The DACA shutdown goes down the toilet for Dems:
I still believe that correct observation about the election is it was won by Trump foremost on nativism / immigration, but ya know, sensible nativism in addition to the obvious vulgar nativisim…. That there was some wisdom of the crowd action that was rightfully turned off by the Democrat’s constant pandering to people who do, in fact, have less of an interest / stake in the United States of America than the disadvantaged people actually born here. A pandering that does, in fact, basically demand open borders.
So thats still true. That and, yeah, shutdowns don’t work… The public is right on this, they were right when Cruz tried, they are right now.
I mean, what is it that we’re going on here? Russian banker is rich, Russian banker is an NRA guy (whatever that means for a Russian), NRA spent a lot more money in 2016 than it has historically…. Ergo, that extra money came from Russia?
There’s no source for it except that McClatchy has the insight of someone at the Mueller probe who thinks it’s a ‘could be’. Meh.
As someone who knows what I’m talking about in this area, I don’t think it stands to obvious reason. The comparison is that the NRA spent triple on Trump than it did on Romney… The NRA very well may have had nearly the same amount of money in 2012, I’m not sure it’s an apples / apples comparison. See this paragraph in the McClatchy story:
Two people with close connections to the powerful gun lobby said its total election spending actually approached or exceeded $70 million. The reporting gap could be explained by the fact that independent groups are not required to reveal how much they spend on Internet ads or field operations, including get-out-the-vote efforts.
IE, its an accounting matter, and not a great difference.
What you can say, is the 2016 election was a lot more acute to 2A people for fear of an anti-constitution judicial appointment to SCOTUS by Hillary. So NRA was all in from the beginning, there was going to be a more aggressive media campaign… which probably necessitates more complex accounting.
It is odd to me that they picked out Trump as their guy so early. But they do have some foresight here and there.
…there does appear to be a feeling of destiny about the Vikings. And that’s not nothing.
The other thing is, maybe the big thing… and maybe the big, mis-educated thing I believe in… is that given a proper sample size the Vikings have to win the Super Bowl purely as a matter of incidence, ya know… IE, if the sample is big enough they would have had to have won it at some point as a matter of incidence. So is the sample big enough? 51 Super Bowls, no Vikings’ wins. We’re on the cusp, obviously.
I know it doesn’t work that way though. If you have a lottery with 100 million combos, that doesn’t mean every combo would get represented among 100 million drawings. There’d be duplicates. IE, the Patriots.
My guess though is the Vikings will make it to the Super Bowl. If they have to play the Patriots they’ll probably lose.
I’ll say it’s going to be Vikings-Jags and Vikings win the Super Bowl.
For our readers who like Africa, in case you missed this though you probably didn’t
…which is supposed to be instructive or analogous to the experience of contemporary immigrants of color.
I have my doubts that’s the correct takeaway. As I say, I’ve got my family history to base some proper observations.
Thing is, the Norwegians came here somewhat generally with the expectation they would be farmers. First subsistence farmers, like at home, but then as production farmers along with the rest of America at the time.
It was still a shit job and livelihood in most ways though, but they made a 2 or 3 generation commitment to it in their little Midwestern enclaves before, as I say, pre-depression farm volatility and then the depression forced them to open their minds. Once farming became less labor intensive and people started moving to the cities (for whatever reason… the depression, factory jobs in WWII…), their standard of living and income started improving.
Just to say I find it hard to characterize the Norwegians as a ‘problem’ or ‘challenged’ group at one time that can be analogized to immigrant groups now.
Different times, different deal.