The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

For as long as I can remember self-identified conservatives have outnumbered liberals by a significant margin.

And the term "liberal" has been used as a pejorative term for decades. Democrats used to run in fear of being labeled as one. Whereas being a conservative is usually associated with good American values, flags, and apple pie.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Kodos

And the term "liberal" has been used as a pejorative term for decades. Democrats used to run in fear of being labeled as one. Whereas being a conservative is usually associated with good American values, flags, and apple pie.

Right, which is exactly the problem with the Gallup poll results posted.
Most, if not all, conservatives will willfully and gladly identify as one.
Liberals not so much.

From my highly unscientific perspective I categorize it this way.

Far Left
Not really Left but certainly oppose all or most the Right
Truly neutral
Not really Right but certainly oppose all or most the Left
Far Right


I'd say 10% fall into the truly neutral category.
55% fall into the top 2 and 35% fall into the bottom two.

Unfortunately for the Democrats and fortunately for the country in my view, the lowest common denominators - true societal leeches - fall almost exclusively left. These are also the hardest people to get to come out and vote.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Kodos

It may or may not be why he was elected, but in either case, aren't you troubled by numerous members of his upper-level staff lying about meeting with Russians (our number one enemy) and possibly colluding with them during the election? I can't imagine the outrage on the right if either Obama or Hillary had these exact same accusations against them.

Several points here
1- I don't consider Russia to be our number 1 enemy. I don't consider them Top 5 in all honesty. This single distinction may skew our entire view of this matter
2- Ummm we had the outrage about Clinton's ties to the Russian. Only it was largely ignored. Telfer contributed heavily to Clinton's campaign fund allegedly in recognition of the uranium deal when she was Secretary of State. Joule Energy and Podesta...even back to Bill's days in Arkansas state office there were rumblings there. There wasn't mass outrage and there certainly werent nightly mainstream news coverage...

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Butter

What irks me most of all is that now we can't have any news reported independently without people saying that it is made up.

The war on facts has gone so far as to having whole segments of the population being unable to agree on literally basic facts. It is so frustrating to watch.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

But the vitriol and incessant pounding of looking for ways to remove the elected President for office, is childish. I said it was stupid when certain folks continued to bang the drum that Obama was a Kenyan and Muslim secret operative etc. That's just childish games.

I lost so I am going to shit talk the winner.

Anyone who has ever been successful in sales has learned long ago that when you lose a pitch you gracefully acknowledge the competitor and no that you will get your second shot. To rail and denigrate the victor only reveals your character and hurts future efforts. But that's just my opinion.

Personally, I don't necessarily want Trump removed from office. I do if he did something criminal. I just want the truth to come out. But it does feel like Trump is and has been trying to stop an investigation from happening. If he is, that seems like obstruction to me. Doesn't it to you?

What frustrates me the most, which I quoted again, is that there are factors in play (largely controlled by the right) that take facts and turn them partisan.

I don't want facts to be partisan. I am legitimately, genuinely interested in what happened. But we can't even do that anymore without some kind of spin. We have an entire population of people who actively, dismissively jeer facts and truth and just call them "partisan rhetoric". We are reaping what we have sown for the last 20 years that really started with Clinton hate. It has been pervasive into our culture. Every news story, someone has to try to figure out what the writer or news outlet's "angle" is. Why does everything have to have an angle?

[JPhillips]

You can go back decades and see that conservatives have outnumbered liberals. There's never been a time where that wasn't true. The idea that conservatives are a persecuted minority is ridiculous and has zero supporting data.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Butter

Personally, I don't necessarily want Trump removed from office. I do if he did something criminal. I just want the truth to come out. But it does feel like Trump is and has been trying to stop an investigation from happening. If he is, that seems like obstruction to me. Doesn't it to you?

What frustrates me the most, which I quoted again, is that there are factors in play (largely controlled by the right) that take facts and turn them partisan.

I don't want facts to be partisan. I am legitimately, genuinely interested in what happened. But we can't even do that anymore without some kind of spin. We have an entire population of people who actively, dismissively jeer facts and truth and just call them "partisan rhetoric". We are reaping what we have sown for the last 20 years that really started with Clinton hate. It has been pervasive into our culture. Every news story, someone has to try to figure out what the writer or news outlet's "angle" is. Why does everything have to have an angle?

I love your last paragraph, I will see that and raise it to the fact that since Watergate, many in the press have been trying to be the next Woodward and Bernstein. I agree, there is not some conspiracy behind every story. Facts are not partisan, they are facts. The problem is with the 24-hour news cycle, reporting the news is not enough. The news channels put together analysis to fill in a lot of time, and as a result, the line has blurred between news and analysis. At the same time, many people can no longer do this analysis for themselves.

Going to your first point, my concern with Trump is he turns out to be another Nixon. Nixon was not guilty of the break in, his crime was the cover-up. I can see Trump going down the same path.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Several points here
1- I don't consider Russia to be our number 1 enemy. I don't consider them Top 5 in all honesty. This single distinction may skew our entire view of this matter

Okay, ...

1. China?
2. North Korea?


Just guessing here.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You can go back decades and see that conservatives have outnumbered liberals. There's never been a time where that wasn't true. The idea that conservatives are a persecuted minority is ridiculous and has zero supporting data.

If conservatives outnumbered liberals, why did Democrats hold both houses of Congress more or less from 1930 to 1994 (with a couple of interruptions in the Senate)?

Part of this is also due to eliminating an axis on the political spectrum. Back in the day, you had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. You do not see those anymore.

[larrymcg421]

I think we're losing track of the meaning of the term when Bill Clinton is identified as a liberal.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Okay, ...

1. China?
2. North Korea?


Just guessing here.

Candidly, when I threw out the not top 5 line I didnt have a top 5 of enemies organized in my brain, but Russia just isnt a fear of mine. I travel there 2x year for work. Have been all over the country. I just dont see the fear there. I think it is a lot of cold war boogey man fear to be honest.

If I had to list a top 5 enemies of the US in no particular order
China, North Korea, Iran, ISIS/ISIL, AFhanistan/Talban remnants...

Heck there are South American countries Id put ahead of Russia...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Okay, ...

1. China?
2. North Korea?


Just guessing here.

Iran, Syria and/or ISIS if you consider them separate, I'd throw in Saudi Arabia, even Turkey might deserve to be on that with Erdogan's progression. Idk if we really have 2 enemies (China is the closest to being a real threat, I guess you could call Radical Islam as a whole one), but I certainly view the Russians as much more an annoyance than a true existential threat. To paraphrase Obama, they have less people than us, are weaker than us, poorer than us, have an economy propped up by natural resources, a massive drug problem, and declining demographics due to an extremely low birth rate. They're certainly a threat to countries within their sphere of influence, which unfortunately does include some NATO countries now, and they've been able to find some useful idiots in Western countries for decades now, but they're not going to be launching nukes or rolling tanks through Berlin let alone across the oceans.

Originally Posted by Butter

What irks me most of all is that now we can't have any news reported independently without people saying that it is made up.

The war on facts has gone so far as to having whole segments of the population being unable to agree on literally basic facts. It is so frustrating to watch.

+1 For example, I think there's a good chance it's a false flag and Assange etc latching onto a narrative to push an agenda or cover up the real sources, and I definitely don't buy that HRC is out there ordering murders*, but Julian Assange repeatedly implying & Kim Dotcom saying Seth Rich was the leaker of the Wikileaks Clinton emails seems like something worth investigating instead of FoxNews publishing then retracting a story that pushed one side's agenda with certainty while the other is yelling Fake News.

(* - it's clearly Podesta and his friends covering up the aliens that ordered the murder)

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

#BREAKING New US-led Syria strike kills 80 relatives of IS fighters: monitor

— AFP news agency (@AFP) May 26, 2017

"You have to take out their families."

I don't think there's any targeting of families here (or in Mosul), but it's pretty clear the December Directive drastically increased the acceptable threshold for "acceptable" collateral damage/civilian casualties. Not an easy topic, especially as IS is pushed into very small urban areas of control where they're increasingly intermingled with civilians.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If conservatives outnumbered liberals, why did Democrats hold both houses of Congress more or less from 1930 to 1994 (with a couple of interruptions in the Senate)?

Part of this is also due to eliminating an axis on the political spectrum. Back in the day, you had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. You do not see those anymore.

The problem is viewing "liberal Republicans" and "conservative Democrats" as outliers. For most of the 20th century, those were EDIT: redundant (by today's standards). I mean, yes, there were exceptions - notably Roosevelt's New Deal - but Democrats spent the first century after Reconstruction as, generally, the conservative standard bearer, while the Republican Party was more progressive. Nixon is really where those poles reversed.

So that 1930-1994 period is half explained by demographics.

The other 30 years is, frankly, inertia. There are states which are deep deep red on a national level where elective offices on the statewide and local level are held by Democrats. This isn't because of any great love for liberal policies. It's because you get a feedback loop. People remain registered with the party which is dominant locally so that they can have a say in the party primary (which is often the de facto election) and people run as candidates for the dominant local party because that's the easiest path to office.

Shoot, my recently departed grandmother was a registered Democrat all her life, but I think the last Democrat for whom she voted was Kennedy (who was not, civil rights impulses aside, particularly liberal). From the end of the '60s through the end of her life, she was a registered Democrat who voted Republican.

Inertia.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Now I want to be sure my point is made. I am not saying in any way that I feel authoritatively that Trump nor any of his "people" have had zero contact/relationship with Putin and that this is all a strawman. I am saying its affect on the election is being massively overblown and is NOT the reason he in the POTUS.

And I think your apparent belief that all of this outrage stems from thinking the election was stolen is very misguided.

[SirFozzie]

Did "Russia Steal The election"? No. Did they have an effect on it? I think so.

Do I think the Trump people worked hand in hand with Russia to sway the election? Almost definitely not. Do I think people on the periphery of Trump's campaign took at least a wink wink nudge nudge say no more attitude towards making the most of the Russian leaks? Yes.

But at this point, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. Basically, we have a sinkhole, and instead of diverting traffic around it, they are loudly insisting that "There's no sinkhole here, the road is perfectly fine False News media!" and sending more traffic down the road, hurtling into the sinkhole making it bigger.

I've said it before and said it again, the only saving grace Trump has to me is that he's a moron. He's one of those funhouse mirrors that takes the worst impulses of SOME of the GOP and magnifies it and distorts it. And he's surrounded by morons as well. I mean, you read some of the things that for example, Mick Mulvaney says, and you can almost SEE the cartoon villain twirling his mustache and chuckling evilly as he prepares to close the Orphanage.

[Julio Riddols]

Something I think is missing here too is that Trump was a pretty widely hated dude before he even decided to run for president. He's always been a blowhard and a moron in most people's eyes. The problem comes in that he is an idiot in charge of America now, and he has the potential to do serious harm in that kind of position because he is a complete fool. He's not stupid like George W., He's the kind of guy who brags about things like undetected flyovers and shit because he wants to feel like he is winning. There are major problems with doing things like that.

It's not the media painting him as a moron, its the fact that he is a moron and he is out there being the loosest cannon he can possibly be, and its bad for the country all around. It's bad for foreign perception, its bad for morale, its bad for the danger his loose lips and foolish tweets present. People don't care which side he is on, they care that he is so far from presidential that it is unforgivable.

We have a reality star president with no charisma who talks like an a gossipy teenage girl even though he's fucking 70. It's a bad idea to give him access to the information he has access to and to let him present himself as our elected leader. Literally anyone else he was running against would have been a better choice.

[Easy Mac]

So... anyone around here also have a son-in-law going to jail for treason? That's a common occurrence, right?

But I guess Bannon allegedly calling him a cuck could come true in a year or so.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Candidly, when I threw out the not top 5 line I didnt have a top 5 of enemies organized in my brain, but Russia just isnt a fear of mine. I travel there 2x year for work. Have been all over the country. I just dont see the fear there. I think it is a lot of cold war boogey man fear to be honest.

If I had to list a top 5 enemies of the US in no particular order
China, North Korea, Iran, ISIS/ISIL, AFhanistan/Talban remnants...

I think you underestimate Russia.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Candidly, when I threw out the not top 5 line I didnt have a top 5 of enemies organized in my brain, but Russia just isnt a fear of mine. I travel there 2x year for work. Have been all over the country. I just dont see the fear there. I think it is a lot of cold war boogey man fear to be honest.

If I had to list a top 5 enemies of the US in no particular order
China, North Korea, Iran, ISIS/ISIL, AFhanistan/Talban remnants...

Heck there are South American countries Id put ahead of Russia...

Russian and China should be 1/2 on anyone's list. Everyone else you list has very limited ways to impact us. The reach Russia and China have and their ability to affect our day to day lives is something everyone should take seriously. Neither country likes us and both have the resources and ability to covertly disrupt our country in many ways.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Logan

And I think your apparent belief that all of this outrage stems from thinking the election was stolen is very misguided.

I am more concerned that Trump encouraged foreign intervention in the election than the actual intervention itself, because I feel like there is no way to measure the impact and it's a waste of time to try.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

So... anyone around here also have a son-in-law going to jail for treason? That's a common occurrence, right?

But I guess Bannon allegedly calling him a cuck could come true in a year or so.

Trump is going to pardon all of these people. And then resign, blaming everyone for treating him unfairly.

[Butter]

Russia has stated goals of destabilizing our democracy to increase their global influence. Unless you think this is also fake news?

Foundations of Geopolitics - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by the book

The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."

[JPhillips]

Things that are undisputed:

Trump's top Nat Sec advisor was paid by the Russians
Trump's top Nat Sec advisor had undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador, which resulted in his firing
Trump's top Nat Sec advisor failed to disclose all his foreign contacts on his security clearance paperwork
Trump's one time campaign manager was paid by the Russians
Trump's son-in-law and top advisor failed to disclose all his foreign contacts on his security clearance paperwork
Trump's Attorney General and top advisor failed to disclose all his foreign contacts on his security clearance paperwork
Trump's son bragged about all the Russian money coming into the Trump Org
Trump has repeatedly praised Putin
Trump fired the FBI Director because of "the Russia thing"
All of the U.S. intelligence agencies say the Russians interfered with the election in order to help Trump win
Trump has consistently refused to personally state that the U.S. will honor Article 5 of the NATO treaty

And that's just the confirmed or undisputed things I can think of off the top of my head. I could have an equally long list of things reported, but disputed or unconfirmed.

It's way too soon to just flatly state that Trump obviously had nothing to do with the Russians.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Butter

Russia has stated goals of destabilizing our democracy to increase their global influence. Unless you think this is also fake news?

Foundations of Geopolitics - Wikipedia

And I'm sure it's a coincidence that the biggest scandal to hit Trump's government so far directly relates to Russia.

[miked]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Unfortunately for the Democrats and fortunately for the country in my view, the lowest common denominators - true societal leeches - fall almost exclusively left. These are also the hardest people to get to come out and vote.

This is a fairly stupid and racist view. You are from Podunk, SC (or whatever your profile says). I also live in the South. One has to only drive outside the perimeter toward Hall, Walton, Gilmer, Cherokee, Bartow, and some of the whitest counties in GA (those are over 80%) to see the giant number of people on food stamps and PeachCare. These are the counties going 20+ points for whoever has an R next to their name. Of course, 50% of the GA population on peachcare is minority, many of whom vote D...but the point is, there are plenty of leeches on both sides. Federal food assistance does go 40% to white folks (not all vote R, but probably more than half). And it's also a bit self-fulfilling. To see the reason why poorer people vote D, just look at which states did not expand medicare (hint, it's the ones with the poorer populations of minorities) and who is getting screwed by the new healthcare plans (hint, it's not the wealthy).

Anyway, every time you post, you are just confirming your racist-held beliefs. I can't tell you the number of poor white leeches I see complaining about the welfare queens and Mexican illegals taking their money. I'm sure you know plenty as well.

[QuikSand]

It's like a struggling restaurant with rough reviews changing its name instead of the menu. pic.twitter.com/6MKhwePOHf

— Katy Tur (@KatyTurNBC) May 26, 2017

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Things that are undisputed:

Trump's top Nat Sec advisor was paid by the Russians
Trump's top Nat Sec advisor had undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador, which resulted in his firing
Trump's top Nat Sec advisor failed to disclose all his foreign contacts on his security clearance paperwork
Trump's one time campaign manager was paid by the Russians
Trump's son-in-law and top advisor failed to disclose all his foreign contacts on his security clearance paperwork
Trump's Attorney General and top advisor failed to disclose all his foreign contacts on his security clearance paperwork
Trump's son bragged about all the Russian money coming into the Trump Org
Trump has repeatedly praised Putin
Trump fired the FBI Director because of "the Russia thing"
All of the U.S. intelligence agencies say the Russians interfered with the election in order to help Trump win
Trump has consistently refused to personally state that the U.S. will honor Article 5 of the NATO treaty

And that's just the confirmed or undisputed things I can think of off the top of my head. I could have an equally long list of things reported, but disputed or unconfirmed.

It's way too soon to just flatly state that Trump obviously had nothing to do with the Russians.

Sounds a lot like Obama being a Kenyan Muslim to me, bro.

[Ben E Lou]

Hmmm....

U.S. Quietly Lifts Limit on Number of Refugees Allowed In - NYTimes.com

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by miked

Anyway, every time you post, you are just confirming your racist-held beliefs. I can't tell you the number of poor white leeches I see complaining about the welfare queens and Mexican illegals taking their money. I'm sure you know plenty as well.

Man, wow. Not even sure how to respond to all that.
1- I never mentioned race. The lowest common denominator falls across all races equally.
2- I shouldn't even justify this with a response, but I guess I will , for you to say I'm a racist, literally proves you know nothing about me. Nothing. I won't even bore you with the details.
3- I happened to live in one of the poorest counties in SC and the US as a whole, in fact. A state congressional district that has been D my entire life. A county that is also 70+% white.
4- race isn't the issue. R candidates as a rule want to restrict benefits and D candidates as a rule want to expand them. Hence those on said benefits want to see them continuedown.

That's all I meant.

[miked]

When people say what you do, it's generally race-related. It's a backdoor way of saying what you may have been implying (see implicit bias). I do not know much about anyone outside of what they post. My point was, there are generally leeches on both sides. There seems to be this stigma that poor people only vote democrat, which is not generally the case. Generally speaking, poverty and race seem to go together quite a bit, and generally speaking, poor African American people vote D, so you can take that for what it is. But your post came off as highly ignorant and inflammatory.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Man, wow. Not even sure how to respond to all that.
1- I never mentioned race. The lowest common denominator falls across all races equally.
2- I shouldn't even justify this with a response, but I guess I will , for you to say I'm a racist, literally proves you know nothing about me. Nothing. I won't even bore you with the details.
3- I happened to live in one of the poorest counties in SC and the US as a whole, in fact. A state congressional district that has been D my entire life. A county that is also 70+% white.
4- race isn't the issue. R candidates as a rule want to restrict benefits and D candidates as a rule want to expand them. Hence those on said benefits want to see them continuedown.

That's all I meant.

Are you saying poor white people on welfare mostly vote D? My perception, not based on anything but probably stereotypes, was that poor white vote R.

[JPhillips]

67% of voters that were white and had no college degree voted for Trump

41% of voters who made less than 30k a year voted for Trump

[Julio Riddols]

R candidates also seem determined to deny climate change as a rule as well. They also want to increase corporate welfare as a rule. The amount of money given to poor people to feed them and help them survive is much lower than the amount of money corporations are handed when republicans do things that help them directly. Nobody that votes republican sees this. It doesn't make sense to them somehow. Don't worry about the fact that putting all the money in the hands of the few will eventually result in no money being left to spend on what those few offer. Profits will decline, more jobs will be cut, and people will blame it on the poor some more.

That doesn't even say anything about net neutrality, which is constantly on the chopping block thanks to telecoms who have monopolies already in place thanks to republican help. If we lose that, then we risk entering a future where the internet is controlled and dissenting opinions are censored by the companies in control of the information. Aside from that, if we continue to deny climate change, it won't fucking matter who has money. The whole fucking planet will become uninhabitable and humanity will be endangered in a way they have never been.

Get some fucking perspective, goddamn. So many fools voting to take away what little poor people have or to regulate abortion (Small government huh?) or to install religious protections (completely unrequired) while removing regulations on banks and corporations who have already proven that they only have their own best interests in mind. It's pure insanity, and all because you can't fucking take your tax dollars going toward making the country better for everyone instead of making it better for a select few.

Ultimately, if this country continues down this path, we will not only be a laughing stock to the world (which we are rapidly becoming with Trump in office anyway) but we will eventually be left behind and treated as a nuisance rather than being counted among the leaders of the world. That's ok though, the poor people won't be getting welfare anymore and babies will be born to all the dumbasses who can't afford to have them because god says they should be. Never mind love thy neighbor, that's optional. What Jesus really taught was that one should make themselves wealthy by hook or by crook and that would get them into heaven. Jesus really was big on Oligarchies and shunning the poor and destitute.

[Flasch186]

Ive always been told that if the government would get out of the Welfare business, Social programs would be supported by Corporate America and Churches. I'd love to see that play out in a Fury Road kinda way.

[tarcone]

What is funny about this whole Russia thing is that if HRC had won, the same thing would be going on. But the Clinton foundation would be under scrutiny with the Rs wasting time to prove HRC had dealings with terrorist countries.

I wish our elected officials would get to work on what is important.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Man, wow. Not even sure how to respond to all that.
1- I never mentioned race. The lowest common denominator falls across all races equally.
2- I shouldn't even justify this with a response, but I guess I will , for you to say I'm a racist, literally proves you know nothing about me. Nothing. I won't even bore you with the details.
3- I happened to live in one of the poorest counties in SC and the US as a whole, in fact. A state congressional district that has been D my entire life. A county that is also 70+% white.
4- race isn't the issue. R candidates as a rule want to restrict benefits and D candidates as a rule want to expand them. Hence those on said benefits want to see them continuedown.

That's all I meant.

I like how you tried to pass off the demographics of a single county as meaningful for an entire Congressional district. Either you're ignorant about basic politics or you didn't think anyone would call you on it.

The only county that matches your description is Beaufort, which is 70.6% white and voted for Trump by 14 points. The SC-6 district as a whole is only 40.2% white.

Do you really not know the difference in voting behavior between poor white and poor black voters in the south? Or are you just pretending not to know?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

They also want to increase corporate welfare as a rule. The amount of money given to poor people to feed them and help them survive is much lower than the amount of money corporations are handed when republicans do things that help them directly. Nobody that votes republican sees this. It doesn't make sense to them somehow.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I think that corporate blindness stretches across party lines pretty well. I saw/heard/read an awful lot of Dems who can see corporate corruption from the Republican side, but use it to entirely dismiss or excuse the Dems (and particularly the Clinton's) own history
of selling out the people's interests at the benefit of corporations.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

What is funny about this whole Russia thing is that if HRC had won, the same thing would be going on. But the Clinton foundation would be under scrutiny with the Rs wasting time to prove HRC had dealings with terrorist countries.

I think you are 100% correct on this.

Originally Posted by tarcone

I wish our elected officials would get to work on what is important.

Based on your above statement, I believe our elected officials are working on exactly what they were sent to Washington to do. Fight against the evil that is the other side.

On a related note, can anyone provide a reputable source that would show how many times members of Congress voted against party lines?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Do you really not know the difference in voting behavior between poor white and poor black voters in the south? Or are you just pretending not to know?

Honestly, no.

No pretending here. I'm interested in politics but don't dwell on themy and study them like things I have more direct influence over.

So I'm not aware of any known difference between poor white and poor black voters .

Perhaps I am ignorant here and made an innocent statement that made me appear racist. If so I'll own that. I'll assure you I'm not racist and that's a pretty easy thing to verify by anyone who's known me

[thesloppy]

I was doing some shallow thinking about the genesis of the idea of welfare/disability cheats & its place in American politics and culture.

As it sits today, I think the concern of welfare abuse is something that is packaged and presented as mostly a concern of the conservative working class, who want to keep what money they've earned through their own hard labor, and pay less taxes to provide for the welfare of others. Seems logical.

...but when I think about it, if the idea of welfare cheats didn't exist would any citizen or citizens group in a vacuum look at all the things the government does, and all the things we can see it obviously spends money on, and put citizens welfare abuse on the top of their list? I don't think that's a cost that would've necessarily even been obvious to the taxpayer, until our representatives invented and insisted it was a problem.

In fact, the idea of welfare abuse is an extremely effective way for politicians to point citizens' concerns about taxes and government expenditures back at the citizens themselves. Not only does it distract a wide swath of folk from even considering the cost or effect of any other expenditures or legislation, it let's the politicos who perpetuate the idea paint themselves as champions, by repeatedly charging up the hill to battle the same political strawman of their own invention, over and over again.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I think that corporate blindness stretches across party lines pretty well. I saw/heard/read an awful lot of Dems who can see corporate corruption from the Republican side, but use it to entirely dismiss or excuse the Dems (and particularly the Clinton's) own history
of selling out the people's interests at the benefit of corporations.

I'm not excusing the Democrats in any way, I should have covered that..

But the Republicans don't do anything on the other side of that to help balance it out. They simply take anything they can from the lower end and give everything they can to the higher end.

I went to the Cape Fear museum in Wilmington last summer, and I read something on the wall there that blew my mind.. I'll have to dig through my camera and try to find the photo later, but there was a thing on the wall talking about how Republicans and Democrats were back in the day.. Essentially the polar opposite of what they are now. I found that incredibly intriguing and incredibly weird.

Anyway, I know Democrats aren't a lot better than Republicans overall. I hate both sides almost equally, but the blatant aggression with which the Republicans today actively strip everything they can and justify it with total misinformation and feed lies to their constituents like an IV drip of poison just makes me ache for revolution.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I'm not excusing the Democrats in any way, I should have covered that..

But the Republicans don't do anything on the other side of that to help balance it out. They simply take anything they can from the lower end and give everything they can to the higher end.

Anyway, I know Democrats aren't a lot better than Republicans overall. I hate both sides almost equally, but the blatant aggression with which the Republicans today actively strip everything they can and justify it with total misinformation and feed lies to their constituents like an IV drip of poison just makes me ache for revolution.

Yeah, from my perspective it seems like the Dem voter at least thinks he's representing himself, is told he's representing himself, and then gets repeatedly fucked over in the translation, whereas the Rep voter thinks he's representing himself, is told the exact opposite, and votes for it anyway.

..but at least in my case that's likely due to the fact that most of the Dems who dominate my personal political culture are good friends who I will gladly give the benefit of the doubt, whereas the loudest Reps in my life are shadowy patchwork trolls of the collective media and/or cartoon constructs of my own making.

[dubb93]

I'm just sitting back and hoping that somehow all of this bullshit brings about the end of our shitty two party system.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I'm just sitting back and hoping that somehow all of this bullshit brings about the end of our shitty two party system.

Im with you.
But money talks and it aint gonna happen.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by miked

This is a fairly stupid and racist view. You are from Podunk, SC (or whatever your profile says). I also live in the South. One has to only drive outside the perimeter toward Hall, Walton, Gilmer, Cherokee, Bartow, and some of the whitest counties in GA (those are over 80%) to see the giant number of people on food stamps and PeachCare. These are the counties going 20+ points for whoever has an R next to their name. Of course, 50% of the GA population on peachcare is minority, many of whom vote D...but the point is, there are plenty of leeches on both sides. Federal food assistance does go 40% to white folks (not all vote R, but probably more than half). And it's also a bit self-fulfilling. To see the reason why poorer people vote D, just look at which states did not expand medicare (hint, it's the ones with the poorer populations of minorities) and who is getting screwed by the new healthcare plans (hint, it's not the wealthy).

Anyway, every time you post, you are just confirming your racist-held beliefs. I can't tell you the number of poor white leeches I see complaining about the welfare queens and Mexican illegals taking their money. I'm sure you know plenty as well.

Democrats telling people who disagreed with them they're all racist idiots has been working out great electorally, why not double down?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Democrats telling people who disagreed with them they're all racist idiots has been working out great electorally, why not double down?

The word he wants to use is stereotyping. All racism is stereotyping, but not all stereotyping is racist. A lot of the racism arguments are a bridge too far, but racism is way easier to say and pisses people off way easier than trying to spit stereotyping out every time. Nobody give a shit about that word.

We all stereotype from time to time and I don't think anyone can argue that they don't. However, choosing to ignore that fact, or to buy into every stereotype out there as the God's Truth, is where people fail along the path to enlightenment.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I'm just sitting back and hoping that somehow all of this bullshit brings about the end of our shitty two party system.

That would be replaced by another two party system.

The Constitution basically guarantees a two party system. To change the system you'd need to change the Constitution.

[tarcone]

We can change the constitution. Just need a ground swell.

[miked]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Democrats telling people who disagreed with them they're all racist idiots has been working out great electorally, why not double down?

I did not intend to call CU a racist, I said it was a racist view. His exact words are usually what people say when they are trying to say when trying to disparage poor black people. It is this view that only the poor people are voting democrat (which makes it easier to justify your alternative position). The reality is there are just as many poor white people voting republican as was pointed out above. I hang out a bit OTP here and it always amazes me to see friends and acquaintances who are taking government help while working at a gas station complaining about all the welfare people voting D because of "entitlements" (they like the call them Obama phones and such). It is usually fairly overt racism (and stereotyping if you will).

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That would be replaced by another two party system.

The Constitution basically guarantees a two party system. To change the system you'd need to change the Constitution.

Yes. Game theory. 2 parties is the only stable state.

[sabotai]

Relevant CGP Grey



(spoiler alert - "First Past the Post" = 2 party system. No way around it.)