Regarding levels of Trump support, why is race the determining factor?
Excerpt from a University of Virginia exit poll for the Nov, 2020 Presidential election.
https://news.virginia.edu/content/what- … telling-us
-------
Age: When it comes to age, the broad contours of the story look similar to 2016. Biden outperformed Trump among voters under the age of 45 (by a 15-point margin of 56% to 41%). Trump barely eked out a victory among voters ages 45 and older (50% vs. 49%). Even though Biden lost older voters – who comprised 60% of the electorate – he substantially chipped away at Trump’s 8-point margin in 2016. At the end of the day, though, race tells us more than age. Notice that Trump won every age group among White voters and Biden outperformed Trump among Black and Latinx voters of all ages. Notably, older Latinx voters (60-plus) were 10 points less likely to support Biden than younger voters (18-29), while older Black voters were most likely to cast a Biden ballot overall.
_________
Most disturbing is that among White people, Trump wins in every age group, male and female.
While the exact opposite was true of Black and Latino voters in their support of Joe Biden. Statistics from other sources also indicate a preference for Biden among Asians, Jews and Indigenous people
Inquiring minds want to know, is this any indication that the racial divide is growing larger? Any theories?
How is it that only White people seem understand what it means to "Make America Great Again"? It would seem natural that that sentiment would be shared over a more diverse swath of the electorate and Trump's support reflecting this more broadly held understanding would be seen in the results.I don't have an answer, credence. I was not aware that Trump won even among young white people. This is highly disturbing to me.
Look at wealth (or income) by race. Now compare it to voting by race, specifically for blacks. Does that either answer your question or give rise to thought and/or further research?
Examine Trump's policy on illegal border crossings and illegal aliens within our borders. Now look at what the population, by race, thinks of illegal "immigration"...with a specific analysis of what Hispanics think. Does that either answer your question or give rise to thought and/or further research?
By "Asians" I assume recent immigrants, not third or fourth generation ones. Take a hard look at Trump's demeanor and use of language. Then compare Asians (in their home country to Americans and "politeness" (for lack of a better word) of the two. Now compare Biden to Trump. Does that either answer your question or give rise to thought and/or further research?
Personally, I don't believe that your racist conclusion that only whites are smart enough to understand what it means to make a country - any country - great carries any water. Truthfully it seems just another of your racist digs at whites, coupled with just another dig at Trump.It has proven most difficult to get statistics as to the voting habits of more affluent blacks, say over 100K or so. I am still looking.
Do you think that Hispanics vote for the Democratic candidate solely on the issue of open borders at the Southern Border? Most have not just recently jumped the fence but are established citizens, why would Trumps ideas not have appeal to them?
Do you think "semantics" are the reason why Asians, overall relatively affluent, would overwhelmingly support Democrats. Most Asians are also established American citizens, why would they vote for Democrats and their ideals solely because of "politeness"?
Politeness did not play a role in your decision to vote for Trump, why do you presume so for other people and groups, sounds stereotypical?
My question has got nothing to do with racism. Has it ever occurred to you that different people and groups have differing ideas of what "makes America great"? So, it is not a matter of who is smarter, but whose opinion is the most viable depending upon points of view.
Whites may have predominantly one view, while minority groups could clearly have another.Back up to even the average wage for Americans. Say, 50 or 60,000. Might be easier.
Not semantics (Asians voting pattern). And yes, I DO think that Asians recently immigrating to the country would vote against Trump because of his mouth, and in large numbers. Millions of others did, too - it is probably the biggest single complaint about the President.
It IS stereotypical. Do you disagree that Asians are a very polite society, demanding it from everyone around when they can? You might look up what it takes for a business to operate in China, and why they have specialists for the task. I don't think it's merely to navigate the laws.
Yes, I DO think different groups have different ideas of what it takes to Make American Great. To a great many poor it means lots of charity. To the ultra rich it means few laws in their way. To the man-in-the street...I'd have to say there are lot of differences there.
But you ask why only whites voted for Trump, and I gave the answer the question deserved.
But whites do NOT have predominantly one view - one has only to look at liberals and conservatives to see that. I WOULD say, however, that the poor have predominately one view (on some topics), that the rich have another and so on. Color is not a factor except in the minds and eyes of those that put color first, ahead of everything else.The thing about Asians, Wilderness, is that their voting patterns are Democratic, consistently, so it is not just about problems with Trump.
Why do you refer to Asians as if they are all "fresh off the boat", no pun intended? We don't say that about Irish, Italians or Germans, people who have well assimilated into the culture. Asians are Americans and most have been such for some time.
Again a little background
https://theconversation.com/asian-ameri … lue-145577
I did not say that only whites voted for Trump. I said that of all the demographic data available the only group who gave more votes to Trump than otherwise were non-Hispanic whites, all ages, male and female. That is not true of any other demographic group. The question remains, it may be more difficult to answer than it appears. Why is Trump and his agenda as to what comprises "Make America Great" so much more successful with them?Then you are asking why Asians vote Democrat, not against Trump? I wouldn't have any idea, if it's true. But I didn't say all Asians were just off the boat - the idea is that those that immigrated only a generation or less maintained strong links with their old culture. Plus, of course, we have large "Chinatowns" in several cities - millions of people doing their best to maintain their old culture, right down to language.
Perhaps only "non-Hispanic whites" (whatever that means - I've never understood the term) put a high value on self-reliance and self support. Or perhaps only those "of color" are gullible enough to more easily swallow the liberal lies that a socialist country will be helpful to them as those evil white capitalists are stripped of what they built and it is given to colored folks.
What do YOU think? Is there something in the chemical "melanin" that creates dependency on government for day to day living needs?As for your paragraph 2, it is about what I expected from you as a response when push comes to shove, at least it is honest.
Here is what I THINK, an excerpt from Vox Magazine
1. "Perhaps there’s been little discussion about why white people voted for Trump because America has long taken for granted that white people will vote in their best interest — and that’s voting for whiteness regardless of their socioeconomic status or the level of education they’ve attained. There’s Trump’s most hardcore base — the vast majority of whom are white Americans who see no problem with what the president has said and done from the moment he announced his candidacy. They get riled up when he says “send her back!” of a congresswoman and tells the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” or when he implements a Muslim travel ban. “They’re aligned with him completely,” Laird told Vox."
2."Then there’s another group of white voters who aren’t completely aligned with Trump but look past what they dislike about him in favor of his stance on the issues that concern them the most. For example, there may be Trump voters who disagree with Trump’s racist rhetoric but don’t care enough to be dissuaded from backing him because they are pro-life or in favor of gun rights or oppose tax increases on the wealthy. They may be able to conveniently look away from his child separation policies because they like his promise to put America first. Instead of grappling with why anti-racism protests broke in small towns and cities across the nation, they just want things to go back to normal; “law and order” seems like a good solution."
--------
( sounds a lot like your position, Wilderness)
-------------
3. "Ultimately, many white voters are simply attached to what Trump represents. “These voters are very much about the idea that the status quo isn’t a problem and that we should make America great again back when we didn’t have to worry about PC culture,” Laird said. “Because when you’re in power, why would you give it up?”
---------
Basically what you are getting across is that all those poor souls with an excess of melanin also have a deficit of gray matter? Of course, not smart enough to see what is clearly evident to the Caucasian voter? Rubbish and total bile. But I have been patiently waiting for you to admit this to yourself and the world around you.
So, this is the true bottom line......Can it be more racist than "whites will vote for whiteness"? Or the implication that racist riots were because of Trump, or those whites that voted for Trump?
3) has some merit: Trump voters are attached to what Trump represents. A strong business climate producing jobs and higher wages. A return to recognizing that we are NOT the pocketbook for the world, that we WILL decide our own fate without foreign countries applying their agenda to Americans. An end to illegal immigration, at least to the extent we can accomplish it. Recognition that laws will be obeyed whether we like them or not.
No, Credence - I asked if YOU thought that "excess of melanin" (your words) produced a deficit of gray matter, or at a minimum an excess of gullibility. Something you seem to advocate as you indicate that those people vote predominately Democrat and you can't figure out why. Certainly I did not indicate that I hold such a ridiculous conclusion - I've listed several possible reasons right off the top of my head while you only complain that high levels of melanin produce liberal vote and you don't understand it. Except as racist, although you didn't come right out and say it.So, what does it mean to vote for whiteness? does that not imply the exclusion of others that are not white? What is the point of your first paragraph?
Your second paragraph are just more conservative talking points. We don't value the same things in the same context. Your views continue to remain, just that, your views, that were repudiated by an excess of 6 million votes.
Since you stated that increased amounts of melanin was correlated with greater dependence on government, etc, etc. I gave you the real reasons above and I stand by them, the excerpts in an earlier post.
Unfortunately, I believe that the first paragraph is the more accurate explanation as to consistent and relatively heavy Caucasian support. Because many non whites could vote for Trump on principles they support that Trump exemplifies while ignoring his crass style and race baiting politics by looking at the big picture.
But, whites would even be less concerned about Trump's verbiage, because it is not directed at them.
The polls exit polls do not make the distinctions in voter preference so much on economic differences, that would have been easy to see on its face. Poor white folks prefer Trump, and rich or relatively affluent black folks prefer Biden. So, in your one example, it has nothing to do with money.
So, we acknowledge that there is not just one interpretation of MAGA. But allowing for all the different circumstances, race and ethnicity differences provide the strongest examples of stark differences in voter preference.You say the exit polls do not make distinctions in voter preference, and then go on to claim information on that very thing. If not exit polls, where are you getting that information?
You think race is the deciding factor? What about youth - youth that almost votes lockstep Democrat? Your problem, Credence, is that you see the world through the glasses of racism; race is more important to you than anything else, to the point that anything BUT race fades into the background and is ignored.
Hard to say if the racial divide is deepening. Just my view, but it appears that thoughts on the severity of systemic racial problems differ by party, with white Democrats and white Republicans offering complete opposite views on the subject. Democrats black and white appear to think the bigger problem is people not seeing discrimination where it really exists. And, IMO keep it on a "front burner".
Where Republicans say the bigger problem is people seeing discrimination where it doesn’t really exist. It seems to be how one perceives racism. Have some white people become tired of having to deal with something they just don't think exists to the extreme they are being told it does?Well, Sharlee,
I know that whites weary of the issue, why can't we just go back to the status quo, when everybody was happy in their appropriate places. If I were white, I probably would say the same thing. A simpler time with ladies in their whalebone corsets and the black guys shining shoes for two bits.
Republicans and conservatives say the discrimination complaints are exaggerated. But, which of them would walk a mile in my shoes, and qualify him or herself before rendering an opinion?"why can't we just go back to the status quo,"
It is interesting that you repeatedly make this claim...a claim that I have heard not a single person (outside of you) support. No one wants that - why do you keep repeating such an obvious racial epithet about conservatives? There must be a reason?
Perhaps you need to walk in the shoes of the white person, the one ignored, degraded and spit on by the occasional person no matter WHAT their color. You might realize that this "systemic racism" is just an ordinary day for everyone on the planet - the only difference is that some of us ignore it and some actively search for any imagined slight and blow it into a mountain rather than a pebble.Well, Trump does. The dog whistle he blew at white suburban females regarding the the "threat of low income housing" being built in their communities. The "reason" is that they are guilty.
If you can say that "systemic racism" is not existent than you know about American History and the current state of social/economics that led to the accusations.
You may have missed the point of my comment. I certainly was not giving my own opinion on systemic racism. I was only giving a possibility as to why there is a racial divide. I think it does in some respects involve party affiliation. But IIMO it's more about characteristic attitudes of the right and the left. It has become very clear over the past decade that right and left clearly think differently.
I disagree that conservatives don't recognize discrimination, they may just not agree with how it should be solved. It would seem their logic of how to help very different than those on the left. For example --- I feel opportunity zones or schools of choice are far more helpful than defunding the police or removing names from buildings.
Now my opinion in regard to some just wanting to go back to the status quo -- I must agree the divide is deepening, and action is needed, not just words or deeds that on the surface will do little to solve any racial problems. I don't think conservatives are weary of the problem but weary of watching meaningless solutions that never seem to meet the mark. And yes leaving the problem very much as status quo.Yes, it is true right and left are quite different.
Your second paragraph may well be one of the honest that I have heard to date. Folks get frustrated by problems that defy an obvious solution from the comfort zones that they have long resided within.
I am for opportunity zones in principle, but they have to be pursued in earnest, if they were, Trump would have got the attention of more 'my tribe'.
Removing the concept of public schools providing vouchers, just is another method of having tax money spent on 'white academies', where you can get the get the better education that money can buy. Those that want private schools can pay out of their own pocket.
From my perspective, the goals of equal education opportunity is one that should be supported by the government, not who it is that has the most money or is the wealthiest. The goal should be to continue to bear down on the public school system to improve.
There are solutions and steps, but they would be anathema to conservatives, so they step away. Much like the Republican Party who ideals are contrary to any "real solution" to the problem, they just doubledown on the negative and contrary.I must disagree with regard to your opinion on opportunity zones( Although I can understand you may not have realized the impact and money allocated to this program due to the media just did not give it any light).
The Urban Institute, in a report issued in June, cited investment from OZ program of $10 billion.
The Urban Institute, in a report issued in June, cited investment of “at least $10 billion.”
John Lettieri, president, and CEO of the Economic Innovation Group estimates that the total is in the $25 billion to $30 billion has been provided. “It’s worth celebrating, but it’s important not to be triumphalist,” he said. “This is very much a work in progress.”
The National Council of State Housing Agencies maintains an Opportunity Zone Fund Directory. As of June 1, it listed 213 funds with a total of $47.2 billion provided in support for the program.
The money seeded to be pouring in, although the program is fairly new only a year old it was just beginning to plan what poor communities would benefit directly. I do have my doubts that it will proceed the very businesses that we're backing it are promised to have their taxes raised substantially.. It was a wonderful idea, and one of the reasons I again voted for Trump. It got little media attention. This program would have helped many people that needed a leg up.
.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st … mmunities/
Yes, it is true that those with money can afford better educations. I believe in the program. And naturally, it would mean taking funds from the state's budgeted allotment for education. But it works to boost competition between public and private schools that compete for funds. To me, it comes down to common sense. For decades many of our public schools have failed our children, Time to move on and fix this problem. The competition will "beardown on public educators". Progress is what this is called. Or keep the status quo, more cash poured into public schools without results. Done that...for decades.
https://www.heritage.org/education/comm … ce-winning
I am shocked that you don't realize the good path we were on. I blame this on media hype. My gosh, you don't seem to realize Trump just was not really a typical republican, and he was solving so many problems. Democrats have never really done much for you, now have they? And what makes you think Biden will be any different? I hope I am wrong, I love the country, but I see little coming but more words, no deeds.I really need to look at the pros and cons of this charter school stuff and crystallize my position more clearly. I naturally distrust conservatives and their initiatives for being 'helpful' but I will put aside that bias and look deeper.
I don't know, Sharlee, when you consider the fact that almost 90 percent of African Americans voted the Democratic ticket , they must be doing something right relative to the Republicans. Obviously, myself and vast majority of Blacks have considerable confidence in Biden, but now we have to get rid of McConnell as Senate Majority leader, and then we will be 'cooking with gas'.
All Republicans and their philosophy are the same, Trump exemplified more GOP and rightwing, right in line with Republican philosophy. There is hardly any daylight to be found between the mainstream Republican and Donald Trump.I agree with your sentiment that Trump is not a Republican. He is not a Dem either. Not sure why Black American's stick with a party that actually IMO does nothing to improve on the clear problems Blacks have had for many decades. I think they actually keep them from progressing, but not willing to discuss that on an online forum. Can't do the subject justice.
And yes, it is very obvious the majority of black American's continue to vote Demacratic. This never ceases to baffle me.
Hard to say what kind of policies Biden will present to Black American's. It's always interesting to watch a new president and see if he keeps his promises. Although Biden did not really promise much. So I for one will like that and do not hope to hear anything too derogatory from those that voted for him due to imagining what he would do... Many are reading into what they think Joe should be expected to accomplish, without him ever committing to any real policies. Not sure he can be held accountable for other's thoughts on policies.
I can't agree that any of Trump's policies could be hooked to conservative policies. As a rule, Reps don't like to spend cash, they don't appreciate big Government in any form. Most of Trump's accomplishment cost tons, and his actions such as building a wall, travel ban on states he considered to be responsible for terror, not to mention getting Mexican troops on the Mexican side of the border to help cut out illegal entry to the US, ICE ridding the country of thousands of MS13 thugs, not to mention the huge budget he got for military spending and creating a new space force. Not sure Trump should be looked at as conservative or a Republican. We have never in our history had a more progressive bombastic president. Never...
Again baffles me that so few noted this... Not sure what it says about American's ability to see what is right in front of us.As to why African-Americans support Democrats
I know, where you live, do you have any black acquaintances or friends?Why not ask anyone of them that direct question and see what their answer is?Most naturally I have black friends and acquaintances, and yes I have asked that very question of some. I got much of what I got from you, nothing they could put their finger on. I realize you answered my question some time back on another thread. You claimed that more or less you had more in common with their policies, and values. You just never gave an example of one of their policies that lead to benefitting black American's.
I am inquisitive, so if I overstep my bounds, please tell me. I never mean to be argumentive or baiting. However, I realize I can come off as just that.No, Sharlee, you are just fine. I find your pointed questions as an opportunity to think about my own positions and crystallize my thoughts in comments to you.
Ask more, as I learned early in life that only dumb questions are the ones that are not asked.
Reducing profligate military outlays with more resources diverted to domestic concerns is a benefit right off the bat, as an example.
Some of your friends may find it uncomfortable speaking about such matters with you, but not me, I will give it to you as straight as I can.Which profligate military outlays would you cut, and how much?
That will take time to research and answer......as for specifics as you would insist on no less.
But...how can you promote cutting military budget, or claiming "profligate spending" without having any idea of what could be cut without harming us all? If you haven't studied the military budget and found things you feel are unneeded, how can you possibly advocate cutting anything from it?
It is this kind of muddy thinking - I can't point to a single thing they spend too much on but I know they not only overspend but grossly overspend - that gives rise to so much trouble. It results in drawing conclusions and making decisions based not on fact but on desire to believe.I have an idea, wilderness, when I have a moment, I will elaborate, keep your shirt on.....
"In the unprecedented era of tight budgets that lies ahead, the time is ripe to reevaluate and rein in a level of military spending that has delivered little true security and stolen from critical domestic priorities for far too long"
--------
I know that the right winger is basically a fearful, belligerent, saber rattler, this article is my reasoning basically in a nut shell. What justifies this country diverting resources amounting to forty percent of total global expenditures on military and armaments? So, how about dem apples?
----------
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … y-budgets/
------Wait. To rein in military spending that has "stolen from critical domestic priorities for far too long" (what a biased, stupid and unsupported statement!) is the specific profligate military spending you would cut?
C'mon Cred - you know as well as I do that that statement is nothing but another cry that we spend too much...without every specifying just where the "too much" is or how much it is. Same as you did. Can't you do better than parroting another liberal that dislikes have a strong military but doesn't have a clue where it might be cut without harming the country?
Would you cut the number of soldiers, knowing that we already have too few to man a two front war? Would you cut the Medical ships from the roster, or the planes that make our airmen as invincible as possible? Would you cut the soldiers healthy diet or the aid to their families as they travel the world over? Would you have them sleep on the tents while on base rather than the family homes we provide? Would you cut their salary, already so meager that most military families are on food stamps?
Be specific, Credence: what would you cut, and how much, without harming the countries ability to defend itself.? Or are you of the ignorant liberal faction that declares no one will ever invade another country anymore?I can be General too, what are we defending where we need a defense budget 3 times greater than China and 10 times greater than Russia even though the "Iron Curtain" has fallen? Invasion? Is that the excuse, China and Russia can be invaded as well, that does not justify profligate military spending.
I don't want this globe-cop role that the Right is relishing in to just enrich military contractors. How long do we continue to avenge 9/11?I don't have to appreciate the components of a $100 hamburger to know that I am paying too much.
Why do I need over 800 military installations across the globe? Let's start there. How much is involved in maintaining that and how is it justified?We are defending the biggest, most juicy target on earth: the country we call our own. But I'm sure you realize that, so what are you really asking?
I can't answer your last paragraph questions - I haven't dissect the military budget. But YOU need to if you would cut it - so where are the cuts? Which installations (I doubt very much we have "over 800 installations") would you cut and what would the result be? Hint; first step is to understand WHY we have each and every one, what it costs and what the justification is. Until you do that you cannot possibly be honest in declaring that a single one is unnecessary and should be cut.
It's really easy to laze back in the easy chair and declare that we spend too much...without ever pointing to exactly where and what that "too much" is. It's even worse to declare, as your link did, that the money is "stolen" from the nation's needs...and should be "returned" to individuals either inside or outside our borders. No matter how much you think we overspend you have to agree that nothing has been "stolen" from anyone.
Finally, in spite of your claims that the Right relishes the "world cop" role there isn't a shred of truth in it. Just another (undeserved) slap at the Right, as if that has anything to do with military budgets.
Well hell, you know I can't stop myself from jumping on this piece of juicy red meat . . .
"I know that the right winger is basically a fearful, belligerent, saber rattler, this article is my reasoning basically in a nut shell."
I am surprised at the generality of your first sentence, (it can only be a partisan opinion), and your second sentence that places the credibility of your "reasoning" on such a biased article.
Starting with the title:
It’s Time to Rein in Inflated Military Budgets"
We then find such "military budget" tidbits as these:
"The devastating impact of the coronavirus pandemic and its economic fallout provide ample reason to reconsider what truly constitutes national security."
"Despite the trillions of dollars Congress and successive administrations have lavished on the Pentagon since the turn of the century, the massive U.S. arsenal and fighting force deployed worldwide are powerless against grave, nonmilitary threats to national security—from a raging pandemic to the fact that tens of millions of Americans breathe foul air, drink tainted water, and struggle to pay for food, housing and health care."
Did you catch that, the criticized bloated military budget is now scrutinized by its positions on pandemics, safe air and drinking water, and "those that struggle to pay for food, housing, and health care"?
Is this your criticism of a bloated military budget? They don't spend their budget on those things?
And then there are these points from your article, (that forms your reasoning):
"Add to that another $3.18 trillion for the Veterans Administration, and the yearly average comes to a whopping $826 billion"
Criticizing the military's spending on the VA budget, the organization that takes care of those that put their life on the line for our country. That is part of your reasoning concerning bloated militarybudgets?
"In FY 2019, the Pentagon’s budget was nearly three times bigger than China’s defense spending and more than 10 times larger than Russia’s. "
We outspend our adversaries and you complain about that? Would you have us spend equal amounts and leave the outcome of future conflicts up to a coin toss? I would rather we spent more to guarantee the probable outcomes. China has two aircraft carriers. Would you advocate that we also confine our sea power capabilities to two carriers? I think the history of WWII shows the error of that type of "reasoning."
"While the Pentagon budget routinely eats up more than half of annual U.S. discretionary spending, a host of other interrelated threats that undermine national security writ large go chronically underfunded, including the current public health, environmental and climate crises, all of which disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color."
So, you would advocate we subjugate our national defense to the solving of these problems first? How do you think that is working for China and Russia?
Here, let me toss you a bone:
"If the Pentagon were a private corporation, gross mismanagement would have forced it into bankruptcy years ago. Dysfunctional internal controls, aided and abetted by years of lax congressional and 's adageadministration oversight, have enabled it to waste tens of billions of dollars annually, and the last 20 years are littered with a parade of overpriced, botched and bungled projects."
I can agree that the Pentagon is wasteful and too bureaucratic, hence the 1950's folk adage; "Close enough for government work." But, that doesn't seem to be the crux argument of the article that "is my reasoning in a nutshell."
Here are more quotes from your article's military budget criticisms:
"To put this example of managerial malfeasance in context, these canceled programs collectively cost more than the federal government spent on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the last five years."
I would agree that there are weapons programs that should never have gotten off of the drafting table, and that there are programs that should have been stopped earlier than they were, (but that is a whole 'nother' topic related to politics and regional economic considerations), but, to consider the EPA budget as a reason for that criticism is an obvious 'tell' concerning the author's bias. Is it also a "tell" about yours?
There is a bunch more even more damning tidbits, but I think that is enough to make my point.
You think we spend too much on our national defense, but can't address that thought specifically. For you, it's just that we spend too much. Why don't you give Wilderness another try at the specifics Don't support your opinion by where we aren't spending enough, (the primary thread of your linked article), but with your "reasoning" about why and where we are overspending, takes your opinion.
And one last bone . . . I also think the Pentagon is unnecessarily wasteful. But I think that is a matter of policies and procedures to address, not just a general "they spend too much."
As for "dem apples," I think you too readily rely on other folk's opinions, (your linked articles that define your reasoning for your opinions), to support your own. How about Cred supporting Cred? What about [i]dat apple?
GA
I appreciate your good honesty... It does make it easy to be open with you. However, never want to overstep my boundaries. I must laugh when you bring up black friends -- take my word I get the riot act in my face when I push too hard. But, I have learned so much by being inquisitive, and my friends have stuck with me, so far.
When it comes to age... I think Democrats have always held the advantage during our lifetimes, with young people.
Young people are more open minded, have far less real world experience, have far less comprehension of economics and the reality of working hard for what you get.
It is much easier to believe the "everyone deserves an equal slice of the pie no matter who they are or what they contribute" when you are young and have never had to struggle to pay the bills and care for family,.
The majority of people become more conservative with age and experience. However this is not always so, a good percentage become entrenched in their beliefs, become more jaded and prejudiced.
Another thing about age, young people in general are more willing to try something new, they have less to lose and they have little in the way of assets.
Compared to someone in their 40s, 50s, 60s that may have a house, or business, or 401K, or other assets they have spent many years of their lives working to build/earn. They aren't so interested in the idea of doubling the tax rate on their home or new lock-downs that will cause them to go bankrupt.
It is much less of a Race thing than an economic and political ideological one. Political ideologies were militarized for this election, BLM, Antifa, etc. were a daily part of the news cycle for the past year, as was Covid and the lock-downs that shut businesses down... many for good.
It will be interesting to see what happens to these issues after Biden has been sworn in.Oddly enough, Ken, with advancing age, I have become more fervently left than I was in my relatively naive youth. You have to see how things Really work, verses the stuff of love it or leave it, or the "land of opportunity" or perhaps all the jingoistic nonsense about America being the "good guy" on the global stage.
I believe that everybody should have an equal opportunity to acquire success, based on hard work and ability. When we are truly a society like this, I will be the first to stand down.
I spent years at work, taking care of family and I am still more left than otherwise.
If there is not some sort of parity as to how resources are allocated, ultimately it will all be taken down.
I hold out the greatest hopes for Biden, but not until the Republican Party's defeat this election cycle is total and complete. We need Democratic control of the Senate and I have volunteered to work with Stacey Abrams toward that end.Ultimately the only resource that truly matters above all others is what we do with our time. If we squander it sitting in front of a TV instead of working or learning, if we waste it on drugs or alcohol, if we throw it away producing children we cannot care for...well, it doesn't matter WHAT other resources are available for we cannot make use of them.
On the other hand if we use our time wisely, pursuing our goal (whether wealth, fame, honor, family or anything else) then we don't really need anything else. All will become available if we but use our time wisely.Your examples are stereotypical and must be dismissed out of hand. Geez we all live in ghetto circumstances? So, we all like fried chicken and watermelon, too? (I do like my Popeyes, though)
I want the resources to be available, I am not holding anyone responsible for opportunities that my group or any other fail to avail themselves of.
Otherwise, you have such an Horatio Alger attitude about America, and it is quaint, if nothing else.Of course they are to be dismissed out of hand; the very thought that people are responsible for themselves, regardless of color, is not something that is well accepted among the poor that make little to no effort designed to improve their station in life.
Perhaps you can convince "your group" that Dad go to school while Mom stays home with the 2 or 3 kids. That they move from the ghetto (your word) to somewhere there are decent jobs. That they should participate in their children's education, and that they should work to disband the gangs in their neighborhood. That they should stay off the drugs and alcohol.
And while you're at it, convince those NOT of "your group" to do the same; those problems are not isolated to "your group", whatever you might designate that to be.
Related Discussions
- 129
The Hill. Opinion: The 'Scared Majority'.
by Tim Mitchell 6 days ago
The ‘scared majority’ could deliver a landslide victory for Trump by Douglas MacKinnon, opinion contributor published at The...
- 582
Why Many Might Not Vote for Trump
by J Conn 5 days ago
1.) Corruption a.) Trump just offered to sell policy to the oil industry for $1 billion b.) Tried to blackmail a foreign country to get a fake investigation c.) Tried to steal a presidential election with blatant lies d.) ...
- 109
Partisan Divide in Media Trust
by Ken Burgess 7 months ago
Average of various sources over the last 20 months:75% of Democrats trust National MSM news sourcesLess than 25% of lean/Republicans have any faith in MSM news.Roughly 50% of independents say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence.https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads …...
- 38
Why Does Trump Embarrass Himself Embracing QANON Madness?
by Credence2 2 years ago
Ok, conservatives don't try to tell me this is just another story concocted by the "liberal press" or the "Deep State". The story is everywhere with the exception of the bonafide rightwing rags.https://news.yahoo.com/trump-openly-emb … 12440.htmlGoing into the mind of...
- 170
What Discrimination Have You Faced as a White Person?
by Sychophantastic 7 years ago
According to recent polls, about half of all white Trump voters feel as though white people face a lot of discrimination.If you're white, please feel free to offer up your tales of discrimination or what you see as white discrimination in society.This is clearly an important topic that doesn't get...
- 55
Greater Idaho? When it comes to Rightwinger be prepared for the absurd
by Credence2 3 years ago
A little background, folkshttps://www.opb.org/article/2020/11/16/ … -now-what/Have a look at that revised Greater Idaho, is that not ridiculous?I say to those dispossessed types, if you don't like Oregon and its politics, just move to Idaho!!We had such a move in Colorado with the sod...