Ten oz

@ TAR, Senate and House races are regional. Demographics in different parts of the country are night and day. Idaho is very different than New York. Plus gerrymandering (on bothsides) come into play. Looking at age and income tells us a whole lot less than you seem to think. The birth rate for minority is higher than for whites. As a result minorities are a larger share of the youth vote where as whites are a larger share of older voters. So in looking at age demographics still follow. It does not reflect that someone who was a democrate from 18-50 years old flipped and became Republcan. That simply is not what the numbers tell us. As for income they too reflect demographics. The further up in income we look the larger share of that group is white. So it is not that the more one makes the more likely they are to be Republican much as it is that their core demographic (whites) have the most wealth. One does not flip from Liberal to Conservative simply because they make 10 extra thousand a year.

@ TAR, I think we should admit we screwed up where it is ovious that we did. Iraq was a huge error. Afghanistan was mismanaged too. We allowed for massive opium production, flubbed meeting our objectives in Tora Bora, and lot track of billions of dollars. It seems it that in order to admit to those mistakes by a republican administration you need some type of bipartisan agreement that democrats admit to something as well. In my opinion that is silly and defeats the purpose of being accountable. Has the Obama administration screwed up? Was it a mistake to not stop the Arab Spring? I say stop because that was the only real choice we had. Obama did not create it. The choice was to acknowledge or prevent. With that is mind I am not sure what may have happened if we sought to prevent. What would that have looked like; boots on the ground in Libya and Egyt? Perhaps we made a mistake but I think it isn't clear yet honestly. Certianly not as crystal clear as Iraq. As for Assad I think, again, it is too early to say. You are attempting to monday morning quarterback on sunday afternoon. The game is still on, still early, and we don't know how it plays out yet.

@ TAR, i already provided you the statistics. They speak for themselves. You say people were "fired up"; Obama received an almost statistically identical vote as did Michael Dukakis. Yet Dukakis lost big and no one ever claims people were "fired up" about Michael Dukakis. You are saying a meaningful amount whites voted based on Obama's race yet Obama received less white votes than Kerry, Gore, Clinton, or Dukakis. Your claim does not statistically follow.Obvious the media makes many claims during an election season and people themselves always have a claimed reason for doing what it is they do but if you look at the hard numbers groups do not swing election to election. Now if you are asking how it is out comes change election to election if voting blocks don't I would point out that they don't really change. Post civil rights the Republicans picked a majority of the white vote with the southern strategy. Following which Republicans won 5 of 6 national elections. The only bump in the road was Carter v Ford but that was clearly a unique circumstance considering Ford had not been elected in the first place and Nixon impeached. The GOP rebounded quickly though and Carter was demolished after 4yrs. Every year on average the percentage of the total voter turn out which is white shrinks. From 88% in 1980 to 72% in 2012. As it has shrunk Democrats have preformed better. After losing 5 of 6 national elections from Nixon to Bush 41 Deomcrats have won the popular vote in 5 of 6 and won the office 4 of 6 from Clinton - Obama. So TAR it isn't as though from election to elect it swings. There are long term tends that cane be identified. My guess is that whites will make up 68% of the totale vote this year and with the demographic trends the democratic will win easily. What could thropugh a monkey wrench into the mix could be a 3rd party. That is what sunk Bush 41 in 92' and Al Gore in 00'. Third party runs change the trends.

@ TAR, Obama got 39% of the white vote. From Carter - Obama no democrat got more than 43% or less than 39%. Obama got the bottom of the range Democrats normally get. So to imply a meaningful number of whites voted for him simply because he was black is to imply that Obama would have received something outside of the statistical normal had it not been for that feeling. You have no way to quantify such an opinion. The stats show that Obama got the same portion of the same groups as did Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Carter. Obama being a democrat is clearly the single biggest determining factor in who voted for him by far.

Perhaps it goes back to the principles this country was founded on. We (USA citizens) say freedom and liberty but over the years we killed our own bothers to get it. We split our English brother blood during the revolution and then split our own American blood during the Civil War. Perhaps thousands of years from now it will be discovered that it is not possible to obtain freedom and liberty through violence. Maybe true cooperation must always start nonviolent? Not until societies are failed, gone, and all stake holders buried does unbiased review take place. So we (humans) will not know the answer for a very long time to come.

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/ A look at voting trends over the years shows that groups (white, black, women, etc) generally always vote the same way. To say some people voted for Bush and then Obama defies the statistical trends. Sure some people may have but not a statistically meaningful number did so. Obama got almost an identical demographical vote as Michael Dukakis did. Dukakis lost big and Obama won bignot because who voted for them changed but rather over all demographics of who votes has changed. Dukakis got 40% of the white vote in 88' and Obama got 39% in 12'; statistically identical. What was different is that in 88' white were 85% of the all voters and in 12' they were 72%. Stats don't lie. The GOP can count on 58-61% of the white vote in every election regardless of candidate or issues facing the country just as Demorcrats can count on 89-91% of black voters. Unfortunately all our political rhetoric in this country works to keep voting blocks in place and not to move anyone. If a person voted Romney in 12' they will be voting for whomever get the GOP nomination in 16'. That is just how it works.

The way we view security is odd. Just about all home have a door lock on the handle and a dead bolt. People ensure both are locked at all times. I suppose the idea is that the handle lock doesn't prevent some from kicking in the door as well? Yet if a person was so determine that they'd destroy the door to get in wouldn't they just break one of the homes many thin glass windows and more easily come in that way? What extra safety is the additional door locks really providing? How many pople in the live in a area where snow and ice is common through out the winter yet they drive stand single rear wheel drive cars? Moving from Southern California to the East Coast I figured there would be a change in the type of cars people drove. In southern California it hardly rains and never snows. Low profile cars meant for speed on even dry roads made sense. To my surprise there is no difference in the cars I see on the road on the east coast. If safety was a primary concern I would've thought more people be driving suburas, Jeeps, Volvos, and etc. cars designed for harsher conditions. Yet they don't. It is crazy to me that someone would drive a camaro around in icy conditions but then own a gun for protection because they are worried about their safety. ,

TAR, I been reading suicide numbers for South Africa to see if whites being displaced for power impacts they suicides. *disclaimer - I don't think having a biracial President only counts as white being displayed* What I have seen in very interesting. For starters South Africa has a higher suicide rate than the United States. From what I have been able to read whites had higher rates than blacks from 70'-97' but that since 00' it appears black africans in South Africa have higher rates. It isn't clear to me yet through. Some reports don't break it up into demographics, others do but don't calulate population percentages, others focus on ages groups, and the World Health Organiztion seems to have conflicting stats to the govt of South Africa itself. So I don't have any links to share but since it is your theory maybe you have find something useful looking at South Africa. Back to the U.S. I did come across this : 'The suicide rate among black children has nearly doubled since the early 1990s, while the rate for white children has declined, a new study has found, an unusual pattern that seemed to suggest something troubling was happening among some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. Suicide among children ages 5 to 11, the age range the study measured, is rare, and researchers had to blend several years of data to get reliable results. The findings, which measured the period from 1993 to 2012, were so surprising that researchers waited for an additional year of data to check them. The trend did not change." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/health/suicide-rate-for-black-children-surged-in-2-decades-study-says.html?_r=0 TAR, you said the medication link was old and prehaps changes have been made; could this be the result? More minority youths getting access to ADHD drugs and what not leading to a spike that is already documented amongst whites?

Claiming the the majority of the population lives in the slums of cities is far more idiotic. Democrats have won the popular in 5 of the last 6 national elections.

@ TAR, suicides in Germany have been dropping for 2 decades. Evidence does not support your predictions: "In Germany, the number of suicides has been decreasing for the last two decades. Whereas 13,900 people took their own life in 1990, the number fell to only 9,900 in 2012. This is a decline of 29%, as released by the Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB)." http://www.bib-demografie.de/SharedDocs/Meldungen/EN/TopThema/2014_02_19_suicide_decrease.html Obama is half white, raised by the white side of his family. I do not accept the the idea of a single biracial president in the history of the country explains suicide in the white male population across all age groups throughout the whole country especially considering that in various parts of the country Obama is popular even amongst whites. Vice President is white, sec of state is white, Sec of Defense is white, the majority leader is white, he Minority leader is white, etc, etc, etc. Since whites make more money they tend to have more access to help care. Perhaps they issues lies in the way we treat mental health and with prescription drugs? "Racial minorities are a rapidly growing portion of the US population. Research suggests that racial minorities are more vulnerable to mental illness due to risk factors, such as higher rates of poverty. Given that the burden of mental illnesses is significant, equal likelihood of mental health services utilization is important to reduce such burden. Racial minorities have been known to use mental health services less than Whites. However, it is unclear whether racial disparity in prescription drug use for mental illnesses exists in a nationally representative sample. For a valid estimation of prescription drug use patterns, the characteristic in the distribution of prescription drug use should be accounted for in the estimation model." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16278501

@ TAR, you may be onto something but it is hard to know. How are you quanitfying the loss of control? White males are not on the slide/losing in any statistically area I can identify. Can you say specifically what it is being lost and then support that with a study of any type? If not is it possible that negative conservative rhetoric (which white males are far more likely to follow) has created a zeitgeist of sorts that leads to the feeling of loss you are describing? To that point I looked up stats in Australia. We have already seen stats for Europe but I was curious if the more conservative Australia might more closely follow the trend here in the United States. It does not. Suicides down under peaked in 1968, had a small uptick in from 1984-1997, and have been in decline since. http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats

It is so hilarious. People have been saying Trump has no chance because most of us assume Republican are sane. Meanwhile Republicans seem to be treating that as a challange and rallying to prove everyone wrong by nominating Trump. Better than fiction!

Just as an arroused post potential mate may say or allow themselves to momentarily believe anything that leads to intercourse the republican party has fallen into the self inflating cycle of emotional responses over reason. They want to be back in the executive branch and refuse to acknowledge anyone but them has a right be much like a jealous suiter refuses to concede they are not the only available fish in the sea. Everything done by Obama, Clinton, whomever their foe is can never be legitimate just as any touch upon the women one obsessively stalks is one deserved only to them. It is irrational, inconsiderate, and sociopathic behavior. The GOP want the country for themselves without out any regard for whether or not such is good for the country. They fondly think back on the Bush years which soiled international relations, collasped the worlds economy, lead to 2 full boots on the ground wars, turn surpluses in to record shattering deficits, but somehow satisfied their need for control. Rather Obama's more succesful messured and moderate approaches are seen as weak, unpatriotic, and abusive to the spirit of the constitution. It is truly a case where anyone do anything but them simply isn't acceptable. Long as they are in the drivers seat they are happy. What is happening outside of he car simply does not matter.

WASHINGTON – About 1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This number represents an estimated average of 232,400 firearms stolen each year— about 172,000 stolen during burglaries and 60,300 stolen during other property crimes. These estimates are based on data from the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which has collected information from victims of crime since 1973. Of the guns stolen each year during burglaries and other property crimes, at least 80 percent, or an annual average of 186,800 firearms, had not been recovered up to six months after being stolen. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm

@ Willie71, saddest thing about that story to me is that here in the United States that man killing his own son is considered an honest mistake. Just a random accident where no one is to blame. The fact that the man shot to kill a person prior to having a clue about what was happening raises no red flags. That is the extent of our "freedom" and "liberty" in this country. We empower ourselves with the right to kill each other if we feel threatened with no requirement to quantify the legitimacy of that threat. Better several innocent people die by mistake than one "bad guy" gets the drop on someone because they took and extra second to turn on a light to ensure they weren't about to kill their own child. That is how tyranny starts: first they (evil govt) won't let you kill anyone who frightens you and then the next thing you know it is Nazi Germany.......smh

Man allowed his fear of criminals lead to something terrible: "CINCINNATI (AP) — An armed man who believed he was confronting an intruder in the basement of his home Tuesday morning instead fatally shot his 14-year-old son, who was supposed to be on his way to school, police said. Police said the teen had headed to the bus stop but apparently came back home through a back door. The man said he heard a noise in the basement. Police said when the father opened a door within the basement, the boy appeared. "He scared me!" the distraught father said in his 911 call shortly before 6:30 a.m. "I thought he was in school. I heard noise, so I went downstairs looking and he jumped out at me. .... Oh, God. Get here quick!" http://news.yahoo.com/police-ohio-man-mistakes-teen-son-intruder-kills-143957261.html

Reading through this thread I am reminded on the Founder/CEO of the company Gravity that decided to give all of his employees a minimum of $70,000 and slash his own pay to that same level. Employees which were already making more kept their salaries but did not receive a raise. In response a few of the company's senior staff left. Their paid had not be decreased but rather they felt that their efforts were devalued by paying everyone else an amount closer to their own. http://www.today.com/series/2015-voices/gravity-payments-ceo-dan-price-reflects-70k-minimum-salary-experiment-t64401 Money is not simply a means of managing resources; it is the way many internalize self worth and hierarchy within our self identified groups. How comfortable someone is financially is often more a matter of peer comparison than practicality. I personally deal with this struggle on a regular basis. I changed careers at 30yrs old. Today, several years later, I make triple what I had prior to the change. I honestly make more than I would have imagined when I entered my career yet because I entered at 30yrs old I am a few yrs older than the people at my same level. As a result I often catch myself feeling annoyed that I am even further along. When a peer who is younger than myself purchases a house, gets a promotion, or accomplishes things it took me longer in life to accomplish it momentarily bothers me. It is so ridiculous. This preoccupation with what others get compare to oneself drive many behaviors in society. It convolutes what the true value of money is. Depending on where one is in their life money represents different things. Money is ego and pride when your young, control and influence when mild age, and safety when your old. To eliminate poverty we would first need to change our psychology. Everyone must be superior to someone else personally and even on a group level one country must be greater than another. It creates an endless string of winners and losers. Make everyone equal and their will always be a band of sociopaths in the group who feels slighted and works passionately to undermine the equality. Burn it to the ground and lord over the ashes for some people is preferable to by equal/average. It is the alpha male animalistic bit of us.

This is not an answer to my question. You are complaining about the process you nelieve the president used to short cut the constitution in this post. I asked you what the law (which you insist the president has ordered) does. Please explain that and be specific.

@ TAR, white males are flourishing in the United States. I posted those charts to put it into perspective. You are referencing losses that statistically do not exist. I read about that horrific rape too but do not feel it is relevant to this thread. Rape has been around for a very long time. I don't see the actions of those 5 criminals as being part of a trend that explains the rise in white male suicide. Ultimately crime is down over the last couple decades. I think you are speaking to a feeling that millions have. You are tapping into a view that is real and probably unique to older white males. However the rise in suicide is not restricted to older white males. Plus your personal feelings are probably no good here as you yourself are not suicidal. For all we know the majority of white males committing suicide are far leftist liberal angry about climate change. We do not have a means of knowing who these people are personally. This link breaks suicides down by age group and race: https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures

No where have I said we should do away with the 2nd amendment. Gun advocates treat any and all form of gun control as though it all leads to total confiscation. There was an assualt weapons ban in place from 94'-04' do you look back on those days as tryanny? Were we oppressed? We can have both private gun ownership and gun control. We do not have to choose between the two. I don't think it is for us to decide how free people in European countries are or not. They do not have guns by choice. They support the laws that prohibit them. Freedom is about choices and the ability to shape your government. In Austrilia they went from liberal gun policy to very strict gun policy but I don't believe Aistrilians are any less free. Also, freedom can be oppressive in itself. In many middle eastern countries men have the freedom to beat their wives and daughters. Such freedom is not allowed here in the United States. Hardly means they are more free than we are.

I love the United States. I grew up in California, spent a few years in Idaho, spent a year in Virgina, and currently live in DC. I have close family I often visit in Arizona, Texas, and Florida. There is only a handful of states I have not visited yet. I have been all over this country and believe it to be a great country. The Constitution and Bill of Right were absolutely a terrific base to form our union from, no question. However it is a document of its time. That is why it initially included slavery and only allowed land owners to vote. Many rights have had to be redefined or changed. Doing so is in keeping with the Constitution. It is was not meant to be scripture; adorned and unchangable. As free people we can make decisions. "strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." -Thomas Jefferson Which "many basic rights" are you referencing?

Gun advocates often site the number of guns in circulation as a justification for needing even more guns in circulation. It a is circular logic.

What specifically does the "President's law" do? Please be specific.

@ TAR, you could be right. I do not know what the right answer is. However, for me, that explanations feels too anecdotal. I can't connect all the dots with it. To what extent are white males more impacted by female head of households and gay rights than black or latino males? How can we quantify that? I like the way you a viewing this issue. I believe you are spot on the easy access to guns and drugs plays a role. Those are tangible things we can look at statistically by race. However I am not onboard regarding the cultural stuff involving church and community. If you look back at the chart showing suicide by state you'll see that states in the southern bible belt are both above the national average and below the national average.So statistically I do not see the connection.

Same way is is sold here; fear and racism. Talk up the threat of ISIS, black thugs seeking to influence everyones otherwise pure children, and complain about a politically correct govt that is more interested in social justice than enforcing the law.