What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[tar]

overtone,

 

I was down to Virginia and back and most of radio stations I listened to on the road were religious or on the Rush country side of things. The laughable folks, the people that had to be reeled in to save the country were not the group you think needs fixing.

 

My point is still clear. You want to tell Republicans how they need to be, to be acceptable.

 

 

Regards, TAR

and vice a versa

 

There should be a better reality check made from both sides.

Edited January 14, 2016 by tar

[overtone]

My point is still clear. You want to tell Republicans how they need to be, to be acceptable

And it's still wrong. The only telling of Republicans I have attempted here is to tell them they should stop voting for Republican Party politicians, because such votes harm their country and betray their fellow citizens.

 

The way the Republican Party is now is unacceptable to sane and decent citizens, and it's continuance in the realms of power is the biggest threat the US faces as a country.

 

Your response has been to deny that it is as I describe it, not to argue that it should be accepted in such a state. You know decent people who are Republicans, therefore the Republican Party itself cannot be the Rat King I describe, you claim. And as far as I know that's the only defense of that Party anybody has - denial of the reality in front of them.

 

How it should be instead is none of my concern. In my opinion no effort should be put into cleaning it up and making it different, but instead it should be shoveled into the gutter where it can drool and rant and bite itself and disintegrate without fouling the thoroughfare. If you want to try to rehab that foul hulk of perverted, bigoted, corrupt, incompetent ugly, and make something worthwhile out of it, go to 'er.

 

But don't vote for any of it in its current condition, ok? It's dangerous.

Edited January 14, 2016 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Your definition of decent citizen is not the same definition used by millions and millions of U.S. citizens that would label you as a hater of the U.S. and a ignorer of the real dangers that face the country.

 

Regards, TAR

Here is the thing. The people I depend on to make my country safe and my neighborhood safe. The people I see at the store and at school and a business, working and supporting a family and a house and a car and mowing the lawn and making the place safe and beautiful and nice to live in, are the same people you are calling the scum of the Earth. You have your reality all mixed up. There is real capability and trust out there and there is more of it in a middle class suburb or on a farm than there is in a drug invested, gang run territory of a large city. The republicans are found in greater numbers on the farms and in the suburbs and the democrats are found in greater numbers in the slums of the cities.

 

Man for man and woman for woman, in terms of those that build and maintain the place I would say the farms and the suburbs are very important to our strength as a nation. Calling a large segment of this population the scum that should be swept to the gutter is VERY idiotic.

Edited January 14, 2016 by tar

[overtone]

Your definition of decent citizen is not the same definition used by millions and millions of U.S. citizens that would label you as a hater of the U.S. and a ignorer of the real dangers that face the country.

So? These people voted for W. Twice. What could they possibly know about decent citizenship?

 

 

are the same people you are calling the scum of the Earth.

I doubt that. Where would I have said that?

 

 

Calling a large segment of this population the scum that should be swept to the gutter is VERY idiotic.

Oh yeah, I forgot: you can't read. The words "Republican Party" simply don't register in your brain, even in a post explicitly contrasting the Party with Republicans in general.

 

 

There is real capability and trust out there and there is more of it in a middle class suburb or on a farm than there is in a drug invested, gang run territory of a large city. The republicans are found in greater numbers on the farms and in the suburbs and the democrats are found in greater numbers in the slums of the cities.

I'll see your "slums of the cities " and raise you "meth houses of the farm", "suburban drug customers of the inner city", and so forth. The difference being, of course, that the cities of the US are full of decent, capable, neighborly, trustworthy people, and the suburbs are full of clueless, unfriendly, and incompetent assholes who voted for W. Twice.

 

Twice. No excuses. They really didn't know any better than that, care about their country any more than that. They proved it.

 

And nobody who voted for W twice is allowed to talk about anyone else having their reality mixed up.

Edited January 14, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Overtone,

 

The republicans are found in greater numbers on the farms and in the suburbs and the democrats are found in greater numbers in the slums of the cities.

 

Man for man and woman for woman, in terms of those that build and maintain the place I would say the farms and the suburbs are very important to our strength as a nation. Calling a large segment of this population the scum that should be swept to the gutter is VERY idiotic.

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]

Ten Oz,

 

Most of my close friends and family are democrats, but not all. I was not suggesting that all democrats are drug addicts and gang member. Just some. Same as that all republicans are not scum, just some.

 

Most people of both parties are good people. My theory is that 90 percent of us are good, and 10 percent questionable, with some of those 10 percent downright evil. But the boundaries between the good and the bad people are not along party lines.

 

Overtone draws the line and says everybody in the Republican party is evil and everybody that votes for the republican party is stupid and ignorant.

 

This attitude does not wash with me and does not jive with my experience of the world the last 50 years. I have found more stupidity and evil in the city, and I moved to the country where I find life quite beautiful a friendly.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Neither party is the problem with America. The problem is party line voting, and party line good and evil thinking. Just because someone lives life differently and thinks differently does not make them evil, if they follow the laws of the United States, protect the constitution, and follow the customs, morals and morays established in the U.S.

 

Most elections for the presidency are between a Republican and a Democrat and most times the winner of the electoral college vote also gets near 50 percent of the vote. Usually the loser also gets near 50 percent of the popular vote. This says to me that there is probably a core that always votes Republican and a core that always votes Democrat and a block of independents and moderates that actually decide the elections. People that voted for Bush when Bush won, and voted for Clinton when Clinton won. And some people that voted for Bush may well have voted for Obama.

 

It is not sensible to figure a person is an idiot for voting for Bush, and somehow is cured of their idiocy when they voted for Obama. Or vice a versa.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Or maybe Overtone says that all the leadership of the republican party is evil and all the followers ignorant dupes. It doesn't make any sense, whatever it is she is saying, because it does not work the way she is laying it out.

Maybe it works in her head, but it does not work according to Overtone logic, in the real world.

Edited January 14, 2016 by tar

[overtone]

Overtone draws the line and says everybody in the Republican party is evil and everybody that votes for the republican party is stupid and ignorant.

No, I said the Republican Party itself - the leadership and Congressmen and so forth - is a "foul hulk of perverted, bigoted, corrupt, incompetent ugly,". The motives of the people who vote for them I leave to the particulars.

 

 

- - The problem is party line voting, and party line good and evil thinking.

Which of course is a major characteristic of the Republican Congress, since Gingrich got it organized that way in 1994. That's among the many reasons that Gingrich's Party is America's biggest problem right now.

 

 

It is not sensible to figure a person is an idiot for voting for Bush, and somehow is cured of their idiocy when they voted for Obama. Or vice a versa

Nobody said that. I said that anyone who voted for W twice has a completely screwed up notion of reality.

 

Or maybe Overtone says that all the leadership of the republican party is evil and all the followers ignorant dupes. It doesn't make any sense, whatever it is she is saying, because it does not work the way she is laying it out.

So why doesn't that make sense? Seems to fit what we've seen these past few decades.

 

Actually, I think only the good people who follow the current Republican Party are ignorant dupes. There are plenty who are signing on to that Party on purpose, knowing what they are doing or at least having a good idea, not duped at all.

Edited January 15, 2016 by overtone

[tar]

So you think this. I do not think you are saying anything useful, true or sensible.

[overtone]

Anyone catch the "debate"? The next President of the United States was on stage, representing the best America has to offer unless it does something about the Republican Party.

 

Transcript here: http://driftglass.blogspot.com

 

- - - -

Closing Statements:

John Kasich: I have the power!

Jeb Bush: I haz plans and very detailed files.

Chris Christie: The State of the Union speech was a disaster and Obama is a lunatic. I fight everyone all the time. I'll fight anyone in this room for a dollar. I'll fight two dogs at once.

Ben Carson: There are many Americans in America. We can't solve this problem with traditional solutions so visit my website.

Marco Rubio: Free enterprise is God's favorite system. Obama has been working for seven years to destroy this country, betray you all, and sell your kids into slavery.

Ted Cruz: Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazi. Now in 3D.

Donald Trump: Construction workers were weeping because our President let 10 sailors be caught by those ragheads. They were stong, sweaty, manly men and they cried in my arms. We held each other through the night. Also we'll win like crazy under Trump.

- - - - -

The Party of Lincoln, winning like crazy under Trump.

Edited January 15, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

 

 

Most elections for the presidency are between a Republican and a Democrat and most times the winner of the electoral college vote also gets near 50 percent of the vote. Usually the loser also gets near 50 percent of the popular vote. This says to me that there is probably a core that always votes Republican and a core that always votes Democrat and a block of independents and moderates that actually decide the elections. People that voted for Bush when Bush won, and voted for Clinton when Clinton won. And some people that voted for Bush may well have voted for Obama.

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.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

 

The core perhaps in either direction usually goes in the same direction, but people change as they age, and sometimes certain issues take the lead in terms of the way people would like to see things go.

 

There is always enough of a swing vote to make the thing interesting and often the polls show changing preferences right up to the last weeks before the general election. There are whites for instance that voted for Obama, BECAUSE he was black, and wanted to live in a country that could have a black president. And there might be Jews that would normally vote democrat that might not like the latest deal with Iran and such. There are conservative Cubans that vote habitually for Republicans and should not be lumped in with any block voting taking place with Hispanics. The various metrics of sex and race and religion and region and age do indeed change. Not only does the characteristics of the voters change, but the minds of individual voters, change as well.

hi

Party line voting in the senate and house is different than party line voting in the populace. That is, in a general election you vote for the person who seems most likely to take the country in the direction you want to see the country go, or against the person liable to take the country in a direction you do not want to see the country go in. In party line voting in the senate you are voting on a law, that should by all rights be agreeable to 90 percent of the congress, as that it will be a law that 100 percent of the populace must follow. It makes no sense that a person would agree on every issue in their party's platform, or that a person would disagree with every plank of the other party's platform.

 

I just heard Huckabee say "they are not a monolithic vote" I was not listening to the program, so I don't know what he was talking about, but I don't think any group in the populace is a monolithic vote. Everybody has there own mind, their own will, and their own judgement.

 

If anybody votes without thinking about it, they are doing it wrong. This being said, the person that wins the election is the person that the country wants to win the election, over the other candidates.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

@ 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.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

But if demographics decide who votes for the democrat and who votes for the republican, then who votes for independant candidates, and why do people cross party and vote for the other gal or guy?

 

AND if a certain percentage of each of the criteria wind up voting for the democrats or wind up voting for the republican then turnout of those people is what decides an election. And the criteria are not mutually exclusive, and you can have an old rich black women, and a young poor white female factory worker from the south and you don't know whether they are going to vote like they are rich or black or female or union or conservative or what, nor which of the obvious directions the candidates are heading sooths their worst fears and solves their biggest problems, and fires up their most powerful hopes.

 

When Obama won everyone was fired up because they were voting for change. Nobody specified what changes they were actually voting for.

 

Was just hearing that Black America has lost in almost every economic category in the last 10 years. Your metrics would suggest that poor blacks are liable to vote for the Democrat. If more have gotten poor than there were 10 years ago, then more are liable to vote for the democrat. Regardless of the fact that there has been a Democrat in the White House for the last 7 years.

 

Regards, TAR

[Willie71]

Obama is right wing on economics, with his support of the big banks, pro corporate stance, tax policy, and support of TPP. Is it any surprise that wealth inequality has grown, as that us what happens with right wing economic policy in the past 100 years. The economy overall has grown, a strong point for right wing economics, but a smaller percentage of the population shares in the growth, and the poorest typically lose ground.

[Ten oz]

@ 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]

Ten Oz,

 

You pick out just the white black hispanic numbers and the change in those demographics as if all whites vote republican and all blacks vote democrat and if you just follow these numbers you can predict election results. How about income? If people are poorer they will vote more heavily democrat. Or if people get older they will vote more heavily for the republican.

 

I don't like your demographic way of looking at things because it would predict that a high birth rate among blacks and Hispanics, and an decrease in household income for everybody, would insure that the democrats would be elected all the time.

 

The last two elections showed gains in the house and the senate for the republicans. This had more to do with the direction the country was going in, than with demographics. One of the criteria your statistics showed was liberal moderate conservative. These blocks change from election to election. Personally, I change from election to election and voted for Carter and for Bush. If you look through the years you will see these numbers, of liberal and conservative and moderate change and depending on the issues and direction of the country more of the various group will be energized and come out to vote, and depending on the issues moderates do indeed hold the swing vote.

 

And moderates come in all shapes and sizes. I remember when I was in college I campaigned for McGovern in New Hampshire. I also remember as he did well in New Hampshire and became more mainstream he shifted toward the center in his speeches. I believe that to win the election, a party's platform needs to move toward a position everybody can agree with. Otherwise the moderates go the other direction.

 

For instance Bernie does not have a chance to win the general election because he is too socialist. Unless he wins the primary and moves toward the center to attract the moderates.

 

And there had to be whites who voted for Obama.

 

 

Regards, TAR

Anecdotally someone in my profile picture, a democrat, told me that they hated trump, disliked Hilary and that Bernie was too socialist. Who is this person going to vote for in the election? Would you be able to tell if I told you the person's sex, age and income level? Or perhaps can a person pull the lever, or stay home, for any personal reasons, regardless of their demographics.

in the last local election I voted for two republican councilmen and not a third on the ticket and voted to re-elect a democratic female mayor. How could my demographics predict that behavior? And the two councilmen I voted for won, and the one I didn't vote for lost, and the Mayor was re-elected.

 

In addition, I have been known to not vote party line in general elections, and to vote for house and senate representatives that were good, regardless of their party. In fact, I like it better, and think we are governed better, when the president does not control his own congress.

or her

Edited January 16, 2016 by tar

[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]

"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." Mark Twain​

[Willie71]

Tar, I'm sure you are aware of the gerrymandering that has kept the Republican Party relevant. Progressive policy positions are supported by the majority of the populace, but redrawing the boundaries to concentrate the republican voters pays off. Why this wasn't opposed more strongly by the democrats is puzzling to me.

[Ten oz]

"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." Mark Twain​

And this counters statistical evidence how?

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Not counter, substantiates.

 

In all the elections you showed other than ones involving Clinton and Gore the republican got the older vote and the democrat got the younger vote. As I individually aged I went from liberal to independent to conservative. I am thinking it not impossible that the same progression happens to others as they age and accept more responsibility, accumulate more wealth and learn more about the world and what is workable and what should be maintained. Much like the quote from Mark Twain.

 

And the statistics also substantiate the idea that people change, not just the demographics. Looking at the elections from '96 to '12 liberals went from 19 to 25% where democrats went from 40 to 38% and moderates went from 47 to 41% and democrats went from 40 to 38% independents went from 22 to 29 percent and republicans went from 35 to 32 percent.

 

Here where age and sex and race are somewhat predicable, one]s political philosophy can change as you grow or can change as your life situation changes, and the planks in various candidates platform change.

 

Regards, TAR

and moderates hold the swing vote in all elections as neither liberal nor conservative have the numbers to win a plurality

let me rephrase

'96,'00,'04,'08,'12

Liberal 19,20,21,22,25

Moderate 47,50,46,44,41

Conservative 34,29,34,34,35

 

Democrat 40,39,37,39,38

Independent 22,26,26,29,29

Republican 35,35,37,32,32

Edited January 17, 2016 by tar

[overtone]

 

 

As I individually aged I went from liberal to independent to conservative.

I've never seen anyone do that.

 

What I see is people rebelling against their parents specific views by claiming a contrary ideology they do not in fact possess, and then returning to the proper label for their ideology later as agreement with their parents matters less.

 

I also have seen hard core conservative Republican college students become more and more liberal as they acquired an education. That's a pretty common pattern.

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, This country is becoming more diverse. A higher portion of the population above 50yrs is white than below 50yrs old. Whites vote 59-64% Republican. So it follows that older voters are more likely to be Republcan. Your numbers do not reflect swing voting. They reflect the changing demographics between Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. To prove your theory you would need to isolate the demographics of voters by age and show that they differ from the over all demographic. Instead they appear to follow what the overall demographics tells us..The larger the pool of white voters (older voters) the more conservative and the larger the diversity (young voters) the more liberal.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Ten oz

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

But is one conservative because they are old or because they are white, and is one liberal because they are 18 or because they are non-white?

 

in any case if one's political philosophy is determined by who they are, then it can not be evil to have a certain political philosophy, it is instead determined by who you are.

 

Such would demand that we accept others for who they are and work with them, in terms of their needs, vision of the world, desires, and will.

 

The country should work for everybody, and not at the expense of anybody.

 

Overtone,

 

You have continually spoken against a group of people in a negative fashion, which is against the rules of the forum.

I suggest that it is also the biggest problem with America, that you speak negatively against old white males, who as a group are actually a large part of the strength of the nation, As a socialist, you would probably be for a redistribution of the wealth accumulated by a white, middle class, male that lives in the suburbs. Well that describes me, and I have college loans to pay off, and a mortgage to pay off and will pay taxes into the system when I withdraw my 401 earnings. I have already done my part, paid my social security, paid my taxes, followed the law, served in the military, donated to charity, volunteered in the town, helped the beggar on the street. I have no job right now and can not collect unemployment because I quit my job. I have not earned your scorn, yet I have it, by virtue of being who I am. You are prejudice against people who voted for Bush. You fail to notice that we are your fellow Americans and have as much right to be ourselves as you do.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, you are moving the goal posts now. I never said 100% of any group is one thing or another. Obviously there are Black Republicans (Rice, Keyes, Carson, Powell, Thomas) and white liberals (Sanders, Pelosi, Gore, Brown, Ginsburg) and everything in between.

 

My point is not to state why anyone votes the way they do but rather I am using the statistics to show that the way people vote is consistant. You are trying to make a case that people swing; liberal when young and conservative when old. The stats do not support that. Election after elections the demographics are consistant. If individual candidates race, policies, religion, and etc swung voters than we would not see the statistical consistance we see election after election.