Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Avatar Samantha Ai

Red vs Blue is really Urban vs Rural values

Urban/Rural   29 members have voted

  1. 1. Let us gauge the urban/rurural/suburban divide.

    • I lean to the left and live in an urban area.
      1
    • I lean to the right and live in an urban area.
      8
    • I lean to the left and live in a rural area.
      4
    • I lean to the right and live in a rural area.
      2
    • I lean to the left and live in a suburban area.
      4
    • I lean to the right and live in a suburban area.
      7
    • Other; explain.
      3

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

41 posts in this topic

For a better understanding of why people think as they do there is the concept that we are really enganged in urban vs rural values.

This explains much and perhaps why liberals focus on tolerance, in a city with so many groups we have to find a way to get along, and in the countryside with more homogeneity the concerns are more about preserving the self-reliance they have come to value.

The American past was one where you could claim a piece of land and make your own home but it was also dangerous and you also had to defend it with help being miles or days away. This frontier mindset is a deep part of those rural value even if we no longer have a frontier.

Also in our history was the fact that many groups flocked to the cities, for jobs, and just as a general global trend. Minorities were among these groups (African-Americans leaving the South for industrial cities in the North and Mexican-Americans leaving the countryside for the larger cities in the Southwest) and thus why minorities consistently vote in blocs to represent urban values.

What other examples could you offer?

The new political divide is a stark division between cities and what remains of the countryside. Not just some cities and some rural areas, either -- virtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it. The difference is no longer about where people live, it's about how people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy -- or amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants.

The voting data suggest that people don't make cities liberal -- cities make people liberal. Here, courtesy of Princeton's Robert Vanderbai, is an electoral map that captures the divisions:

The only major cities that voted Republican in the 2012 presidential election were Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, and Salt Lake City. With its dominant Mormon population, Mitt Romney was a lock in the Utah capital; Phoenix nearly voted for Obama. After that, the largest urban centers to tilt Republican included Wichita, Lincoln, Neb., and Boise.

The gap is so stark that some of America's bluest cities are located in its reddest states. Every one of Texas' major cities -- Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio -- voted Democratic in 2012, the second consecutive presidential election in which they've done so. Other red-state cities that tipped blue include Atlanta, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Birmingham, Tucson, Little Rock, and Charleston, S.C. -- ironically, the site of the first battle of the Civil War. In states like Nevada, the only blue districts are often also the only cities, like Reno and Las Vegas.

Awesome graphs and the rest of the article can be found here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/red-state-blue-city-how-the-urban-rural-divide-is-splitting-america/265686/

The poll also includes a suburban option because I strongly suspect that many in suburban areas tend to hold more rural values instead of urban ones.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red v blue? Neither do.

There is certainly correlation between red and rural, blue and urban; but your subject line oversells this. It can be said that Republicans are old white males, independent of where they live. Not the young black female democrats, surely.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The analysis of US political patterns is complicated and sadly subject to gross oversimplification and distortion, as we see in the OP.

The reality is that an issue-by-issue spectrum can be demonstrated, and the grosser manifestation that is forced by the fact that people have only one vote serves as a complicated averaging of individual views multiplied by their relative importance to that individual. The end result is that election outcomes only somewhat reflect true public opinion (rendered even more irrelevant by the fact of large numbers of single-issue voters, large numbers of utterly ignorant voters who vote on things like name recognition, nominal party, family pressure, or liking the looks or sounds of the candidate).

That is largely why the founders of the country abandoned democracy and went for indirect elections and republican institutions and restricted the franchise to property owners with an education. The ideology of democracy has over time upset most of these protections the founders built into what they set up, leading to a system nowadays where political parties (something the Constitution never envisioned and the original founders, especially Washington, very much feared) control nominations, generally controlled by the legal profession.

The irony, then, is that the democracy ideology has destroyed what democracy the system ever had.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of people vote because they feel strongly about a few key(to them anyway) issues. If these issues leaned more liberal, then they would probably vote Democrats even if they agreed with Republicans in almost every other issue.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have Red doors and Blue doors in Liverpool U.K, I once lived in a Red door but parked my car outside a Blue door one night,and then had to pay a £30.00 parking ticket.And I was a neutral at the time.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The electoral mapped linked in the OP has not been loading for me for some time now. Usure what is up with the Princeton University server but here it is as well as the other two from the article.

The first shows areas by population and alignment. The taller the area the more populous it is.

4uiarm.jpg

Electoral cartograms by University of Michigan physics professor Mark Newman show the power of Democratic counties based on population density. Spreading each vote out, his illustrations portray the hidden truth of the conventional electoral map, and why the much smaller number of dedicated blue counties is outmatching the more geographically numerous red counties.

117ycqt.png

But this also skirts the point. Cities are significant not just because of their physical locations, but their physical environment. This map of emerging "megaregions" in the U.S. matches up snugly with the blue spots on the electoral map:

lzdps.png

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good topic! :tu:

I think though, it tends to be a little more complicated than that though. I do know many people (even in Houston) who are pretty staunch Republicans.

But, I thought it interesting, that before the election, in the country I saw all these Romney signs and as you got closer to town you started to see Obama signs...I should also add that this town has a high welfare rate too... :whistle:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The analysis of US political patterns is complicated and sadly subject to gross oversimplification and distortion, as we see in the OP.

The reality is that an issue-by-issue spectrum can be demonstrated, and the grosser manifestation that is forced by the fact that people have only one vote serves as a complicated averaging of individual views multiplied by their relative importance to that individual. The end result is that election outcomes only somewhat reflect true public opinion (rendered even more irrelevant by the fact of large numbers of single-issue voters, large numbers of utterly ignorant voters who vote on things like name recognition, nominal party, family pressure, or liking the looks or sounds of the candidate).

That is largely why the founders of the country abandoned democracy and went for indirect elections and republican institutions and restricted the franchise to property owners with an education. The ideology of democracy has over time upset most of these protections the founders built into what they set up, leading to a system nowadays where political parties (something the Constitution never envisioned and the original founders, especially Washington, very much feared) control nominations, generally controlled by the legal profession.

The irony, then, is that the democracy ideology has destroyed what democracy the system ever had.

I prefer the narrative presented in The Atlantic article. Not only does it make your claim of "everyone only has one vote" irrelevant since we have more than one vote in reality, we vote for issues and candidates on the local, state, and federal level, we just don't vote for a president once and go home, we can vote for senators and congressmen twice, at the state and federal level, and an array of other initiatives and propositions at the local (various municipal boards and bodies governing everything from school districts to water systems) and the state level. the article also correlates various measures as passing or failing with the population bases of our nation.

Below is the final graph in that article showing gay rights and we can instantly see the areas with greater concentrations or urban areas have extended more rights to those minority groups (LGBTQ). That does not happen by just voting once and letting the president decide what part of the country gets what laws passed on the state level. Also each of those issues if referendums are voted on a case-by-case basis, if not the state legislature has to do so.

2cx69z.jpg

Below are more issues in bold that are decided on whether the area is more urban or rural.

In due course, these populous bastions of urban liberalism have helped spur state legislation and court rulings to create new laws, such as those permitting same sex marriage, that are often in direct conflict with federal laws and with the majority of fellow state counties. These measures are not always controversial -- such as Missouri's 2010 Prop B, regulating dog breeding shows -- but the divisions are often stark: cities vs. everywhere else. Meanwhile, the states with constitutional amendments banning gay marriage are often among the least densely populated in the country, such as South Dakota and Idaho.

On Election Day, voters in 37 states weighed in on 174 ballot measures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, on matters ranging from gambling to marijuana to the death penalty. It was the second-highest number ever, and this cycle also saw a definitive jump in votes on whether to overturn recently passed legislation, including Obamacare and gay marriage. These state laws are the foundation for potential future federal laws, but the sudden, radical divergence between laws from state to state is leading to a dizzying decentralization, with laws of varying importance in varying directions in varying states checkering the United States. This pre-election graphic demonstrates the complexity of the legal environment forsame-sex unions alone across America:

After this year's election, roughly half of the 50 states allow the practice of one, more, or all of the following: same-sex marriage, marijuana use or assisted suicide. Voters in Alabama, Missouri, Montana, and Wyoming passed largely symbolic laws that would prohibit Obamacare, effectively another lifestyle law. Meanwhile, all of the states that voted against Obamacare also ban both same-sex marriage and marijuana use. In Montana, the government won't help insure your health, but it will assist you in killing yourself. Many Americans live in states where they are forced to buy health insurance but are not allowed to end their own lives or marry the person they love.

The Atlantic article also offers assurance that we won't be having a civil war or any part of our nation secede just because a few ultra-conservative hardliners want to keep us in the 1950s.

They just don't have any clear line that can be drawn across the nation that neatly divides us from them as they did in the Civil War. Their values are mostly voted on in rural areas which are all next to urban areas, which might have less space but it is more dense compared to their wide open spaces which are less populated. There is a balance but the lines are all over the place. I just can't see the countryside coming up in arms against the cities.

Their calls for second amendment solutions do not have to be taken with any anxiety, instead they should be seen as what they are, the dying whimpers of a party that now has to share power but in the future it will be the urban areas which keep adding to their population, where birth rates are higher, and millions of tiny little blue voters will dot the land.

Federalism's dance is America's great helix, and in due course a new national consensus will tend to emerge. But things might get more divided before they get better. Immediately after the election, more than a 100,000 citizens in more than 20 states signed petitions on the White House website requesting to secede from the nation.

That has spurred some pundits to worry about a new splintering like the one 150 years ago and to bemoan, as they do each election year, how the country is growing more divided. But the new divisions don't break down neatly enough between states -- as opposed to within them -- to make the idea of any given state pulling out of the union anything more than minority grousing. Robert Forbes, an antebellum history professor at the University of Connecticut, says fears of a divided America are overblown.

"Compared to the United States of 1860," Forbes says, "the America of 2012 is more like the United Colors of Benetton."

Finally the author of the article compiles information from various scholars which is always welcomed for a more detailed analysis of any subject.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good topic! :tu:

I think though, it tends to be a little more complicated than that though. I do know many people (even in Houston) who are pretty staunch Republicans.

But, I thought it interesting, that before the election, in the country I saw all these Romney signs and as you got closer to town you started to see Obama signs...I should also add that this town has a high welfare rate too... :whistle:

My city, one away from yours, is also divided between North and South sides, Republicans vs Democrats, but taken fully into account we have ten city council districts and Districts 1-7 vote Democrat while districts 8-10 vote Republican. What they have in their favor is that Republicans consistenly vote, on every issue, while Democrats usually only fire up their base on bigger issues, so overall, especially on local issues, it seems an equal number of voters come out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is good topic! :tu:

I think though, it tends to be a little more complicated than that though. I do know many people (even in Houston) who are pretty staunch Republicans.

But, I thought it interesting, that before the election, in the country I saw all these Romney signs and as you got closer to town you started to see Obama signs...I should also add that this town has a high welfare rate too... :whistle:

I was watching an interview with a local native author named Sherman Alexie and he said that although by and large Indian values are more in alignment with republicans, (natives tend to be for wars, everyone owns a gun, pro-life etc..) they vote democratic because democrats will do more for them. He also very cynically points out with thinly vieled contempt (it seems like) that liberal white people just love indians, to the point that they wish they were indians despite they have no idea who indians really are.

edit to add, maybe not contempt, more like amusement.

http://www.amazon.com/Sherman-Alexie/e/B00455Q8D4/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1366989299&sr=8-2-ent Sherman Alexie's amazon page

Edited by OverSword
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it surprising that most respondents are on the right?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their calls for second amendment solutions do not have to be taken with any anxiety, instead they should be seen as what they are, the dying whimpers of a party that now has to share power but in the future it will be the urban areas which keep adding to their population, where birth rates are higher, and millions of tiny little blue voters will dot the land.

Kid, instead of writing here, you should be writing for Huffpo.

Although if you did your readership numbers would decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hit "other, explain". I guess I would be a "libertarian" at this point, formerly liberal. The left needs to learn that their feelings on issues will never replace logic, practicality and cold hard facts. Most of their policies have outright failed. Compared to more rural areas, cities these days have far more poverty, higher crime rates and lower average test scores in primary and secondary education. They need to realize that they have failed, overall. As for hardcore conservatives, well they'd probably tell me to "speak english" for using a word thats more than two syllables. So all in all I guess I'm a "centrist", both sides are losing it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Two wings of the same bird of prey...

democrats_republicans_are_two_wings_of_the_same_bird_of_prey_zps15f0bb60.jpg

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.

Edited by Jeremiah65
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a Constitutional Convention is needed calling for at-large primaries, top two vote getters standing against each other, no political parties at all. Also, longer but only one-term offices (no incumbencies). All office holders subject to removal three ways; impeachment if they are convicted of a crime, recall as is now the case in many areas, and ostracism -- giving in effect the whole nation the ability to recall local figures (although of course without the banishment). A rule banning members of the legal profession would also help, and some restriction of the franchise to people with an education and some resources -- maybe only allow people who pay in more than they take out to vote, government employees and retirees excepted.

A special independent board is needed to handle the nation's money, decide what taxes to collect, what money to borrow, and so on, as independent of politics as is the military or the judiciary. Then whenever Congress passed a spending bill, this board would announce corresponding tax increases.

Of course, what do I know, I'm a foreigner. Trouble is if the US economy or political entity collapses, it ain't gonna do me any good either.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Two wings of the same bird of prey...

democrats_republicans_are_two_wings_of_the_same_bird_of_prey_zps15f0bb60.jpg

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!

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.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-06/entertainment/bal-ron-paul-democrats-and-republicans-are-the-same-party-20110606_1_ron-paul-political-parties-democrats

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

... 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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lol @ the juggalo face on the eagle

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.

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!
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/histry-martial-law.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

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.

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??

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.

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.