Why rural voters don’t vote Democratic anymore

[Eric the Green]

We do need to make America great again. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our products are lousy; made in China and they don't work as well. Our corporations automate and send factories overseas for cheap labor while we don't make things here anymore. Our tax money doesn't provide anything. Our education system still sucks. Our environment is in serious danger. Terrorists threaten us and the government spies on us. Hillary was an inadequate candidate. People know all this.

So some TV star goes out and says he can "make America great again, and the politicians are stupid." "I've built a business so I can rebuild America," he says. So people fall for it and vote for another incompetent fool who hires the same people who broke America.

People like taramarie from Oz say we should just be nice to each other. Others say we should not be partisan; that it's tweedle dee and tweedle dumb. The fact is, maybe we can be nice about it, but we need to be completely partisan. People just need to learn not to vote Republican; EVER. Yes, we need new parties, and a multiparty system in the USA. But we're stuck with the Democrats for now, and we need to make them better.

The Democrats know better, even so; and the Republicans know nothing. That is being nice; really. It's just a fact, not being impolite; their approach is exactly the problem. They are the reason for companies moving abroad; they are the ones who enable CEOs to make millions. They are the ones who allow pollution. It's just a question of when we are going to vote them out. I keep telling people, nothing can be done to repair and improve our country until that happens. And it won't happen until it does. It is not a matter of partisan name calling or stuck values or anything like that. It's a matter of facing up to America's mistake. Trickle-down doesn't trickle, and resentment against poor people and calling them "freeloaders" for getting government benefits doesn't work. Period. That meme needs to be permanently discarded. We must choose: save that meme, or save the country. For the last 35 years, we intelligent folks know that a mistake was made in 1980. We need to correct that mistake. It will take 4 to 8 more years now to do it. And it needs to be a permanent correction this time. ELECT NO MORE REPUBLICANS, PERIOD.

People need to be paid more; much more for the work they do. Then they can go out and buy quality products made in America, instead of cheap stuff made abroad and purchased from Walmart; with new tougher trade deals in place so that companies don't go abroad to hire cheap labor. Then they can afford to pay higher taxes for the government we need to provide the infrastructure and adequate regulations. And we need to charge more taxes on the wealthy who extort money from workers, and use that money to do these things. We can make America great again. But we need to hire intelligent, progressive Democrats to make that possible again. They made America great before, and can do it again. Republicans cannot and will not.

[Warren Dew]

(12-03-2016, 09:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 05:54 AM)Galen Wrote: This is why libertarians on the whole tend not to want to impose a solution from above the way liberals and progressives do.  With the degree of centralization that exists in the US there is a tendency to use the Federal Government as a club to beat opponents over the head with.  You haven't really spent much time around the red necks in the US and the mainstream media is less than reliable.

Perhaps not the true libertarians -- there are still true libertarians outside of message boards? -- but the red rural population has its agendas.  The "Christians" don't like women's health care, and many don't approve of gun prohibition.  There is a current uptick in racial incidents reflecting the real meaning of being against political correctness.  The red population in general is ticked at the blue population, with reason, but they seem more interested in revenge than coexistence.  We'll see whether or not they use the Federal Government as a club.  Too soon to say.

While my greatest concern is the damage another round of borrow and spend trickle down could do with the economy, I don't see the culture war issues as settled, and four or eight years of one culture going after the other isn't apt to do anything but rally the victim culture to get angry at and overthrow the aggressor culture.  That the shoe is on the other foot matters little in terms of the health and stability of the country.  As long as both cultures are dumping on one another there are going to be problems.

You think "don't approve of gun prohibition" an "agenda"?  Gun prohibition is a perfect example of an imposed solution of the kind Galen is talking about.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-03-2016, 07:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You think "don't approve of gun prohibition" an "agenda"?  Gun prohibition is a perfect example of an imposed solution of the kind Galen is talking about.

So it is, but it is no more or no less an agenda on one side than the other. Strong feelings and attempts at strong actions are going both ways. I sort of expect extreme partisans to think the other side is abusing government power and forcing their culture on the other half of the culture while one's own side is saintly and innocent in that regard. I don't buy that either faction will back off the conflict, will stop pushing the other.

[Eric the Green]

Brower made a good point that I've also made here, that America is unique because of its huge white Christian fundamentalist population that does not exist in other countries. Perhaps it is like the aristocratic slave state that existed in much of the same regions before the civil war.

Sometimes Christian white fundamentalists can be Democrats, like William Jennings Bryan was. If some of these people get disillusioned with their support for an immoral capitalist liar, who was touted as a populist who cares about working people, but whose policies do them grave harm, could there be an awakening of them?

Maybe if the blue message gets through to working folks, the social issues and the gun issues could be put on the back burner for a while, in both sides' minds. And the gun issue too, if cities can have strict gun control, with less or none in rural places as they prefer. It's a long shot, but perhaps it could happen-- at least among some younger white religious people.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-03-2016, 07:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Brower made a good point that I've also made here, that America is unique because of its huge white Christian fundamentalist population that does not exist in other countries. Perhaps it is like the aristocratic slave state that existed in much of the same regions before the civil war.

Sometimes Christian white fundamentalists can be Democrats, like William Jennings Bryan was. If some of these people get disillusioned with their support for an immoral capitalist liar, who was touted as a populist who cares about working people, but whose policies do them grave harm, could there be an awakening of them?

Maybe if the blue message gets through to working folks, the social issues and the gun issues could be put on the back burner for a while, in both sides' minds. And the gun issue too, if cities can have strict gun control, with less or none in rural places as they prefer. It's a long shot, but perhaps it could happen-- at least among some younger white religious people.

Other cultures have had strong religious and/or fundamentalist tendencies.  The Middle East comes to mind.  Rigid religious thought patterns have certainly proven problematic there.  There it is complicated by the colonial imperialistic aspect of Western culture, which was on full display in the West's grab for the oil.  While we have a favorable view of ourselves and modern Western values, they have seen the ugly side of Western culture in a way we haven't seen since the days of taxation without representation and dumping tea in the harbor. Having rejected both the West and Communism as bad jobs, they have problems latching onto a new start to guide them. Thus, it is harder even than usual for them to let go of autocratic religious thinking.

I see many of the S&H crises as transition struggles in the transformation from the Agricultural Age pattern to the Industrial Age pattern.  One part of this is moving from religious absolutes to Enlightenment philosophy and politics.  In the old days all the answers to the moral question were in The Book and autocratic governments and churches could use tyranny and torture to make sure the right answers were enforced.  Under the Enlightenment point of view, individuals have the right to make choices, the freedom to make decisions on their own.  Some of the modern cultural issues, where a woman might perceive a right to make her own decisions regarding reproductive health care or another believes in the right to own and carry weapons, are still playing out this theme.  Does one culture have the absolute right to tear away the other's rights?  Does one culture use the big stick of the federal government to impose its views on the other?  In general, on most issues, I would say no.  I favor rights and choices over fixed absolute answers imposed by force.

This doesn't mean I would expect a fundamentalist to agree with me. Values are nigh on binding.

I see the transition from autocratic to democratic patterns as very very hard.  How many wars and crises has the Anglo American culture faced, and we're still working on it?  How many French Republics have there been, and have they got it totally right yet?  How far have Russia and China to go, let alone the Middle East and Africa?

But, yes, if one respects the rural culture and doesn't try to push every single urban value on them whenever one gets a shadow of a chance, movement and coexistence ought might become possible.

Alas, many have gotten into the habit of hating the other culture reflexively, and it is hard to listen to those one hates.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-03-2016, 04:36 PM)taramarie Wrote: Eric...New Zealand and Oz are two different places.

Hint: Oz is short for Australia.

Just as an irrelevant aside, when Judy Garland's version of The Wizard of Oz was a new hit, there were Australian troops in North Africa fighting Rommel and marching to the tune of 'We're Off to See the Wizard..."

[Warren Dew]

(12-03-2016, 07:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 07:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You think "don't approve of gun prohibition" an "agenda"?  Gun prohibition is a perfect example of an imposed solution of the kind Galen is talking about.

So it is, but it is no more or no less an agenda on one side than the other.  Strong feelings and attempts at strong actions are going both ways.  I sort of expect extreme partisans to think the other side is abusing government power and forcing their culture on the other half of the culture while one's own side is saintly and innocent in that regard.  I don't buy that either faction will back off the conflict, will stop pushing the other.

How do you think gun rights people are going to use government to impose their culture?  They're going to pass laws requiring everyone to go to the shooting range every week, and go hunting once a year?  That doesn't sound very likely to me.

[Eric the Green]

(12-03-2016, 08:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 04:36 PM)taramarie Wrote: Eric...New Zealand and Oz are two different places.

Hint:  Oz is short for Australia.

Just as an irrelevant aside, when Judy Garland's version of The Wizard of Oz was a new hit, there were Australian troops in North Africa fighting Rommel and marching to the tune of 'We're Off to See the Wizard..."

It was playwrite's idea, and I liked it because OZ is so close alphabetically to NZ, and in any case it's some kind of quaint fairyland far removed from America and its peculiar reactionary culture. But "OZ" for Aussie works as well. I didn't know that about the troops singing that song; funny.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-03-2016, 08:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 07:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 07:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You think "don't approve of gun prohibition" an "agenda"?  Gun prohibition is a perfect example of an imposed solution of the kind Galen is talking about.

So it is, but it is no more or no less an agenda on one side than the other.  Strong feelings and attempts at strong actions are going both ways.  I sort of expect extreme partisans to think the other side is abusing government power and forcing their culture on the other half of the culture while one's own side is saintly and innocent in that regard.  I don't buy that either faction will back off the conflict, will stop pushing the other.

How do you think gun rights people are going to use government to impose their culture?  They're going to pass laws requiring everyone to go to the shooting range every week, and go hunting once a year?  That doesn't sound very likely to me.

I'm trying to push rights over one culture forcing the other.  I anticipate Fundamentalists trying to close every women's health clinic they can, and for gun prohibitionists to restrict whatever types of weapons they can.  Right now, neither group is getting very far, which I think is a good thing.  This doesn't mean there aren't folk out there from both cultures looking for a chance.

Please don't interpret my paragraph above as speaking to only one issue.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-03-2016, 08:27 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 04:36 PM)taramarie Wrote: Eric...New Zealand and Oz are two different places.

Hint:  Oz is short for Australia.

Just as an irrelevant aside, when Judy Garland's version of The Wizard of Oz was a new hit, there were Australian troops in North Africa fighting Rommel and marching to the tune of 'We're Off to See the Wizard..."

Bob, what are you on about? I am well aware that Oz is short for Australia I live close to the aussies.....which is why i said NZ and Oz are two different places.

Sorry.  I seem to have repeated a mistake I made earlier.  If  you see your name on the top of a post, you interpret it as addressed to you.  I should have made it clear that it was intended for Eric.

[Warren Dew]

(12-03-2016, 08:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 07:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 07:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You think "don't approve of gun prohibition" an "agenda"?  Gun prohibition is a perfect example of an imposed solution of the kind Galen is talking about.

So it is, but it is no more or no less an agenda on one side than the other.  Strong feelings and attempts at strong actions are going both ways.  I sort of expect extreme partisans to think the other side is abusing government power and forcing their culture on the other half of the culture while one's own side is saintly and innocent in that regard.  I don't buy that either faction will back off the conflict, will stop pushing the other.

How do you think gun rights people are going to use government to impose their culture?  They're going to pass laws requiring everyone to go to the shooting range every week, and go hunting once a year?  That doesn't sound very likely to me.

I'm trying to push rights over one culture forcing the other.  I anticipate Fundamentalists trying to close every women's health clinic they can, and for gun prohibitionists to restrict whatever types of weapons they can.  Right now, neither group is getting very far, which I think is a good thing.  This doesn't mean there aren't folk out there from both cultures looking for a chance.

Please don't interpret my paragraph above as speaking to only one issue.

How can I not, when your response was to a statement from me that was very clearly about only one issue?

The religious right and the atheist left would no doubt each love to use government to force their views on each other.  However, the gun issue doesn't work the same way, which is why I highlighted it. On the gun issue, there really is an agenda only on one side.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The religious right and the atheist left would no doubt each love to use government to force their views on each other.  However, the gun issue doesn't work the same way, which is why I highlighted it.

On many such issues you can see someone claiming a right to live free, and another trying to prevent an evil using government authority.  The right to chose and the right to keep and bear can be seen as rights where one is and ought to be free to choose.  Gun deaths and the deaths of the unborn can be seen as evils.  If you wish to restrict the conversation to one issue only, sure, go ahead, but I'm not so inclined.  

These are but two of many issues separating the rural and urban populations.  I would like to nudge things in the direction of freedom and rights, and away from quashing evils when there is sizable and intense disagreement on whether the evil is truly evil or not.

I would think a lot of Libertarians would lean the same way.

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-03-2016, 08:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The religious right and the atheist left would no doubt each love to use government to force their views on each other.  However, the gun issue doesn't work the same way, which is why I highlighted it.

On many such issues you can see someone claiming a right to live free, and another trying to prevent an evil using government authority.  The right to chose and the right to keep and bear can be seen as rights where one is and ought to be free to choose.  Gun deaths and the deaths of the unborn can be seen as evils.  If you wish to restrict the conversation to one issue only, sure, go ahead, but I'm not so inclined.  

These are but two of many issues separating the rural and urban populations.  I would like to nudge things in the direction of freedom and rights, and away from quashing evils when there is sizable and intense disagreement on whether the evil is truly evil or not.

I would think a lot of Libertarians would lean the same way.

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

I wouldn't underestimate the size of the r-libertarian coalition that is now taking shape. Think about it. Kinser and Classic, a gay black man and a straight white guy, a Marxist and an American capitalist, a cosmopolitan and a suburbanite, a believer and a non believer united and now perceived/seen as being on the same side. I don't have a problem with Democratic voters being allowed inside the Republican tent. I don't have a problem with people like Kinser being allowed in the Republican tent either. The Republican door swings both ways. The Republican door doesn't lock behind you and force you stay inside. I have more issues with the progressive minded blue base than I've had had with Kinser himself.

[playwrite]

(12-03-2016, 10:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The religious right and the atheist left would no doubt each love to use government to force their views on each other.  However, the gun issue doesn't work the same way, which is why I highlighted it.

On many such issues you can see someone claiming a right to live free, and another trying to prevent an evil using government authority.  The right to chose and the right to keep and bear can be seen as rights where one is and ought to be free to choose.  Gun deaths and the deaths of the unborn can be seen as evils.  If you wish to restrict the conversation to one issue only, sure, go ahead, but I'm not so inclined.  

These are but two of many issues separating the rural and urban populations.  I would like to nudge things in the direction of freedom and rights, and away from quashing evils when there is sizable and intense disagreement on whether the evil is truly evil or not.

I would think a lot of Libertarians would lean the same way.

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

I wouldn't underestimate the size of the r-libertarian coalition that is now taking shape. Think about it. Kinser and Classic, a gay black man and a straight white guy, a Marxist and an American capitalist, a cosmopolitan and a suburbanite, a believer and a non believer united and now perceived/seen as being on the same side. I don't have a problem with Democratic voters being allowed inside the Republican tent. I don't have a problem with people like Kinser being allowed in the Republican tent either. The Republican door swings both ways. The Republican door doesn't lock behind you and force you stay inside. I have more issues with the progressive minded blue base than I've had had with Kinser himself.

LIbertarians, my ass.  You don't know what the word means.

You just voted for a guy who believes that the government decides what business win and lose.  He just arranged millions in tax cuts for a corporation so they leave some jobs behind.  You do realize he would have to make 8,600 similiar arrangements to meet Obama's economy that has grow 8,600,000 jobs.  Maybe you should look up the original defintition of facism - it's a binding together of industry and government - making government about as big as it can get - the direct opposite goal of any real Libertarian.

You Trump Chumps are so easy to manipulate.  Too funny.

[Galen]

(12-03-2016, 03:06 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 05:54 AM)Galen Wrote: This is why libertarians on the whole tend not to want to impose a solution from above the way liberals and progressives do.  With the degree of centralization that exists in the US there is a tendency to use the Federal Government as a club to beat opponents over the head with.  You haven't really spent much time around the red necks in the US and the mainstream media is less than reliable.

What would be your solution to this particular subject?

The same one that has always worked.  Return the federal government to the strict confines of the Constitution which is really a free trade treaty and mutual defense pact.  Sadly, this would require the liberals and progressives to stop considering the government to be the solution to all problems which isn't going to happen.  Eventually the situation will resolve itself and it is likely that with the rest of the world becoming unwilling to finance the deficits that the US will move toward a smaller government out of necessity.

[Galen]

(12-03-2016, 10:34 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 10:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The religious right and the atheist left would no doubt each love to use government to force their views on each other.  However, the gun issue doesn't work the same way, which is why I highlighted it.

On many such issues you can see someone claiming a right to live free, and another trying to prevent an evil using government authority.  The right to chose and the right to keep and bear can be seen as rights where one is and ought to be free to choose.  Gun deaths and the deaths of the unborn can be seen as evils.  If you wish to restrict the conversation to one issue only, sure, go ahead, but I'm not so inclined.  

These are but two of many issues separating the rural and urban populations.  I would like to nudge things in the direction of freedom and rights, and away from quashing evils when there is sizable and intense disagreement on whether the evil is truly evil or not.

I would think a lot of Libertarians would lean the same way.

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

I wouldn't underestimate the size of the r-libertarian coalition that is now taking shape. Think about it. Kinser and Classic, a gay black man and a straight white guy, a Marxist and an American capitalist, a cosmopolitan and a suburbanite, a believer and a non believer united and now perceived/seen as being on the same side. I don't have a problem with Democratic voters being allowed inside the Republican tent. I don't have a problem with people like Kinser being allowed in the Republican tent either. The Republican door swings both ways. The Republican door doesn't lock behind you and force you stay inside. I have more issues with the progressive minded blue base than I've had had with Kinser himself.

LIbertarians, my ass.  You don't know what the word means.

You just voted for a guy who believes that the government decides what business win and lose.  He just arranged millions in tax cuts for a corporation so they leave some jobs behind.  You do realize he would have to make 8,600 similiar arrangements to meet Obama's economy that has grow 8,600,000 jobs.  Maybe you should look up the original defintition of facism - it's a binding together of industry and government - making government about as big as it can get - the direct opposite goal of any real Libertarian.

Most of the time libertarians, myself included, tend either to vote Libertarian and avoid voting for a major party candidate.  None of us are particularly happy with Trump in many respects but instead regarded Hillary as far more dangerous and corrupt.  For my own part I voted for Trump simply to avoid war with Russia.  Judging from his appointments it looks like he intends to keep that promise.  You are correct that I am not happy about giving any company special favors.  I don't have any particular problem with his tax reductions except that they don't go far enough.

My main concern is that like everyone else before he will not reduce spending along with the tax cuts which will simply move up the day of reckoning.

[Eric the Green]

(12-03-2016, 08:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The religious right and the atheist left would no doubt each love to use government to force their views on each other.  However, the gun issue doesn't work the same way, which is why I highlighted it.

On many such issues you can see someone claiming a right to live free, and another trying to prevent an evil using government authority.  The right to chose and the right to keep and bear can be seen as rights where one is and ought to be free to choose.  Gun deaths and the deaths of the unborn can be seen as evils.  If you wish to restrict the conversation to one issue only, sure, go ahead, but I'm not so inclined.  

These are but two of many issues separating the rural and urban populations.  I would like to nudge things in the direction of freedom and rights, and away from quashing evils when there is sizable and intense disagreement on whether the evil is truly evil or not.

I would think a lot of Libertarians would lean the same way.

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

I would not, since it applies not just to the Libertarian Party but to Reaganomics/trickle-down-- the whole free-market caboodle. Conspiracy: spend much, tax little, increase the debt, and thus reduce the size of government to fit in a bathtub. Precisely stated as such by the conspirators; widely proliferated conspiracy. And it's the biggest problem that we have today.

The only thing that would make it not a "conspiracy," perhaps, is that it's not a secret. But the real secret is, the slogans are deceptive, and too many people don't realize that fact. Resentment against poor (ethnic) "freeloaders" receiving government benefits "from my taxes" powers the phenomenon.

The conspiracy is so vast that the most dedicated conspirators practically own the internet, where they congregate out of proportion to their real numbers.

[Galen]

(12-04-2016, 04:12 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The religious right and the atheist left would no doubt each love to use government to force their views on each other.  However, the gun issue doesn't work the same way, which is why I highlighted it.

On many such issues you can see someone claiming a right to live free, and another trying to prevent an evil using government authority.  The right to chose and the right to keep and bear can be seen as rights where one is and ought to be free to choose.  Gun deaths and the deaths of the unborn can be seen as evils.  If you wish to restrict the conversation to one issue only, sure, go ahead, but I'm not so inclined.  

These are but two of many issues separating the rural and urban populations.  I would like to nudge things in the direction of freedom and rights, and away from quashing evils when there is sizable and intense disagreement on whether the evil is truly evil or not.

I would think a lot of Libertarians would lean the same way.

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

I would not, since it applies not just to the Libertarian Party but to Reaganomics/trickle-down-- the whole free-market caboodle. Conspiracy: spend much, tax little, increase the debt, and thus reduce the size of government to fit in a bathtub. Precisely stated as such by the conspirators; widely proliferated conspiracy. And it's the biggest problem that we have today.

As usual you miss the irony, libertarians tend to be pretty up front about their free-market view point. You just can't stand the idea of people making their own decisions and dealing with the consequences of them, for better or worse.  By the way libertarians have a big problem with government spending you are just too self absorbed, like most Boomers, to notice.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-03-2016, 10:34 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 10:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The religious right and the atheist left would no doubt each love to use government to force their views on each other.  However, the gun issue doesn't work the same way, which is why I highlighted it.

On many such issues you can see someone claiming a right to live free, and another trying to prevent an evil using government authority.  The right to chose and the right to keep and bear can be seen as rights where one is and ought to be free to choose.  Gun deaths and the deaths of the unborn can be seen as evils.  If you wish to restrict the conversation to one issue only, sure, go ahead, but I'm not so inclined.  

These are but two of many issues separating the rural and urban populations.  I would like to nudge things in the direction of freedom and rights, and away from quashing evils when there is sizable and intense disagreement on whether the evil is truly evil or not.

I would think a lot of Libertarians would lean the same way.

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

I wouldn't underestimate the size of the r-libertarian coalition that is now taking shape. Think about it. Kinser and Classic, a gay black man and a straight white guy, a Marxist and an American capitalist, a cosmopolitan and a suburbanite, a believer and a non believer united and now perceived/seen as being on the same side. I don't have a problem with Democratic voters being allowed inside the Republican tent. I don't have a problem with people like Kinser being allowed in the Republican tent either. The Republican door swings both ways. The Republican door doesn't lock behind you and force you stay inside. I have more issues with the progressive minded blue base than I've had had with Kinser himself.

LIbertarians, my ass.  You don't know what the word means.

You just voted for a guy who believes that the government decides what business win and lose.  He just arranged millions in tax cuts for a corporation so they leave some jobs behind.  You do realize he would have to make 8,600 similiar arrangements to meet Obama's economy that has grow 8,600,000 jobs.  Maybe you should look up the original defintition of facism - it's a binding together of industry and government - making government about as big as it can get - the direct opposite goal of any real Libertarian.

You Trump Chumps are so easy to manipulate.  Too funny.

I'm libertarian minded and I uphold and share common libertarian beliefs. I believe the market should decide what business win and lose/survive and fail. I don't believe government should be involved in favoritism and giving market advantages or bailouts. I'm not as idealistic or as ideologically pure as a Libertarian voter. I vote Republican because the Libertarian party has no chance nationally. America is basically a mish mash of common beliefs and a mish mash of different kinds of people. America has good and bad people and a gray area in between. America has sane people and crazy people and another gray area in between. This is my view of America.

I know the Clinton Chumps are looking/acting pretty silly/foolish today. That's a for sure. Trump Chump is speculative at this point and primarily based on the beliefs of the Clinton Chumps. Fascism requires a similar system to already be in place in order for it to effectively take over and establish its rule. I'm opposed to similar systems and idea's about having a similar system established and set into place here and beliefs associated with them. What's the Northeast going to do, roll the dice with California and place its money middle America ( the folks who turned their nose up politically bitch slapped your piece of crap candidate to show you and the blue crony's of the world that common sense still rules here). Bummer ain't it. At what point have I ever been easy to manipulate or blow over and drive off. However, I can obliviously tell that you're more used to littler blue dipshits and bigger blue panzy asses. I will agree that America has a lot of chumps and people who prey on chomps. However, I would disagree with you that I'm one of them. Right now, I have zero dollars into Trump the candidate and zero dollars and zero hours of time invested into Trumps campaign and exactly the same amounts with the Republican party. I doubt that that applies to you. You've lost how much on your horrible choice for a candidate? You've lost much support for your party. You've lost how faith of your supporters. You've lost how much trust among your TV viewers. Who trusts your political analysts now? They politically cracked you dude with zero support from me. We are winning the ground game. How much money is it going to take to defeat a natural ground that is winning the battles in the bars and bowling allies and softball fields and social gatherings and kitchen tables that are happening all across middle America?

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-04-2016, 04:12 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

I would not, since it applies not just to the Libertarian Party but to Reaganomics/trickle-down-- the whole free-market caboodle. Conspiracy: spend much, tax little, increase the debt, and thus reduce the size of government to fit in a bathtub. Precisely stated as such by the conspirators; widely proliferated conspiracy. And it's the biggest problem that we have today.

The only thing that would make it not a "conspiracy," perhaps, is that it's not a secret. But the real secret is, the slogans are deceptive, and too many people don't realize that fact. Resentment against poor (ethnic) "freeloaders" receiving government benefits "from my taxes" powers the phenomenon.

The conspiracy is so vast that the most dedicated conspirators practically own the internet, where they congregate out of proportion to their real numbers.

I prefer to distinguish between the Republicans and Libertarians.  Both share a preference for economic schemes that increase the division of wealth, but the Republicans push cultural issues like guns and reproductive health care more.  This makes enough difference to me to count.