• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Dem Post Mortem

Seppo = septic tank = Yank
Wait, so Australia has Cockney rhyming slang (or some variant thereof)?
I was also curious about this, but have exhausted my quota of off-topic hijacks for the week.

Why wouldn't we? The nation was founded by petty criminals, and I can assure you that the nineteenth century English 'justice' system wasn't sentencing mainly prosperous landowners and merchants to transportation.

Australian English is based on the inner city patois of the time (blended with the accents of Irish Nationalists), and Cockneys were very strongly represented. And even amongst cockneys, rhyming slang was concentrated in the criminal underclass - it began as a thieves cant, a 'secret language' in which crime could be discussed with, at the very least, plausible deniability, if not rank incomprehension on the part of the authorities. The need for such a cant was hardly lessened by being placed in a prison colony.

It would be strange if cockney rhyming slang were not a strong element of Australian English.
Hmm, when did that happen thereabouts?
I am afraid I cannot answer that question, because I am not clear what "that" is referring to.

Are you asking about the history of theives cants; The specifics of cockney rhyming slang as a example of such; The history of transportation of English convicts to Australia, or of Irish and/or cockney convicts being included in the process; The history of Australian English as a language; The adoption of rhyming slang by Australian English; Or something else?

I am also somewhat uncertain as to ... which element of the question the modifier "thereabouts" is supposed to be modifying.

I was curious about the etymology of 'thereabouts' and find that it decomposes into there+about+s, with the earlier attested 'thereabout' cognate with Old English þǣr-ābūtan, þǣr-onbūtan. This word can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European *só (“this; that”) + *-r + *h₂en- (“on; onto”) + būtan (“just, merely, only”) (ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *h₁ep- + *úd (“away; out; outwards; upwards”)). The final 's' of course derives from Old English -es, often used to form adverbs; this suffix also traces back to PIE.

Does this help?
 
Seppo = septic tank = Yank
Wait, so Australia has Cockney rhyming slang (or some variant thereof)?
Why wouldn't we? The nation was founded by petty criminals, and I can assure you that the nineteenth century English 'justice' system wasn't sentencing mainly prosperous landowners and merchants to transportation.

Australian English is based on the inner city patois of the time (blended with the accents of Irish Nationalists), and Cockneys were very strongly represented. And even amongst cockneys, rhyming slang was concentrated in the criminal underclass - it began as a thieves cant, a 'secret language' in which crime could be discussed with, at the very least, plausible deniability, if not rank incomprehension on the part of the authorities. The need for such a cant was hardly lessened by being placed in a prison colony.

It would be strange if cockney rhyming slang were not a strong element of Australian English.
Hmm, when did that happen thereabouts?
I am afraid I cannot answer that question, because I am not clear what "that" is referring to.

Are you asking about the history of theives cants; The specifics of cockney rhyming slang as a example of such; The history of transportation of English convicts to Australia, or of Irish and/or cockney convicts being included in the process; The history of Australian English as a language; The adoption of rhyming slang by Australian English; Or something else?

I am also somewhat uncertain as to the breadth of the timeframe intended by your use of the word "when"; And by which element of the question the modifier "thereabouts" is supposed to be modifying.

TL;DR:

Wha?
Earliest known cockney thieves' cant.
I doubt that rhyming slang was the earliest, or even close to it; The word 'cockney' to mean a person living in town originated in the C17th, and the more specific meaning of a person living in the East End of London is likely a C18/19th thing; But thieves cants in English are attested as early as 1530. Cockney rhyming slang as a thieves cant is fairly recent - the first recorded use was around 1840, contemporary with the beginning of police forces, though this is presumably a consequence of an existing slang coming to the attention of the authorities, than a reflection of it's novelty at that time.

This 'beginning' in 1840 is roughly contemporary with the end of large scale transportation to Australia; Yet we observe that Australians use a very similar rhyming slang to that of cockneys - implying that the use of such slang was likely well established at a rather earlier date. For obvious reasons, official records of such things are rare, prior to the establishment of policing; The whole point of a secret language is that officialdom is unaware of it, or at least uncomprehending.

Doubtless the introduction of policing was instrumental in the fluorishing of cockney rhyming slang; And like all languages, it changes to meet contemporary needs. Much modern rhyming slang would be incomprehensible to a cockney from the C19th, dealing as it does with modern phenomena.

And there are well attested terms of very recent adoption - 'Boracic', meaning broke or penniless (Boracic Lint - Skint), is widely used today, and began as a joke about the absurdity of rhyming slang, in the TV show 'The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin', in the 1970s
 
I believe that Harris spent a billion dollars trying to lure Republican voters over to her side, ignoring and sidelining her base in favor of trying to convince the mythical middle that it was "okay" to vote for her.
I have seen that hot take a lot, by left-wingers dissecting the election. The idea that the middle is "mythical", that everybody just belongs to one team or the other, and thus it's all about turning out "our team". It's nonsense, of course.
I do not believe there was ever any chance that she was going to be successful in winning the presidency via that strategy.
It was an uphill battle, not because of the strategy, but because of Kamala Harris and the short timeline. Her tenure in the Senate and her 2019 campaign were not exactly moderate. To reform herself, she needed time, and time she did not have, thanks to Biden's late call.

And what strategy would you prefer? For Kamala to double down on her 2019 persona? To go back to cockamamie ideas like banning fracking (even though it accounts for ½ of our oil and ⅔ of our gas)?
It's not like she did not run an economically populist campaign anyway - she proposed an even more generous child tax credit than even Biden's. She promised $25k for new home buyers. And so on.

Edit to clarify: I don't think this was ALL on Kamala, despite my many disagreements with her.
It was not all on Kamala, but much of it was. Her 2019 campaign was on her. She could not change that in 2024, but it still was on her. Leaning too far into memes like "coconut tree" was on her. Avoiding tough interviews was on her. Choosing the Knucklehead because he called Republicans "weird" was on her. What was not on her is the short time frame (that's on Biden) and the general trend that disfavored incumbents.

If anything, the actual election came closer than I thought it would. I'd been taking it as given that Trump would be re-elected ever since the first debate, to say nothing of the two assassination attempts. The country as a whole is shifting in Trump's direction, not hers, and no amount of money or rhetoric could have changed that fact.
As you said, the election was close. She (or another candidate) could have won. Had Biden decided to withdraw in 2023 and allowed a real primary, Dems would have most likely won, I think.
 
Last edited:
1734311928379.png

So the biggest issue for the swing voters that went for Trump was "Kamala Harris was more focused on cultural issues like transgender issues more than helping the middle class." Those anti trans commercials the Trump campaign put out worked.
 
View attachment 48796

So the biggest issue for the swing voters that went for Trump was "Kamala Harris was more focused on cultural issues like transgender issues more than helping the middle class." Those anti trans commercials the Trump campaign put out worked.

Attesting further that the U.S. is a nation of downright morons who elected a downright moron, as prophesied by Mencken.
 
View attachment 48796

So the biggest issue for the swing voters that went for Trump was "Kamala Harris was more focused on cultural issues like transgender issues more than helping the middle class." Those anti trans commercials the Trump campaign put out worked.

Attesting further that the U.S. is a nation of downright morons who elected a downright moron, as prophesied by Mencken.
It's fascinating that people garnered so much belief that Kamala was focused on it when she didn't really talk about it much AFAIK?

I mean, the fact is, I don't think she really cares much one way or the other about most cultural or LGBT issues.

People forget that the book burning most people see in textbooks, *the* picture about the *book burnings described in the cautionary tale about giving such assholes power* covering the *rise of the Nazis* was at a school studying the LGBT+ community.

We are at the start of it.

I was hoping something else would happen but I was expecting what happened.

This is the start of it.

Honestly? I'm expecting some awful shit ahead. I'm worried they will bomb or trash American cities.

This is the prophecy of everyone since a madman penned a Revelation, and earlier still.

It is the single most common pattern of governmental history.

Nero lived.

Rome burned.

Christianity became something dark, rising from a cult that, at our most charitable, never understood their "prophet", and almost certainly allowed belief to be co-opted into the very "thing of the world" that the original "prophet" of their religion hated.

The "Antichrist" in that respect has been gaining speed for nigh on 2000 years.

And the worst part is that it's trying to play both sides of the prophecy this time, I think.
 
[relative importance graphic]
Some takeaways: The two biggest issues, across the board, were inflation and the border crisis.

Dems should have done better on both fronts.
Yes, some inflation was inevitable post COVID, but Biden administration kept the burner high with more spending. And even after all that spending, he wanted to spend $3.5T more on things like child tax credits and tax cuts for blue state rich.
And Dems support things like sanctuary cities and very generous interpretation of asylum. During the Summer 2019 primary debates, the candidates were competing who would be more open to mass migration through the southern border.
Most Democrats promise to decriminalize border crossings during 2020 debate
The third was the cultural issues. "Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you". Admittedly, a pithy slogan.

The "free sex changes for inmates" is part of her 2019 campaign, a disastrous campaign that she was unable to live down.

Also notable that Gaza was a low-priority issue across the board.

So the biggest issue for the swing voters that went for Trump was "Kamala Harris was more focused on cultural issues like transgender issues more than helping the middle class." Those anti trans commercials the Trump campaign put out worked.
I have said that before. Gay rights started enjoying majority support when people realized that gays were peolpe like you and I (and not just guys in assless chaps on Folsom Street), and that say Pete Buttigieg marrying Chasten neither breaks their arm nor picks their pocket.
I think trans people need something like that. More moderation.
Instead trans activists want to cancel everybody who does not embrace their agenda 100%. Everybody should have to declare their pronouns. Ask people their preferred pronouns daily (since, like clothes, they can change them based on mood). People should be able to claim to be non-binary or trans and demand preferred pronoun use even if they are biological gender presenting (i.e. just them saying so is enough). Deadnaming is an unpardonable sin. Transitioning biological males should compete in women's sports where they dominate as hard as Kramer was dominating his dojo. Most people rightly balk at that. I am generally supportive of trans people, but I think these activists push it too far.

Another thing about trans activists I have noticed is that they are very active in far-left activism. Take the anti-Cop City movement in Atlanta. Very many self-declared trans and non-binaries among them. I wonder what came first - did they gravitate toward far left politics because they were trans or did they decide on their trans or non-binary identity because it is au courant in leftist circles that they move in?
 
Last edited:
Oh, for fuck's sake!

Democrats eye Harris 2028 presidential run as they devise political comeback
Grauniad said:
According to the Washington Post on Monday, some Democratic party aides believe Trump – who, among other things, overcame a criminal conviction and other such charges to win – has sufficiently overturned the norms of losing White House candidates’ not attempting a second bite at the proverbial apple to give Harris the opportunity of a repeat bid in 2028, this time for the full cycle.
“Since Donald Trump has rewritten the rules – the norms – I don’t believe Kamala Harris or anyone should try to go with precedent, ever,” said Donna Brazile, a Harris ally, Al Gore 2000 presidential campaign manager and political commentator. “There are no rule books.”
Molly Murphy, a pollster who worked on the both the Biden and Harris campaigns, told the outlet: “The rules potentially don’t apply this time, and she still absolutely could have a mulligan because of the unique circumstances of this race and the candidate switch.
Are these people for real?
The sentiment that Harris could make another bid for the White House comes as the Democratic party is sculpting an argument that her loss to Trump was not as comprehensive as has been popularly portrayed. She emerged from her three-month, $1.5bn campaign with higher approval ratings than she entered it, according to the political website 538, though she lost the electoral college 312-226 and became the first of three candidates to lose the popular vote to Trump.
“She is ending this race in a very different place than other nominees that have lost,” one Harris adviser told the outlet. “Her approval is higher. People were very happy with the race that she ran.”
SMH. The only reason she had higher approval ratings is that her approval ratings were abysmal right before Biden withdrew.
1726598671084.png

I think the jump was solely due to her being elevated to the top of the ticket. Her approval was a mile wide but a millimeter thick.
Supporters further point to unequal political consequences for male and female candidates following a ballot box loss. Hillary Clinton did not attempt another run after losing to Trump in 2016, handing the Democratic torch to one-term president Biden.
What "unequal consequences for male and female candidates"? General election losers usually don't run again and they almost never get their party's nod. Did Gore or Kerry run again? To chalk it up to gender is just silly.
The only general election loser to get nominated in modern history was, as far as I know, Richard Nixon.
And I guess there are parallels between the two. Both are short-term Senators from California who became Vice Presidents. But even Nixon had to wait 8 years and did not come back in 1964. And 1968 was a very unusual year. The unpopular incumbent from the other party was embroiled in an unpopular war and declined to run again. The popular candidate from the other party was gunned down by a Palestinian terrorist five years after his president brother was also slain. The other party's convention was beset by rioting, paralleling the tinderbox conditions in the nation at large.
But no, Hillary not running again in 2020 is just because she is a woman. Another top-notch Grauniad hot take :rolleyesa:
But as Harris considers her future – husband Doug Emhoff is returning to entertainment law – donors and supporters in California, where she served as a US senator and state attorney general, are pushing for a run for governor in 2026 to replace who would then be the outgoing, term-limited Newsom.
Harris' best bet would indeed be to run for governor.
 
Oh, for fuck's sake!

Harris' best bet would indeed be to run for governor.

Why?!! What have the good people of California ever done to you that you would wish this upon us?

In all seriousness though, I would be delighted if both Newsom and Harris run for nomination for 2028. The spectacle of these two utter numbskulls on the national stage would be comedy gold.
 
I assure you not many Trump voters would appreciate being called "Yanks", either their great-greats were all on the wrong side of the war, or they wish they were. Fighting and dying by the hundreds of thousands, watching all the great cities of the South burn to the ground, all so their bosses/landlords could keep their household slaves. Is there any nobler or ennobling cause imaginable?
Trump Supporters with they were Democrats????
 
I assure you not many Trump voters would appreciate being called "Yanks", either their great-greats were all on the wrong side of the war, or they wish they were. Fighting and dying by the hundreds of thousands, watching all the great cities of the South burn to the ground, all so their bosses/landlords could keep their household slaves. Is there any nobler or ennobling cause imaginable?
Trump Supporters with they were Democrats????
Unless they are recent immigrants, Trump supporters by and large ARE the descendants of Democrats, those Democrats, and would once have been proud of the label. However, few are on good terms with the Democrats of today, who they see as having sold themselves out, and sold their consituents out, to the "coastal elites", variously imagined as a sort of cabal of university presidents, celebrities, and liberal politicians whose values are antithetical to the American way of life as they understand it.
 
Last edited:
I assure you not many Trump voters would appreciate being called "Yanks", either their great-greats were all on the wrong side of the war, or they wish they were. Fighting and dying by the hundreds of thousands, watching all the great cities of the South burn to the ground, all so their bosses/landlords could keep their household slaves. Is there any nobler or ennobling cause imaginable?
Trump Supporters with they were Democrats????
Unless they are recent immigrants, Trump supporters by and large ARE the descendants of Democrats, those Democrats, and would once have been proud of the label. However, few are on good terms with the Democrats of today, who they see as having sold themselves out, and sold their consituents out, to the "coastal elites", variously imagined as a sort of cabal of university presidents, celebrities, and liberal politicians whose values are antithetical to the American way of life as they understand it.
Interesting, you say they are descended from people they disagree with.
 
I assure you not many Trump voters would appreciate being called "Yanks", either their great-greats were all on the wrong side of the war, or they wish they were. Fighting and dying by the hundreds of thousands, watching all the great cities of the South burn to the ground, all so their bosses/landlords could keep their household slaves. Is there any nobler or ennobling cause imaginable?
Trump Supporters with they were Democrats????
Unless they are recent immigrants, Trump supporters by and large ARE the descendants of Democrats, those Democrats, and would once have been proud of the label. However, few are on good terms with the Democrats of today, who they see as having sold themselves out, and sold their consituents out, to the "coastal elites", variously imagined as a sort of cabal of university presidents, celebrities, and liberal politicians whose values are antithetical to the American way of life as they understand it.
Interesting, you say they are descended from people they disagree with.
Aren't most of us? I never understand why someone would want to willfully portray themselves as more stupid than they really are. A lot of things changed between 1870 and 1970, and I'm pretty you do, in fact, know that. If you want to have an actual conversation about the topic, let me know, but I'll not waste any more time with dumb games and repeating facts everyone knows, if that's all you're here to do.
 
I assure you not many Trump voters would appreciate being called "Yanks", either their great-greats were all on the wrong side of the war, or they wish they were. Fighting and dying by the hundreds of thousands, watching all the great cities of the South burn to the ground, all so their bosses/landlords could keep their household slaves. Is there any nobler or ennobling cause imaginable?
Trump Supporters with they were Democrats????
Unless they are recent immigrants, Trump supporters by and large ARE the descendants of Democrats, those Democrats, and would once have been proud of the label. However, few are on good terms with the Democrats of today, who they see as having sold themselves out, and sold their consituents out, to the "coastal elites", variously imagined as a sort of cabal of university presidents, celebrities, and liberal politicians whose values are antithetical to the American way of life as they understand it.
Interesting, you say they are descended from people they disagree with.
Aren't most of us? I never understand why someone would want to willfully portray themselves as more stupid than they really are. A lot of things changed between 1870 and 1970, and I'm pretty you do, in fact, know that. If you want to have an actual conversation about the topic, let me know, but I'll not waste any more time with dumb games and repeating facts everyone knows, if that's all you're here to do.
Okay, so we agree that being descended from people on the other side of the Civil War has no bearing whatsoever on their political alignment today. That being the case, why did you bring it up in the first place?
 
I assure you not many Trump voters would appreciate being called "Yanks", either their great-greats were all on the wrong side of the war, or they wish they were. Fighting and dying by the hundreds of thousands, watching all the great cities of the South burn to the ground, all so their bosses/landlords could keep their household slaves. Is there any nobler or ennobling cause imaginable?
Trump Supporters with they were Democrats????
Unless they are recent immigrants, Trump supporters by and large ARE the descendants of Democrats, those Democrats, and would once have been proud of the label. However, few are on good terms with the Democrats of today, who they see as having sold themselves out, and sold their consituents out, to the "coastal elites", variously imagined as a sort of cabal of university presidents, celebrities, and liberal politicians whose values are antithetical to the American way of life as they understand it.
Interesting, you say they are descended from people they disagree with.
Aren't most of us? I never understand why someone would want to willfully portray themselves as more stupid than they really are. A lot of things changed between 1870 and 1970, and I'm pretty you do, in fact, know that. If you want to have an actual conversation about the topic, let me know, but I'll not waste any more time with dumb games and repeating facts everyone knows, if that's all you're here to do.
Okay, so we agree that being descended from people on the other side of the Civil War has no bearing whatsoever on their political alignment today. That being the case, why did you bring it up in the first place?
Because the idea of calling a bunch of Robert E Lee fanboys "Yanks" struck me as humorous.
 
I assure you not many Trump voters would appreciate being called "Yanks", either their great-greats were all on the wrong side of the war, or they wish they were. Fighting and dying by the hundreds of thousands, watching all the great cities of the South burn to the ground, all so their bosses/landlords could keep their household slaves. Is there any nobler or ennobling cause imaginable?
Trump Supporters with they were Democrats????
Unless they are recent immigrants, Trump supporters by and large ARE the descendants of Democrats, those Democrats, and would once have been proud of the label. However, few are on good terms with the Democrats of today, who they see as having sold themselves out, and sold their consituents out, to the "coastal elites", variously imagined as a sort of cabal of university presidents, celebrities, and liberal politicians whose values are antithetical to the American way of life as they understand it.
Interesting, you say they are descended from people they disagree with.
Aren't most of us? I never understand why someone would want to willfully portray themselves as more stupid than they really are. A lot of things changed between 1870 and 1970, and I'm pretty you do, in fact, know that. If you want to have an actual conversation about the topic, let me know, but I'll not waste any more time with dumb games and repeating facts everyone knows, if that's all you're here to do.
Okay, so we agree that being descended from people on the other side of the Civil War has no bearing whatsoever on their political alignment today. That being the case, why did you bring it up in the first place?
Because the idea of calling a bunch of Robert E Lee fanboys "Yanks" struck me as humorous.
Democrats don't like being called "Yanks"? It's a bit archaic to still be offensive to Democrats.
 
View attachment 48796

So the biggest issue for the swing voters that went for Trump was "Kamala Harris was more focused on cultural issues like transgender issues more than helping the middle class." Those anti trans commercials the Trump campaign put out worked.
Table sauce.

The Dems are like a school of fish, hooked on trolling lines, trying to pull the boat back out to sea. Wherever Republicans and the media take the conversation, the Democrats follow, taking every piece of bait.

The poll attempts to answer the question "why didn't voters choose Harris?" I think it does that in an indirect way: it shows that Democrats chose to fight on a battlefield chosen by the enemy.

The criticisms listed in the poll are limited to the subjects that the campaigners and the media promoted. Not what they ignored, suppressed or neglected.

There is broader spectrum of things that matter to people and can influence if and how they vote. For one thing, people care a lot about their personal economic situation now and in the future, and this has a lot more facets than inflation and immigrants.

There is a blind spot in the Democrats' political strategy: they don't fight for workers' rights and they don't shift wealth from billionaires to workers. Redistributing wealth from capital to labour is a pretty important function of left-wing governments, and it should be highly popular in a country with extreme inequality, but the Dems don't want to be that party.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom