White Republicans are revolting: They keep winning elections, and keep getting angrier

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well to be honest I don't think Americans really cared about the Mexican agriculture business. If you really look at it Mexico gave up agriculture to build car parts, cars, and a ton of other things. I can think of several major corporations who have moved their plants to Mexico. If the Mexicans don't like it they should take control of their Government.

As for the last statement no not specifically I was just commenting on how many people on ATS were pro ACA and accused people of not "caring" about others for being against it but those same people now say they don't support ACA.

ACA is a perfect example though. If the bill would have been a "good" bill in that it actually made healthcare available and affordable without pandering to the insurance companies I am positive there would have been ideological opposition just as in the example of the OSH act or the New Deal but in the long term people benefit from these programs and would not think of getting rid of them. I am not for big government but I wouldn't want my relatives to stop getting SS they paid into all of their lives. The repubs are opposed to systems like SS but it is a big issue for their constituents many of which rely on the service. ACA is just a government tax paid to the insurance companies which is why it is losing support from people who previously supported it.

The meme from the left is that conservatives are heartless. Personally, I want to see others have healthcare, safety nets, and the like. However, the disagreement comes from the methods in which we do those things. In regards to healthcare, there were a lot of smaller things that could have been done to improve access that didn't require uprooting the entire healthcare system.

Many advocated fixing the laws that prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. They could have implemented a law similar in banking that pre-empted state insurance laws so there could be some consistentcy across states. This would have easily spurred more competition and helped bring down prices. In addition, simply changing the law that requires insurance to be purchased through employers and therefore makes your policy portable regardless of who you work for. None of these changes would cost the trillions that we are pissing away on ACA, nor turned into the bureaucratic nightmare.

The other issue is that once these huge entitlements get going, it is almost impossible to modify or change them. They wind up becoming a huge albatross around our necks.

Liberals are great when it comes to being emotional, but seem to have a real hard time looking at the unintended consequences and long term issues when it comes to their policies.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm an independent. I don't have a majority leader.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better.

Keep telling yourself you are a libertarian.
If it looks like a republican, swims like a republican....
No one else here is being fooled.

Everybody says the republicans are white, but some of them aren't. What do the numbers say? 63% of the nations population is non-hispanic white. 77% are white.They have more wealth than non-whites:
www. forbes.com - The Racial Wealth Gap: Why A Typical White Household Has 16 Times The Wealth Of A Black One...

We also know a poor family is less likely to put their children through college. So what does this all mean? It means we're more likely to see white professionals and/or white political candidates.

But how do you explain if an audience is mostly white? Well given 77% are white and asians are an additional 4% and there's lots of mix and african americans are about 13%, you should never expect to see a lot of obvious non-whites. Also I think some of these televised segements might include people who have more money and I expect, since non-whites usually have less wealth by comparison, you'll see a lot of white-seeming people.

"White" is also a blurry term, it means lots of things: Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. This includes arabs. It also can mean hispanics and other. So anytime we see "white" in a article title, it's hard to think of it as a race.

Now I don't deny conservative states might still have more racism, but I wanted to bring these numbers up to reduce the spin. Regardless of the presence of racism, whites should be the majority in any audience we see. And if it's a rich audience, we might see even more of them, since the wealth gap acts like a filter and cuts out more non-whites.

EDIT: SO if our governmemnt was a plutocracy we'd expect it to be more white than the population. There'd be few non-whites because they tend to have less wealth-added to already low population count.

a reply to: HorusChrist

and if it didn't pass you would say their non vote caused it to fail.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

actually, I want to grow government, but, in key areas...
1...the IRS...there should be wholesale hiring on the auditing side, billions are being lost every year to tax fraud, and mistakes, while at the same time republicans are bitching about the debt.
2...the SEC...we need an increase in good lawyers and CPA's for this government watchdog now more than ever, to make sure that corporations and companies are following the laws put in place by both republicans and democrats. maybe if we had tough pitbull oversight, the 2008 debacle wouldn't have happened.

1. Disagree completely. Reform the tax code down to single-page, or eliminate it.

2. Agree, but Glass-Steagall needs to be reenacted first. There should be prosecutions of anyone gaming the system, which IMO is a sham to begin with. How the hell can you determine the future value of a company, and then value it many times above its intrinsic value? It's a con game, same as fractional reserve banking.

The thing is...when Americans get out and vote in high numbers -- Democrats win the White House.

If those same people also turned out for local and state elections, we'd have a lot more Democrats in control of state and local legislatures and in the House/Senate.

There is an over representation of Republicans in every political office outside of the presidency -- because the Democrat voting base can't stay focused longer than each POTUS election cycle.

That is the saving grace for the GOP -- that Democrat voters don't turn out in the same numbers for local and state politics.

EDIT: This is probably where gerrymandering comes in....

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm an independent. I don't have a majority leader.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better.

No one else here is being fooled.

Last I checked, my opinion is the only one that matters with that anyways, so it matters little if you don't believe me or not. But hey, as long as we are allowing us to make up each other's political beliefs, do you mind if I call you a Nazi?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm an independent. I don't have a majority leader.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better.

No one else here is being fooled.

Last I checked, my opinion is the only one that matters with that anyways, so it matters little if you don't believe me or not. But hey, as long as we are allowing us to make up each other's political beliefs, do you mind if I call you a Nazi?

Not really.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

But that's the thing. Democrats originally just wanted to expand medicare/medicaid into universal health care. The Republicans said "nope", so they instead went with the plan Romeny used in Mass figuring that they'd get Republican support for it since it was originally a Republican idea.

I read the salon article and thought it was poorly constructed but as far as this thread goes. The author is a democrat and the content is provocative to White, Male, Christians saying they are angry because they lost leverage in key areas goes on to say Repub activists blame their own leadership. That's a large demographic and I know many of them are content with blaming Obama administration. Our government would be alot better if we abolished the two party system and we elect politicians based on their platform issues.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

you act as if some magic reason could be givin that would cause bama to be impeached.

Yea I do... Because you NEED one. You can't just impeach someone on a whim...

only shows that you frequently miss the point and obscure the truth.

Does it now?

My stance all along is that impeachable actions have been done but there is a system of people that will continue to stand in the way of justice. So no one posting on a forum will be able to overcome that system that is protecting a man doing crimes in public. Boener was one of those that stood in the way of justice.

If impeachable offenses exist then name one. You've yet to do so.

Fact is that bama could murder someone on live tv and get away with it without impeachment so why on earth would anything you or I say make a difference at this point

Fact is that is 100% untrue. Plus that isn't a fact. That is an opinion. So here we have you accusing me of substituting opinions for facts, yet here you are pushing an opinion as a fact (you even have the gall to put the word "fact" in front of it like that gives it more credence).

the same actions that bama has undertaken would have gotton many former presidents hung.

Name one action that Obama has done that would have resulted in a former President being hung.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The thing is...when Americans get out and vote in high numbers -- Democrats win the White House.

If those same people also turned out for local and state elections, we'd have a lot more Democrats in control of state and local legislatures and in the House/Senate.

There is an over representation of Republicans in every political office outside of the presidency -- because the Democrat voting base can't stay focused longer than each POTUS election cycle.

That is the saving grace for the GOP -- that Democrat voters don't turn out in the same numbers for local and state politics.

EDIT: This is probably where gerrymandering comes in....

Actually, it shows you that Democrats are less informed voters on average.

Around Presidential election time you get all your ditzy college students coming out the wood work, you get the bojangling black political class corralling the black vote at churches, the brain dead hollywood actors start offering their political analyses, all the women's issues morons, etc. Most of these people are no where to be found during non-presidential cycles. Most people can't even name their congressman and senator.

Local politics matter because people see the effects daily. Most of the country is bright red except for the pockets around major urban centers which are mostly Democrat controlled.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm an independent. I don't have a majority leader.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better.

No one else here is being fooled.

Last I checked, my opinion is the only one that matters with that anyways, so it matters little if you don't believe me or not. But hey, as long as we are allowing us to make up each other's political beliefs, do you mind if I call you a Nazi?

Not really.

Well then if you are allowed to determine my political affiliation than I can do the same for you and call you a Nazi.

OR you could just do the more mature thing and accept my words when I let you know something about myself and leave it at that instead of continuing this red herring argument.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm an independent. I don't have a majority leader.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better.

No one else here is being fooled.

Last I checked, my opinion is the only one that matters with that anyways, so it matters little if you don't believe me or not. But hey, as long as we are allowing us to make up each other's political beliefs, do you mind if I call you a Nazi?

Not really.

Well then if you are allowed to determine my political affiliation than I can do the same for you and call you a Nazi.

OR you could just do the more mature thing and accept my words when I let you know something about myself and leave it at that instead of continuing this red herring argument.

Bleh, being mature is so boring. Okay, I will TRY to see you as you self-describe, but it ain't easy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If your an independent, I'm hop-along-Cassidy.

You may not be registered, yet another bull post.

I'm too old to fool around physically, by the way.

Well thank you for telling me my political disposition for me. I thought that was a decision I made for myself, but I guess you are the almighty purveyor of political opinions here.

Your more than welcome. I consider it my duty to expose the more obvious spins where I find them.

originally posted by: mapsurfer_
I read the salon article and thought it was poorly constructed but as far as this thread goes. The author is a democrat and the content is provocative to White, Male, Christians saying they are angry because they lost leverage in key areas goes on to say Repub activists blame their own leadership. That's a large demographic and I know many of them are content with blaming Obama administration. Our government would be alot better if we abolished the two party system and we elect politicians based on their platform issues.

The problem is voters are simply lazy and will not investigate each individual candidate. The parties are way to help distinguish the overall philosophy of each candidate. So while I am not a registered Republican, I tend to believe they represent my interest say 75% of the time. There are times that I do vote for Democrats too though, but as a whole, I believe the party doesn't represent the interest important to me.

Personally, I believe voting should be restricted. I believe all voters should be required to pass a basic civics test similar to what we require of immigrants when they become legal citizens.

a reply to: jonnywhite

On the other hand, no where near 37% of elected offices in the US are held by minorities and very, very few of them are Republican.

OT (and to everyone in the thread): Over the next few years we're going to be seeing a lot of redistricting happening all over the country. The new maps will be drawn by independent or bi-partisan committees.

The Republicans over the next few years will start to lose their stranglehold on the House as well as State Senates and Houses. Those of you declaring that you want others to clean house, when you made the mess, or you're leaving...

I suggest you start packing. America is tired of your toddler tantrums and whining.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Liberals are great when it comes to being emotional, but seem to have a real hard time looking at the unintended consequences and long term issues when it comes to their policies.

AHEM! The war on drugs and the ensuing propaganda that supported it was a right wing idea. You know, speaking of unintended consequences and long term issues?

Another example: Defunding Planned Parenthood is leading to higher rates of abortion, less safe sex, higher teen pregnancies, and higher STD transmission rates.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Not really the only things that get accomplished through these "compromises" is furthering the globalist agenda. Now people want to blame the right because they are dragging their feet to avoid this. The centrist world you desire is not a reality. The schisms in politics are reflective of the populace. National Socialism was really a centrist ideaology although it is associated with the right now because of the nationalist aspects.

What compromises do you propose? How do you propose to bridge ideological differences? It is nice to say "yall we really need to get along" while offering no solutions that don't align with your own beliefs/ideology.

Name a subject, I'll give you a compromise.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Here is a hypothetical compromise. Obamacare does not include anything that funds abortion, elective procedures like sex changes, hormone treatments, and they have to cover homosexual aversion therapy for those that want it. Lets see how that goes over with the left. Unless what you mean by compromise is actually getting your way every time.

Here is another example. Mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. Lets see if the left would compromise on that. The right would agree to support funding those programs if there was mandatory testing. You are telling me that all of the liberal defenders would not hang their party for these compromises? This is what the right is dealing with.

The first is not a compromise. The second is pretty much irrelevant, but if it makes people feel good then sure why not. I assume that means you have no problem with the government wasting money though?

originally posted by: jimmyx
I have a life long friend that has worked for the IRS as an auditor, she had to move to another town because of the IRS's downsizing which has led to consolidating field offices. her sectional auditing staff has been reduced from 8 people to 4 people in the last few years. she says there are cases of tax fraud that she cannot get to, due to a lack of auditors and resources that have been cut by congress......

Some will cheer that, their hatred of "high" taxation and the IRS in general is such that they want to reign in the government by making the IRS so dysfunctional that it can't collect any money. In other words, they want to stop paying taxes, and then mismanage the enforcement agency.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated
Liberals are great when it comes to being emotional, but seem to have a real hard time looking at the unintended consequences and long term issues when it comes to their policies.

AHEM! The war on drugs and the ensuing propaganda that supported it was a right wing idea. You know, speaking of unintended consequences and long term issues?

Another example: Defunding Planned Parenthood is leading to higher rates of abortion, less safe sex, higher teen pregnancies, and higher STD transmission rates.

I don't disagree with you regarding the war on drugs. It has been a colossal failure.