User talk:AndreCarrotflower

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Older discussions can be found in the archives:

Happy 2018, Wikivoyagers! Talk page messages for me should be left here, or else please see the archives (right) for older discussions.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for your kind words. With over 10 months remaining in this calendar year, are you sure you want to preemptively hand me the "rookie of the year" award already? :P OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Maria's Italian Gifts, Buffalo/North Buffalo[edit]

If this is still open, you may want to report an error on Google maps. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Will do. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Swapping of Political Platforms[edit]

I read your RV comment that the swapping of platforms did not occur postwar. I know my understanding is somewhat shallow, but I thought that Barry Goldwater was the main reason why black people switched from the Republicans to the Democrats. It was, after all, the Republicans that emancipated the slaves, but my understanding was that when you got to the 1960's, the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act, and Barry Goldwater led the Republicans to oppose it, which many black people saw as a betrayal by the Republican Party. Of course, I know it's not a complete swap; you still have black Republicans today, while there were no black Democrats during Lincoln's time, but you get the idea. The dog2 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

At the outset, the Democrats' shift to the left was for purely economic reasons, rather than having anything to do with civil rights. It began with the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, at the depths of the Great Depression when the nation had had enough of Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover's laissez-faire approach. The massive (and extremely popular) social welfare programs and interventionist policies he created to combat the Depression were unprecedented not only for the Democratic Party, but in all of American political history up to that time. The racial element began in 1947 when Roosevelt's successor, Harry Truman (also a Democrat), desegregated the armed forces - at the time it was for purely practical reasons, as the previous policy of avoiding spending time and money training black troops left the U.S. military with a shortage of personnel at an extremely inopportune time, at the dawn of the occupation of Europe and Japan. One can therefore see the Civil Rights Movement in a cynical light, as in order to stay competitive, the Democrats needed to replace the white racist Southerners who were starting to defect from the ranks with new groups of voters (not only blacks but also liberal-minded young whites, especially students and hippies - q.v. Eugene McCarthy in '68 and George McGovern in '72, and also the 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18). The 1960s, with Goldwater and (much more so) Nixon, were only the final act of the play - the latter's "Southern Strategy" was a more-or-less overt ploy by Nixon to attract those disaffected former Democrats to the Republican Party. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The 1912 election also killed the progressive wing of the Republican Party. Maybe not outright and maybe not visible at the time, but had Roosevelt won the GOP nomination back then or the election (maybe Wilson getting a visible stroke during the campaign?) there would have been a progressive wing of the GOP for far longer and it would have been far stronger. Plus 1920s foreign policy would not have gotten bogged down in needless interventions in places like Nicaragua that gave the US nothing but grief and that go back to a Wilsonite understanding of foreign policy. But economic populism entered Democrat politics even earlier with William Jennings Bryan, who managed to combine economic views that seem rather unorthodox even by today's lens with fundamentalist Christianity. I think from the time the Radical Republicans lost control of the GOP up until the rise of the Roosevelts it would be wrong to see either party as subscribing to any sort of coherent ideology. They were rather machines to organize local influence and power and to nominate somebody for the presidency. It is only a very recent thing that the geographic origin of a politician is less predictive of his or her views than her or his party. As early as the 1840s some votes went across party lines but followed sectional lines. Goldwater's nomination was mostly backed by a Western faction of the GOP and mostly opposed by a Northeastern faction. It might thus be remarkable that Nixon was Californian (born and raised) and Reagan had at least spent most of his adult life and his political career there. In fact when the Northeastern Wing got back in the game in the GOP it had to pretend - twice - to actually be Texan. Neither Bush was actually from Texas in any sense except having made a political name in Texas politics to some extent... Anyway, rambling over. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Re: the Bushes, that's true of George H. W. but not so of George W., who was born in Connecticut but lived in Texas from, in fact, an earlier age than Reagan lived in California. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I guess that makes sense. I just found it interesting that the parties would actually end up swapping platforms and thought there might be a good place to include it apart from the bloated main article, because you don't see this happening very much in other countries. In the UK, Labour has been left-wing from the onset, while the Conservatives have been right-wing from the onset. The only change that happened was that Labour replaced the Liberals (and its modern successor, the Liberal Democrats) as the main left-wing party, but both parties are still left-wing. And in Canada, it would be unthinkable for the Conservatives and Liberals to swap platforms, and likewise with Labor and the Coalition in Australia. Of course, things are different now overall; even the modern Republican party does not campaign on an explicitly racist manifesto. The dog2 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
well Portugal has a conservative party called the social democratic party. There's probably an interesting story there that I know nothing about. And the FDP in Germany has had eras of tilting left and eras of tilting right. Currently they tilt Lindner Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
And Canada's Progressive Conservative Party (the backwards-forwards party) was the party of economic nationalism in the 1969s, and brought in the Canada-US free trade agreement in the 1980s, signed by Ronald Reagan for the US. The Liberals opposed both policies, and are now fighting to protect free trade from a "Republican" "president". (Yes, double scare quotes.) Ground Zero (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The dog2, your understanding of Republican perspectives in the 60s is incorrect. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen was indispensable to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and in fact his substitute bill (co-sponsored by both another Republican and two Democrats), which was endorsed by the NAACP among other organizations, is what became law. From Wikipedia:Everett Dirksen:
At that cloture vote, Dirksen said: "Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment: 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."
Why was a cloture vote needed? Because segregationist Southern Democratic Senators had filibustered the bill for 54 days! Without the support of Northern Republicans, it would have never passed.
And in the 1980s, anti-racist Republicans remained quite politically important, as 8 of them voted with Democrats to override Ronald Reagan's veto of legislation to divest the U.S. from Apartheid South Africa. Notable among them was Senator John Danforth of Missouri. I'd add that when Bob Dole ran for President in 1996, his running mate was Representative Jack Kemp, former quarterback of the Buffalo Bills, who cared deeply about black people and hoped to stanch poverty in ghettos by making them "Enterprise Zones" - areas in which investment would be incentivized with tax breaks. I considered him deeply wrongheaded, but I don't think there's any doubt that he was entirely sincere, opposed to racism, hopeful of getting support from black as well as white voters, and a truly good person.
So the sum total of all of this is that the switch you describe was nothing like an "on/off" switch, but rather, a process that took quite a long time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I guess it's too complicated to be summarised succintly on WV then. But yeah, unlike Singapore, you guys have complicated political histories. Singapore has only had one party in government since independence, which most of you would probably classify as a right-wing party, even though some of their policies (eg. anti-racism, pro-immigration) are very much on the left. The dog2 (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

what did switch and mostly in the 1960s though the process took decades to materialize is the alignment of white southerners. Until Goldwater they had always voted democratic or for a racist southern splinter faction of the Democratic party. After Clinton only those southern states that have significant politically active minorities and/or some "cross-border" factors (federal employees in Virginia) have been in play for Democrats. Al Gore lost a state that had elected him to the Senate in his failed 2000 bid - Tennessee. The first republican governor of Texas in a long time was elected in 1994 - George W Bush. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Virginia also has quite a substantial black population and increasing Asian-American and Hispanic populations, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, many of the "purpler" Southern states - Virginia was already mentioned; North Carolina and arguably Georgia fall into this category too - contain substantial populations of retirees and other "transplants" originally from the North. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It has been said that if Texas Latin@s behaved like Latin@s in other states, Texas would be purple or blue. However, Latin@s are not and have never been a monolithic bloc and there is no real reason other than the specter of political racism to make them all vote similar ways... In fact Bush actually won the Latino vote. he didn't but he significantly increased his Hispanic vote share from 2000 to 2004. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As he did among nearly all demographic categories. 9/11 was still fairly fresh in our minds in 2004, and John Kerry was as weak and uninspiring a candidate as Hillary Clinton was in 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
According to Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, for 2016, the white working class voters in the rust belt were angry at being largely ignored by establishment in New York and Washington and wanted to vote in a populist president no matter what. If Bernie Sanders had been sent instead of Hillary Clinton, it would have been a much closer fight as you would have a left-wing populist against a right-wing populist. Instead, the Democrats sent Hillary Clinton who was probably the most establishment candidate you could think of, and when presented with an establishment an a populist candidate, of course they would vote for the populist which in this case was Donald Trump. I don't know what you guys think, but supposedly the only way the Democrats could have won given the political climate was if they provided a populist option on the left to counter the populist option on the right, but they didn't. AndreCarrotflower, since you are from Buffalo, which was one of the great industrial cities that is now very much a part of the rust belt, perhaps you will have more insight than me about this. The dog2 (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hillary won more votes and there were serval rather closer run states. Myriad Tony things could have flipped the election the other way - including more bearish polling in September or October which might have induced more vigorous campaigning. I also don't think many Trump voters would have voted for Bernie Sanders. He might have picked up some Jill Stein or non-voters though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because she won by huge margins in California and New York, and these two states both have huge populations. But what swang the vote in Trump's favour were largely the rust belt states. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa all previously voted for Obama but swang to Trump, while Minnesota just barely managed to stay blue. Of course, there's Florida as well, but what Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa have in common are that there are huge white working class populations that used to work in the mines and factories, but are now unemployed either because of globalisation or advances in technology. The dog2 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The states that provided Trump's electoral college victory all went for him by less than 1%. There are a lot of conceivable scenarios in which Trump loses those states and very few in which he wins them in more convincing fashion. In short it was the x wot won it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your planned Spain / Catalonia trip[edit]

I've seen you intend to go to Spain. I have this far been to catalonia and airports but I must say Girona is worth a day trip or spending several days. It's also served by the AVE so getting there shouldn't be a problem. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And if you're going to Bordeaux, it's a short train ride to Arcachon to see the Dune du Pilat, which is amazing on a sunny day. Ground Zero (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! We're still very early in the planning stages, my wife and I, but I'll keep both of those suggestions in mind. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Map on Singapore/Riverside[edit]

Hi there,

I saw that you removed a static map from Singapore/Riverside. I reverted this, and wanted to explain why.

This static map is up to date as of late last year, I personally monitor this article and make sure that the map is kept updated. If you want to remove the static map in this specific case, there is actually a discussion on that topic on the talk page where we should come to a consensus on this first.

Also I tried to find any rules or definitive policies specifically banning having two maps in one article and failed to find any. Maybe you can point me in the right direction on this?

Cheers Drat70 (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)