Kyrsten Synema (D - Az) brings a cake into the Senate to downvote min. wage hike

[Eric the Green]

(04-21-2021, 02:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-20-2021, 03:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2021, 09:03 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-19-2021, 10:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You're making excuses for an OBVIOUS wrong doing again. The bulk of the Republican base ignored the danger associated with the pandemic (it's easy to do when you've been working and living through it the entire time) and voted in mass like they normally do on election day during a high point of the pandemic. I think it's very clear (damn near cut and dry) that the illegal gerrymandering of election laws that were done were done increase voter turnout that would mainly benefited the Democratic side. You shared a list of changes to the norm that pertained to people that normally wouldn't have been able to vote. People like people in jail and people from some other district and people without any proof of identity were given the right to vote and so forth.

The only people who really deserved special considerations and minor tweaks to normal voting procedures like additional absentee ballots and additional means to have them delivered were those who were at high risk stuck/isolated in nursing homes or those of high risk like yourself and others here isolating themselves at home. It doesn't matter now, the government that you and others are reliant upon for support  didn't adequately address it, blew it off  and more or less brushed it under the rug of wrong doing and called it good anyway and signed off on Biden becoming President. Well, guess what, the damage is done and fixing it ain't going to happen now. I'd like to see if you are able to look me in the eye and tell me that what went on with voting laws was legitimate and perfectly legal. I doubt you'd do it, if you're smart that is? I'm not sure how smart you are, you seem pretty dumb for a smart person. It's not a knock, it's just an observation that you normally wouldn't hear. You're right, a portion of America is changing as in deteriorating and  turning to shit these days. Oh well, it's a Democratic problem that Democrats are going to find themselves being forced to  pay for one way or another and find themselves being  held accountable for as far as they're actions  as well. Oh, then there's the matter of cheering them on and raising funds to bail them out and more or less allowing it to continue like they've been doing.

That's a lot of words to justify (or at least attempt to justify) making voting a privilege rather than a a right.  FYI, voting is the core right in every representative republic, if it even pretends to be democratic.  For some reason, your side of the polity has decided that this is wrong, rather than merely inconvenient. If that becomes the standard, and your hand-picked SCOTUS may assist in this, then we're just another Turkey or Hungary -- democratic in name only.

Rights are privileges for the most part. My right to drive a car is a privilege. We have certain unalienable rights are more or less recognized, guaranteed and protected by the government and the citizens of our constitutional republic aka The United States of America. Your side for whatever reason seems to want to scrap that system and establish a permanent Democratic system which favors the Democratic party and it's population/recipients.

I'm going to ask you a question. how many Nazi supporters/believers aka indoctrinated Germans understood the reason why, American planes were bombing them around the clock without mercy and killing them without mercy and why Americans were willing to leave the last batch for a group of barbarians to finish off and do whatever it wants with for a while. I know you guys think you're special aka God's gifts and all, but in reality you are noting more than a bunch of dumb/foolish Nazi-ish - Bolshevik-ish - Marxist-ish supporters/believers to me at this point. So, what hold does the Democratic party have over you these days? Is it fear of losing your social security or fear of loosing healthcare or the fear of loosing a paycheck or the fear of all of us and all the rights that we still have as a large group of individuals? In short, when the Democrats and their Left Wing backers find themselves at odds or war with Americans of all kinds, you may be asking yourself and others why like some how or another you feel that you don't deserve.

The only "right" that you are interested in is the "right" of "the people" to keep and bear military weapons. To me, that is not a "right" at all and ought to be prohibited. Unless you establish your own alternative state and need those weapons for your war, just like the Yankees and Confederates did.

Today, college graduates, which used to favor Republicans, now favor Democrats by 13 points, and they are the most reliable voters among levels of education. That ought to give you a clue about what "hold" the Democrats have over us. The difference is that well-educated voters are well-informed. Unlike you, we are able to see the issues that matter and understand what needs to be done about them. You guys are only interested in your identity and your weapons.

Data Download here: https://youtu.be/qrUBL4TNSMU?t=2335

[pbrower2a]

(04-21-2021, 02:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-21-2021, 05:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: You misrepresent American history badly enough that I suspect malignancy.

Just check the Eisenhower-Obama overlay map to see how the Parties have changed hands. Democrats used to have the Southern white agrarian racists locked down as a reliable constituency. That is over. Oh, is that over! Eisenhower did extremely well among college graduates, and so did Obama.  

If Democrats have a connection to the old slave-owning planters then it is through those planters' ill-favored descendants: their slaves and the descendants of those slaves. There was much sowing of wild oats in the days of slavery, and when some comparatively-pale slave child appeared, then the slave-owner's family typically responded with 

"Who, me? Impossible. I am a good family man. That must have been some lonely merchant or other traveler."

American history began with a serious of tax revolts and the American Revolutionary war began with an attempt by the British to seize an arsenal and disarm the American population. Well, here we are again. The only difference is, the British of the time are the Democrats of today. As far as the Confederacy and it's connection to the Democratic party, the connection still exists today. It's slaves black then aren't slaves today. They may as well be, but they aren't today. The Democratic party of today still has a hold over the bulk of them (the descendants of the slaves) today. The hold the Democrats have is more psychological than physical and the plantations are no longer functional, apparent or visible these days. In short, the Democratic blacks aren't free or not as free as they should be because the Democratic party still has a hold over most of them. Like you, the Democratic blacks have no other choice but to go along with the Democratic party and whatever they do and whatever trouble or bind they get you in at this point. It's kind of sad but it is what it is and there's no turning back.

No, it was not a tax revolt as such. I know about the Boston Tea Party, which was about taxation without representation in the manner of levying taxes. The people of Boston had little problem with paying local taxes to defray local public expenditures (then meager, but such reflects the economic realities and technologies of the time). 

It may be far from a perfect analogy, but I see Donald Trump in much the same role as King George III. 

History is typically deeper than you understand it. What I find amazing about the American Revolution is how long the British colonies were placid about the British Crown having formal authority. In colonial times, the Crown largely had to leave the Colonies to their own means of meeting basic needs of government. The British Crown was too distant to micromanage things. Paradoxically, the Spanish Crown was more likely to have a viceroy in the Spanish colonies running things more tightly, which may have been more effective at suppressing revolts, typically with consummate brutality (see Tupac Amaru III)... but the Spanish had more revolts from large Native populations who chafed under repressive rule ill suited to their cultures. 

George III tried to tighten the screws in an effort to centralize his authority, and this violated a long-standing norm in the relationship between the King of England and the Colonies who knew that they were doing well enough as it was. Unlike the despotically-operated colonial rule in Spain (which in the long run would itself fail), the system in America had elected legislatures at the level of the colony. Note well: the General Court of Massachusetts (now the Massachusetts state legislature) dates from 1629 and is the oldest freely-elected legislature in the world. That legislature was founded only nine years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

Taking away the authority of the Massachusetts General Court or the Virginia House of Burgesses was a bad idea.  George III got plenty of warnings that such was a bad idea and failed to heed those warnings. Thus arose the American Revolution. 

..............................

I have started a thread in a Forum not on this site, and if you want to look at some significant long term trends between states and their voting in elections, then by all means take a visit.   Political cultures within the states are much more stable than you might expect. 

Quote:When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS. 

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.


 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once 

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red. 

 The site to which I refer you does not pay much attention to the generational theory, although many posters therein recognize demographic trends.  Unlike here, where I would refer to both Obama and Eisenhower having similarities of character because both exemplify mature Reactive types as leaders. Despite their obvious dissimilarities of ethnic origin (at that nobody who has ever been President has ever been similar to Obama!) and that Eisenhower is the last President to have had General rank in the Armed Services. 

Mature Reactive types respect protocol, precedent, tradition, legal niceties, expertise, conventional morals, and formality.  This is in contrast to immature Reactive types who see those things as potential obstacles to getting their way. If you want to know what an immature Reactive is... 



well, here is about the most blatant example possible.  He was actually born a year before Eisenhower, and he became Chancellor of Germany at age  43, which is only four years younger than Obama when he became President of the United States. 

So what is so immature about Hitler? Lazy and stupid? He was neither. Holding firmly to stubborn desires and bigotry isn't particularly mature.  Attempts to micromanage in areas that are not in one's zone of expertise are immature. Ike deferred to the attorneys on law and Obama deferred to the experts on military matters and intelligence, which was wise for a soldier not an attorney and an attorney not a soldier. Both deferred to scientists, physicians,  and engineers on science, medicine, and engineering/ For Eisenhower or Obama reality exists and one accommodates it as much as necessary to change things that one can change. Hitler dispensed with protocol, precedent, tradition, legal niceties, expertise, conventional morals, and formality when those interfered with his desires, especially extermination of the Jews or expanding his slave empire. He demanded complete flunkies as subordinates, which explains such figures as Joachim von Ribbentrop as Foreign Minister and Wilhelm Keitel as the equivalent of Chief of the High Command. Hitler even got his nose into medicine.

... some states may be well suited to voting for a Mature Reactive due to their state cultures, and I defer the discussion of state cultures to David Hackett Fischer in Albion's Seed, which relates existing politics and culture to the cultures of the founders of locations.  Irish-Americans are a large part of America, but they have comparatively little to do with the formation of American political institutions. If they achieved great political power, it was because they took over institutions such as city governments that others (such as Puritans in New England or their descendants in upstate New York), the Dutch in Greater New York City, and the Quakers in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia established. Mexican-Americans may be doing much the same in much of the southwestern quadrant of the United States... even in a place like Dallas that did not exist in Mexican times or Denver, which was never part of Mexico.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-21-2021, 09:06 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-20-2021, 09:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What's not  racism these days? Racism has been blown out of proportion and misconstrued lately. Is not liking a racist black person racist these days? Is confronting a black jerk or some black asshole racist too? Is calling a black person a bad name racist too? You better start sorting out the differences between normal human behavior related to different personalities or behavior and racism or you're going to have another big mess to go along with the other big messes that are on your plate to solve these days.

Jerks are jerks, totally independent of race, national origin, or gender identity.  Feel free to call anyone out on being jerks, but not for being who they are as people.

It's hard to call out a jerk who is protected by racism or sexism these days.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-21-2021, 04:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(04-21-2021, 02:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-21-2021, 05:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: You misrepresent American history badly enough that I suspect malignancy.

Just check the Eisenhower-Obama overlay map to see how the Parties have changed hands. Democrats used to have the Southern white agrarian racists locked down as a reliable constituency. That is over. Oh, is that over! Eisenhower did extremely well among college graduates, and so did Obama.  

If Democrats have a connection to the old slave-owning planters then it is through those planters' ill-favored descendants: their slaves and the descendants of those slaves. There was much sowing of wild oats in the days of slavery, and when some comparatively-pale slave child appeared, then the slave-owner's family typically responded with 

"Who, me? Impossible. I am a good family man. That must have been some lonely merchant or other traveler."

American history began with a serious of tax revolts and the American Revolutionary war began with an attempt by the British to seize an arsenal and disarm the American population. Well, here we are again. The only difference is, the British of the time are the Democrats of today. As far as the Confederacy and it's connection to the Democratic party, the connection still exists today. It's slaves black then aren't slaves today. They may as well be, but they aren't today. The Democratic party of today still has a hold over the bulk of them (the descendants of the slaves) today. The hold the Democrats have is more psychological than physical and the plantations are no longer functional, apparent or visible these days. In short, the Democratic blacks aren't free or not as free as they should be because the Democratic party still has a hold over most of them. Like you, the Democratic blacks have no other choice but to go along with the Democratic party and whatever they do and whatever trouble or bind they get you in at this point. It's kind of sad but it is what it is and there's no turning back.

No, it was not a tax revolt as such. I know about the Boston Tea Party, which was about taxation without representation in the manner of levying taxes. The people of Boston had little problem with paying local taxes to defray local public expenditures (then meager, but such reflects the economic realities and technologies of the time). 

It may be far from a perfect analogy, but I see Donald Trump in much the same role as King George III. 

History is typically deeper than you understand it. What I find amazing about the American Revolution is how long the British colonies were placid about the British Crown having formal authority. In colonial times, the Crown largely had to leave the Colonies to their own means of meeting basic needs of government. The British Crown was too distant to micromanage things. Paradoxically, the Spanish Crown was more likely to have a viceroy in the Spanish colonies running things more tightly, which may have been more effective at suppressing revolts, typically with consummate brutality (see Tupac Amaru III)... but the Spanish had more revolts from large Native populations who chafed under repressive rule ill suited to their cultures. 

George III tried to tighten the screws in an effort to centralize his authority, and this violated a long-standing norm in the relationship between the King of England and the Colonies who knew that they were doing well enough as it was. Unlike the despotically-operated colonial rule in Spain (which in the long run would itself fail), the system in America had elected legislatures at the level of the colony. Note well: the General Court of Massachusetts (now the Massachusetts state legislature) dates from 1629 and is the oldest freely-elected legislature in the world. That legislature was founded only nine years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

Taking away the authority of the Massachusetts General Court or the Virginia House of Burgesses was a bad idea.  George III got plenty of warnings that such was a bad idea and failed to heed those warnings. Thus arose the American Revolution. 

..............................

I have started a thread in a Forum not on this site, and if you want to look at some significant long term trends between states and their voting in elections, then by all means take a visit.   Political cultures within the states are much more stable than you might expect. 

Quote:When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS. 

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.


 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once 

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red. 

 The site to which I refer you does not pay much attention to the generational theory, although many posters therein recognize demographic trends.  Unlike here, where I would refer to both Obama and Eisenhower having similarities of character because both exemplify mature Reactive types as leaders. Despite their obvious dissimilarities of ethnic origin (at that nobody who has ever been President has ever been similar to Obama!) and that Eisenhower is the last President to have had General rank in the Armed Services. 

Mature Reactive types respect protocol, precedent, tradition, legal niceties, expertise, conventional morals, and formality.  This is in contrast to immature Reactive types who see those things as potential obstacles to getting their way. If you want to know what an immature Reactive is... 



well, here is about the most blatant example possible.  He was actually born a year before Eisenhower, and he became Chancellor of Germany at age  43, which is only four years younger than Obama when he became President of the United States. 

So what is so immature about Hitler? Lazy and stupid? He was neither. Holding firmly to stubborn desires and bigotry isn't particularly mature.  Attempts to micromanage in areas that are not in one's zone of expertise are immature. Ike deferred to the attorneys on law and Obama deferred to the experts on military matters and intelligence, which was wise for a soldier not an attorney and an attorney not a soldier. Both deferred to scientists, physicians,  and engineers on science, medicine, and engineering/ For Eisenhower or Obama reality exists and one accommodates it as much as necessary to change things that one can change. Hitler dispensed with protocol, precedent, tradition, legal niceties, expertise, conventional morals, and formality when those interfered with his desires, especially extermination of the Jews or expanding his slave empire. He demanded complete flunkies as subordinates, which explains such figures as Joachim von Ribbentrop as Foreign Minister and Wilhelm Keitel as the equivalent of Chief of the High Command. Hitler even got his nose into medicine.

... some states may be well suited to voting for a Mature Reactive due to their state cultures, and I defer the discussion of state cultures to David Hackett Fischer in Albion's Seed, which relates existing politics and culture to the cultures of the founders of locations.  Irish-Americans are a large part of America, but they have comparatively little to do with the formation of American political institutions. If they achieved great political power, it was because they took over institutions such as city governments that others (such as Puritans in New England or their descendants in upstate New York), the Dutch in Greater New York City, and the Quakers in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia established. Mexican-Americans may be doing much the same in much of the southwestern quadrant of the United States... even in a place like Dallas that did not exist in Mexican times or Denver, which was never part of Mexico.

PB, there is no comparison between Eisenhower (a five star general aka Supreme Commander) and Obama (a small time community organizer who served a very brief stint in the Senate). Eisenhower didn't have to have book written about himself before running for President like Obama.

[pbrower2a]

(04-21-2021, 05:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-21-2021, 04:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(04-21-2021, 02:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-21-2021, 05:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: You misrepresent American history badly enough that I suspect malignancy.

Just check the Eisenhower-Obama overlay map to see how the Parties have changed hands. Democrats used to have the Southern white agrarian racists locked down as a reliable constituency. That is over. Oh, is that over! Eisenhower did extremely well among college graduates, and so did Obama.  

If Democrats have a connection to the old slave-owning planters then it is through those planters' ill-favored descendants: their slaves and the descendants of those slaves. There was much sowing of wild oats in the days of slavery, and when some comparatively-pale slave child appeared, then the slave-owner's family typically responded with 

"Who, me? Impossible. I am a good family man. That must have been some lonely merchant or other traveler."

American history began with a serious of tax revolts and the American Revolutionary war began with an attempt by the British to seize an arsenal and disarm the American population. Well, here we are again. The only difference is, the British of the time are the Democrats of today. As far as the Confederacy and it's connection to the Democratic party, the connection still exists today. It's slaves black then aren't slaves today. They may as well be, but they aren't today. The Democratic party of today still has a hold over the bulk of them (the descendants of the slaves) today. The hold the Democrats have is more psychological than physical and the plantations are no longer functional, apparent or visible these days. In short, the Democratic blacks aren't free or not as free as they should be because the Democratic party still has a hold over most of them. Like you, the Democratic blacks have no other choice but to go along with the Democratic party and whatever they do and whatever trouble or bind they get you in at this point. It's kind of sad but it is what it is and there's no turning back.

No, it was not a tax revolt as such. I know about the Boston Tea Party, which was about taxation without representation in the manner of levying taxes. The people of Boston had little problem with paying local taxes to defray local public expenditures (then meager, but such reflects the economic realities and technologies of the time). 

It may be far from a perfect analogy, but I see Donald Trump in much the same role as King George III. 

History is typically deeper than you understand it. What I find amazing about the American Revolution is how long the British colonies were placid about the British Crown having formal authority. In colonial times, the Crown largely had to leave the Colonies to their own means of meeting basic needs of government. The British Crown was too distant to micromanage things. Paradoxically, the Spanish Crown was more likely to have a viceroy in the Spanish colonies running things more tightly, which may have been more effective at suppressing revolts, typically with consummate brutality (see Tupac Amaru III)... but the Spanish had more revolts from large Native populations who chafed under repressive rule ill suited to their cultures. 

George III tried to tighten the screws in an effort to centralize his authority, and this violated a long-standing norm in the relationship between the King of England and the Colonies who knew that they were doing well enough as it was. Unlike the despotically-operated colonial rule in Spain (which in the long run would itself fail), the system in America had elected legislatures at the level of the colony. Note well: the General Court of Massachusetts (now the Massachusetts state legislature) dates from 1629 and is the oldest freely-elected legislature in the world. That legislature was founded only nine years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

Taking away the authority of the Massachusetts General Court or the Virginia House of Burgesses was a bad idea.  George III got plenty of warnings that such was a bad idea and failed to heed those warnings. Thus arose the American Revolution. 

..............................

I have started a thread in a Forum not on this site, and if you want to look at some significant long term trends between states and their voting in elections, then by all means take a visit.   Political cultures within the states are much more stable than you might expect. 

Quote:When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS. 

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.


 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once 

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red. 

 The site to which I refer you does not pay much attention to the generational theory, although many posters therein recognize demographic trends.  Unlike here, where I would refer to both Obama and Eisenhower having similarities of character because both exemplify mature Reactive types as leaders. Despite their obvious dissimilarities of ethnic origin (at that nobody who has ever been President has ever been similar to Obama!) and that Eisenhower is the last President to have had General rank in the Armed Services. 

Mature Reactive types respect protocol, precedent, tradition, legal niceties, expertise, conventional morals, and formality.  This is in contrast to immature Reactive types who see those things as potential obstacles to getting their way. If you want to know what an immature Reactive is... 



well, here is about the most blatant example possible.  He was actually born a year before Eisenhower, and he became Chancellor of Germany at age  43, which is only four years younger than Obama when he became President of the United States. 

So what is so immature about Hitler? Lazy and stupid? He was neither. Holding firmly to stubborn desires and bigotry isn't particularly mature.  Attempts to micromanage in areas that are not in one's zone of expertise are immature. Ike deferred to the attorneys on law and Obama deferred to the experts on military matters and intelligence, which was wise for a soldier not an attorney and an attorney not a soldier. Both deferred to scientists, physicians,  and engineers on science, medicine, and engineering/ For Eisenhower or Obama reality exists and one accommodates it as much as necessary to change things that one can change. Hitler dispensed with protocol, precedent, tradition, legal niceties, expertise, conventional morals, and formality when those interfered with his desires, especially extermination of the Jews or expanding his slave empire. He demanded complete flunkies as subordinates, which explains such figures as Joachim von Ribbentrop as Foreign Minister and Wilhelm Keitel as the equivalent of Chief of the High Command. Hitler even got his nose into medicine.

... some states may be well suited to voting for a Mature Reactive due to their state cultures, and I defer the discussion of state cultures to David Hackett Fischer in Albion's Seed, which relates existing politics and culture to the cultures of the founders of locations.  Irish-Americans are a large part of America, but they have comparatively little to do with the formation of American political institutions. If they achieved great political power, it was because they took over institutions such as city governments that others (such as Puritans in New England or their descendants in upstate New York), the Dutch in Greater New York City, and the Quakers in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia established. Mexican-Americans may be doing much the same in much of the southwestern quadrant of the United States... even in a place like Dallas that did not exist in Mexican times or Denver, which was never part of Mexico.

PB, there is no comparison between Eisenhower (a five star general aka Supreme Commander) and Obama (a small time community organizer who served a very brief stint in the Senate). Eisenhower didn't have to have book written about himself before running for President  like Obama.

I showed plenty in common. The differences are striking but I see similar results, which suggest similar. I can imagine Eisenhower as a good country lawyer who becomes a high-power politician, and I can see Obama as the sort of spit-and-polish senior officer whom people dislike in peacetime but ends up with a high casualty and capture rate... for the Other Side, that is... in a real war. The spit-and-polish disappears in combat, but he would keep it intact for the staff officers.  They had different career paths and won the Presidency at very different ages. Some President must be most like Obama, and that President is Ike. You saw my reasoning. Historical ratings of the Presidents put Ike and Obama in the same general area -- clearly above average.  

Eisenhower  did write a book, Crusade In Europe (or had it largely ghost-written for him) about his military service in World War II. I read it a long time ago. Not great, but it isn't a travesty, either.   

The big similarity is the overlay between states won. Eisenhower won three states that Republicans ordinarily do not win except in overwhelming landslides: Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island. Hoover lost two of those in his 1928 landslide. Nixon won every one of those except Massachusetts in his 49-state landslide in 1972; Reagan lost Minnesota and Rhode Island in a 44-state landslide in 1980 and lost only Minnesota in 1984. 

So let's see how those three states aligned in the two biggest R blowouts in the last 50 years )on;ly 1936 compares for a Democrat):

rank      72   84 
48         RI    RI
49         MN  MA
50         MA  MN

Ike won Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island twice, and no Republican has won all three even once. Winning even one of them is difficult. Ike won all three, and he did that twice. Ike won a huge number of states for the first time in 24 years, and except for the Goldwater disaster, some of those states have stayed R. Obama won Indiana in 2008, a state that almost never goes D in a Presidential election... and won Virginia, which has its interesting connection to Ike and Obama. Hoover had won Virginia in 1928, but no Republican won the state again until Ike did in 1952, and the state went D in a Presidential election only once (1964) until Obama won it in 2008... and Virginia has not voted for a Republican for President since. 

All in all I could refer to Albion's Seed, which demonstrates that American differences in economic and political institutionsand even in regional accents have their origins in the British Isles:



OK, you might ask about the enormous number of Irish immigrants to the New World largely in the nineteenth century, dwarfing the numbers  of colonial-era migrants to British North America. The Irish immigrants did not establish new institutions in America other than to make the Catholic Church dominant in some parts of America. Where the Irish Catholics settled en masse they simply took over the existing institutions, which was extremely easy when the descendants of early settlers of New England. were abandoning most of rural New England for better farmland Out West. The Dutch in Greater New York City (when it was New Amsterdam)? The Dutch established their institutions early, but note well that the settlers in New England (from southeastern England) were remarkably similar to the Dutch. Many Pilgrims had first moved to the Netherlands for religious freedom, but found one problem: their children were becoming Dutch very fast! 

... and this is the result:



more or less. It even shows in politics.