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

Posted (edited)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

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....

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.

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

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?

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Only if you include the numbers from 2008. Before that employment was up 4% and Productivity was up 19% and payrates were pretty much flat. It was the horribly bad mortgage bust (Thanks to Dems and Repubs) that crashed what in any other situation would be called a "Boom Time".

Seemed to work just fine....

EPI+Income+Distrigution+2008.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Political party registration and sociocultural geography go hand-to-hand: the coasts and the largest urban centers are more liberal than smaller communities and the inland states shown a high level of conservatism. They appeared nothing more than stereotypes, but an adage goes: stereotypes contain a "grain of truth".

How come the majority of urbanites in metro areas are liberal in contrast to more rural people are conservative: There's more access to higher education and pop culture in metropolitan areas as these things could introduced an array of liberal ideas to the residents, while in rural areas you have more persons attend a place of worship and are in a further distance from "post-modern" ideologies.

In Southern Cal., the highest level of Democrat voter percentages are in Los Angeles (city and county) with the westside of L.A. and beach cities are home to a strong social Liberal bent. The further away from the ocean, the more fiscal conservative the suburban communities are in Ventura county, southern Orange county (the hillside home tracts), San Diego (except the central city core) and the Inland Empire, where millions of people moved to in the last 3 decades.

Democrats are most numerous in older, larger cities and sizable populated places with a more racial diverse populace like San Bernardino, Ontario, Riverside and Palm Springs, but Republicans carried strength in most newer suburbs, more affluent towns, retirement communities and rural areas found in the deserts.

Edited by Mike D boy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Likewise to you, DC.

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?

What you describe a token efforts (because things change so slow it seems), I define as progress. It is not about speed but direction. Then because of our system where we have to bargain with the other side we can't ever get what we want all at once but a little bit at a time.

So naturally I am going to disagree but allow me to interest you in the following. What you describe as "accept token help for strong loyalty" might be described as a patronage system.

Rumor in my family is that my grandfather might have been the illegitimate child of the first Duke of Duval. The second Duke of Duval ran the "Democrat machine" (patronage system) in Jim Wells county by outright offering jobs to those who would vote his way.

He is credited for getting LBJ elected because of ballot stuffing too. Whatever the case, because LBJ got elected into office we saw the passage of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Those strengthened our system and also ironically ended the patronage system here.

You claim it is going on, maybe in another form, if you can actually demonstrate it besides offering just a theory, then maybe your argument will have carry more weight.

I still am of the opinion that your pitch is going to fall on deaf ears. Even if the people you wish to sway heard a more credible argument from you, your narrative from the get go is considering them fools who are being used, very condescending, but even if true then are they going to be smart enough to actually absorb a credible argument?

In either case what you present now is narrative without any source proof.

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....

Reaganomics eh? Many, even in the Republican party stopped supporting that long ago if they ever did to begin with. GW Bush referred to them as voodoo economics. Others might refer to them as trickle-down economics or even more broadly as supply-side economics. All of these are related terms but not exactly the same per se. It is said they did not work in the 1890s when they were called the horse-and-sparrow theory:

If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for sparrows.

—John Kenneth Galbraith

Many who understand no longer accept trickle-down economics. It itself has parallel to the patronage system. Allow the richest to control all the jobs and bestow favors upon us. You ask us to trade one rotten system for another but there is a third way: progress.

Many who might not even understand, especially in the younger generations, will not accept trickle-down theories either. Skepticism over trickle-down and voodoo economics has even made it into pop music now!

Care to join me in a dance over the grave of Reaganomics?

[media=]

[/media]
Down in a hole outside of Ventura

Lo and behold, found beauty

I said I've never seen a redhead compost just like that

She said outside, got something to see

We walked a quiet road for miles at first

Couldn't see a thing

Rattle from the dark, chills up my spine

Coming from the trees, oh

That's Reagan's skeleton, in the moonlight

Don't fear the red eyes, fear the satellite overhead

That's Reagan's skeleton, marching our way

Sentimental violence, leading his armies of undead

That's Reagan's skeleton, in the moonlight

Don't fear the red eyes, fear the satellite overhead

That's Reagan's skeleton, marching our way

Sentimental violence, leading his armies in a fog eternally

Musta passed out, when I came to I'm tied up

To my surprise, by the young lady

And as her face grew sick her nails tore out my heart

Blood trickled down, economically

The laughter from the dark was low at first

But became cacophony

I recognize the stench of burning flesh

As they began to feed, oh

On Reagan's skeleton, in the moonlight

Don't fear the red eyes, fear the satellite overhead

That's Reagan's skeleton, marching our way

Sentimental violence, leading his armies of undead

That's Reagan's skeleton, in the moonlight

Don't fear the red eyes, fear the satellite overhead

That's Reagan's skeleton, marching our way

Sentimental violence, leading his armies in a fog eternally

Horror, horror, what an awful way to fall in love

Horror, horror, what an awful way to fall in love

That's Reagan's skeleton, in the moonlight

Don't fear the red eyes, fear the satellite overhead

That's Reagan's skeleton, marching our way

Sentimental violence, leading his armies of undead

That's Reagan's skeleton, in the moonlight

Don't fear the red eyes, fear the satellite overhead

That's Reagan's skeleton, marching our way

Sentimental violence, leading his armies in a fog eternally

—Yeasayer; Reagan's Skeleton

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.

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

I don't understand that graph. It is not even sourced on who compiled it. I also prefer academic sources and even if that it one it is not properly sourced.

That is also not the picture I see on the ground. My neighborhood has been in transition for over 40 years. We still have a few original inhabitants, my group came next beginning around 40 years ago, a bit more of us from this group are left but we are also outnumbered it seems, we have had immigrants move in from a neighboring country beginning 20 years ago, and in the last 10 years African-Americans from a neighboring side of town began moving in.

At the same time the traditional African-American neighborhoods, which they are leaving in droves to better areas, has become the new home of immigrants from the same neighboring country.

Also throughout all this I have seen my neighborhood get worse and not it is getting better thanks to changes made by our city. Liveable and sustainable communities is my number one priority.

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?

Progress is slow and will continue for both of our nations, that I have faith in, it is not about speed but direction, and we are and have been headed in the right one, no matter who wins, the grand bargains and balance both parties strike makes progress slow but nonetheless it continues.

Of course women still make less in the same job, I can give you that, and on one hand a female is more likely to be in poverty than a male while on the other hand the glass ceiling is still not completely shattered.

Women, if you ask them, might tell you they still prefer today than the past and that if the general trend continues the future will even be better. Instead of speaking for them we should allow them to speak for themselves, and not the opinion of wealthy Republicanas but of working poor women. If we take their voting trends into account as their voice then they have spoken in favor of the Democrats.

We arrive back to your narrative, which insinuates they are foolish, and back to mine, which insinuates they recognize progress. Wonder which they would agree with?

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.

Giving you this one as well.

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....

The narrative of the rich getting richer and increasing support from the government is to not be denied but that narrative does not supersede or coincide in tandem exactly with what many do view as strengthened policies for minorities. They are different issues and both are on different trajectories.

We also have to take into account the cultural wars. While some regions are strengthening LGBTQ rights, as shown in the graph in a previous post, others are seeing little progress, but as a nation progress is increasing overall, 50 years ago they had nothing no where, now that is changing, and we can feel it is only a matter of time (not speed but direction) that these other regions will come into line.

We fully expect to win the culture wars.

Overall regarding the poor, the safety nets are also being eroded by what many view is the Republicans in congress, the tide will turn is our view.

You can keep claiming it does not exist but the progressive narrative is that it does. Right-wing AM radio might claim things are getting worse but poor minorities do not tune into that. Optimism is increased in my view overall.

I think if you were to talk to most minoritys or the Poor, you'll find that money is a real issue.

It might be an issue for everyone but for some it is the sole issue while others also have concerns for social issues and approve of the changes being made.

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.

Trickle-down rears its ugly resurrected head again, a zombie hmm? Voodoo-economics.

Progress is not about rich vs poor but drafting a more egalitarian society based on balance, instilling responsiblity to the poor while at the same time limiting the profit motive so it does not run rampant. On that last front we are losing but it is becoming more well known and there will be blowback as a natural and inevitable result. Koch brothers can keep changing tactics and creating new foundations (shadow ones too) but that only means they know progress is coming for them so they are doing all in their power to limit it, just them jumping all over the place (reacting) proves progress is continuing and perhaps at even greater doses.

In fact, I have a feeling that if Lehman Brothers was Lehman Brothers and Sisters, they might still be around.

—Arianna Huffington

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.

Well, I can only generally disagree but also hope I have not offended you in turn. Keep in mind that I don't consider liberals and progressive the same.

True. But when will any of those policies be produced by the people they are currently electing?

Progressives feel those policies have gradually been installed throughout the course of history. We favor gradual change as a pragmatic approach knowing we have to bargain with the other party. At the same time we have to bargain with our own party as well. I wish, I wish, the Green Party had more support, they would represent us better.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Political party registration and sociocultural geography go hand-to-hand: the coasts and the largest urban centers are more liberal than smaller communities and the inland states shown a high level of conservatism. They appeared nothing more than stereotypes, but an adage goes: stereotypes contain a "grain of truth".

How come the majority of urbanites in metro areas are liberal in contrast to more rural people are conservative: There's more access to higher education and pop culture in metropolitan areas as these things could introduced an array of liberal ideas to the residents, while in rural areas you have more persons attend a place of worship and are in a further distance from "post-modern" ideologies.

In Southern Cal., the highest level of Democrat voter percentages are in Los Angeles (city and county) with the westside of L.A. and beach cities are home to a strong social Liberal bent. The further away from the ocean, the more fiscal conservative the suburban communities are in Ventura county, southern Orange county (the hillside home tracts), San Diego (except the central city core) and the Inland Empire, where millions of people moved to in the last 3 decades.

Democrats are most numerous in older, larger cities and sizable populated places with a more racial diverse populace like San Bernardino, Ontario, Riverside and Palm Springs, but Republicans carried strength in most newer suburbs, more affluent towns, retirement communities and rural areas found in the deserts.

Your assessment is inline with the data presented in the OP. Thanks for reporting in on the Californian situation as well.

The voting data suggest that people don't make cities liberal -- cities make people liberal.

Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide Is Splitting America

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is it surprising that most respondents are on the right?

Sort of surprising but it could very well point towards the composition of our forum rather than our country as a whole.

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

Although if you did your readership numbers would decline.

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.

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!

@tapirmusic @AsteroidX @MiskatonicGrad #on-topic

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have leaned in my years is the ideologues always give the longest, least-read speeches.

The reason for the progressive radicalization of political parties in the United States House is closed primaries in gerrymandered congressional districts. A sitting Congressman cannot deviate from the wishes of the more radical members of the party that district has been gerrymandered for without facing a primary challenge.

Three reforms: First, lengthen a Congressional term to six years and then ban incumbency (so they can vote what they think right without worrying about re-election)

Second, run all candidates in an open primary (no party affiliation even mentioned) and then elect from among the top two vote getters.

Third, create independent commissions to draw district boundaries, have them do it on an ongoing basis using the best available population data -- not just restricted to the census (either that or run the census on an ongoing basis).

No restrictions on the amount of money that can be spent on these elections should be imposed -- such things are impossible to enforce because people can always spend the money independently. However, laws requiring full disclosure in a timely fashion of such spending should help.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add one further suggestion -- Congressional districts drawn by an independent commission would have to adhere to certain rules, being, first, that they have to be geographically contiguous and such that there exists at least one point from which every point in the district can be reached drawing a straight line without crossing another district or anything outside the district, and, second, the district would have to be such that the number of people who change districts from the last redrawing is minimized

Some leeway in the population variation could be allowed for flexibility, but very limited (less than a percentage point for sure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the democrats have no interest in the rich

where in the world would you get that idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you include the numbers from 2008. Before that employment was up 4% and Productivity was up 19% and payrates were pretty much flat. It was the horribly bad mortgage bust (Thanks to Dems and Repubs) that crashed what in any other situation would be called a "Boom Time".

Seemed to work just fine....

EPI+Income+Distrigution+2008.jpg

median income -1 percent in 8 years??!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It seems many of the same divides we have now have their origins in the past of a century ago.

In the fifty years from the end of the Civil War to the beginning of World War I, the United States had undergone a startling transformation. A country dominated by agriculture had become the worldís leading industrial manufacturer. A land dominated by rural elements had given way to a nation of city dwellers as a result of incredibly rapid urbanization. The people of the United States also witnessed cultural diversification as tens of millions of eastern and southern Europeans flooded into what to that point had always been an overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon culture in fifty years of unprecedented immigration.

This transformation not only produced numerous new and vexing problems, it challenged the supremacy of groups that had traditionally dominated America as well as their values and lifestyles. "Their" America was on the verge of extinction. Thus rural Americans of Anglo-Saxon heritage launched a concerted effort after World War I to restrain the trends they found threatening and reimpose traditional American values. Prohibition, the Ku Klux Klan, nativism, immigration restrictions, Protestant Fundamentalism, and laws forbidding the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools were all part of this campaign.

Hicks and Slicks: The Urban-Rural Confrontation of the Twenties

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Busy right now LBA, but I'll eventually respond to your post. Many good points!

1 person likes 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.