A recent poll caught my attention because of the detail it offered. While it is just a single poll, it does represent what I see in many other polls. What it shows is those on the Right see the world very differently than the rest of America - Why Is That?
(Since only a couple demographics have a large "Don't Know" response, to save space I will only provide the "Approve" results)
Q: Do You Approve of President Trump's Job Performance?
Strongly or Somewhat Approve: 39% (right now most polls are a couple of points higher)
Male - Approve 44%
Female - Approve: 33% Why 11 points lower??
Gen Z: Approve: 21% (with 15% Don't Know)
Millennial: Approve: 28%
Gen X: Approve: 37%
Boomers: Approve: 46%
Dem: Approve: 10%
Ind: Approve: 32%
Rep: Approve: 82% (what is it they don't see that few others do see?)
The Liberal, Moderate, Conservative reflects the Party results.
White: Approve: 44%
Hispanic: Approve: 25%
Black: Approve: 11%
Others: Approve: 21% (10% Don't Know) (What do minorities see that Whites Don't?)
The differences are striking yet we are all watching and listening to the same thing. Why does between 55% and 89% of Americans perceive Trump one way while remainder see Trump the opposite?
" What it shows is those on the Right see the world very differently than the rest of America"
Given that the country is pretty much split evenly left and right, I'd have to say that those on the Left see the world very much differently than the rest of America.
It isn't the political divide that is harming America (that has always been there), it is the massive refusal to work with anyone not of your party/ideology. A tremendous refusal to compromise or accept anything that isn't exactly what you want. (Not meaning "you" as you personally, but only as the average man in the street and even more so, our politicians in their never ending power struggle).
Because of this, and the screams when we don't get our way, the divide appears much greater than it did in the past - where the country used to pull together and find a solution acceptable to all now we just scream until we get our way.
Your math confuses me, Wilderness. How do you get "pretty much split evenly left and right" when the data shows something entirely different??
But I would argue that those days "where the country used to pull together" with the Gingrich and Tea Party revolution. That is the only thing that has changed since "then" and "now".
The Democratic party is no more liberal now than it was in the 1960s in reality. It only appears that way because much of the Conservative wing were either voted out of office or joined the Republican party. Consequently, the very liberal elements sound louder.
The Republican party, on the other hand, is much more conservative than what it was in Nixon's, or even Reagan's day.
"How do you get "pretty much split evenly left and right" when the data shows something entirely different??"
You mean the math from the last presidential election that shows a very nearly perfect split? As in 51%-49% or some such? That math?
The only reason the Republican party SEEMS more conservative than it used to be is because it has to fight off the increasingly radical Democratic party as it moves ever further left and closer to European style socialism.
No, I am referring to the CURRENT numbers as reflected in the above poll.
And there is no SEEMs about it. The reactionary Right has driven out almost all moderate and liberal Republicans.
Ah. And you think tens of millions of conservatives have become liberals because you don't like Trump and assume that everyone will change their ideology because they don't like him either.
Needless to say I would disagree with that concept. I've made no bones about Trump and that I don't like the man. But it hasn't made me embrace liberal principles, and won't - no single person can do that to ANY thinking person. You may define your principles according to what Nancy Pelosi or some other liberal thinks you should, but I prefer to use my own mind.
Where did I say "tens of millions of conservatives have become liberals" - why do you keep making things up Wilderness??
And in any case you are deflecting, aren't you. The question is WHY:
* Women dislike Trump more than Men
* Gen Z and Millennials dislike Trump more than Gen X and Boomers
* Democrats and Independents dislike Trump a LOT more than Republicans
* Minorities dislike Trump much more than Whites
Answer those questions, Wilderness rather than deflecting to something that is untrue and irrelevant.
Your whole premise seems to be that if you don't like Trump you are a liberal.
That is patently false, as I tried to point out. Disliking one person, or 20, does not set the stage for approval of an entire platform of political opinions.
If Pelosi or Hillary was suddenly arrested for rape of school children would you immediately become a Conservative? Would you then call for dismantling the welfare system and ObamaCare? Would you approve of a border wall and strong border control because of Pelosi's transgression? I doubt it.
If you could but climb off the anti-Trump wagon you might recognize that there are other differences out there - that the whole world does not revolve around hatred of Donald Trump.
Deflection Wilderness. Let me try again:
The question is WHY:
* Women dislike Trump more than Men
* Gen Z and Millennials dislike Trump more than Gen X and Boomers
* Democrats and Independents dislike Trump a LOT more than Republicans
* Minorities dislike Trump much more than Whites
Answer those questions, Wilderness rather than deflecting to something that is untrue and irrelevant and you will be able to stay on topic.
If you look back, I never mentioned Trump. Rather I addressed the comment that "What it shows is those on the Right see the world very differently than the rest of America - Why Is That?"
Your return comment was that "And there is no SEEMs about it. The reactionary Right has driven out almost all moderate and liberal Republicans."
Sorry if it seems I hijacked the thread - I'm not real interested in bashing Trump, but I AM interested in the political makeup and the reactions to it of the man in the street. That includes slapping at the idea that if you dislike Trump you are automatically a liberal, which is what I said.
I apologize if you saw it as hijacking or deflection. It was not; it was an honest attempt to discuss where we have gone as liberals and conservatives. Nothing to do with Trump.
Wilderness, if you answer those questions, you will be discussing why conservatives and everybody else see the world differently.
And I will be falling into the same fallacy that you live with: that anyone liking Trump...no, make that anyone refusing to demonize Trump by whatever means possible is a conservative and everyone else is a liberal.
Perhaps the answer is that conservatives see the world through reality and liberals see it through their imagination and emotion? I wouldn't have said so, but you seem to be doing so.
I'll give you just one example, answering one of your questions - why do women dislike Trump so much? And the answer is that media has painted him as a woman hater...which has zero to do with being a conservative or supporting conservative issues.
Yes, the media forced him to brag about kissing women and grabbing their pu$$ies against their will and ogling underage girls in various states of undress, as well as forced him to say childish, boorish, and disgusting things about women in particular and people in general.
Trump never is responsible for his own actions or the resulting backlash.
You notice how Wilderness makes things binary? No matter how many times I say something like "liberals and the rest of Americans" (we are now talking about 60% - 65% of Americans) of which only about 25% are liberal, the remainder are moderates. He always tries to make it just liberals (25%) and conservatives (36%) and ignores the other 49%.
Why does Wilderness choose to marginalize moderates?
I'm afraid the democratic party has shifted quite a bit to the left of where it was not so long ago.
I agree. Do you also think the Republican party has shifted quite a bit to the right?
Promisem, I think you aimed that question at LTL, but I lived through the 1960s and in my opinion, Barry Goldwater was a radical right for his day compared to the more moderate Republican, William Scranton, and the more liberal Republican, Nelson Rockefeller. (Yes, Virginia, there was such a thing as a liberal Republican in the 1960s.) Since Goldwater lost by a landslide to Democrat Lyndon Johnson, the party didn't start moving to the extreme right until the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the other so-called "Moral Majority" started making noise and attracting the fundamentalists. It's just my opinion, but I believe that was a movement to counteract the liberal movements of the Lyndon Johnson era.
Excellent point, Miz. I also lived through the '60s. It made me believe we go through generational swings in politics between left and right.
The liberal '60s eventually led to a big swing toward the right. We're seeing the worst of that swing today in a radical right.
It's motivating new life and converts in the left. I would be surprised to see in another 10 years a return to the kind of radical leftism we saw in the '60s.
"It's motivating new life and converts in the left."
I would say that it's going both ways - a big swing to the left (with Obama in office) is motivating converts to the right.
Some of the reasons I say that: the increasing efforts to disarm the country. Increasing efforts along the LGBT front, particularly including the use of "wrong" restrooms and dressing rooms for transgenders. The absolute refusal to address immigration concerns. Ever increasing efforts to redistribute wealth from those that earned it to those that didn't.
It works both ways, of course - the rights continued efforts to ban all abortions is driving people left, just as you say, and so are increasing efforts to force Christian values onto everyone else. The result may well be the disenfranchising of anything but moderates, with only a few loud voices left at the fringes, albeit very loud ones.
I agree with most of what you stated except for the abortion. The “right” are not trying to ban abortion, but just trying to restrict it. It is the left that is pushing the abortion to the limit of late term and even abortion at birth.
It would help tremendously if Jack knew what he is talking about instead of just believing Right-wing Fake News and misleading sound-bites such as the so-called "abortion at birth".
Actually read the two bills in question and you will have your proof--
Bottom-line, what those two bills do is try to save the mother's life during birth by preventing the criminalization of trying to save her which is what your side wants to do.
jackclee, It is just a thought, but I think a little research will show that the "Right" is very much trying to ban abortion - in all cases other than those that risk the mother's life.
And there are a few nut jobs where the life of the mother wasn't enough - almost made into law in one state.
I don’t know which “right” you are referring to. There are many shades just as there are many different opinions on the “left” as well.
But with regard to abortion, I think roe vs. wade is never going to be over turned. We had 50 years of precedence, thanks to the Supreme court.
Currently, in 2019, the fight with abortion is about when it should be allowed. Late term abortion seems to be the battle ground. Where do you stand on this? I can't believe it is even a point of contention.
Come on Jack, we are talking about your shade of Right, the only one that is left in the GOP. Do I need to add "far-" every time I write "Right". I thought it needed no explanation.
Where do I stand on late-term abortion (assuming you mean after the fetus is viable). Like everybody else, I oppose it except in the case where the health to the mother is in jeopardy. I personally do not buy into the rape or incest exception.
Respectfully disagree. The only "limits" the far right will accept is in case of rape or incest (somehow it's all right to murder a person if they are the result of a rape). Even to save the mothers life - well, the "experts" are saying that never happens.
And the left is not pushing for abortion at birth or even late term except in very limited cases. I've seen the right propaganda, and it is not true to fact - no one is asking for abortion right up to birth as a normal occurrence. The law they keep referring to as doing just that was nothing but defining that an abortion can be done at any time to save the mother's life - an event that is exceedingly rare.
I saw a chart the other day that showed where voters stood on two things. Identity politics and fiscal issues. They showed people who identified as Republican and those who identified as democrats. It was a little scary. The Republican dots were all over the place fiscally (conservative and liberal policy being fairly evenly represented), but mostly out of the part that embraced identity politics. The Democrat dots were sharply clumped in the liberal policy and identity politics part.
That chart appeared to back my beliefs that Republican voters are basically middle of the road and democrats have moved further left over the years.
Sure, each side has loud mouths we look to in order raise an eyebrow at the other side but I think there are more loud mouths on the left creating a negative perception of the democratic party.
Sounds like an interesting chart. I am not sure the Ds have moved more liberal over time (consider the 1960s as a baseline). I think it is because the conservative wing of the Ds either lost their seats or joined the Republicans/Independents.
2018, however, may have moved the party to the right with the take-over of all of those formerly Republican seats. If the D left rattles their sabers too hard, they may lose those seats back to the Rs.
I'm surprised the chart showed a spread on fiscal policy among Republicans.
I'm a strong fiscal conservative, and I have never met a true Republican who was liberal on fiscal policy.
I identify as Republican but I am quite liberal on some ideas, albeit what I feel we should do I only think we should spend on if we offset the costs by reductions in other areas.
I think most people can easily swing either way, in the way they identify themselves, but the identity politics of the modern left is turning moderates off and more are self identifying as Republican.
Live to Learn, I only offer a personal perspective. I think modern identity politics is turning moderates off and more are self-identifying as Independents. From my perspective, the Right, (Republicans), are as alienating as the Left, (Democrats).
Just a thought, but independents aren't truly independent. We have a two party system. I used to self identify as independent but the truth is in national elections I've more frequently voted Republican than Democrat, thus I've decided to accept the label, although I am registered as independent.
GA, do note that the Republican party only has one philosophy. The Democratic Party is still a big tent Party with a substantial middle and a vocal left (making it seem bigger than it really is). With the 2018 wave, they even picked up some conservative (not social, fortunately) members.
Liberals do not exist anymore in the GOP and moderates are few and far between.
Conservative and moderates are no where to be found in the Democratic party. Where are the blue dogs?
Open your eyes Jack, that is not even close to the truth. All you have to do is look at the in-fighting going on in the Democratic Party.
Who do you think opposes Medicare for All? Moderate and conservative Ds
Who do you think opposes Green New Deal? Moderate and conservative Ds
Who do you think opposes impeaching Trump now (even though he deserves it)? Moderate and conservative Ds.
Take your blinders off Jack and join the real world.
Where is people like Joe Lieberman? Who is a moderate.
Where would JFK be in today’s democratic party?
There is no conservatives left. There is only socialist, and progressives...and green extremists. sad but true.
Your party is imploding and you are cheering it on.
Lieberman would remain what he is, and Independent. He would avoid the GOP like the plague.
JFK would be what he was, a moderate-to-left Democrat.
It is a shame you are so blinded by your politics to see reality. Are you seriously trying to tell me all of those conservative and moderate Democrats who beat out your right-wing Republicans are flaming liberals? Doing so puts you in the nut-job side of the GOP.
Do you really want to be there? Study reality instead of your Fake News sites and talking heads.
"....but the identity politics of the modern left is turning moderates off and more are self identifying as Republican."
Recent data indicates the opposite.
I WAS what they called a liberal Republican, and voted that way until 1992 when I voted for Clinton, my first Democrat. But then they called me a RHINO because I wasn't "pure" enough for them - it made me think of Hitler and the rise of the superior race. - and it has just gotten worse every year since. And now we have the culmination of that movement with Trump - the Dictator.
So now I am an independent who votes for every non-conservative I can.
You usually sound rabid left to me, but that is just going by the posts of yours I read.
I'm very surprised they called you a Rino. I thought they was a phrase very recently coined.
No, it has not. If anything, the GOP leaders has moved left and frustrates conservatives like me.
what? are you kidding me? this is why our country is going down the tubes. people like you who refuse to recognize reality. Since when the Democratic party stood up for socialism?
I like your answer, Wilderness, but I'm not sure I agree that we are more polarized than this country used to be. I think it is the "breaking" news and instant gratification that makes it seem so. (Funny how some stories seem to break for three days.) In past centuries before radio and TV, it took weeks, and sometimes months, for the news to get around the country. By the time people in Ohio or Texas heard about it, the people between Washington, New York or Pennsylvania, etc., had time to digest it and calm down.
Politicians fought duels over their political differences, for instance, the Hamilton-Burr duel in which Alexander Hamilton was shot to death by Aaron Burr. I don't know about other state legislatures, but in my state this occurred on the floor of the state legislature in 1837:
"The only recorded violent death on the floor of the Arkansas General Assembly occurred on December 4, 1837, in a knife brawl leaving state Representative Major Joseph J. Anthony of Randolph County dead at the hands of Speaker of the House Colonel John Wilson of Clark County, who was subsequently expelled and tried for murder. The Arkansas Gazette cited it as “another example of the barbarity of life in Arkansas,” lamenting how it “stained the history of the state.”"
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/e … tryID=5664
At least today our politicians have confined their squabbling to the courts and to TV and Twitter. Thank goodness we haven't had any knife fights or duels that ended in death of one of the combatants.
I didn't mean that we are more polarized, simply that the reaction to that polarization has gotten completely out of hand.
The duel is a great example; it happened (more than once) but it was very rare. But now we commonly have riots over everything, hurting or killing people all the time. We see whole universities forced to supply "safe areas" and counselors because students saw "Vote Trump" scrawled on the sidewalk.
Events and actions that were once rare are commonplace, and certainly the level of partisanship shown in Congress is unique to our time. Yes, we've always had politicians fighting for what they want, but now we have them walking out of the building to prevent a vote if they can't have their way. We have them continuing to fight (for years and years) after the vote went against them. We have 99% of our politicians voting a straight party line rather than their own mind. We have great outcries to change the constitution because they lost an election. These types of reactions have gotten much, much worse than they were.
BTW, both Burr and Hamilton were Federalists.
That is true, and they were former partners in their own law firm. Hamilton seemed to carry a chip on his shoulder because of his low birth, and he did favor a monarchy. Truth be known, probably a strong federal government may have been his second choice to a monarchy. But there seems to have been a squabble within the ranks of the Federalists with Hamilton, once the fair-haired boy of George Washington, coming out against Washington. However, it is possible that the Hamilton/Burr differences may have been personal as much as political.
I have been trying to get straight answers to these kinds of questions for sometime. Perhaps, the answers may be forthcoming now that someone other than me is asking.
From the looks of the responses My Esoteric, maybe small steps, like picking one demographic, might yield more insights.
I would pick the easy one - age.
Gen Z: Approve: 21% (with 15% Don't Know)
Millennial: Approve: 28%
Gen X: Approve: 37%
Boomers: Approve: 46%
The obvious indication is that older voters are more approving. Why?
Shooting from the hip I would say it is because the social changes are more impactful on the older respondent's perspectives.
I think the Left, under the Obama administration, pushed too hard too fast. It started with the societal upheaval of Obamacare, then piled on with the LGBT issues, then topped it all with the cherry of a national discussion of which bathroom kids should use.
Taken individually I think all those issues have merit for discussion, (except the bathroom issue), and with time for absorption I don't think they would have been so negatively impactful on conservative-minded folks, (Gen X, Baby Boomers), but piled all together in one brief administration's time was a lot to swallow for a lot of folks.
The Gen Z folks have grown up with the trans and gender issues, and the Bernie Sander's age group are familiar with the societal direction of the Left's demands. But, for the Gen X and Baby Boomers, those issues are radical changes from their embedded life views. So they would naturally be more supportive of a counter-balancing figure like Pres. Trump.
That is just a first thought, but I think it is a valid one relative to that demographic.
For that demographic, you make good points (save for the one about Trump) They give me things to think about. But, I do notice that the Millennials are much closer to the Gen Z than Gen X or Boomers. Consider that when comparing to your statement "those issues are radical changes from their embedded life views."
I should add that:
Gen Z - (18 - 21)
Millennial - (22 - 37)
Gen X - (38 - 53)
Boomers - (54 - 72)
https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/u … _v2_AP.pdf
On the other hand, Trump is much, much more than a "counter-balancing figure"; he is a sea-change figure breaking everything in his path just like a bull-in-a-china-shop.
Now, now My Esoteric. I think you understood my point about the counter-balance of Trump to the upheaval perceived by the Gen X and Baby Boomer folks. Don't let your Trump opinion affect your consideration of that rational.
I do understand your point save for the one about Trump. What I think of Trump is neither here nor there. My comment simply reflects reality - that description is simply not debatable.
That said, more important are the other things you said.
As a gen-xer I don't approved this message.
I don't think we're in the same boat as Baby Boomers.
So you think you are less anchored to the societal norms of the Baby Boomers? Which Gen X'r are you - closer in age to the Baby Boomer, or closer to the Millenials?
That may impact your perception of being lumped in with the Baby Boomers.
The divide is made worse in my opinion by a dishonest media...Rush Limbaugh coin a term and called them "the drive by media". It makes perfect description of what they do...
The true definition of the Drive-By Media is they arrive on the scene of major breaking news and they stir up emotions to a frenzied fever pitch. They spread lies, and then, after a few hours or a few days when the real facts emerge, they're gone.
It was Churchchill who said if you are not a liberal in your 20s you have no heart, if you are not conservative in your 50s, you have no brain....
Before you go attributing a statement inaccurately, you might want to investigate it. Churchill did not say that. In case you are wondering, it appears the spirit of the quote can be attributed to either Anselme Batbie or Edmund Burke.
Thanks, my memory is not as good as it use to be but the idea is still good, and true...today.
What about this video?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=18s&v … fullscreen
Kind of like all those Republicans blaming Obama for Katrina, right?
I am just pointing out the problem with our society today. You have people making value judgement based on their politics and not based on what is right. Just because they don’t agree with a politician or political party, they will change their own views just to be different.
This makes it very easy for the media and others to manipulate public opinion.
That is why our founders were smart enough to create a system of government based on representation rather than popular vote.
The assumption was we elected people of character to higher office so that they are immune to these popular slogans.
Lately, in Washington, sadly, we don’t have that any more. People are elected to office who are clueless about our laws and our Constitution.
Therefore, we have chaos instead of government by the people for the people.
Correct, Trump has very little moral integrity and cares not for the constitution or the law. Otherwise he wouldn't protest so much about his taxes. He clearly has something to hide.
Agree, Randy. A Trump supporter talking about respect for the rule of law and the Constitution is slightly ironic.
However, I will agree on the point that doing a 180 on your opinion about something based on whether somebody you support said it or somebody you dislike said it, is not exactly a stable ethical/moral compass.
That is exactly what is going on with our borders. The same politicians on both side of the aisle have said they want to solve the problem and yet with each passing years, it gets worse and they just kick the can down the road...the same goes with the debt...
That is why Trump was elected as an outsider, despite his many baggage...
American people have to decide what they want from their government.
Regardless of elections, the politicians and the big donors have figured out they can control both parties to do the exact things they want contrary to what the people wants and get away with it.
We get the government we deserve...
Just to respond directly to your Trump comment.
I was a reluctant supporter of Trump and only after he was elected.
I finally realized the corruption of both parties and they just want power and control. They are not interested in solving problems I care about.
At least, with Trump, he is trying to do what I want happen...
We are beginning to see some blacks and minorities coming to that same conclusion. If enough of them come join us Conservatives, we can actually get something accomplished and vote all the incumbents out of office.
The election of AOC accomplished some of that even though I disagree with her politics. She is shaking things up on DC...which is always a good thing.
"At least, with Trump, he is trying to do what I want happen..."
Just curious, Jackclee, what do you want to happen? It concerns me that he took us to within 10 minutes of war, and that he insults the leaders of free world countries and pals around with dictators like Putin and Kim.
I want the border controlled. Only legal immigration to our country. I want a fair trade with China.
I want a nuclear free North Korea and Iran.
I want a Conservative Supreme court that follows the Constitution and not make laws like ACA...
I want a reduction of our national debt.
I want a strong military.
I want the Keystone XL pipeline build.
I want more manufacturing jobs back in America.
I want lower taxes.
I want term limits on Congress.
I want a pony.
Sorry jackclee,but the temptation was too great.
That would be nice too but I will settle for 80% of the list...
Is it too much to ask?
What does the anti-Trump people want in contrast?
Free healthcare, open borders, more govt spending, forgive of student loan, $15 minimum wage and tax Increases on the wealthy...
"More Gov't Spending" - ROFL. You Conservatives are now responsible for the largest increase in the Debt since Obama bailed us out of the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
"Tax increases on the wealthy" is a good thing - they need to pay their fair share.
There is nothing "Free" about healthcare, even under the Medicare for All proposals. Stop making things up.
The Democrats are no more for "open border" than you are. You are just perpetuating right-wing lies.
While I would rather have a more robust EITC than a higher minimum wage, in real terms, the $15/hr is no higher than it was in the 1960s.
Look who is repeating talking points.
Every one of my wish is real. Unfortunately Trump could not deliver on all of them but at least he has tried...
It is the Democratic controlled house that has prevented the building of the wall and securing our borders and it is also they that pass the spending bill that raised our debt ceiling just like all previous times under either administrations.
The minimum wage is a ruse. Why not $20 or s30? Who determine what is an acceptable minimum wage?
This has been tried locally in some cities like Seattle. It has lead to less entry level jobs and closing of restaurants...
Which do you rather have, a paying job at below minimum wage or no job? Ask any teenager?
But my "talking points" aren't myths.
You speak of the wall as a good thing, it isn't. It is a waste of money since it will not do what Trump says it will (to which the border patrol largely agrees)
Trump could have vetoed the raise of the debt ceiling - he didn't and neither did the Conservatives in the Senate.
Why not $20 or $30? Because it has been proven that $15 provides a barely livable wage - which is the point. Why work full-time when your family is going to starve anyway?
I can't ask any teenager because in today's society, adults trying to survive have replaced many of jobs once filled by teenagers a long time ago.
My local McDonald's is a good example. I would say the average age of those employees is 40 or 50.
Democrats want "the border controlled. Only legal immigration to our country. I want a fair trade with China."
Democrats want "a nuclear free North Korea and Iran." (Yet Trump and his conservative enablers are driving Iran to get nukes again - WHY?)
Democrats want "a Liberal Supreme court that follows the Constitution and what our founders intended for America"
Democrats "want a reduction of our national debt. " (Yet Trump and his conservative enablers keep driving it higher a record pace)
"I want a strong military." You got me there, Jack, most Ds don't, although this independent does.
"I want the Keystone XL pipeline build." - You're right, Ds don't because it is environmentally unsound and not needed.
Democrats "want more manufacturing jobs back in America."
"I want lower taxes." - You may but the rich need to pay their fair share (50 to 60% top marginal rate would be nice)
"I want term limits on Congress." - Term limits lead to a stupid, inexperienced Congress (not that there are doing any better today)
Well, Esoteric, it depends on what you mean by "strongmilitary".i don't justify any aspect of government being wasteful and profligate with the public dollar. A strong military needs to focus on defense. It seems that the Republicans will excuse any financial impropriety that comes from DOD, but are misers in regards to non-defense spending.
I question the Conservative view that require that our military presence be everywhere at incredible expense as necessary, that is what they say and I don't buy it. We probably have installations from Timbuktu to McMurdo Sound, how and why should we justify it?
The real truth, Jack, is many black conservatives are leaving Trump for Kamala Harris and Biden. That is from a black conservative who is still hanging with Trump while the economy remains good. Not sure how long that will last though - he was very upset with his racism.
Trump is more corrupt than both of the political parties combined. Who ever came up with the crazy idea that he was going to be above the fray?
There is a reason why "black conservatives" in the mode of Trump are not many, Anybody getting the endorsement and support of every race baiting entity is certainly not going to get my support. Any friend of theirs is an enemy of mine. I could not be a conservative today and stand looking at the mirror.
He is doing what you want to happen, but again that is just you. It certainly does not reflect my views or desires. "Blacks and minorities coming to the same conclusion"? Where do you get your news, Jack?
Does it matter? It is no secret what Trump say and does. You can agree or disagree with his policies. The media will spin it any way they wish.
It is up to you and me to decide for ourselves if he is doing the right things.
You have some strong feelings about Trump. Yet, you have not been able to articulate what is it that you object to. You even admit that you personally have not been hurt by his policies. So, I think some soul searching is in order. What do you say to the other black conservatives. There are more than a few of them. Are they all racist or are they uncle Toms? Or are they independent thinkers...who realized after all they conservatism is the path to property.
The main stream media simply reports on what Trump does, they don't spin (for the most part even Fox News tries to play it straight). It is the talking heads, the opinion people, who put the spin on it, but they don't twist the facts beyond recognition. I will grant you people like Don Lemon, Jake Trapper, and Cuomo put a little spin on it. But Trump acolytes like Hannity, Limbaugh, and there ilk not only spin the facts, they often make them unrecognizable, and frequently simply lie.
Trump has Earned the strong feelings we have about him. We have articulated a lot about what we object to - you chose not to listen. It is you that needs to search your soul about how you can support an outright racist, misogynist, sexual predator, Islamophobe, xenophobe, bully, and pathological liar.
Black conservatives? What do they represent, less than 1% of the black community?
Tell me, Jack, why has America experienced the best economic times under liberal, mainly Democratic, presidents and congresses? The longest expansions have been under Kennedy-Johnson, Clinton, and Obama (of which Trump is now benefiting)
You said it all.
Your TDS has completely taken over your sanity.
Trump will be reelected President in 2020.
He will have a larger percent of Black and hispanic support than in 2016.
You can quote me if you like.
I don’t make predictions lightly.
Given the current crop of Democrats, one more left than the other, there is no competition.
America is not a racist nation and America is not a socialist nation and never will be.
That rant of yours is priceless...can I quote you on that?
Yes, you and me have to decide if he doing the right things. You obviously think that he is I and think that he is not.
What are my objections
He is a race baiter and has been years before now.
With his persona and attitude he has attracted the worse of the racist scum and their organizations to his banner.
I think his foreign policy approaches are reckless
I like neither the man, nor his policies. I cannot say that about any one as President within my lifetime.
My neighbor has not hurt me directly either, but he is not President of the United States. Let's not be naive, Jack. We all know that "hurt" goes beyond what I have or have not experienced personally as an individual.
Conservative Blacks? You have a better chance of finding the abominable snowman.
94%of Fox News watchers are white. Black watchers, Asian, and Hispanic make up the other 6%.
Two thirds of their viewers are senior citizens. Nothing "Fair and Balanced" at all in their broadcasts, but then, the racists like it that way.
oh lordy, now I am am an unbalanced racist because I am a senior citizen white person. Sorry CNN, I have to change the channel to Fox. *sigh
What the hell is your preoccupation with Fox? Do you think CNN is the essence of truthful news coverage? Do you make any distinction between news coverage and opinion segments?
Hannity isn't news, he is a pundit and one of the most obvious sycophants to my mind, but I think Rachel Maddow could give him a run for his money on the other side of the fence. Or even Don Lemon. Can you imagine he has a spot as a debate moderator?
This Faux News drumbeat is getting monotonous. Amazing as it may sound, even though I never watch Fox News, I am sure my positions are viewed as more aligned with Fox watchers than the CNN crowd. How do you explain that?
What you mean by "people of character" are merely rightwing automatons?
When we get down to cases, conservatives are terrified by the vox
Populi and fear being outnumbered and outvoted. That is really where all this stuff about representation verses the irresponsible "rabble" comes from, does it not?
What about it, it is from that Fake News site Daily Caller.
What do you consider fake news?
This was a real man in the street interview...
It demonstrate how people are not thinking for themselves.
This is the news that the main stream media is not reporting.
Jack, That's just staged stuff, I am black and I am not confused about the fact that both Trump and the Right wing agenda sucks, and must be dispensed with at the earliest opportunity.
What has he done to you personally? I ask that in earnest. The economy is doing well. All people are better off with jobs, and a growing wealth. What is this right wing? Have they damage you or your race?
I just don’t get it. A rising tide raises all boats.
It is inexplicable that some democrats would rather go back to old policies that hurt them economically just because they hate Trump.
What difference does it make if #TraitorTrump has done anything to Credence personally? You are just deflecting with that question. The real question is why do you applaud the harm this impostor has done to America, and by extension to Credence and myself.
People had jobs under Obama, yet you imply that they didn't - that is dishonest
People's wealth grew under Obama, yet you imply that it didn't - that is dishonest.
"A rising tide raises all boats" may be true for oceans, but it is clearly not true for economics. The bottom 20%, in real terms, has fallen farther behind.
HERE is the REAL TRUTH, Jack
From WW II into the 1970s, when the far right stayed out of politics,
- "Incomes grew rapidly and at roughly the same rate up and down the income ladder, roughly doubling in inflation-adjusted terms between the late 1940s and early 1970s."
- "The income gap between those high up the income ladder and those on the middle and lower rungs — while substantial — did not change much during this period."
Beginning in the 1970s (and accelerating after Reagan)
- "Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly."
- "The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen 90 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”)."
- Things got marginally better under Clinton and even more equal during the Great Republican Recession of 2008
- They improved a little in the latter part of Obama's administration because real wages finally began to increase.
- It has gotten worse under Trump as wage growth and inflation began to equal each other.
It is #RacistTrump who wants to revert back to the good ol' 50s when whites loved blacks to death.
What harm exactly?
You are just being silly and letting your emotion rule.
Trump has not hurt me in any way.
In fact, under Trump, my savings has increased by 40% in the two and a half years since he was in office.
That is a great result even above my expectations.
Glad to hear Trump has not hurt you in any way. Do you think he has hurt others in any way?
Nor has he hurt me either, other than my sense of pride for America. I am embarrassed for my country because of him.
Is your only measure of "goodness" your wealth, Jack? Don't America values meaning anything to you? That black guy I mentioned (and a white guy sitting next to him as well) believes that way - so long as their wealth is not impacted, they could care less what Trump does to America. They don't care that Trump makes America look more of a racist country than it already is. They don't care if he separates families. They don't care if we wastes billions of dollars on a useless cement wall which makes America look like it is on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain.
Trump is dividing America; probably as bad as it has ever been before in history. I think the only two times it was worse was around 1802 and around 1860. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Trump tried to reinstate the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.
No he is not. How is America more racist? That is a false charge. Defending our borders does not make us racist. Every other nation does the same thing. Only in America, can we be accused of racism at the drop of a hat. I am an immigrant. I know what real racism looks like. Go to Japan and Iran and Saudi Arabia and so many other countries where racism is practiced. America is doing just fine.
That is absolutely a true charge. Since Trump started running for president, America has become sharply more divided due to his rhetoric as well as more hateful.
Because I am white, I don't know true racism - Credence does however. Because I study history, because I read, because I listen, I am well aware what racism is, apparently more than you do, the damage to America it causes, let alone to the targets of conservative racism - like Emmett Till whose memorial had to be replaced with a bullet proof version because gun-toting conservatives keep shooting it up.
America is no different, especially today, than Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia other than the target of our racism.
You are so misguided.
America was better before Obama became the first black president.
President Obama miss an opportunity to heal our nation. Instead, he played up racism every chance he got, starting with Trevon Martin and Ferguson and so many other cases...
He jumped to conclusions before all the facts were in.
He created racial divide not seen since the 1970s.
I like Credence but he is wrong about Trump.
Trump is no racist. He is not a conservative either.
I like his policies and he gets results.
You must understand this. Racists come in all colors.
Not only white men can be racist.
America is better off in 2019.
MAGA refers to the Obama years, when America became less great.
Now, we are great again.
Race relations were worse under Obama. There are no race riots now like under Obama. Most people are too busy working.
"In fostering group identity politics for political advantage, the Obama administration only divided the American people. And the people know it.
A recent Rasmussen poll found that 60 percent of Americans felt “race relations have gotten worse since Obama’s election”—a far cry from the president’s claim of “better” race relations under his administration.
The president also boasted of controlling health care costs while bringing Americans better insurance coverage. Neither claim is true.
This year, insurance premiums skyrocketed by an average of 25 percent in states with exchanges. Deductibles are through the roof. And people shopping for more affordable insurance are finding far fewer options."
https://www.heritage.org/political-proc … ed-america
Jack, from my perspective Trump is taking us back to more tense race relations with his attitude and style.
I don't know of any group of people that would lynch someone, flay him remove genitals and set the body on fire while thousand attend in a carnival atmosphere. That stuff happened in America within a century ago. With the attack on the memorial what is to make me believe that any change is only accommodating and superficial, at best?
Give yourself credit, Esoteric. Acknowledging that racism exists and remains a problem in American is a slight more than too many are willing to acknowledge or admit.
I saw the story about the Emmett Till Memorial. We know that there is more involved than some sort of college fraternity prank. Almost 65 years ago and many people are still determined not to be "reconstructed"
There is a deep hatred and resentment that when I ask Anglos about the source they are either in a state of denial or simply cannot answer except for the fact that it was indoctrinated into them by their parents. I ask why and no one seems to know.
Hi Cred, the recent Emmit Till Memorial sign story was disheartening - to say the least.
As a baby boomer my generation did have a lot of inbred racism. It can't be denied that the 50s and 60s were extremely turbulent relative to race relations.
My perception is that for those of us that have tried to do better, and I do think we have made great strides, to be constantly bombarded with the charge that we are still racist and America is no better now than it was then is a slap in the face to our efforts to be better people.
I don't think what you perceive is hatred and resentment, I think it could better be described as frustration that we get no credit for trying.
Of course, there are horrendous examples of those 50s and 60s attitudes displayed even today, as you say; 65 years later, but I really believe that we have made great strides from those years. Do you disagree with that?
Don't let the idiots of today's 20-something generation, (or the idiots of my generation), taint your view of the progress that has been made. Think about what you might have heard if you asked those folks if we could have a black president in their lifetime.
Give us a break bud, normal folks aren't full of hatred and resentment. Don't paint us with the same brush you use for the idiots.
Consider where you are hearing the comments that form your opinion. Charlottesville was an anomaly, not a norm. The boldness of the white supremacists is an anomaly, not the norm. I think everyday America is fully onboard with wiping out racism. The idiots that you see as representing an American perspective are nothing more than an aberration. And we have had those throughout human history.
GA, in the fifties and sixties there was a lot of inbred racism. Why, the Anglos were the cock of the walk in America without question? What appears to be progress, when I look at this Till incident, seems more that there are more idiots and people are merely restraining themselves like one with an overactive bladder. It would be like struggling to quit smoking, or being a recovering alcoholic. We know how that is, when you gotta go, you got to go and you restrain doing what comes natural under great duress. Why does it seem to be so unnatural and difficult to give everybody a fair shake at the point of introduction?
Imagine having to "bullet proof" a memorial? What would happen if Blacks and those of the left desecrated memorials to Jeff Davis, RE Lee or Stonewall Jackson, standard bearers for slavery and secession?
I acknowledge progress, but I just get reminded often that we may not have progressed as much as people would like to think. Deep down, just beneath the surface there remains a lot of resentment that reveals itself under stress or an opportunity where it can be expressed without criticism or reprisals.
In this current political climate "the anomaly" is being brought into the mainstream. Regardless of the good people, there remain far too many idiots who seem to be controlling too much of the narrative. That is the danger that I associate with Trump and the atmosphere he creates.
"In this current political climate "the anomaly" is being brought into the mainstream. Regardless of the good people, there remain far too many idiots who seem to be controlling too much of the narrative. That is the danger that I associate with Trump and the atmosphere he creates."
You got me. The tail is wagging the dog. I have no defense to that charge.
. . . other than that the tail is not the dog.
Strange times Cred, we are in strange times. I would never have believed we would be here in 2019.
GA - you might find this interesting - https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04 … rica-2019/
Over the decades since the 70s, I kept looking up metrics to show that race relations have improved since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Each decade I came away disappointed.
This 2003 study is typical of what I found previous decades (it was the first one I came across) https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeat … _09172003/
This is a more current report on a study - it is sad. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherma … a561b351e3
I can, and I imagine you can, remember the way police treated blacks in the 1950s and 1960s; I hope you agree it was terrible. One reason it was that police leadership never policed their own. I don't have the same memory for the period between 1970 and 2000; it was still prevalent, but I am guessing not as bad. Then came the 2000s and it seems to have ramped up again with a lot more unjustified killings and harassment (driving while black has always been a truism). Again, because the few bad cops are not held accountable, it smears the whole force and allows the bad ones to keep on murdering.
I haven't looked at a hub poll I have been running in https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Movie … in-America
The basic poll (which only has 41 responses, so it is not much of a poll) says that
- 37% think race relations have gotten a lot or somewhat better
- 42% think it has gotten a little better, remained the same, or gotten a little worse (my vote was in the little better column)
- 12% say it has gotten somewhat or a lot worse.
(I don't know if I have had any votes in the Trump era)
But when you combine that with the demographics of who voted, you get this.
- No blacks thought things have gotten a lot or somewhat better
- No whites thought things are about the same or worse (1 thought it was a little better)
- Asians and Others thought that relations are about the same or only a little better.
It is sort of sad. I have had over 6,000 views of this hub but only 41 of them bothered to vote.
The latest shooter was a Warren supporter...
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/0 … arren-fan/
Did you read this in the NYT or CNN or MSNBC?
Of course not. It does not fit their agenda, of blaming Trump.
Come on, Jack, quit posting garbage from right-wing propaganda sites like Red State.
Nowhere in the article does it show a screenshot of his actual posts, which is what credible newspapers do. All Red State does in your article is write what IT CLAIMS he posted.
This is almost as bad as your links to Russian websites promoting Trump.
I don’t believe there is any political motivation here. This guy is clearly insane and it was the same as in the past. Any time when there is some incident, the media will drag up the “right wing” influence or connection.
Before any facts come out.
I am betting this guy has mental and anger issues going back a few years. Someone in his family should have intervened to stop him getting weapons. Nothing to do with the left or the right or the middle.
Unfortunately, politics is being played.
Thank you, Promisem, you are one of the good ones.
We are not talking about Warren supporters or Trump supporters.
The issue here is the ideological foundations for the violence, racism xenophobia is within the purview of rightwing based attacks. For example, the shooting in ElPaso was based on the shooter's clear manifesto supporting loathsome rightwing racist and xenophobic doctrines, not just opinions from the assorted rightwing dishrags.
Then, there are the crazies, where I would place the Ohio shooter. The guy that did the killing a couple of years ago in Las Vegas would qualify.
Then there is is Islamic terrorism angle which is neither left nor right
Finally, there is violence based on left wing ideologies and motives, which I have not really seen since the 1960's and 70's. We do have to go back that far, because we know that the OWP movement has never been responsible for the body counts associated with mad dog rightwing oriented shooters.
I should explain. Can Congress pass any laws that would stop these killings?
I like your honesty, Jack
First thing that we need to do is to be honest about the rising number of these kinds of shooting from people of the rightwing motivational bent.
Since restricting access to these mutiround kinds of weapons is anathema to the right and their gun lobbies, we are going to have a quandary here.
It is more than coincidence that the body counts has been rising since Trump has taken office. Perhaps, he could set a better example by toning down the harsh rhetoric which has a profound effect on the feeble minded?
Believe it or not, there is one solution. Some cities in China have started experimenting...
It is the video surveillance of all the people all the time, right out of science fiction 1984 book.
We already have the technology ...with alexa and siri and ring and all kind of private video...
The challenge is our laws. We are a constitutional republic. We cannot give up our privacy for exchange of safety.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin
Didn't someone recently shoot (at) a few politicians because they were Republicans?
And didn't someone recently attack an ICE facility?
There were a couple more that were based in the leftist ideologies...but those are the two I can remember off the top of my head...
This isn't just a right or left problem...it is a much deeper issue than just ideologies...All of us are subjected to the same ideologies through the MSM or various social media outlets and we aren't going out and killing people...These people are actively seeking out extreme ideologies and then using those ideologies to justify their horrible actions as a just cause.
DS, I not just talking about what you can remember.
Any responsible statistical data clearly show right wing oriented violence as more frequent and more lethal than any of the others, will you dispute that?
I believe as shown that the violence shooter problem is overwhelming within the purview of the rightwinger and the idea that the other side does it as well, well is just so much hogwash.
"Any responsible statistical data clearly show right wing oriented violence as more frequent and more lethal than any of the others"
This is true.
"Any responsible statistical data clearly show right wing oriented violence as more frequent and more lethal than any of the others, will you dispute that?"
This is only true if and only if you claim that all killers are "right wing", all racists are "right wing" and all undesirables are "right wing".
I have yet to see a "responsible statistical data" set that has examined the political stance of a high number of mass murderers and actually determined that they are "right wing". That designation comes from you, nowhere else.
Can you read, wilderness, or do I need to print in braille for you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … 103812faa9
So how many excuses are you going to continue to make?
Actually, that is not true, Wilderness - so long as we limit our scope to America. (it is still true, but less so every year, that Middle East oriented terrorism is high in Europe)
Most murder that has a political or social component in it in America is significantly right-wing, e.g. fascists, white supremacists, etc. There have been only a relatively few home-grown terrorist that were ISIS-oriented.
I just added to my list of mass killings in America and started adding a motive component. The top four are mental illness alone or in combination, white racism, school bullying, and disgruntled workers.
https://hubpages.com/politics/More-Guns … le-As-That
"...in America is significantly right-wing, e.g. fascists, white supremacists, etc."
That's what I said, isn't it? You (or Credence) gets to define what "right wing" means, and if you define it in just the right way the statement becomes true. Of course you may raise the ire of the real "right wingers" (conservatives everywhere) when you do...
But it is interesting that of the four causes you list only one, white racism, could be defined as "right wing" by anyone at all. Yet most mass murders are committed by "right wingers" somehow.
Nope, we don't define it - we just use the commonly accepted definition. Now you may not agree with it, because the truth does hurt, but you are in the distinct minority.
I also you once again missed what was said, Wilderness, common of extremist (both Right and Left). I said, I'll put it in caps so that you can't miss it "MOST MURDERS THAT HAS (sic) A POLITICAL OR SOCIAL COMPONENT ..." So please try again.
Responsible Statistic Data base....I am not sure there is one anymore that isn't biased one side or other...
But, if we are talking about people who kill 4+ people at one given time....
Then the answer is no...it isn't mostly right-wing based...it isn't left-wing based either...
But rather based on factors other than political beliefs...
But, the killings that do involve political ideologies get plenty of news coverage...the others, barely a blip on the local station...
Let's take this weekend for example...of the three major mass shooting this weekend...which one is getting the most coverage in the news...
El Paso (Political Ideologies)
Dayton ( Unclear Motives)
Chicago (Gang, Crime Related)
DS, we can all make excuses claiming one source is valid over the other, but the preponderance of evidence points in a specific direction.
Crime related violence does not count. Because crime is not ideologically driven.
Yes, I spoke of the shootings that had no clear ideological purpose for the acts.
But EL Paso and others is not just ideologically driven, but RIGHT WING ideologically driven.
And you can find evidence to support your claim...
Just as someone can find evidence to disprove it...
The thing about the article you posted earlier is the unknown numbers...that skews all of the other factors...
And why is it that everyone wants to discount the crime related mass shootings....the majority of them happen in democrat (left) ran areas for the most part...so wouldn't that be attributed to the left ( as it is the left ideology that created or enabled the conditions that lead to these shootings)
DS, crime is crime, Bonnie and Clyde or John Dillinger or the body counts associated with the Mafia were not considered terrorists or terrorist activity, that's the difference. The FBI makes that kind of distinction as well.
Without referring to some notoriously bias right wing source what data do you have to substantiate your view here?
As for the article, did you read the narrative regarding these attacks and their frequency since Trumps inauguration?
More rightwing propaganda, DS? Larger cities tend to have higher crime rates regardless of who is mayor and in charge. Your reasoning in the last paragraph is non-sequitur. I don't see any relevance nor any meaningful points to compare. It is also a clear bias on your part to say that conditions that allow for crime in larger cities are based on left wing ideology just because most urban people vote democratic
There is a difference between domestic terrorism and violence as a result of criminal activity.
In my last paragraph I asked a question...making a statement would have been biased in nature...I asked a question.
Isn't terrorist about striking fear into people on a large scale or larger scale? Intimidate people. Coerce people...or to attempt to influence national policy....?
By that definition...Gang violence and MOB activity does meet the requirements of being domestic terrorism...
And about the big city and crime in said cities...there are big cities that don't have near the amount of violent crime (such as murder) that many other big cities do...Why is it a major problem in some cities and not so much in others? Demographics maybe? Or better targets of opportunity? (Actually, I think I might just research into that and see what is or isn't the common factors)
The bottom line is that all murder is a crime...and there are those who are going to commit it regardless of the laws...Their reasons for doing it is on them, regardless of what they use as a means to "justify" their actions, if that be political, hatred, boredom, religion, thrill, or just because they can.
Blaming others for your actions is just an excuse to attempt to take the blame from yourself.
It is no different than trying to blame how a woman was dressed as the reason you raped her...
I have only heard a few politicians actually use wording that called for violence...Telling their base to attack certain others of an opposing base.
I am curious of something...There have been multiple calls or insinuations for the assassination of Trump...If someone does attempt or success in assassinating Trump, do we blame the person, or do we blame the vast amount of people who have called for it or insinuated that it be done?
All this mass shooting crap is the fault of no-one but the shooter themselves. They have taken an ideology (any ideology) and radicalized it to the point of murder is justified.
DS, in regard to your second paragraph, crime is the attempt to acquire unjust gain. There is nothing ideological about it. We have had street gangs since the Bowery Boys and West Side Story, how is this terrorism? Salt Lake City had problems with Vietnamese gang activity for while.
The access to weapons and the ease of attaining them has ratcheted up the mayhem. But, isn't that true with everything? There were Hispanic gangs and "boys in the hood" in the greater LA area. I know because I lived in the region for a few years.
By your definition every criminal organization from the Cosa Nostra, Mafia, Murder, Inc, etc. are terrorist organizations. So any and all criminal activity is terrorism?
You can help by documenting which "big cities" are exceptional from the others and show that these exceptional cities are not dominated by what you call "liberal politics".
Yes, murder is a crime, but we would irresponsible not to recognize a trend that is behind so many horrendous massacres as of late. You are wary while in the vicinity of high crime areas, what protection is there against these sort of assault? White supremacy and xenophobia its ideology has been responsible for much of the massacres within the last years, and the body count rises. This affiliation by the assailants were clearly documented by them.
I haven't heard anything about an attempt to assassinate Trump. If such occurs, it would be on the assassin of course, but evidence as to the motivation or cause driving the activity is almost important as it may have implications and present threats.
All the same, I continue to watch carefully for rising promotion of white supremacy and xenophobia as a catalyst for other attacks....
It should be pointed out that Islamic extremist violence is a form of right-wing violence, ironically, because the root of both is in fundamentalist-based xenophobia.
Thanks ME, but I am careful to segregate rightwing violence as a bi-product of American culture verses stuff that has its roots outside of the US.
I will give the rightwinger a break on that accord.
Just a side note My Esoteric. Have you noticed that Islamic extremism/terrorist attacks have not been in the news this past year?
Don't read anything more into that question than what is obvious, the thought just occurred to me while reading your comment, but, I don't recall an Islamic Extremist attack in the news in the past 12-18 months.
Even as we face this new crisis, can that mean we have succeeded in thwarting the older crisis?
However, to equate Islamic Extremist views and attacks with Right-wing ideology is more than a stretch by my thinking. I think you are off-base there.
Yes, it has occurred to me that seems to be the case. It has never been a problem in the US (from foreign sources) but they appear to have trailed off worldwide. Hope it remains a trend.
Religious terrorism is probably in a category by itself, i.e. Right, Left, and Religious. But, think about it, what is common between right and religious violence is its reliance on fundamentalist interpretation of God. You rarely see a religious component to left-wing violence (other than opposing violence against religion such as Antifa). There is often, but not always, a religious component to right-wing violence - consider the white nationalists reliance on an extreme form of Christianity.
I think your three categories are fair, but I am hesitant to make the linkage between the Right and their religious beliefs, and the Religious category of violence, as a significant motivating factor.
I am just musing here, not challenging, but . . .
Thinking of the obvious religion motivator, Islamic terrorists come to mind, but as a frequent motivator, I don't recall a religion being one in the Right violence category.
They may be religious, even fundamentally religious, but how much of Right violence has proclaimed religion to be their reason for their actions?
Or could I be missing your point? Could your thought be just a note that a commonality of the Right is religious belief? Would that then imply that the majority of the Left, (violence of) are not religious?
I think I can see that as a component, but not a driver. Hmm . . .
I agree with what you said here. I think the baby boomer generation tried really hard to change what they thought needed changing in their parent's generation. It was a time when positive change seemed within reach. Even though sometimes it's one step forward, two steps back, many people in that age bracket still tried to make things better in the areas they cared about. Fear of what's new and different often keeps people from making changes that need to be made.
Does anyone think the Democratic Party will split into a liberal party and a more moderate, but not conservative one?
"Does anyone think the Democratic Party will split into a liberal party and a more moderate, but not conservative one?"
I think it already has. It's still operating under one head for political reasons, as both try for supremacy, but it has indeed split.
And just as folks say that moderate Republicans, (or Conservatives) are extinct, I think it is getting harder to find more than a couple of moderate Democrats these days.
Of course, that is an exaggeration, but you might not know that from seeing which faction gets all the media facetime.
I think the Democratic party is now facing a similar problem that the Republicans faced with the rise of the Tea Party. My hope is that the moderates will respectfully hold the extremists at bay by being responsive to the real problems we face and not be a do-nothing party like the Republicans have become.
It's the squeaky wheel that gets heard, that's for sure. I actually believe there are quite a few moderates on both sides yet, but the loud voices are overriding them and even scaring them into going along with the extremists.
Yes, extremists always yell the loudest, that is how you know they are unreasonable extremists. That said, the Democratic party has a strong moderate center, a weak conservative wing, and very loud (which exaggerates there strength) left. The moderates became much stronger with the 2018 election where moderate Democrats beat Republicans.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, has no center or left that is visible. It is 99% conservative and it resembles the Democratic party back in the 1800s.
That Democrat " strong moderate center" would be worth looking into relative to your 2018 mid-term reference. I think you are right that the Republicans have lost their center.
That is one reason I think Conservatives and Republicans are no longer interchangeable terms.
And the Dems are quickly losing theirs, which I think is the quickest way for them to lose the election again. There are a lot of moderates in this country in both parties who are being shouted down, and the squeaky wheel is getting the grease in both groups. But remember what happened to the "Moral Majority". However, they later changed their name and morphed into the "Tea Party" and got Trump into the WH. I'm not sure the Dems can accomplish the same thing.
I suppose that's true. And you never hear about a liberal Republican anymore either. So both parties are changing more and more. I think the Founders were afraid that with two parties at some point politics would get as polarized as it is today.
I have been paying attention, and usually consider myself very liberal, but feel that too many of the Democratic candidates are way too far left to attract voters who don't live on the coasts. Democrats don't ever learn how to use the right language either. They need a Republican strategist, lol.
You have a point about the strategist.
The founders wanted no party at all and Washington was able to maintain that through his adminisrration. Try as he would, he couldn't stop the enevitable as factions split between pro-administration (Federalists) and anti-administration (anti-Federalist)
the Federalists became the Whig and then the National Republican Party - where liberals Dominated.
the Anti-federalist became the Democratic-Republican Party, then the Democratic Party where Conservatives dominated.
The next major change was when the liberal wing of the Democratic Party joined with the National Republican Party to form the Republican Party. On the other hand, the conservative wing of the Whig/National Republican Party moved over to join the Democratic Party.
Next, beginning during the Great Depression, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party became dominate over coming the stranglehold of the conservative Southern Democrats. Religious fundamentalist with their social conservationism became ascendant in the Republican Party in the 40s and 50s (think McCarthyism and the Red Scare).
Finally, in the 80s and 90s, the transformation completed with the conservative Southern Democrats succuming to conservative Republicans. Further depleting the conservative-wing of the Democratic Party were the defection of conservative Southern Democrats to the Republican Party and the demise of moderate/liberal Republicans in the Republican Party.
With the loss of the conservative Southern Democrats, the Democratic Party became firmly left of center while the Republican Party became far Right.
Just in case you wanted to know.
Thanks, My Esoteric,
I knew that at one time, Democrats were conservative and Republicans were liberal. I remember LBJ knowing he would lose the Deep South for years with his attempts at passing Civil Rights laws. But I didn't recall the whole history. As far as the strategist, definitely, R's are a lot smarter about how they say things, D's need to work harder at communicating better in a way that doesn't scare their base. They use the wrong words.
The way I see it on the strategist thing is as follows:
The R's communication technique relies on well established propaganda techniques which distort a kernel of truth or just using outright lies. Now, I don't really want to lay that at the feet of Rs in general but rather to today's Rs and any other extremist group, Left or Right.
Republicans use to be a reasonable (but socially misguided, IMO) group. But as a result of the Reagan Revolution, the reasonable Rs were pushed to the sidelines and finally out of the party. I use to be a liberal Republican because I tend toward fiscal conservationism. But the Party's rush to the Right in the 1990s left me far behind so I became independent.
The R party has been becoming more and more unreasonable, and has no right to pretend they are morally superior after backing some of the terrible things Trump has done. I don't think bringing religion more and more into politics helps anything, and it wasn't supposed to be that way.
But some of the more reasonable ones have a better way of explaining things so they don't scare the others in the party. Frank Lutz is an R speech writer, and the D's could use someone like him. I see the D's going too far left, at least the loudest ones who are popular now. They get evasive when there are details they don't want to disclose.
There's a lot of time left though. I generally consider myself pretty far left, and feel leery of some of what I hear for Medicare for All, or how we expect to put everyone through college for free. I know Liz Warren has a plan, lol, but someone more middle leaning will probably win the election.
Hunter Thompson wrote years ago in "Fear and Loathing: On The Campaign Trail 1972" two important facts. Now, he was quite nutty, but knew politics. One, that whoever has 40% of the vote wins, and Trumps stays right there, no matter what he does. Also, the "youth vote" never bothers to materialize on Election Day.
I'm scared when I think of four more years of Trump.
https://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-tr … 33387.html
I open that you are not harboring a bias about AP as a news source, Jack.
The article seems to take issue with this idea that Trump is responsible for lower AA unemployment rates.
Trump's policies are contrary to the direction that I believe is best. But, I said the same about Reagan and Nixon ( to a lesser degree).
- "Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly."
- "The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen 90 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”)."
Myesoteric, I have to eloaborate on those two statements. I was a reporter when the "trickle down" theory was being pushed so heavily by the Republican Party. As I recall, after it's dismal failure (just as you described) one billionaire (I wish I could remember which one) said that the wealth didn't trickle down, it spurted up.
We know what happened 90 years ago after that rise of the "concentration of income" of the Roaring 20s, the Great Depression of the 30s. My parents were children of the depression, as were those of my peers. We were raised up in the aftermath and with the tales.
I predict that we could head in that direction again if we aren't careful.
We won’t but if it does happen, you can blame Obama for doubling our national debt in his 8 years. Not only that, he kept the interest at zero percent all though those years. It has never happened in our history.
Go look it up. It is easy to verify.
His quantitative easing policy was another sure way to bankrupt our nation.
Income inequality rose during the Obama years as well.
If and when the next recession comes, which it will, we will survive and come out better and stronger the other side.
I've lived a long time, Jack. And I was born in this country so I've had awhile to observe the political goings on. The Republicans in power deregulate, lower taxes, and make the common man feel good, all the while weakening our economy. Then the people get disgruntled and put the democrats in power. They have to save the economy by raising taxes and trying to regulate an out-of-control capitalism that is ruining the economy. Sometimes it works and sometimes it's too late, i.e. the Great Depression. But our economy and politics run in cycles. Obama picked up the pieces left behind by a Bush administration. Will we elect a democrat to pick up the pieces left by Trump or will republicans reelect him and then it be too late?
Case in point, you want to see the Keystone pipeline running Canadian oil through the middle of the country to be loaded onto ships to be shipped to China. The Indians didn't want to see their homes and burial grounds destroyed so the Chinese could have Canadian oil. And the Indians weren't the only people protesting.
https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/ … 286432.php
During the same time frame, a small town just 20 minutes from my home was nearly destroyed by a rupture in the Pegasus pipeline owned by Exxon-Mobile. This pipeline was carrying Canadian Wabasca heavy crude from the Athabasca oil sands, so it is understandable why there is much opposition to the Keystone pipeline.
I have lived 60 years and seen the opposite of what you report. The housing mortgage crisis that caused the 2008 recession is a case in point.
It was democrats that passed laws that forced the banks to relax their mortgage requirement...income verification...that allowed some people to buy homes they cannot afford. The recession happen at the end of the Bush admin. however, the seed was planted during the Clinton admin.
It was with the aid of Congressman Barney Frank that precipitated the Fannie mae debacle.
We the American tax payer, were forced to bailout these bank and not a single person on wall street and in Congress were held accountable. Yes, the Democrats were the one pushing for heavy regulations but in many cases, they were too much too late. They were always trying to fix the last problem but never preventing them in the first place.
We have two very opposite views of what transpired in our politics and our economy. Only one of us can be right.
I'm not sure that the blame for the housing collapse can be laid at the Democratic doorstep. Yes, it was due primarily to requirements for a higher level of subprime loans, but those rules were not so partisan as the article would have us believe; there was a goodly Republican participation in getting them passed.
It was a very typical liberal philosophy, though - we should ALL be able to have a house whether we can afford one or not. In that respect it certainly was a Democrat fiasco.
You are right of course. As a conservative, I don’t wish to defend all Republicans. In fact, I call them out every chance I get. Some RINO republicans and Democrats and all Washington insiders are the root of the problem facing our nation. These politicians only want power. They play one side against the other meanwhile doing the bidding of their big donors.
A prime example is the illegal immigration problem going on for 30 years. Every administration Democrat, and Republican promise to fix it and they never do and it gets worse with each passing year. We bounce from Democrats to Republicans in office thinking they will change but they don’t until Trump comes along. He is cut from a different cloth. That is why he is shaking things up and all insiders are nervous and wants him out. He is upsetting their apple cart and taking their power and influence away.
That is why I support Trump. That is why the media is lying about him.
"Some RINO republicans and Democrats and all Washington insiders are the root of the problem facing our nation. " - NOT True Jack. It is conservatives who are the "root of the problems facing our nation"; always has been and always will be.
So you, Jack, admit you are a:
Don't mind your leader being a sexual predator
Don't mind your leader being a pathological liar
Don't mind your leader being a bully
Love the fact that he shames our nation almost every day (except when he is playing golf, which is he does more than any president in history)
That is what your support of this poor excuse for a human being means to others.
But of course, making it more fair for people to get housing had nothing to do with the Great 2008 Recession. It was probably:
- Getting rid of Glass-Stengal - passed by a Republican congress and signed by a Democratic president
- A Fed Chief who tried to follow conservative economic theory and figured the market would correct itself. Greenspan later admitted he was wrong
- Federal regulators who looked the other way even though the states were sounding the alarm about sub-prime mortgages.
- Lack of or loosing of other financial regulations
- Runaway speculation
- A president who lied to the American public telling us everything was hunky-dory (whatever that means) when it is obviously not.
- Simple greed
I have lived for 72 years, studied the problem a lot, and wrote a book about my findings.
The housing mortgage crisis is the Symptom of other things that caused the Great 2008 Recession, not the Cause of it.
Please get your facts right, Jack.
The Democrats did not pass laws to force banks to relax their mortgage requirements. They passed laws to end discrimination in making mortgage loans.
It was the Republicans who passed laws that loosened financial regulations which allowed non-Banks to 1) make home mortgages, 2) relieve banks of their responsibility when they made loans, and 3) allowed banks and non-banks to make totally unsecured mortgage loans. That was done in the name of your so valued "deregulation" and look what happened.
The seed was NOT planted during the Clinton administration and the Republican congress save for the repeal of Glass-Steagal. All of the rest was Bush and the Republican Congress
The "Fannie Mae debacle" was bad, but it 1) didn't cause what happened and 2) paled in comparison to the non-bank fiasco that the Republicans allowed to happen
We do have two opposite views, but mine is based on the facts.
If you had read the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, you wouldn't be saying the things you are.
Read it if you dare:
https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cd … t_full.pdf
According to research, the Silent Generation is the only one that is predominantly conservative. Baby Boomers are divided, but lean conservative. Gen X is somewhat divided, but leans liberal. Millennial are predominantly liberal.
The same rule applies to political party affiliation.
This would support the notion that we become more conservative as we age, perhaps not on social policy, but certainly on fiscal policy.
Why is that?
Is it because as young people, we have little in the way of assets and want to accumulate them and look to the public sector for help whereas when we're older, we've accumulated assets, presumably through years of work, and look to the public sector to help us keep those assets?
The young look to the public sector for help while the old look to the public sector for protection?
The young seek change - change in their situation, future; etc. The old want stability - they've spent a lifetime establishing themselves and change is not what they're looking for.
Very possibly, but what about the divide between men and women or Whites vs minorities. And then there is that huge difference between conservatives and independents.
Simple. It has to do with how they experience the world.
In a nutshell, white men, who form the base of conservatism, have lived their entire lives with every advantage society can offer in terms of how they are perceived while women and minorities exist in the world with many perceived prejudices and they experience that prejudice in many ways, frequently through discriminatory behavior. Thus, women and minorities would like to have equitable access to the same sorts of things white men have access to. They would also like those biases and prejudices governed in some way so that they are not allowed to penalize them for being a woman or a minority.
I think you are on to something.
A book I am reading is suggesting conservatism is all about retention of the power of the superior over the inferior. White over Minority, Man over Woman, Employer over Employee.
Liberalism is about breaking the bonds that bind them while conservatism is the reaction by Conservatives to keep those bonds in place, literally and figuratively.
That is why Conservatives opposed so strongly abolition, black's right to vote, woman's right to vote, feminism, civil rights, gay rights, etc.
That's exactly correct. It's also, to some degree, the maintenance of tradition, which is why many conservatives are very religious.
I think your previous comments on this topic were great, but for this one, would saying "selective maintenance of tradition" carry the same point you are making?
I believe, (speaking of American traditions), most important traditions are traditions for a good reason - typically because they provide a known benefit.
GA, yes, it's probably fine.
There's a real thin line between maintaining tradition and oppression and a thin line between progress and tradition-trashing.
Which is to say, one should not impede progress just because of tradition nor should somebody stomp all over tradition in the name of progress.
While I generally find myself as anti-Christian due to the monolithic and oppressive nature of the groups demands, I'm also respectful of their right to express themselves. They have the same rights as any other group. So, for instance, while I oppose manger scenes on public property, I don't oppose them if the same opportunity is afforded to other groups. Christians should not be excluded from expressing themselves in favor of any other group. It should simply be equal. Of course, I'm for keeping religion out of the public sphere altogether, but some of this stuff is so intermixed with a general popular culture, I try not to nitpick any longer.
Probably the issue of gay rights delineates these issues best. We can't deny a Christian's right to follow the Bible if they believe or are taught that homosexuality is a sin. However, if they wish to exercise that right in the public sphere, then we run into problems since tax-paying citizens have the same rights and value as citizens no matter their beliefs. A Christian citizen does not have more value or more rights than a gay citizen. So should a Christian baker be able to deny service to a gay customer? How about a black customer? Or a Muslim customer? If that's private property, then I would say yes, but they should also have to designate who they will and will not serve openly, not on a case-by-case basis. That would effectively doom any business and should severely limit public support for them in terms of services they receive. In other words, if you want to use religion as a reason for denial of service, then any tax benefits or other government benefits should be non-existent.
GA, that statement "most important traditions are traditions for a good reason - typically because they provide a known benefit. "
One question might be "benefit to whom"?
And then you always run into these logic knots of:
It has been traditional that "men head the family unit" but that doesn't mean it is good.
The old stand-by, "it has (had) been traditional that the slave obey the master" (and many religious conservatives used that to justify slavery in their sermons), but clearly that was bad.
It is traditional that there be superiors and inferiors so don't upset the apple cart by trying to change this.
Now, to that last one. Of course there are superior and subordinate "positions" but tradition is that it is OK for the boss 'Treat' the subordinate as inferior such as with sub-standard wages, etc.
You are becoming as predictable as I am My Esoteric.
"It is traditional that there be superiors and inferiors ...*"
Is that the same as leaders and followers, or more capable and less capable? Do you truly believe all people are equally capable? *obviously I disagree that this part is a tradition, I think it is a reality, and I left out the "upset the apple cart" part because I think that is a concoction of your own, certainly not a tradition in the sense I thought they were being discussed.
I was thinking of traditions like; Sunday or holiday family dinners, celebrating July 4th, ladies, or women & children first, or charity, or ...
It is true that traditionally men are still considered the head of the family, but there are many exceptions to this, which shows it is a family choice and that traditions can be flexible. If that is true do you automatically determine that this tradition has no benefit to the family? I think the current criticisms of "male privilege" in our society may indicate there is a benefit to the man being the head of the family.
I think your slavery example is a poor one. It is no longer a traditional, (customary?), behavior so it is no longer a tradition, (custom). Could that be a point that custom and tradition are different? Was your slavery example a custom or a tradition?
Regarding your last example - the "boss." There is nothing traditional about that. It may have been customary at a time, but I don't think it was ever a tradition.
It looks like a good first step would be determining whether tradition or traditional is synonymous with custom or customary. I don't think so, but Crankilicious brought tradition into the discussion so maybe we need a little clarification from the source.
Perhaps a poor choice of words. It probably applies sometimes and not others. Status quo may apply in many cases and that's an easier idea to argue against. However, I do think that progressives tend to be too aggressive upending the status quo and taking tradition with it.
Statues of Confederate leaders might fall under the tradition category. Is tearing them down the right answer? I'm not sure. Perhaps just moving them from public spaces and into private hands makes more sense. It's a good place for dialogue and it's an issue that requires more patience, like many.
That may be an element. But:
Throughout the past two decades, the relative conservatism of each generation has been consistent, even as the members of each generation have aged. Those born before 1946 have been the most conservative generation in every year going back to 1994, based on the percentage of the generation identifying as conservative minus the percentage identifying as liberal. Baby boomers have been less conservative than traditionalists, but more conservative than Gen Xers and millennials each year since 1994, spanning the period when baby boomers moved from being in their 30s or 40s to now when they are in their 50s or 60s.
The consistency in the relative rank of the generations over time reflects the fairly constant ideological preferences of each generation.
Given the general consistency in ideological preferences over time, the expectation is that baby boomers' conservative tilt will persist as they continue to age into their 70s and 80s. That has been the pattern for traditionalists, who are that age now, and whose ideological profile today looks similar to what it was 20 years ago.
Although the generations' ideology has stayed fairly consistent over time, Americans' ideology as a whole has undergone a gradual shift, with a notable increase in the percentage of Americans identifying as liberal. The data suggest that generational replacement may be a cause of this change, as those now entering adulthood are about as likely to identify as liberal as conservative, while at the same time, the older Americans who pass on are much more likely to be conservative.
Younger Americans' greater likelihood to identify as liberal may be tied to this group's racial and ethnic composition and connected to how this relates to the U.S. political process. The younger generation of U.S. adults is much more racially and ethnically diverse than older generations, and racial and ethnic minorities are much more likely to identify politically as liberal rather than conservative and as Democratic rather than Republican.
The ideological changes evident in the U.S. population more generally also may reflect both younger and older Americans' willingness to use the various political labels to describe themselves. One of the major changes Gallup has documented in recent years is that self-identified Democrats are more likely to describe their political views as liberal than as moderate, while in the past the opposite was true.
Although it is not possible to know from these data if ideological preferences persist throughout people's lifetimes, each major generation's preferences have been largely stable over the past two decades. If these trends largely persist, there should be a continued increase in the percentage of Americans identifying as liberal and decrease in the percentage identifying as conservative in the future, unless the generation born after 2000 emerges as more conservative than liberal.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/181325/bab … ative.aspx
(The general % may be different, but that is consistent with other sources I've read before, Pew was one of them.)
I don't think mass shootings are a right or left issue, but is it too much to ask that our president refrain from stoking the animus that is undoubtedly simmering inside some of these extremists?
Can he, at a minimum, stop doing that?
And the rest of the politicians as well...
Yes, them as well, though I haven't seen any current politician come even close to the level of angry, divisive rhetoric that emerges from Trump's mouth and twitter feed, and he is our president.
by Catherine Mostly 3 years ago
New Idea for an American Political Revolution: Masse Voter Protest by not Voting for Either Party.What if we filled Congress & POTUS during the next big election with people not running under the GOP or Democrat party? (It could be a one-time protest, not necessarily a new way for us to...
by Tiffany Payne 13 months ago
No matter what you say or how you say it Trump is 100% racist and os feeding off the attention. From the squad to Cummings he wants nothing but to divide us. Sadly it’s working this issue has nothing to do with party but right and wrong. Do you think silence from his party indicates they are too...
by Credence2 9 days ago
A little background......https://www.yahoo.com/news/americas-pol … 02936.html"More alarming, though, is that some of Trump's fellow Republicans are advocating for GOP-held legislatures to overturn the will of the voters in states — like Michigan and Pennsylvania — where Biden won, and...
by crankalicious 6 weeks ago
If I were voting, I'd vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS.I'd ask her some questions about her views on various settled cases, but that is not a litmus test for her confirmation. Her political views should have nothing to do with her confirmation. The only question that matters is whether...
by Scott Belford 16 months ago
Trump's hand-picked attorney general summarized the Mueller Report by saying two things.1) Trump or his campaign did not legally conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 election2) Trump is NOT exonerated from the charge of Obstruction of Justice.IF Barr properly reported Mueller's...
by Josh Ratzburg 4 years ago
How in the HELL does Donald Trump lead in the Republican primary polls?People who support him have to be trolling, right?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|