Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Red vs Blue is really Urban vs Rural values


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

Poll: Urban/Rural (29 member(s) have cast votes)

Let us gauge the urban/rurural/suburban divide.

  1. I lean to the left and live in an urban area. (1 votes [3.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.45%

  2. I lean to the right and live in an urban area. (8 votes [27.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.59%

  3. I lean to the left and live in a rural area. (4 votes [13.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.79%

  4. I lean to the right and live in a rural area. (2 votes [6.90%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.90%

  5. I lean to the left and live in a suburban area. (4 votes [13.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.79%

  6. I lean to the right and live in a suburban area. (7 votes [24.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.14%

  7. Other; explain. (3 votes [10.34%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.34%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#16    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:23 PM

View PostJeremiah65, on 27 April 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Red vs Blue...left vs right...Urban vs Rural...Republican vs Democrat...

Two wings of the same bird of prey...

Posted Image

Terrible...

The polarization of this nation shall be it's undoing.

When people vote against common sense we have all lost.

I am a Libertarian.  Not an Ayn Rand Libertarian...but a believer and follower of the Philosophy of Freedom.

I do not need a Nanny to tell me how to live...what I can or cannot do with my body...my beliefs or my property.  As long as my freedom does not impede upon the freedom of another...what I choose to do or how I choose to live is no one's business.  I will not cross into my neighbors yard and tell him how to live and I expect the same in return.

Both main parties are far too interested in control and regulation.

The Dems think they can legislate "good will toward man" with politically correct speech, gun regulations and an over powering police presence (Nanny/Police state).

The Republicans, while they tout that they are for small Gov, Liberty and the Constitution...think they can legislate morality...saying who or what you can marry...what you can and cannot put in or remove from your body.  Their version of Freedom...like the Democrats...has far too many restrictions that delve into people's personal lives.

The result is "both" parties end up creating bureaucracy to carry out and "enforce" their world views.  I personally feel they are both way off the mark.

The Dem's would create legislation and taxation that strangles and paralyzes business...the Repubs would allow corporations to dump toxins anywhere they choose if it makes a dollar.

Madness...complete and utter madness.  The only path forward is personal freedom and responsibility...the only balance is common sense...which sadly is in short supply...I will choose Liberty...I will choose freewill.  The party that best affords this...in my opinion...are the Libertarians.

:tu: Great post!


Quote



Ron Paul: Democrats and Republicans are the same party


June 06, 2011|By Luke Broadwater


U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a GOP presidential candidate, was on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, and, as usual, the congressman skewered at least one sacred cow of American politics.
Paul's target this time? The notion that Republicans and Democrats are diametrically opposed political parties. You know, the idea that they're bitter political opponents. They fight over everything. They hate each other.

But the truth is, Paul said, they're the same party.
"We don’t have a good democratic process," Paul said. "What happens if you come to the conclusion, as millions of Americans have, these parties aren’t different, they’re all the same. The monetary policy stays the same. The welfare system stays the same. The foreign policy stays the same. They get pretty disgusted. There is but one party."
It's very difficult to watch how the changing of American presidents has almost no effect on most of this country's policies and not think that Paul is right.

From: http://articles.balt...rties-democrats



#17    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,672 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 04:30 AM

View PostOverSword, on 26 April 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

... they vote democratic because democrats will do more for them....

I always wonder why various groups vote Democrat as a bloc, yet year after year, they appear to get little to no help and to not have any progress in their problems. The masses of the Poor are still poor. The downtrodden minority is still downtrodden. Makes me wonder why they keep voting the way they do... Hope maybe?? Maybe eventually they will vote that guy in that will honorably and truthfully make things Right?

Edited by DieChecker, 28 April 2013 - 04:31 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#18    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 04:40 AM

lol @ the juggalo face on the eagle

View PostDieChecker, on 28 April 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

I always wonder why various groups vote Democrat as a bloc, yet year after year, they appear to get little to no help and to not have any progress in their problems. The masses of the Poor are still poor. The downtrodden minority is still downtrodden. Makes me wonder why they keep voting the way they do... Hope maybe?? Maybe eventually they will vote that guy in that will honorably and truthfully make things Right?

Is that an outsider's view? Those from any of the groups you could possibly have in mind can easily see things are better off for them today than it was for their parents, and that things were better for their parents than for their grandparents.

Back then you would be lucky if they even offered your group a job or if they did it was pure explotation.

Todays issue with unemployment rates are a vast improvement when you didn't even have a chance to get any type of work. When women were locked in factories so as to not take too many restroom breaks even if it meant them being trapped in a burning building. The poor will always vote for the more progressive candidates in the long scheme of things although at times conservatives have been able to fool them.

We can see what Republicans do, they attempt to disenfranchise, they would keep minority grandmothers from voting by changing hours and days, by demanding new requirements, and adding extra hurdles.

Your appeal is going to fall on deaf ears. Everyone knows which party is about the rich getting richer and only for themselves.

Quote

The 2008 presidential election not only solidified demographic and partisan shifts toward the Democratic Party but also marked a significant turn in the ideological landscape of the electorate. After nearly three decades of public acceptance of the Reagan-Bush model of conservatism—limited government, tax cuts, traditional values, and military strength— a broad and deep cross-section of the American public now holds markedly progressive attitudes about government and society.

http://www.americanp...-ideology-2009/

If you want to live like a Republica, vote Democrat!

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 28 April 2013 - 05:09 AM.


#19    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:06 AM

Quote

President Obama's victory over Mitt Romney in last Tuesday's presidential election was driven, in part, by the president's strength in urban areas, where robust support cushioned the incumbent against electoral deficits in rural America. But almost a week after the election, it is now becoming clear just how lopsided President Obama's victory was in some cities: in dozens of urban precincts, Mitt Romney earned literally zero votes.

Romney earned zero votes in some urban precincts

Quote

In his first interview since losing the election, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wouldn’t admit that voters rejected his economic vision and instead chalked up President Obama’s victory to a large turnout of the “urban vote.”

Paul Ryan: I Didn’t Lose Because Of The Issues, I Lost Because Of The ‘Urban’ Vote


#20    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:40 AM

Quote

Is that an outsider's view? Those from any of the groups you could possibly have in mind can easily see things are better off for them today than it was for their parents, and that things were better for their parents than for their grandparents.

Back then you would be lucky if they even offered your group a job or if they did it was pure explotation.

Todays issue with unemployment rates are a vast improvement when you didn't even have a chance to get any type of work. When women were locked in factories so as to not take too many restroom breaks even if it meant them being trapped in a burning building. The poor will always vote for the more progressive candidates in the long scheme of things although at times conservatives have been able to fool them.

We can see what Republicans do, they attempt to disenfranchise, they would keep minority grandmothers from voting by changing hours and days, by demanding new requirements, and adding extra hurdles.

Your appeal is going to fall on deaf ears. Everyone knows which party is about the rich getting richer and only for themselves.

Werent you b****in about being stressed out the other day ? What worked so well that you can start a flame war thread ? Need to know please.

Unemployment thats bad looks like this. Quit whining.

http://gem.idgenweb....artial-law.html


#21    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:52 AM

View PostAsteroidX, on 28 April 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

Werent you b****in about being stressed out the other day ? What worked so well that you can start a flame war thread ? Need to know please.

Unemployment thats bad looks like this. Quit whining.

http://gem.idgenweb....artial-law.html

Oh, I clicked that link. Martial law? Do you really believe it is coming? Paranoia will shut off your ability of critical thinking.

Unemployment is vastly better than disenfranchisement, why? Because the economy goes up and down and for those who want to work they will find another job when things get better. Under disenfranchisement some could not even vote, you know vote for anti-discrimination laws, and when we had laws that allowed for segregation they could outright deny you or others a job.

Unemployment is not something we should accept either, we have to work on it, you know stop sending our jobs to other countries so the Romneys can make cash through outsourcing.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 28 April 2013 - 07:58 AM.


#22    Glorfindel

Glorfindel

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The answer to 1984, is uhhh... 1812?

Posted 28 April 2013 - 08:36 PM

Perhaps minority groups are told to vote Democrat to keep them in a circle of government dependance, to make them feel like victims who are entitled to a helping hand. While this may seem like a good thing, in the long run it prevents many people from gaining true independance from the state. As for Republicans, I largely agree with you, just remember how biased it is to continually support the Dems, despite them engaging in a similar level of corruption. And there is nothing paranoid about thinking that Martial Law is a real possibility, you do realize American "police" have the same weaponry as soilders in the middle-east right? Like drones, sound weapons etc. It is more than a real possibility.

Edited by Glorfindel, 28 April 2013 - 08:39 PM.


#23    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,672 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:56 AM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 28 April 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

Is that an outsider's view? Those from any of the groups you could possibly have in mind can easily see things are better off for them today than it was for their parents, and that things were better for their parents than for their grandparents.
So, you honestly believe poor, urban blacks are better off today then 25 years ago? Studies have shown that the rate of poverty and education among the poorest minoritys has not changed markedly in decades. The poor stay poor, and the uneducated stay uneducated, regardless of if a Democrat or Republican is in office, and regardless of control of the Congress.
http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Quote

Back then you would be lucky if they even offered your group a job or if they did it was pure explotation.
Because...?? Because they had no experience or education. Has this really changed much? Do poor blacks get jobs in industry easier now? Are they hired more often because Democrat officials got them experience and education? Nope... hasn't happened yet.

Quote

Todays issue with unemployment rates are a vast improvement when you didn't even have a chance to get any type of work. When women were locked in factories so as to not take too many restroom breaks even if it meant them being trapped in a burning building. The poor will always vote for the more progressive candidates in the long scheme of things although at times conservatives have been able to fool them.
Are you still referencing the Civil War era and comparing it to modern America? When was the last time blacks in America were locked into a room and forced to work in a factory??

Quote

We can see what Republicans do, they attempt to disenfranchise, they would keep minority grandmothers from voting by changing hours and days, by demanding new requirements, and adding extra hurdles.
So, now it resorts to the "Voter Fraud" defense? Grabbing at any bit of mud to sling? As if 50% of all voting fraud is not Democrat involved. Both sides commit fraud to varying degrees. Usually in the form of zealous individuals.

Blagovich was SELLING Obama's seat!! Which side is about money? Which side is helping minoritys? Answer: Both on the first and Neither on the second question. The Democrats are not white angels lifting up minorities, they keep them down just as throughly as Republicans do... The Dems just use different methods and Preach how they are helping at the same time.

Quote

Your appeal is going to fall on deaf ears. Everyone knows which party is about the rich getting richer and only for themselves.
What percentage did you say are Progressives? 16%? There are your Deaf Ears....

Why do you suppose 47% of Americans voted for Mitt Romney? "Everyone knows....", right?? If everyone thought that was reasonable, then Obama would have gotten 95% of the popular vote. Since that did not happen, either 1) you are wrong, and Republicans are not ONLY about the Rich, or 2) 40% of Americans are simply too stupid to understand they are voting wrongly. I chose to Believe it is #1.

Edited by DieChecker, 29 April 2013 - 08:03 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#24    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,373 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 29 April 2013 - 08:14 AM

You know, I was thinking about the US situation last night, and become more and more persuaded that the problem is the very existence of political parties.  They are so ubiquitous abound the world that the temptation is to think they are inevitable, and to try to develop some explanatory philosophy of left and right.  The fact is they do much more harm than good.

Vietnam is officially a one-party state, and efforts to form other parties are illegal (although truth to tell I'm not really sure here, as I've never heard of such a case).  But I think about it and ask what is the difference between a one-party state and a no-party state, and can't come up with anything that would apply absolutely.  

That there are factions within the party is not hard to miss, although in the end they always work them out, and some observers try to apply Western ideas of left and right to these factions, with I think very limited success.

At first of course party members were all loyal revolutionary Communists.  That is the old generation.  Now pretty much anyone who gets a college degree (or the equivalent from a police or military school) and does not become a monk or priest and who does not get employment with a major corporation or own a business can become a party member almost automatically,(and that last rule is considerably relaxed from what it use to be since now they can own stock and their spouses can own businesses). (Of course someone denouncing the party would also be passed over).  

So what seems to be evolving is something of a meritocracy.


#25    Jeremiah65

Jeremiah65

    Seeker of knowledge

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,078 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The mists at the edge of your dreams...

  • "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:25 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 29 April 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

You know, I was thinking about the US situation last night, and become more and more persuaded that the problem is the very existence of political parties.  They are so ubiquitous abound the world that the temptation is to think they are inevitable, and to try to develop some explanatory philosophy of left and right.  The fact is they do much more harm than good.

Vietnam is officially a one-party state, and efforts to form other parties are illegal (although truth to tell I'm not really sure here, as I've never heard of such a case).  But I think about it and ask what is the difference between a one-party state and a no-party state, and can't come up with anything that would apply absolutely.  

That there are factions within the party is not hard to miss, although in the end they always work them out, and some observers try to apply Western ideas of left and right to these factions, with I think very limited success.

At first of course party members were all loyal revolutionary Communists.  That is the old generation.  Now pretty much anyone who gets a college degree (or the equivalent from a police or military school) and does not become a monk or priest and who does not get employment with a major corporation or own a business can become a party member almost automatically,(and that last rule is considerably relaxed from what it use to be since now they can own stock and their spouses can own businesses). (Of course someone denouncing the party would also be passed over).  

So what seems to be evolving is something of a meritocracy.

It would be nice if we didn't have to deal with the extremes of party lines.  As time goes by, the two main parties get more and more extreme to counter balance each other.  The further they swing to their respective sides, the more they alienate the average citizens.

Most of the people I know are somewhere in the middle...some lean a little more to the right and some lean a little more to the left.  I do not know anyone that full on embraces the entire party platform from either of the main two parties.  Over time, the two main parties have become so extreme...they really represent no one all that well.  To me, this is madness...when the party you have faithfully followed your entire life no longer represents the bulk of your personal values...time to find another party...

It would be absolutely great if there was no parties...people could run purely on their ideas, their philosophies and their plans for improving their community, state or nation.  Sadly...It boils down...like always...into the corrupting power and influence of money.

You might have a fine-fine plan for making things better for everyone...but...if you do not have the money to get your name out there...then no one will ever hear your message.  To get that money you need...you have to get people to donate...to get people to donate....they expect a hand in your plans...so there goes any integrity of the system.

The door is so wide open for nepotism, cronyism and rascalism...it's pathetic...it really-really is.

Oh well...perhaps one day we will figure this crap out...it would be nice if it happened in my lifetime...but I seriously doubt it...

"Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it."  George Bernard Shaw
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."  Thomas Jefferson

Posted Image

#26    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 30 April 2013 - 01:04 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 29 April 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

So, you honestly believe poor, urban blacks are better off today then 25 years ago? Studies have shown that the rate of poverty and education among the poorest minoritys has not changed markedly in decades. The poor stay poor, and the uneducated stay uneducated, regardless of if a Democrat or Republican is in office, and regardless of control of the Congress.

The only time I mentioned "the poor" was to state they will vote for the "more progressive" candidate because they can see conservatives do not have them in mind. I should clarify, even if it does not address your question, that the more progressive candidate might not be a true progressive and, in another matter altogether, that some of the poor still vote for conservatives, especially if they are more concerned with social than fiscal matters (i.e., they feel stronger about abortion than egalitarianism aka single-issue voter).

To specifically address your question now, you also mentioned that the, "downtrodden minority is still downtrodden.", and I began my response with, "any of the groups you could possibly have in mind," since I was unsure who specifically you were speaking about but I was not strictly speaking about the poor as they exist today.

My comments were more based on the concept of upward mobility, specifically intragenerational mobility. If you want me to define these terms for you I can.

There is also the concept of black flight. There are many African-Americans living in the suburbs and better parts of town at present, which their parents or grandparents did not come from.

View PostDieChecker, on 29 April 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Because...?? Because they had no experience or education. Has this really changed much? Do poor blacks get jobs in industry easier now? Are they hired more often because Democrat officials got them experience and education? Nope... hasn't happened yet.

These same African-Americans that I just finished describing might tell you or describe that it was because of affirmative action and other progressive measures that allowed them that opportunity to achieve higher levels of education. They might discuss how they work at or manage in places that their grandparents would not have even been allowed in.


View PostDieChecker, on 29 April 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Are you still referencing the Civil War era and comparing it to modern America? When was the last time blacks in America were locked into a room and forced to work in a factory??

My comment over being, "locked in factories so as to not take too many restroom breaks even if it meant them being trapped in a burning building," was said in regards to women and in the context of why minority groups, such as women, increasingly favor more progressive candidates.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire was in 1911 and resulted in 146 deaths, 129 of them were women. This resulted in reforms, the kind championed by progressives, in the form of greater safety codes and worker's rights in general. The usual feminists, socialists, and social workers all recognized it was time for and called for change.

India, this very moment, is going through these same issues (factory fires) and the result will be greater protection for women and workers there.

You might dismiss history and the lessons it has to teach us but a lack of hindsight will not improve us as a society.

View PostDieChecker, on 29 April 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

So, now it resorts to the "Voter Fraud" defense? Grabbing at any bit of mud to sling? As if 50% of all voting fraud is not Democrat involved. Both sides commit fraud to varying degrees. Usually in the form of zealous individuals.

We are discussing "minority groups and voting trends". Voter fraud that negatively impacts minorities comes from the Republican side of the aisle. This is why minorities are not going to overwhelmingly vote for the exact party that is attempting to disenfranchise their grandmothers.

View PostDieChecker, on 29 April 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Blagovich was SELLING Obama's seat!! Which side is about money? Which side is helping minoritys? Answer: Both on the first and Neither on the second question. The Democrats are not white angels lifting up minorities, they keep them down just as throughly as Republicans do... The Dems just use different methods and Preach how they are helping at the same time.

I can only add that we need more progressive candidates within the Democrat party and that your narrative of "neither party is for minorities" is simply untrue. A detangling of fiscal and social policies is also required if one wants to understand that women, blacks, hispanics, and members of the LGBTQ community can clearly see whose party's social policies advocate them.

It is no surprise that your view is based purely on money, who gives more, who gets more, because that is what some conservatives focus on.

It is not all about money and maybe if the Republican party begins to advocate for minorites instead of alienating them they will not suffer so bad at the polls among minority groups. After all finding a new minority group to scapegoat and generate fear towards is a trick that can only work for an election cycle or two at best.

View PostDieChecker, on 29 April 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

What percentage did you say are Progressives? 16%? There are your Deaf Ears....

Why do you suppose 47% of Americans voted for Mitt Romney? "Everyone knows....", right?? If everyone thought that was reasonable, then Obama would have gotten 95% of the popular vote. Since that did not happen, either 1) you are wrong, and Republicans are not ONLY about the Rich, or 2) 40% of Americans are simply too stupid to understand they are voting wrongly. I chose to Believe it is #1.

No argument here, America is evenly divided, mainly between urban and rural sensibilities.

Regarding my comment on deaf ears, it was not to do with all of America, so let us review or remind you. With all respect and sorry it took me a while to properly respond to your post.

Your appeal that "I always wonder why various groups vote Democrat as a bloc, yet year after year, they appear to get little to no help and to not have any progress in their problems. The masses of the Poor are still poor. The downtrodden minority is still downtrodden. Makes me wonder why they keep voting the way they do... Hope maybe?? Maybe eventually they will vote that guy in that will honorably and truthfully make things Right?," is going to fall on deaf ears within the intended communities you perhaps hope to target with that comment.

They (minorities) will not be swayed with that, they will be swayed with actual policies that produce a more egalitarian society.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 30 April 2013 - 01:14 AM.


#27    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,672 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 30 April 2013 - 05:23 AM

A lot of good stuff LBA. Very entertaining to read and discuss...

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 30 April 2013 - 01:04 AM, said:

The only time I mentioned "the poor" was to state they will vote for the "more progressive" candidate because they can see conservatives do not have them in mind.
Yet the Democrats, while they have the poor in mind, do little more then token efforts to really help them. Are the poor so fearful that they will accept token help for strong loyalty?

Conservatives do seek to help the poor, only not by throwing bails of money down a welfare/entitlement shute, but by stimulating jobs which willl make the owners rich, and provide good wages for the workers. Yet, these same Dem Poor believe to their bones that the rich are out to ruin them. That they mean to work them hard and pay Nothing. This is a mindset from 100  years ago, and they need to get over it and understand that free cash is not the answer. Working to improve your situation is....

Quote

My comments were more based on the concept of upward mobility, specifically intragenerational mobility. If you want me to define these terms for you I can.

There is also the concept of black flight. There are many African-Americans living in the suburbs and better parts of town at present, which their parents or grandparents did not come from.
True enough. But even if there is more upward mobility and more movement to the suburbs. The much greater percentage shows no change. There is hope, but it is the same hope that existed 40 years ago. Look at the TV show The Jeffersons, it was on TV in 1975, and people accepted that blacks could move into the middle class, live in a nice place and send their kids to good schools. But that dream, even 40 years later, is still little more then a dream for a large section of several minority groups. That things are better for a small fraction is not a fix for everyone.

Quote

These same African-Americans that I just finished describing might tell you or describe that it was because of affirmative action and other progressive measures that allowed them that opportunity to achieve higher levels of education. They might discuss how they work at or manage in places that their grandparents would not have even been allowed in.

http://www.understan...ages/affirm.gif

Quote

India, this very moment, is going through these same issues (factory fires) and the result will be greater protection for women and workers there.

You might dismiss history and the lessons it has to teach us but a lack of hindsight will not improve us as a society.
OK, so India has a environment where women would want to vote Democrat, but what does that have to do with the USA? Sure, women still make less in the same job, but they've been voting Dem for a century and still have the same problems.

So are Dems just incompetent, or are they liars, or is it all the Evil Republicans™ fault?

Quote

We are discussing "minority groups and voting trends". Voter fraud that negatively impacts minorities comes from the Republican side of the aisle. This is why minorities are not going to overwhelmingly vote for the exact party that is attempting to disenfranchise their grandmothers.
Well, with the modifier that Republicans voter fraud generally falls on minorities is a hard point to argue against. But, does not dismiss the fact that both sides comitt similar amounts of fraud.

Quote

I can only add that we need more progressive candidates within the Democrat party and that your narrative of "neither party is for minorities" is simply untrue. A detangling of fiscal and social policies is also required if one wants to understand that women, blacks, hispanics, and members of the LGBTQ community can clearly see whose party's social policies advocate them.
And apparently are ineffective, based on statistics that never seem to change. They are voting for people who talk a good game, but do little or nothing. And doing nothing, in my book, means they don't really care about them.

If the Republicans cared about the Poor, and they do to an extent, then they would get things done. People are always complaining about Rich people getting this favoritism, or that favoritism, and getting richer and getting a better environment from their Congressional Representatives. But where is that strong, effective favoritism for minorities and the poor? It seems to not exist....

Quote

It is no surprise that your view is based purely on money, who gives more, who gets more, because that is what some conservatives focus on.
I think if you were to talk to most minoritys or the Poor, you'll find that money is a real issue.

Quote

It is not all about money and maybe if the Republican party begins to advocate for minorites instead of alienating them they will not suffer so bad at the polls among minority groups. After all finding a new minority group to scapegoat and generate fear towards is a trick that can only work for an election cycle or two at best.
Or perhaps the poor will realize that the Republicans are trying to make Everyone fiscally better off. Not just handing out handfuls of coins to keep their constituants alive for the next election. Sure the Rich will get richer, but everyone would be better off. The arguement that the Rich are evil is just boogyman talk. Heck there are more millionare Democrats in Congress then there are Republican millionares.

Quote

No argument here, America is evenly divided, mainly between urban and rural sensibilities.

Regarding my comment on deaf ears, it was not to do with all of America, so let us review or remind you. With all respect and sorry it took me a while to properly respond to your post.
I am sorry if I offended. I did not mean to imply that You, yourself, were deaf. I meant to say that many Progressives I have spoken to face to face are completely close minded, and regardless of whatever facts may be brought up, keep throwing the same tired propaganda over and over. They use the same rhetoric over and over. They rely on Emotion and Outrage to fill in the holes in their facts. Deflecting any criticism as being Concervative lies.

Quote

Your appeal that "I always wonder why various groups vote Democrat as a bloc, yet year after year, they appear to get little to no help and to not have any progress in their problems. The masses of the Poor are still poor. The downtrodden minority is still downtrodden. Makes me wonder why they keep voting the way they do... Hope maybe?? Maybe eventually they will vote that guy in that will honorably and truthfully make things Right?," is going to fall on deaf ears within the intended communities you perhaps hope to target with that comment.

They (minorities) will not be swayed with that, they will be swayed with actual policies that produce a more egalitarian society.
True. But when will any of those policies be produced by the people they are currently electing?

Edited by DieChecker, 30 April 2013 - 05:26 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#28    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:46 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 30 April 2013 - 05:23 AM, said:

Conservatives do seek to help the poor, only not by throwing bails of money down a welfare/entitlement shute, but by stimulating jobs which willl make the owners rich, and provide good wages for the workers.

And yet we tried that under GWB. And what did it get us? The rich got richer and the rest of us got poorer with fewer jobs. The facts are very very clear about this. What you claim above DID NOT WORK.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#29    MiskatonicGrad

MiskatonicGrad

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dunwich USA

  • "the natural progress of things is liberty to yield and goverment to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson

Posted 01 May 2013 - 03:00 AM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 28 April 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

Everyone knows which party is about the rich getting richer and only for themselves
You made some good points up until this. After I read it and finally stopped laughing I don't think I can take anything you say serious. REALLY!

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread" --Thomas Jefferson(1821)

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session"--Mark Twain(1866)

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson(1800)

#30    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,571 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 01 May 2013 - 03:24 AM

If the democrats have no interest in the rich then just who were all those people across the nation paying $38,000 a plate for Barack Obamas fundraisers during the whole long campaign season? Were they just average people cashing in their life savings? Right. What of this ability to buy and sell presidential influence via paying $500,000 for a guaranteed Oval Office meet with the prez as many times as you can fork out a half million dollars. So yes, all rich people and they sure aren't giving away that money just because obamas a nice guy. That kind of money is considered an investment and rich people only invest on the possibility of an ROI which means the democrats must be doing something for them. They aren't going into that investment blind.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users