Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Timsup2nothin, Nov 7, 2018.
And look it say he is a Muslim on wiki but they spelt it wrong, yes we must invade!
Born in D.C., but he's now a foreign Muslim communist terrorist? Yet another reason America must invade! USA! USA! USA!
There hasn't actually been a pro-Democrat trend in Florida over the past two decades; it's been marginally more Republican than the nation as a whole the entire time. Here are the presidential results:
2000: R+0.01, national PV was D+0.5
2004: R+5.0, national PV was R+2.4
2008: D+2.8, national PV was D+7.3
2012: D+0.9, national PV was D+3.9
2016: R+1.2, national PV was D+2.1
I suspect what's happening is that new arrivals skew old, and old white people skew Republican. But you're certainly right that felon re-enfranchisement is a huge gain for the Dems. Hopefully no BS is concocted to try to overturn the amendment.
The overall assumption you make - that Republicans are in decline in general because of demographics and Democratic gains in suburbs - doesn't really hold across the board for the next decade. Trump pulled his upset in 2016 mostly by shifting white working-class voters from R+26 to R+39 (IIRC), and that was enough to flip the Midwest. The Dems can't actually win the white working-class demographic and shouldn't try, but it's really important that they not lose it too badly.
Like it or not, appealing to Midwestern small city/small town/rural voters is still going to be important through the 2020s at least.
If the Democrats manage to win back PA, MI, and WI, and hold everything else Clinton won, they'll win the election. That shouldn't be too difficult if the candidate is more competent at appealing to voters than Hillary Clinton. Still, we'll see.
Approximately 10% of Florida's potential voters were barred from voting because of felony convictions. If we assume they skew Democrat 70-30, and have a 30% turnout rate, then it translates to 10% * 40% (D margin) * 30% = 1.2%. That's big for Florida since the state is so closely divided, although it is still "only" a little over a percentage point, roughly.
I don't think there is anywhere else where the "suppress the vote to hold the line" effort has been more apparent. Every election the state skews more blue, and every election the GOP cheats a little bit harder to hold on. But the tide continues to come in, and the panicked GOP building a sea wall can't keep up forever. The direct appeal to the voters through a proposition to undo on aspect of the voter suppression, unless the GOP finds an equally effective counter, dynamites their seawall. And once it blows there's no recovery. Put the Democrats in charge and they undo a bunch more of the voter suppression tricks. That'll be all she wrote for the GOP in Florida.
Pretty much the same thing applies in any artificially 'purple' state. The demographics are continuously skewing further blue, and artificial means are being used to keep them red. That makes the inevitable breach catastrophic for the GOP when it finally happens.
It's going to be interesting with a Democratic governor in office to counter suppression to see just how red Kansas really is.
Without the Walker machinery skewing the results what happens in Wisconsin? Is Michigan actually a battleground with no Republican governor to put a thumb on the scale?
Is there any reason to think that Hamilton's ambitions were anything more than just ambitions? The day-dreams of one leader don't imply a popular taste for foreign wars. While Jefferson's imperialism is a matter of practical fact. An "Empire of Liberty" is still an empire. At any rate, my point is not so much to defend the Federalists as to cast scepticism on the revolutionary credentials of "the Revolution of 1800". It's not obvious that the election represented a fundamental turning point in the great arc of American history towards a modern-ish liberal-ish democracy-ish, or if it simply represented one of two more-or-less parallel paths, and it's still less obviously if it represented the more or less bloody of those two paths.
Well, he supported it, while embodying none of its principles. The French Revolution abolished slavery; Jefferson died a slaver. Guy talked a bigger game than he was ever prepared to play.
Yes. Hamilton created a partisan Federalist army, and during his suppression of the Whisky Rebellion he acted like the tyrant he wanted to be. The plan for military dictatorship in the US was only averted because George Washington got cold feet at the last moment.
"Jefferson won the election of 1800 and the Federalists lost"
This isn't my position. My position is that the revolution if 1800 is probably why we didn't get an actual monarchy or military dictatorship in the US. And it delayed the advent of fully-alienating capitalism by a few decades at least. There was always going to be a genocide and a land grab on the continent: that was locked in by the War of Independence, possibly even earlier.
Sure, but still offering verbal support for the revolution was better than denouncing it as an attack on civilization and trying to use the Jacobins as an excuse to repress your political opponents which is what the Federalists did.
If there was ever a good excuse to suppress political dissidents, a mob of them beheading public figures is a pretty good one, to be fair.
"Public figures" appointed by the monarchy and drawn from the aristocracy were fair game, as far as I'm concerned.
The Jacobins were killing lawyers, restaurant owners, and their own supporters dude. They didn't call it the Reign of Terror because it was a muted response.
Right, but the point is that it was silly of the Federalists to accuse the Democratic-Republicans of being secret Jacobins plotting a Reign of Terror in the US.
The US Army was a Federalist project more or less by default; it may have suited Hamilton's designs that its officer corps leaned strongly Federalist, but there was never really any likelihood of it leaning otherwise, because its officer corps was only going to be staffed by people who in favour of a standing regular army, which is to say, Federalists. Refusing to form an army because its officers won't be political unaffiliated may represent some sort of fair play, but it doesn't make a lot of sense from a policy perspective, at least when there's no clear reason to believe that the political leanings of the officer corps would have a direct influence on public life. There are a lots of reasons to think that a standing army is a bad idea, but that it was unfair to the Democratic-Republicans is not one which I really think carries a lot of merit.
I don't really know where this stuff about military dictatorship comes from. Hamilton was pretty gung-ho against using the military in a "public order" role, but that was standard practice for European powers at the time. Even the oh-so-liberal British had used the military in that role in America during the Revolutionary period, and would continue to do so in Britain the 1940s (and in Ireland and other colonies,w into the 1990s). It's possible, however unsavoury, for a civilian authority to use military force against civilians without themselves turning into a military dictatorship. (Or even a civilian dictatorship; many of the historical spectres conjoured by the phrase "military dictatorship" were really civilian dictators with a penchant for uniforms. For every Francisco Franco there's a Porfirio Diaz.)
The most repressive measure proposed by John Adams- who appear as a sort of co-Satan with Hamilton, in your narrative, which is curious casting given the relationship between the two men- was quite moderate by the standards of contemporary leaders. It seems deeply bizarre to fixate on the shortcomings of a premier who would, if placed among the ranks of British Prime Ministers, have appeared a bleeding-heart liberal, while waving away the Jefferon administration's taking the first concrete steps towards two hundred years of imperialism as something that was always going to happen anyway.
The slavery thing is still kind of a deal-breaker for me.
They mostly killed people who pretty much had it coming. There was just a much higher margin of error than would be accepted under normal circumstances.
They also killed rather less people than the Girondins did in their frankly insane attempt to wage war against the crowned heads of Europe, and less than the conservatives in the bloody reprisals of the White Terror. And neither, as Mark Twain observed, could rival the death toll of a thousand years of French monarchy. Jacobinism gained its reputation less because of the number of people they killed, or who they killed, or even how they killed them, but because the people who got to write the histories, at least in the English-speaking world, decided it was the reputation they deserved. In France, and in Europe generally, it's much more contentious, and you'll find no shortage of sober-minded French republicans willing to swear that Robespierre was a good man in difficult circumstances.
Hamilton was plotting a military coup against the Continental Congress in the early 1780s.
I mean, except when he used it in exactly this way in suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. This isn't some sort of small detail in the history, either - Hamilton explicitly wanted to compel testimony so that he could hang his political opponents for treason. And his actions in suppressing the rebellion were later cited by John Yoo as precedent for the expansion of national-security powers under the Bush Administration.
I haven't even mentioned Adams, but we are fortunate that he and Hamilton hated each other so much.
Well, I only like Jefferson when you compare him to the Federalists. There was after all no chance of, like, President L'Overture...
I see the correlation but it wasn't like I was voting to stick it to trump or any trump supporter. I just feel like for most moderates that voted for trump it was just cus they didn't like hillary at all. My democrat options were pretty good this time around.
"Plotting" is a pretty strong word for never really amounted to more than wishful thinking among grumblings officer corps, but the plan, so far as there was any sort of plan at all, was to pressure the Continental Congress to either take greater authority for itself, or to dissolve in favour of a provisional government which would. There was no clear intention, let alone a clearly-available mechanism, for imposing military government on the states.
Besides, if we're pragmatic enough to prefer slaver owners to abolitionists because of what they mean for some great historical arc, we might consider that the army can play what Marxists would call a progressive historical role, as the concentration of the progressive elements of a society into a coherent armed body, such as that fulfilled by the New Model Army in England. We might identify the Continental officer corps in a similar manner, as the articulation of the nationalist bourgeoisie against an entrenched semi-feudal planter-aristocracy. (The desire not to be another Cromwell was certainly one that Washington engaged with explicitly, and not altogether successfully.) I don't necessarily subscribe to that perspective, but it's a coherent enough perspective to complicate any assumptions that Jefferson represented the Right Side of History, and Adams the Wrong.
I'll concede that. But as I said, this was pretty much par for the course among Western powers at that time. The Federalists were still wet blanket liberals by Old World standards, or what would become New World standards below the Rio Grande. Even if the Whiskey Rebels were essentially justified on the grounds that poll taxes are bad and whiskey is good, it was an armed uprising, if a bloodless one; the British goverment, one of the most liberal in Europe at the time, broke out the troops with far less provocation. It doesn't give a flattering portrait of the Federalists, but it doesn't present them as some weird reactionary deviation from the grand arc of American history.
Hamilton wasn't exactly an abolitionist. He participated in the slave trade himself.
The Whiskey Rebellion was over a poll tax?
But, Hamilton wasn't the Federalist candidate; Adams was. Hamilton's legacy on slavery is very checkered- he traded in slaves, but also campaigned for the abolition of the slave trade- but there isn't much you can levy against Adams' except his pragmatic silence on the issue.
It was about a lot of things, but one of the immediate triggers was the way the whiskey excise was structure: you could pay it per gallon, or as a flat fee. Both were a major burden to Western farmers, but large distillers could pay the flat fee with their pocket change. Not strictly a poll tax, but somehow even worse.
Well, we all know that even if Adams had won, he wouldn't have abolished anything. The Financial Power the federalists set up ended up becoming thoroughly intertwined with the Slave Power in any case - a bit of American history conveniently forgotten by those who hold up Hamilton as some kind of paragon.
It's likely that he would have abolished the importation of slaves, as Jefferson ended up doing, because that was a campaign heavily driven by Federalists, including Hamilton. I doubt he would have abolished slavery, or that any American president would have abolished slavery until compelled by circumstances to do so until the end of the nineteenth century. Lincoln was only able to push that one through because Slave Power had taken the short-sighted decision to abstain from the legislative process, and only exerted the heroic effort necessary to push it through because failing to do so would jeopardise the war effort and the eventual process of reconstruction. The question of slavery, then, is posed rather more narrowly, and Jefferson, a man who was so attached to the institution of owning black people as property that he could only bring himself to free five of his hundred-plus slaves in his will (including two of his own illegitimate sons; better late than never?) is going to come out with the more flattering portrait.
We're back in the 19th Century now?? Trump finally got his wish.
Separate names with a comma.