21–30 of 84 posts
It seems like many now-popular movements had deep-pocketed sponsors. Can a billion dollars always push an idea into the mainstream? Or are there counterexamples of groups who poured huge amounts of money into promoting something that never caught on?
Plenty of rich people have blown a lot of cash trying and failing to get elected to office. Of course, they succeed sometimes too, but it turns out that money is no guarantee.
It seems like many now-popular movements had deep-pocketed sponsors. Can a billion dollars always push an idea into the mainstream? Or are there counterexamples of groups who poured huge amounts of money into promoting something that never caught on?
Money does seem to be the only way to get even a hint of policy change from Washington, but the trend line of public opinion is opposite of what you suggest. Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests…
Popular opposition does not look like it had much of an effect on immigration rate [1]. One might even call the policy un-democratic.
[1] https://cis.org/Report/Immigrants-United-States, Figure 1
It seems like many now-popular movements had deep-pocketed sponsors. Can a billion dollars always push an idea into the mainstream? Or are there counterexamples of groups who poured huge amounts of money into promoting something that never caught on?
The “other” side will attack all of the points weaknesses and then, because people don’t have the ability to just say “yes, this idea associated with my party is both expensive and stupid” it will be defended instead. Often by just a few people who like to argue.
But the defense makes it appear that people in the party support the idea, which then further solidifies the concept in the base as the back and forth continues. At best you will hope to work out the bad ideas via primaries and debates, but sometimes a bad idea that’s popular is going to hold on because voters often care more about how they feel than math.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that square with many western nations whose population would be declining due to low birthrates if not for immigration?
Prosperity reduces birth rates for a variety of reasons. One of the big drivers of population growth is being a poor farmer and preserving a legacy. Once you have some wealth, the incentives change. My grandparents grew up poor in rural Ireland, my grandmother was one of 12 children and at least 16 pregnancies, born in the WWI era. 9 of the siblings made it to adulthood. They needed people to milk cows and catch fish…
That doesn’t seem correct. Waves of Hispanic and Asian immigration has reshaped California from Conservative to _the_ most liberal state. CA also has high minimum wages and much better worker protections than most other states, due to the liberal leaning politicians that got elected.
On a recent Vox Weeds episode there was mention made of the environmental movement's early connections to eugenics, sterilization and population control, and how national parks weren't so altruistic when it came to native populations and local population subsistence. I have also heard opinions in the past that environmentalism in its 20th century forms was really just a white culture concept of aesthetics. I can imag…
Up until the green revolution population control was of great concern. The PRC took that to heart and introduced the 1CPF policy. It’s arguable that this policy while very cruel and unjustly applied and which resulted in skewed gender demographics, had allowed China to prosper quicker than otherwise. On the other hand, in 20-30 years they will face a severe shortage of working age people. But they are autocrats so th…
On a recent Vox Weeds episode there was mention made of the environmental movement's early connections to eugenics, sterilization and population control, and how national parks weren't so altruistic when it came to native populations and local population subsistence. I have also heard opinions in the past that environmentalism in its 20th century forms was really just a white culture concept of aesthetics. I can imag…
Up until the green revolution population control was of great concern. The PRC took that to heart and introduced the 1CPF policy. It’s arguable that this policy while very cruel and unjustly applied and which resulted in skewed gender demographics, had allowed China to prosper quicker than otherwise. On the other hand, in 20-30 years they will face a severe shortage of working age people. But they are autocrats so th…
It seems like many now-popular movements had deep-pocketed sponsors. Can a billion dollars always push an idea into the mainstream? Or are there counterexamples of groups who poured huge amounts of money into promoting something that never caught on?
Money does seem to be the only way to get even a hint of policy change from Washington, but the trend line of public opinion is opposite of what you suggest. Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that traditional chamber of commerce GOP types would hold back the anti-immigration stuff because it killed unions and made their mainstream donors happy. Your chicken slaughterhouse in the middle of Nebraska prospers with underpaid illegals who don’t get workers compensation. The big money, big ideology people poured money into hard right conservatism. Investing in and advertising on talk radio bei…
All I have to say about that is if you think everyone's being indoctrinated except you, you're probably wrong.
When I worked on the farm in the 90s, the classic rock in the barn was swapped out for Rush every afternoon. When I go back home, it’s pretty much the same, except most of the farms are out of business.
If you’re from a white collar, suburban background, you just can’t understand. Most media is New York/LA centric, and conservative outlets reject that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that traditional chamber of commerce GOP types would hold back the anti-immigration stuff because it killed unions and made their mainstream donors happy. Your chicken slaughterhouse in the middle of Nebraska prospers with underpaid illegals who don’t get workers compensation. The big money, big ideology people poured money into hard right conservatism. Investing in and advertising on talk radio bei…
All I have to say about that is if you think everyone's being indoctrinated except you, you're probably wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money does seem to be the only way to get even a hint of policy change from Washington, but the trend line of public opinion is opposite of what you suggest. Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests…
This is the fantastic irony of the completely false dichotomy that the public imagines mainstream politics to be. The modern left seems to paradoxically be supporting open-borders _and_ worker's rights. Normally I would further qualify that statement by attributing such sentiments to the _far_ left, but this seems to be a fairly mainstream position based upon what we saw in the Democratic Primary debates recently. I…
This interview would indicate that he understands that, and wants to restrict immigration for that very reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0
Edit: The interview is from 2015, so it may be that his understanding has 'evolved' since.