Kathleen-Hanna-Interview-April-2018-War-Women-44715727 (4)Potter, S. (2017), ‘Let’s Not Mistake The Dickies’ Onstage Warped Tour Rant For Anything but Misyogeny’ https://noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/mbaa4q/war-on-women-on-the-dickies-warped-tour-rant (5)Henley, J. (2016)’White and wealthy voters gave victory to Donald Trump, exit polls show’ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls (6)Buncombe, A. (2018) ‘Women’s march: Thousands protest against Donald Trump’s ‘racism’ and ‘misogyny’’ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/womens-march-donald-trump-racism-sexism-washington-dc-protest-latest-a8170171.html Read the full article

[mindcoolness]

4 Pro-Immigration Arguments Debunked

New Post has been published on http://www.mindcoolness.com/blog/pro-immigration-arguments-debunked/

4 Pro-Immigration Arguments Debunked

I am writing this blog post for fellow Europeans who, like myself, have been bewildered by leftist propaganda in schools, universities, and the news media for decades. It is one thing to oppose Nazism, but it is another to regard anti-Nazism as the only European value worth protecting. What about our democratic liberties, our ancient mentalities, and our ethnic identities?

If we, particularly Germans and Austrians, define ourselves as the ethnospiritual heirs of Nazism and nothing but, then replacement-level immigration does seem desirable; it sure satisfies our suicidal ethnomasochism. But is that really the best self-definition we can come up with, or is it a collective pathology that our governments have learned to breed and exploit?

Mass immigration is not desirable, nor is it ‘a peripheral political issue unjustly exaggerated by right-wing populists to snatch votes from uneducated, working-class people who feel angry, disenfranchised, and in need of racism to distract themselves from their own problems and shortcomings’. No! Mass immigration is the problem in Europe today, and if we don’t grow free soon from our self-destructive, morally fetishized historical guilt, it will be Europe’s final problem.

But—don’t we need immigration to maintain our economic growth, to secure our welfare states, to culturally enrich our nations, and to not get left behind in the inevitable process of globalization? Well, let’s see. Let’s throw some facts at these liberal lies! (The following four sections are based on chapter three of Douglas Murray’s outstanding book The Strange Death of Europe.)

1. Mass immigration benefits Europe economically.

“Immigrants are important for our economy,” liberals argue, but what are the facts?

Taxpayers are coerced to fund welfare benefits (housing, schooling, healthcare, etc.) for people who have never contributed to the system. For example, immigrants cost the United Kingdom £114-159 billion from 1995 to 2011; in healthcare alone, over £20 million are spent only on translation services every year.

Employers benefit from the immigrants’ willingness to work for lower pay, for it allows them to reduce wages. Too bad for the working class.

The majority of immigrants are poor and poorly educated. Entrepreneurs and migrants with PhDs are the rare exception, and they typically migrate within Europe, not into Europe.

Maybe some low-skilled immigrants are doing the jobs low-skilled Europeans ‘won’t do’, but then they are also keeping them unemployed. Not to mention the racism implied in deeming Europeans to be ‘above’ some kinds of work that non-European immigrants are not.

Given the economic structure of European countries, mass immigration is a net detriment.

2. Mass immigration secures European welfare systems.

“Since Europe is a graying society, we must import young people to secure the retirement benefits for our ageing Europeans,” liberals argue, and they are not entirely wrong. Fertility rates across Europe are too low to maintain native population growth, without which our welfare systems cannot be sustained. Nonetheless, mass immigration is a fallacious solution for this problem for at least three reasons:

“The nation states of Europe include some of the most densely populated countries on the planet. It is not at all obvious that the quality of life in these countries will improve if the population continues growing.” (Murray, p. 45)

Immigrants are not immune to ageing. Who will finance their pensions? Their children or yet another flood of immigrants? The short-term solution of importing an entire generation from abroad to support the older generation feeds into a pyramid scheme that is bound to break. Yet, of course, this is irrelevant for party politicians whose foresight is strictly limited to the next election: better please today’s senior voters and après nous, le déluge.

Even the short-term solution presupposes that immigrants pay more into the system than they take out, which is not what is happening.

A wise politician would correct unsustainable welfare systems (e.g., by raising the retirement age) and give Europeans a feasible opportunity to have more children instead of deterring them by fragmenting their society, destroying their culture, misallocating their tax money, and depressing their wages.

3. Mass immigration enriches Europe’s cultures.

“Even if immigrants are a financial burden, they certainly provide us with invaluable cultural benefits,” liberals argue, disclosing their ethnic self-hatred. Here is why their cultural openness is naive:

It is a common fallacy “that the value of migrants continues to increase as their numbers increase.” For example, “the amount of enjoyment to be got from Turkish food does not increase year on year the more Turks there are in the country. Every 100,000 extra Somalis, Eritreans or Pakistanis who enter Europe do not magnify the resulting cultural enrichment 100,000 times.” (Murray, pp. 51f.)

Praising immigrants for bringing their culture to us entails that they need not assimilate to the host society, but rather that both should adapt to each other. This reveals the euphemism ‘cultural enrichment’ to really mean a coercion to change. Even if the changing part were not seen as so bad, the coercion part certainly is; after all, the electorate has never voted for open borders.

Are liberal values not important for liberals? “A Gallup survey conducted in 2009 in Britain found that precisely zero per cent of British Muslims interviewed (out of a pool of 500) thought that homosexuality was morally acceptable.” (Murray, p. 53) I know, liberals hope that such unacceptable views—meaning ‘unacceptable if natives hold them’—will organically change over time. But what if, conversely, Muslims become the majority over time and make liberal views unacceptable?

After discussing Muslim violence, gang rapes, and female genital mutilation, Murray sarcastically concludes that “the agreement seems to have been reached with the general public that it is not such a bad deal: if there is a bit more beheading and sexual assault than there used to be in Europe, then at least we also benefit from a much wider range of cuisines.” (Murray, p. 57)

Cultural openness is best practiced by traveling around the world and getting to know different cultures, not by inviting them to come to us and replace ours. If we want one culture to expand so much that it replaces others, we are really wishing for anti-diversity. Replacement may still be a few decades away, but it seems more realistic than the illusion of multiculturalism. The pipe dream of intercultural fusion failed to trump the political reality of segregation, and eventually, one culture will prevail over its territorial contenders. Global ethnopluralism might be a better long-term goal.

4. Globalization makes mass immigration inevitable.

“Even if mass immigration doesn’t benefit Europe, there’s no way to stop it because we can’t stop globalization,” liberals argue. This, too, is untrue. Globalization is indeed a reality, but if economic pull and open borders were its necessary corollaries,

then there is no reason why Japan [the world’s third largest economy if measured by nominal GDP] should not currently be experiencing unparalleled waves of immigration from the West. […] Japan has avoided a policy of mass immigration by implementing policies that stop it, dissuade people from staying there, and make it hard to become a citizen if you are not Japanese. Irrespective of whether one agrees with Japan’s policy or not, the country shows that even in this hyper-connected age ‘ possible for a modern economy to avoid the experience of mass immigration and show that such a process is not ‘inevitable’. In the same way, although China is the world’s second largest economy, it is not a destination for asylum seekers or economic migrants on the scale of Europe. (Murray, pp. 58f.)

The real danger of the servile, passive ‘there’s nothing we can do about it’ attitude is that it completely ignores public concerns, which breeds resentment, rage, and radicalization.

What about ethics?

I am aware that many leftists promote mass immigration not for selfish national reasons or because they believe in fatalistic globalization. In their minds, they are doing the ethically right thing. Yet what ethical arguments do they have? Human rights? A bad argument. Liberal values? Values are not necessarily ethical. Humanism? True humanism is nationalistic.

I concede that some utilitarian calculations do favor open borders. However, they do so only if they factor out economic long-term consequences, factor out the perils of letting radical Islam expand unbridledly, and factor out prospective disasters like civil wars. It is not obvious that we will maximize the well-being of conscious creatures by disregarding everything but the emotional impact of tragic individual fates.

Read More

Why Ethnicity Matters: The Scientific Basis of Ethnic Nationalism Not Islam, but the Nazis Killed Europe

[patriotsnet]

How Do Republicans Feel About The Wall

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-do-republicans-feel-about-the-wall/

How Do Republicans Feel About The Wall

Half Of Republicans Believe False Accounts Of Deadly Us Capitol Riot

How do Hispanic Americans truly feel about the border wall?

7 Min Read

WASHINGTON -Since the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies have pushed false and misleading accounts to downplay the event that left five dead and scores of others wounded. His supporters appear to have listened.

Three months after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol to try to overturn his November election loss, about half of Republicans believe the siege was largely a non-violent protest or was the handiwork of left-wing activists trying to make Trump look bad, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll has found.

Six in 10 Republicans also believe the false claim put out by Trump that Novembers presidential election was stolen from him due to widespread voter fraud, and the same proportion of Republicans think he should run again in 2024, the March 30-31 poll showed.

Since the Capitol attack, Trump, many of his allies within the Republican Party and right-wing media personalities have publicly painted a picture of the days events jarringly at odds with reality.

Hundreds of Trumps supporters, mobilized by the former presidents false claims of a stolen election, climbed walls of the Capitol building and smashed windows to gain entry while lawmakers were inside voting to certify President Joe Bidens election victory. The rioters – many of them sporting Trump campaign gear and waving flags – also included known white supremacist groups such as the Proud Boys.

DANGEROUS SPIN ON REALITY

They Just Come For Show

The four House Republicans were unfamiliar with the history of the fight over Santa Ana.

It was not addressed by the Border Patrol agents who led the morning excursion. And by the time E&E News connected with Chapman, the delegation had departed the refuge for a briefing on Border Patrol activities at the local headquarters of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Later, when asked whether Westerman thought the environmental impact of installing a wall at Santa Ana and in other refuge areas was a necessary sacrifice to stop the flow of illegal immigration, the lawmaker said it didnt sound unreasonable.

One hundred and fifty feet kind of sounds like what the right of way would be on a levee, but I dont know, he said. Obviously, if youre going to build a wall, theres going to be clearing. And from what Ive seen, stories Ive heard about human trafficking, the rapes, the deaths yeah, I think its worth building the deterrents.

At the National Butterfly Center a 100-acre nature preserve that was also exempted from having a border wall built on its land in the same 2019 spending package Executive Director Marianna Trevino Wright said she thought the GOP lawmakers were ignorant by choice.

I think they have no idea, Trevino Wright asserted. They come just for show. Theyre not interested.

The real litterbugs, she contended, were the officers with Border Patrol.

There’s Something Happening Here

But he uses a different touchstone: Occupy Wall Street, the left-leaning anti-establishment movement that blossomed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

“This is Occupy Wall Street Part 2, but this time it is on their turf, and there are real financial consequences,” he said. LeGate, who received a $100,000 Thiel fellowship to drop out of college and start a company when he was 18 years old in 2013, has been watching the WallStreetBets Reddit discussion for several years.

He said he is seeing increasing frustration and anger, which is exploding in the Covid pandemic era and it is bringing together the traditional political left and right.

“People were willing to take a risk on Trump and now they’re willing to take a risk in the markets,” he said. “A lot of people just want to see the world burn right now, and they’re enjoying watching it happen.”

He said he’s already seeing people on the WallStreetBets Reddit page looking for new targets and there are two themes. First, they’re looking for highly shorted stocks where big hedge funds might have a lot of leverage. And second, they’re looking for nostalgia plays to bring back the companies from their youth. That’s why Nokia, Blackberry and Blockbuster are all getting attention.

Border Walls In The Middle East

One major proof of concept that Republicans supporting a Mexican border wall cite is the success of similar walls in the Middle East. For example, walls along the Israeli-Palestinian border reportedly cut down illegal immigration between the countries. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who is also the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, stated that he was impressed with a system of fences he had inspected along the Israeli border with Palestinian territories. Johnson stated Im always looking for best practices. Its been incredibly effective. They had thousands of illegal immigrants; its down to the teens.

House Republicans Propose $10 Billion For Trumps Border Wall

House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a plan to provide $10 billion for President Donald Trumps border wall with Mexico, a bill unlikely to clear the Senate but which could fuel a shutdown fight in December.

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul said his panel will vote on the legislation next week. The bill also would add 10,000 more border patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers, tap the National Guard to patrol the southern border and target people who have overstayed visas.

Now that we have a partner in the White House who has made this a top priority, its time to send a bill to President Trumps desk so we can deliver the American people the security they have long demanded and deserve, McCaul said in a statement.

The bill represents Republicans opening salvo in both the looming year-end government funding fight and high-stakes negotiations over undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

It almost certainly wont pass the Senate, where at least eight Democrats would be needed to clear a 60-vote threshold.

Partisans Approve Their Partys Approach To Shutdown Negotiations Disapprove Of Other Partys

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 76% approve of how Trump is handling shutdown talks, including 50% who say they strongly approve of Trumps approach. In contrast, just 4% of Democrats approve of Trumps handling of the negotiations, while 93% disapprove .

The overall pattern is similar in views of Republican leaders in Congress: 69% of Republicans approve of their partys leaders handling of negotiations, while just 10% of Democrats approve.

And while about seven-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners approve of the way Democratic leaders in Congress are handling the shutdown negotiations, just 11% of Republicans say the same.

Republicans Pray For A Border Crisis To Bring Biden Down

Joe Biden and his programs are popular. Republicans cant lay a glove on him. So theyve settled on immigration as the way to drag him into the mud.

Guillermo Arias/Getty

Republicans are crazy about immigration. No, really. The issue makes them loco. Just listen to the things theyre saying. Many of them have lost touch with reality.

Or maybe Republicans are crazy like a fox. The GOP seems to have once again pinned all of its hopes for retaking powerin this case, by winning back control of the Senate in the 2022 midterm elections and possibly regaining seats in the House of Representativeson the immigration issue. If either of those things happen, Republicans will be in decent shape to try to retake the White House in 2024.

President Joe Biden has only been in office for about 60 days, and Republicans who want to attack him and his administration dont have a lot of material with which to work.

Thats what some of the current fearmongering over the situation at the U.S.-Mexico borderabout half of itis all about. The other half is made up of good ol fashioned nativism and racism. Thats one reason why Republicans act like the prospect of what could turn out to be 100,000 would-be refugees from Central America mostly women and children is the end of Western civilization as we know it.

Here we are again. And the same Republicans who were quiet and subdued when former President Donald Trump confronted this same problem now cant stop talking about this being a crisis.

Republicans Spent Two Years Resisting Trumps Border Wall What Changed

Since the government shutdown 25 days ago, Republicans have largely defended the need for a border wall. While there appear to be some cracks in support, most are standing by the presidents insistence on funding.

As recently as September, The Washington Post described it this way:

The same Republican lawmakers who rushed through the tax bill Trump wanted, confirmed his first Supreme Court pick and are fighting to defend his second, and have remained largely deferential amid multiple scandals, have taken a far different approach when it comes to one of Trumps most memorable campaign promises deeming the wall to be impractical, unrealistic and too costly.

Most GOP lawmakers didnt come right out and say that, of course.

Instead, for the first two years of Trumps presidency, GOP lawmakers avoided the wall debate completely. In September 2017, USA Today took on the laborious task of surveying every member of Congress to determine their position on Trumps wall. At the time, the White House was requesting $1.6 billion to begin wall construction. The survey found that just 69 of the 292 Republicans in Congress said they supported Trumps funding request. Three outright opposed it, but the majority avoided answering the question directly.

Shortly after Trumps inauguration, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham , Trumps onetime nemesis turned close ally, told Politico that the border wall is probably not a smart investment.

Every Congressperson Along Southern Border Opposes Border Wall Funding

How would Republicans build Donald Trump’s wall? BBC News

Nine congressional representatives serve the districts that line the 2,000-mile southern border. They are men, women, freshman politicians and Washington veterans. The Democrats among them span liberal ideologies, while one of them is a Republican.

But they all have one thing in common: each is against President Donald Trump‘s border wall.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a multi-bill package that provided funding for federal agencies and reinstated Department of Homeland Security appropriations without offering any new border wall funding. All nine of the politicians serving in districts along the border voted in favor of the bills, which were an effective rebuke of the Trump administration’s request for $5.7 billion in border wall funding.

“It’s a 4th-century solution to a 21st century problem,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, a Democrat and one of the lawmakers along the southern border who voted against funding the wall.

Gonzalez doesn’t oppose border security. He said, “Nobody wants stronger border control than me.” But he’s against adding to the existing border wall because he doesn’t “think it brings real border security and it comes at a major cost to taxpayers,” the lawmaker said Tuesday in a telephone interview with CBS News.

“At the time I thought we were going to be able to have a reasonable conversation,” Gonzalez said. “I had no idea it was going to get this crazy.”

Everybody Look What’s Going Down

Holmes believes the key to understanding the power of this new movement is the gamification of investing melded with an anti-elite fervor. Sticking it to hedge funds and potentially making a lot of money is, simply, fun. And if you believe its also the right thing to do, and thrive on the engagement of a community of like-minded traders, so much the better.

“When things really get going is when the fun meets the purpose,” Holmes said. “This is the perfect storm of those two.”

His warning to Wall Street is: understand this. Be willing to scrutinize yourself. This not going away, and it is probably bigger than you think.

“People need to take the time to understand the social dynamics of this. What are the problems that have created this class of retail investor who seek to completely destroy your industry, and how do you remedy that?” Holmes said.

Holmes said he has spent the past decade watching American politics turned inside out. An earlier generation of politicians spent their time raising money at country club ballrooms from hundreds of donors writing $500 or $1,000 checks.

But now they spend their time on the internet raising money from millions of donors making $5 and $20 contributions. In politics, the retail money turned out to be bigger much bigger — than the institutional money. And that’s driven massive political spending inflation: the big Senate campaigns that once cost $15 million now cost $100 million.

There’s Battle Lines Being Drawn

But what explains that nostalgic impulse in the midst of a revolution? It is the same emotion that animated the MAGA movement which, after all, stood for make America great, again. It is a desire to return to an earlier time that the members of the movement remember as better than today.

“There’s a feeling I sense across society that people want to go back to a simpler time,” LeGate said. “No one likes Covid. People don’t feel the economy is fair. Everything looks better in hindsight.”

And he argues that efforts to regulate trading will feel to Reddit traders more like suppression, and could fuel more anger.

“If someone on Main Street loses half their portfolio in a day, nothing’s going to happen. But if a hedge fund does, they literally stop the trading,” he said. “I myself question whether this is really about protecting the individual investor or protecting the hedge fund.”

Public Disapproves Of How Shutdown Negotiations Are Being Handled

Most Americans offer negative evaluations of the way that the nations political leaders in both parties Donald Trump, Democratic congressional leaders and Republican congressional leaders are handling negotiations over the shutdown.

Overall, just 36% of the public approves of how Trump is handling negotiations over the government shutdown, including 23% who say they strongly approve. About six-in-ten disapprove of Trumps approach to the negotiations, including 53% who say they strongly disapprove.

Views of how Republican leaders in Congress are handling shutdown negotiations generally parallel evaluations of Trump. Six-in-ten Americans say they disapprove of the way Republican congressional leaders are handling negotiations, while just 36% say they approve. However, fewer Americans characterize their views of GOP leaders handling of negotiations as strong approval or disapproval than say this about the president.

Public views of Democratic leaders handling of the shutdown talks are somewhat more positive than views of Trump or GOP leaders. Still, more disapprove than approve .

Intensity Of Trumps Support Increases

Also in the poll, 46 percent of voters approve of President Trumps job performance, which is consistent with the other NBC/WSJ polls over the past year and a half.

But other numbers in the survey his strong job approval ticking up to its all-time high, his positive rating jumping to its highest level since after his inauguration prompts GOP pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies to call this Trumps best NBC/WSJ poll in three years.

Still, 49 percent of all voters say they are very uncomfortable about Trump when it comes to his re-election bid in 2020.

Thats compared with 43 percent who are very uncomfortable with Sanders, 36 percent with Warren and 35 percent with Biden.

Klobuchar: Trump’s Actions Are Like A ‘global Watergate’ Scandal

Today, as Democrats in the House of Representatives move toward bringing articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, with the next Judiciary Committee hearing of evidence set for Monday, few Democrats are still clinging to the hope that Republicans will reach a breaking point with Trump like they did with Nixon.

“I really don’t think there is any fact that would change their minds,” Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told NBC News.

Why? Two key changes since Nixon: a massive divide in American political life we hate the other team more than ever before and a media climate that fuels and reinforces that chasm, powered by Fox News on the Republican side.

Himes said he was “a little stunned by the unanimity on the Republican side,” especially among retiring lawmakers who don’t have to worry about surviving a GOP primary had they gone against Trump. “We’re in a place right now where all that matters to my Republican colleagues is the defense of the president,” he added.

No Republican congressmen have said they support impeachment. In the Senate, the entire GOP voted to condemn the impeachment inquiry, except for three moderates: Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The three have stopped short of saying they support Trump’s impeachment, however, and it would take at least 20 Republican senators to vote to convict him in a Senate trial for removal to succeed.

What Do Republicans Believe In

Do all Republicans believe the same things? Of course not. Rarely do members of a single political group agree on all issues. Even among Republicans, there are differences of opinion. As a group, they do not agree on every issue.

Some folks vote Republican because of fiscal concerns. Often, that trumps concerns they may have about social issues. Others are less interested in the fiscal position of the party. They vote they way they do because of religion. They believe Republicans are the party of morality. Some simply want less government. They believe only Republicans can solve the problem of big government. Republicans spend less . They lower taxes: some people vote for that alone.

However, the Republican Party does stand for certain things. So I’m answering with regard to the party as a whole. Call it a platform. Call them core beliefs. The vast majority of Republicans adhere to certain ideas.

So what do Republicans believe? Here are their basic tenets:

Questions Ahead Of The Democratic National Convention

Andrew Redleaf, founder of the hedge fund company Whitebox Advisors, has been a Republican donor in the past. He gave to the campaign of 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He calls himself a libertarian conservative who favors free trade and immigration.

This year, he’s given money to the Lincoln Project, a group of conservative never-Trumpers who are running scathing ads against the president in swing states.

“I’d like there to be a right-of-center, limited-government party … which is not the Trumpist Republican Party,” Redleaf says.

Redleaf is wary of Democrats and has no particular affection for Biden.

But the former vice president is a known commodity on Wall Street and is widely seen as a more centrist, acceptable alternative to more liberal Democrats who ran for president, such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Biden has also been a top recipient of financial industry money for decades as a senator from Delaware, home to financial and credit card companies.

“He’s not somebody that the industry is particularly afraid of,” Bryner says. “So I think that we would see them kind of hopeful that he would be a more moderating influence, whereas Trump can be quite unpredictable.”

Widening Party Divide Over Expanding The Border Wall

El Chapo financing Trump border wall is a yes vote: GOP lawmaker

Public views of a U.S.-Mexico border wall have changed little over the past three years. But the partisan gap has widened, as Republicans have become more supportive of a border wall, while Democratic support has declined.

Currently, 58% of Americans oppose substantially expanding the wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, while 40% favor the proposal.

Since early 2016, roughly six-in-ten Americans have opposed building or expanding the border wall .

Yet partisan differences are now wider than they have ever been. Today, 82% of Republicans and Republican leaners favor substantially expanding the wall along the U.S-Mexico border. Over the past year alone, Republican support for expanding the border wall has increased 10 percentage points . Over the same period, the share of Democrats who favor expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall has declined from 13% to 6%.

Conservative Republicans and Republican leaners overwhelmingly favor expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall . Moderate and liberal Republicans are somewhat less supportive .

Overwhelming shares of both liberal Democrats and conservative and moderate Democrats oppose expanding the border wall.

As in the past, opinions about expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall are divided by race, education and age. Whites are more than twice as likely as blacks or Hispanics to favor expanding the border wall.

Why Do Republicans Behave The Way They Do

Why are the Republicans so mean-spirited when it comes to the poor and so indulgent when it comes to the rich?

Why are the Republicans so mean-spirited when it comes to the poor and so indulgent when it comes to the rich? Thats the incessant question as posed by liberals today about the partys now enacted tax reform. Not only does the bill include another attack on Obamacare, but it provides the pretext the need to reduce deficits to go after other long-held goals, the end of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. 

The answer should be obvious by now. Republicans behave as they do because they can get away with it! Its no more complicated than that. 

Contrary to liberal opinion, Republican politics isnt out of the mainstream provided we push the clock back sufficiently. A political economy without social services and entitlements is in fact the default position of the capitalist mode of production from its inception. If recent comments from Republican Sens. Orin Hatch and Charles Grassley sound like characters from a Charles Dickens novel their barely disguised contempt for the working poor that should come as no surprise. Such attitudes were almost de rigueur for ruling elites in capitals long ascent. The constant refrain of the rich Why should we be taxed to pay for the education of the children of the irresponsible poor?  explains why public school education became a widely accepted norm only in the 20th century. 

How Dems aided and abetted

What Republicans And Democrats Have In Common On Wall Street Regulation

The Democratic and Republican parties disagree on most major issues. When it comes to Wall Street, however, it’s a mixed bag. Take the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

Democrats believe the bill has reined in the type of out-of-control behavior that led to the near collapse of the banking industry in 2008 and prevented a similar crisis. Republicans have criticized the legislation calling it “the Democrats legislative Godzilla.” They feel the financial regulations have made it too difficult for small lenders and community banks and has indirectly slowed the growth of small businesses. 

Regulation of the financial services industry has been a major issue not only in the current presidential election but in house and senate races. Democrats believe that the electorate largely sides with them that banks have overstepped and that they can use their position to win votes and take back the Senate. Republicans currently hold a majority 54 votes. Because of gerrymandering rules, Democrats will have a tougher time retaking the House.  

Dodd-Frank was intended to increase transparency and accountability in the financial services industry and to protect consumers. Among other things, the bill created a new consumer protection agency and standards for a number of common financial services products. 

A Shift In Immigration Thinking

Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois is one of the Houses most outspoken Democrats on immigration reform, and she understands this shift, and believes it is essential. Lives are at stake and the lives of Dreamers are more important to me than bricks, Gutierrez said. If advocates would reject any money for Trumps wall in exchange for freedom and legalization and eventual citizenship for the Dreamers, I understand their choice, but for my part, I would lay bricks myself if I thought it would save the Dreamers. For me, the very real attacks on legal immigration are far greater threats than bricks and drones and technology on the border.

This shift has also led Democratic views on a border wall to soften in general. As Trump has become less demanding, Democrats have begun to consider what type of barrier, and what size, they would be willing to agree to if push came to shove. The 2,000 mile wall that Democrats had feared would be a looming symbol of America turning inward on itself is becoming something closer to the 2006 plan; some new barriers, some new monitoring technology, and that is somewhat agreeable to Democrats, especially if they can garner support in other arenas in exchange for it.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): This is usually the point in the primary season where the field has started to winnow — candidates who’ve had poor performances in Iowa or New Hampshire drop out. But no such luck this year. The debate stage tomorrow is actually getting larger, not smaller, if you can believe it.

But even though the field remains crowded, there’s an increasingly clear front-runner: Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders won, and he won pretty handily — he won the final, realigned popular vote by 21.6 points, so Sanders’s odds are pretty good in our model: He’s got a 45 percent shot of winning the majority of pledged delegates.

However, South Carolina, which is where the primary moves next, could be a bit of a curveball for Sanders, as it’s Biden — not Sanders — who is in the lead there. Things are really close, though, so it’s probably best thought of as a tie. But it also means the stakes at tomorrow’s debate are pretty high. Biden is banking on a strong performance and winning South Carolina, while other candidates like former Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar need to demonstrate that they’re can build diverse coalitions, something they struggled to do in Nevada.

So what are you looking for going into tonight? Will the candidates finally attack Sanders as the front-runner?

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): Buttigieg’s post-Nevada speech was basically a series of attacks on Sanders. Biden’s had some elements of that, too. Former Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg is coming after Sanders. Tom Steyer, too. Yes, I think this debate will have several people going hard after Sanders, looking really toward Super Tuesday.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I think this whole week is gonna be CAN ANYONE STOP BERNIE SANDERS?!?!?!?!?!?!? week and that theme is likely to feature heavily at the debate.

The thing about Sanders is that he’s a pretty steady (if not always spectacular) debater and not the easiest guy to knock off-kilter.

And if it seems like everyone is attacking him, well, that plays into his message in certain ways.

sarahf: Yeah, and to Perry’s point, Buttigieg really didn’t mince words on Saturday when he told supporters that Sanders is waging an “inflexible ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats.” But I’m struggling to wrap my head around how accurate that claim is. Buttigieg came in third in Nevada — significantly behind Sanders. So is Sanders’s “revolution” really leaving out most Democrats? Seems like a fair share of Democrats have been happy to vote for Sanders so far!

Buttigieg and the other moderates need to come up with something better, no?

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): It’s possible they need something better, but things might look different if a couple of the more moderate candidates got out of the way. Sanders might still lead the field — recent national polls suggest he would — but if a few folks dropped out, it would make it a lot clearer who the alternative to Sanders is. At the moment, there isn’t really one obvious answer to that question. Yet, there’s plenty of evidence that points to the idea that many Democrats might not want Sanders as the nominee. After all, Sanders only won between 25 to 34 percent of the initial popular vote in Iowa and Nevada (so before realignment), and just 26 percent overall in New Hampshire — not exactly an overwhelming share of support.

natesilver: I don’t know … a lot of Democrats do want a more moderate nominee, at least in the abstract. And many associate moderation with electability.

Calling Bernie out as being uncompromising is maybe not a bad line of attack either, since Democrats tend to like compromise.

perry: Ten days of sustained attacks on Sanders could dip his numbers. It would help if the other candidates maybe moved away from Medicare for All, which seems likely it’s decently popular among Democratic primary voters, and found ways to attack him on different issues, though.

natesilver: I do think there’s something about sustained vs. sporadic attacks that matters here.

Like, few things in politics are truly new. Bernie has been around for a while. But there’s always been some shinier object that was rising in the polls — Harris! Warren! Buttigieg! Bloomberg! — that was always more the center of attention, but now that’s changed with Sanders being truly at the center.

perry: Also, a big part of the next 10 days or so is the other candidates working to keep Sanders in the 25-to-33 percent range. But if Democratic voters start falling in line and accepting Sanders as the inevitable nominee, and he gets closer to 40 percent in some states, that would be bad for the others.

natesilver: Yeah, it sorta feels like part of what candidates may be hoping to do is to prevent him from rising further, rather than actually lowering his numbers.

Because he’s likely to get a bounce from Nevada, so even if he has a mediocre debate/the scrutiny hurts him a bit, it might just cancel that out — not actually make his numbers negative relative to where he stood, pre-Nevada.

geoffrey.skelley: I do wonder if the fact that the stage will be even more crowded plays into that to some extent, Nate. Because Steyer has made this debate, there’ll be seven participants this time around, so if you’re trying to stand out as the No.1 alternative to Sanders, that might be even harder. Especially because I assume Bloomberg will still get a lot of attention, even though his standing may have taken a hit after the last debate.

natesilver: It’s kind of a big moment for Sanders, Bloomberg AND Biden, since Biden clearly needs to win South Carolina.

But I do think we’re at the point now where it’s in the mutual interest of every other candidate for Sanders to struggle. There are no longer tactical considerations that outweigh that.

If Sanders gets say, 26 percent of the vote on Super Tuesday instead of 34 percent, that’s a big deal and makes it much more likely that someone else wins.

perry: What was useful last week, in attacking Bloomberg, was that the candidates said interesting stuff — like Warren demanding on stage that Bloomberg release women who were former employees of his company from non-disclosure agreements. So a smart approach from at least one of the non-Sanders candidates would be to attack him in a way that goes beyond questions of electability and Medicare For All, etc.

sarahf: Is it enough for Biden to win South Carolina at this point if the margin between him and Sanders is really close, though? Or does Biden really need it to be as decisive as, say, Nevada was for Sanders?

natesilver: Our model says that the margin matters at the margins, but it’s mostly winning that counts.

Now, if Biden wins by 20 points, maybe we’re in a situation where “it’s not clear who’s the favorite anymore” vs. if he wins by 2 points, the story is, “at least this is still interesting, but Sanders is still in the best position.”

If he LOSES by 2 points, though, it’s hard to see his campaign recovering, and it puts Sanders in a very, very good position.

perry: It would be ideal for Biden to win South Carolina and be the clear second-place finisher on Super Tuesday, so as to flush out the other candidates and get it down to a two-person race. But if come next Wednesday, Biden has won South Carolina and Alabama (two states that vote in the next 10 days that have large black Democratic electorates) but finished say, third or worse in California and Texas, that is not ideal for him — or the people who want Sanders to be defeated.

geoffrey.skelley: Obviously, an unexpectedly large margin would be good for Biden, and the media might be quite open to a comeback narrative, but it’s hard to know at this point how strong Biden’s lead is there.

One potential bit of good news for the Biden camp is that longtime South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, who is the highest ranking African American in Congress, may endorse Biden on Wednesday. This endorsement could be huge for Biden and would signal either that more black voters are ready to line up behind Biden, or it’d be enough to push some undecided black voters into Biden’s camp.

perry: Yeah, the CBS/YouGov poll released on Sunday suggested a fairly close race in South Carolina: Biden at 28 percent, Sanders 23 percent, and Steyer 18 percent.

But maybe a big push by black, pro-Biden officials like Clyburn and a sustained week of attacks on Sanders makes it less close. There is no big early voting drive in South Carolina like there was in Nevada, so the events of this week will matter.

natesilver: It’s a little hard to figure out where the conventional wisdom is on South Carolina. Do people see it as a toss-up? Or still as Biden’s state to win?

The polls are closer to a toss-up, although they slightly tilt toward Biden. It’s important to note, though, that we don’t have any post-Nevada polling yet.

I would also note that there’s a tendency for the polls in South Carolina to underrate the candidate who has more black support — namely Obama in 2008 and Clinton in 2016. Anecdotally, there seems to be some evidence that black voters are more likely to tell pollsters they’re undecided, and that seems to be true in South Carolina as well. In the Marist poll, for instance, 13 percent of black voters said they were undecided vs. 5 percent of whites.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, Nate, I realize this is anecdotal, but when I was down in South Carolina a week ago at a Biden event at a historically black church, a couple of voters told me they weren’t sure about supporting Biden, but they also didn’t really have another person they were considering.

perry: Sanders released his campaign schedule for this week, and at least as of right now, he is in Virginia on Saturday and South Carolina on Friday. On the other hand, Biden is in South Carolina both days. Sanders was also in Texas for the Nevada caucuses.

His team is super-focused on Super Tuesday, which is smart. But it also tells me that while they want to win South Carolina, they are not necessarily expecting a win, nor are they going to kill themselves to get one.

natesilver: According to the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast, that strategy might be short-sighted, i.e., they’d be better off going for the kill in South Carolina because that makes it so hard for Biden to come back.

But maybe they aren’t super confident about their prospects in South Carolina and want to lower expectations. There’s this tendency to look at African American voters as a monolith when the ones in South Carolina are liable to be far more conservative than the ones in, say, Nevada, among whom Bernie did fairly well.

perry: The other weird thing about South Carolina is Steyer. I tend to think he will decline in the polls as the week goes forward, and that he will be closer to polling in the low teens than the high teens. But I also don’t know who his support would go to. But maybe I’m wrong, and he does really well. He has spent a lot of time in the state, particularly in courting black voters.

sarahf: Where does South Carolina leave the other candidate who aren’t Biden or Sanders, though? As we’ve said, it’s important Biden wins there because he’s made so much of his campaign about his ability to win black voters. But what if Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren all finish in the single digits again?

Do they power through to Super Tuesday, even though this will now be the second state where they’ve failed to build strong, diverse coalitions?

natesilver: Our model doesn’t think Buttigieg has much of a path, although it’s worth noting that he’s had pretty good results so far (1st/2nd/3rd or 2nd/2nd/3rd if you prefer) so it seems a little much for people to be asking that he should drop out. His problem is that there aren’t any Midwestern states on Super Tuesday except for Minnesota, where Klobuchar is a big problem for him. But he’s closed strongly relative to his polling averages in most states so, I dunno, I guess he’s just hoping to do so again.

Warren has a — somewhat good! — excuse to continue based on her post-debate polling looking stronger.

I don’t get what Klobuchar is doing. Or Steyer, frankly.

geoffrey.skelley: Warren remains not that far behind Biden and Bloomberg in national polls. Whereas, yeah, Klobuchar is at about 5 percent in our national polling average, and Steyer is at 2 percent. Even if Steyer gets a strong third in South Carolina, I don’t see a path opening up for him in Super Tuesday states.

perry: Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren should be in South Carolina some this week to prevent being cast as ignoring black voters. But they should try to do as little as possible there. Super Tuesday just has better opportunities for them than a state in the South where the majority of the electorate is black. Not to mention, Steyer has camped there for weeks.

natesilver: Having Super Tuesday SO close to South Carolina is sort of an important wrinkle in the scheduling.

And probably a flaw, I’d say.

sarahf: Wait, why a flaw, Nate?

natesilver: Because it doesn’t really give voters and the candidates time to react to South Carolina? Or, conversely, maybe you get a fleeting reaction that isn’t durable?

perry: I agree with Nate. The first state with a lot of black voters is scheduled when the candidates also have a lot of incentive to focus on Super Tuesday, and it’s just difficult to manage.

sarahf: It seems as if campaigning in the Super Tuesday states has been really hard across the board, and only Sanders and Bloomberg have done an OK job of it, especially in California and Texas, which are delegate-rich.

natesilver: Well, maybe more advertising than campaigning in Bloomberg’s case. There’s been some of the latter but a lot of the former, obviously.

And if Bloomberg continues to slump in the polls, we could be looking at a case where he finishes just UNDER 15 percent in most places, and therefore, receives few delegates of his own, but nonetheless takes away 13 to 14 percent of the vote from other moderates. That would be very, very, very helpful to Sanders.

Conversely, if Bloomberg gets 20 percent, he would at least win some delegates and lower Sanders’s total, which isn’t as good for Bernie.

geoffrey.skelley: With that in mind, I wonder if we see a lot of Bloomberg bashing again in this debate and maybe not quite as much Sanders bashing as you’d expect. Pushing Bloomberg down probably helps someone like Biden a fair bit, and obviously in the last debate he was the chief target of criticism.

sarahf: That’s a good point, Geoff. But some of what happens next seems to hinge on Biden actually pulling off a strong victory in South Carolina. With the field still so crowded it’s hard for me to understand how the “moderates” mount a credible threat to Sanders at this point, when they’re all still in the process of competing with each other. It seems like the kind of chaos that Sanders mainly benefits from. Is that fair?

natesilver: For what it’s worth, I don’t think whether the chaos benefits Sanders is as clear as people assume.

If you have so much chaos that you wind up with a contested convention, that doesn’t necessarily benefit Sanders!

And he isn’t necessarily an underdog if the race comes down to 1-on-1. He might be a favorite, in fact, in several of the matchups. Would you rather bet on Sanders or Mayor Pete head-to-head, for instance? I’d take Bernie.

You could also wind up with a scenario — if last week’s debate had a big impact — where the three most viable candidates going forward are Sanders, Warren and Biden, which is a “chaotic” scenario that is not so great for Sanders.

geoffrey.skelley: Sanders may be aided by a crowded field in that, many candidates won’t crack the 15 percent delegate mark statewide or in most districts. That means, if say, Sanders wins 30 percent statewide and in most districts while another candidate wins 15 percent exactly, with the rest splitting the vote and finishing under 15 percent, then Sanders ends up with about two-thirds of the delegates that state has to offer. In a place like California, that works out pretty well for him!

perry: I think the lane stuff is both relevant and not perfect. Do I think it would help Biden or Buttigieg if either were the only candidate against Sanders? Probably. But I absolutely do not think that Sanders would keep just his current 25 to 30 percent and Biden would get the other 70 percent. The reasons this field is so fractured and Sanders keeps winning are: 1) Sanders is pretty popular among Democrats, and 2) The center-left candidates all have some flaws (Buttigieg’s weak numbers among black and Latino voters, for example).