*spoiler alert*

3,016 Views | 117 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by Garou
BancroftBear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We're all Cal grads here (for the most part), so we can handle the truth and here it is:

Much like the former USSR, the USA is headed for a breakup. Look at it this way - we have an entrenched two party system, where one party is like Mommy and one party is like Daddy. But this is not a happy marriage, in fact they despise each other (at least the plebes do, which unfortunately is the salient point). Intractable differences abound, even a different vocabulary. They're constantly arguing and the kids hate it, so dysfunction rules. Everybody is miserable. At some point, one has to realize that divorce is inevitable (and it's also the right thing to do, in the grand scheme of things). How many 50.1% to 49.9% elections are necessary before anyone who has half a brain (with apologies to Eastern Oregon Bear) sees the obvious?

Assuming that you are younger than Bearister (who has one foot in the grave but still is hanging on, my respect to you sir), I think that you will see this come to pass within your lifetime. It won't be as traumatic as you think, because choice is always better than coercion and things tend to end with a whimper rather than a bang. On a personal note, I hope it's not as simple as splitting the country in half, because that's too easy and I'm a big fan of nuance.

Like all predictions, timing is everything. I say it will happen by 2034. But there are so many related bets to place, for example: I say we'll Balkanize better than the ******* Balkans. Over/under is six separate states. Another great bet is who goes first. I place the great state of California as the odds on favorite at -220, followed by Texas at +110, South Carolina at +250 (tradition matters) and Idaho at +500 (you always need a dark horse). Yes, I ignore New York, as any rational person should. Place your bets!

P.S. I'm sorry Bolsheviks, but taking the entire country in one fell swoop (and keeping it together) is an even greater longshot. It's best to hedge - pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered and the second law of thermodynamics is not your friend.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1. If you had to separate the country it wouldn't be based on states, it would be somehow separating the liberal urban areas from the conservative rural areas, and that is not so easily done since they're all right next to each other.

2. A new consensus will form as Millennial and younger voters command a larger share of the electorate and Silent and Boomer voters continue to die off. This new consensus will probably not be something Republicans like.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:



2. A new consensus will form as Millennial and younger voters command a larger share of the electorate and Silent and Boomer voters continue to die off. This new consensus will probably not be something Republicans like.

Do you believe that the current Republicans were always Republicans when they were young? Or is it possible that, as younger generation marry, have career, and accumulate assets (including inheriting from their hated older generation family members), that they may become more conservative?

Also, do you not get the sense that Generation Z are more independent than Republican or Democrats? They seem to be more issue driven than party driven, but I may be mistaken.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:



2. A new consensus will form as Millennial and younger voters command a larger share of the electorate and Silent and Boomer voters continue to die off. This new consensus will probably not be something Republicans like.

Do you believe that the current Republicans were always Republicans when they were young? Or is it possible that, as younger generation marry, have career, and accumulate assets (including inheriting from their hated older generation family members), that they may become more conservative?

Also, do you not get the sense that Generation Z are more independent than Republican or Democrats? They seem to be more issue driven than party driven, but I may be mistaken.
I think that the younger generations currently have more liberal/progressive views (especially on economics) as judged by the current standards of what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative." I also think those standards can change over time.

I think that people do become slightly more conservative as they age, but the splits among Millennials are pretty massive: they vote for Democrats by like a +20 margin, consistently since the Obama years. The Greatest Generation that came of age with FDR also voted that way and mostly continued to support Democrats and moderate Republicans as they aged (albeit not by the same wide margins).

As for current Republicans, many of them are younger Boomers and older Gen-Xers who, yes, always showed a willingness to support conservative policies. They came up with Reagan as their political idol. Reagan nearly got a 50/50 split in the youth vote in his day.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

...Do you believe that the current Republicans were always Republicans when they were young? Or is it possible that, as younger generation marry, have career, and accumulate assets (including inheriting from their hated older generation family members), that they may become more conservative?




This brings to mind something Pat Buchanan wrote on 2003 in an article tracing the origins of the pretextual invasion of Iraq:

"Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism's long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980."

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I still find that people vote with their wallets. Is that burly truck driver really voting Democrat because he has a soft spot for LGBT rights? No, he wants to make sure the Teamsters remain powerful enough to succeed in the next contract talks.

Some may claim to vote one way or another on ideological grounds, but when push comes to shove, most won't pay more to advance that ideology. College-aged kids are especially prone to falling for the liberal side of the argument. Yet something happens when you start working, paying bills, raising kids, and paying taxes. You look at things from a wider angle. Most people, when they start to work, really notice how much tax they pay, and the more intelligent ones start to ask where it's all going. Rational thought slowly overtakes ideological, feel-good thought.

Many, as on this board, will retain that spirited rebelliousness they developed in their youth, but, at the same time, most on this board have enjoyed the very things that the left rails against. Corporations are bad, right? Yet most here earned or continue to earn a very good living from corporations, and others are even occupying the most stuffed-shirt of companyman positions--the dreaded corporate lawyer. Income inequality is bad, right? Well, I'd guess that on average, this board is in the 90th percentile of income earners in the US. Tax breaks for the wealthy are bad, right? Well, how many here have received very substantial tax breaks on home interest and 401k contributions? And what about those investment gains that are derived from corporate earnings and the capital gains tax treatment received on the sale of those investments? Over the years this is big money received on what are commonly thought of as Republican-favored policies. But how many here would claim that their tax breaks were received on the backs of the ones on the more unfortunate side of the income inequality divide? And if you did, are you pledging to donate that savings to a cause bent on leveling the scales? You can stop chuckling in 3...2...1.
A conservative fines the man who won't pick up after his dog. A liberal sends him a lifetime supply of doggie bags instead.
--From my HOA board meeting days
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wouldn't be surprised if there is some mild and small scale violence after this election, but I actually think the political parties realign rather than the country breaks apart. The demographics are on the side of the democrats and they will be dominant over the back half of the decade, but then they will divide, as will the Republicans as they decide how they should regroup post trump and McConnell.
Although I hope for 5 or 6 parties that need to compromise to form a governing consensus i would guess it will be two, one promoting protectionism and isolation on economic, military and international politics, and one promoting engagement with the outside world, and free trade.

I think current hot button issues of the environment and christian supremacy fade away as the younger generations take over as they believe in climate change regardless of party and they will have grown up in a multicultural society and dont seem to care about religion as much.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
I have no issue with what you're saying, but I would modify it a little bit. I do agree that the "truck driver" wasn't voting Republican strictly because of direct economic benefit from Republican policies, but I think in 2016 many blue collar workers--especially in the swing states--bought into the argument that illegal immigration was a threat to their livelihoods over the long term. Hillary also didn't help herself out with the infamous "deplorables" line. But I do think that the immigration angle will have much less punch in November. After all, when was the last CNN segment on the border controversy?

In the case of college-educated white collar professionals, I do agree that, on balance, they tilt left. But I think that's a tilt on a loose foundation. I think most people do agree with the left's louder voice in helping the less advantaged, but when those same voters see the tab, and more importantly the lack of progress in those areas despite the massive expense, then they're apt to swing back to their more pragmatic side and vote for teaching someone to fish (Republican) instead of giving them a fish (Democrat).
A conservative fines the man who won't pick up after his dog. A liberal sends him a lifetime supply of doggie bags instead.
--From my HOA board meeting days
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

...Corporations are bad, right? Yet most here earned or continue to earn a very good living from corporations...
Your comments always betray so many well-held beliefs that you posit as fact or indisputable thesis, that are really just logical fallacies or false choices.

Let's step out of binary world and describe the actual held beliefs of people you disagree with instead of your strawman ad nauseam. Simply put bad corporations are bad corporations and good corporations are good. Just like bad governments (like this one) are bad and good governments are good.

See what people dislike about a corporation is not their profitability, it's when their profitability is the result of law breaking, lobbying, and rewards to corrupt executives. When a corporation succeeds because it provides a great service or product and is run by ethical people and it serves the greater common good, corporations are great. But through lack of oversight and ridiculous lack of accountability of decision makers, the Corporatocracy of our monopolies is doing harm to our society. That is what we have a problem with. See the difference?

My goal is a society with a healthy middle class, without staggering income inequality, and where the actual employees of the business who provide the goods and service make the profit and not the bean counters and "royals" of the executive class and traders of paper who are disproportionally rewarded in a closed bubble architecture where they deem all "value" created by the corporation as by them and for them with no humility to the luck, market forces, corporate veil, financial & legal system of American capitalism, tax codes, starting on first base, consumers, government, citizens, and employees who also created the value. No it's all just their great thinking and born greatness...and their greed which is so good.

Yes, you are correct, I am in the 90% and have benefitted from everything you listed, but I do have humility about the success I have had and I do vote against my own interest in the name of equality and fairness. But I want a competent government that works towards an efficiently rendered greater good, just as I want corporations to efficiently render a greater good (not just a profit, but profit for whom, and how is it obtained, and what does it achieve for society?).
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

LMK5 said:

...Corporations are bad, right? Yet most here earned or continue to earn a very good living from corporations...
Your comments always betray so many well-held beliefs that you posit as fact or indisputable thesis, that are really just logical fallacies or false choices.

Let's step out of binary world and describe the actual held beliefs of people you disagree with instead of your strawman ad nauseam. Simply put bad corporations are bad corporations and good corporations are good. Just like bad governments (like this one) are bad and good governments are good.

See what people dislike about a corporation is not their profitability, it's when their profitability is the result of law breaking, lobbying, and rewards to corrupt executives. When a corporation succeeds because it provides a great service or product and is run by ethical people and it serves the greater common good, corporations are great. But through lack of oversight and ridiculous lack of accountability of decision makers, the Corporatocracy of our monopolies is doing harm to our society. That is what we have a problem with. See the difference?

My goal is a society with a healthy middle class, without staggering income inequality, and where the actual employees of the business who provide the goods and service make the profit and not the bean counters and "royals" of the executive class and traders of paper who are disproportionally rewarded in a closed bubble architecture where they deem all "value" created by the corporation as by them and for them with no humility to the luck, market forces, corporate veil, financial & legal system of American capitalism, tax codes, starting on first base, consumers, government, citizens, and employees who also created the value. No it's all just their great thinking and born greatness...and their greed which is so good.

Yes, you are correct, I am in the 90% and have benefitted from everything you listed, but I do have humility about the success I have had and I do vote against my own interest in the name of equality and fairness. But I want a competent government that works towards an efficiently rendered greater good, just as I want corporations to efficiently render a greater good (not just a profit, but profit for whom, and how is it obtained, and what does it achieve for society?).
Let me ask you two questions.

Please let me know which corporations are currently law breaking and rewarding "corrupt" executives. If they are, you should alert the SEC and DOJ since they probably didn't disclose their illegal activity in their periodic report and you will get a large bounty from the SEC upon successful disgorgement. If the liberal messaging is persecution of those companies, I would be fully supportive. However, I would guess that the messaging is more along the lines of corporations / executives bad (but the same liberal working and getting rich off one is good because you know they said the right things). Where do you think the greatest threat of monopolies current lie? In telecommunication? Or technology where what they control and what they squeeze out becomes larger by the day? How many times have you railed against the driver of California's economy?

Now, which corporations do you think are good and do you invest exclusively in those companies?

Because let's be honest. The destruction of the middle class is coming, and it is not Republican policies. It will be automation and AI with minimal unskilled labor needed (other than for exploitation by the liberal GIG economy companies like UBER). How many liberals do you think work for those organizations? If so, why are they enabling those organization to further destroy middle class?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
To put that idea forward is to deny the difference in urban and rural realities. These is no income inequality in rural America because there is so little wealth. Income is created in cities and cities require tiers of income to provide complex layers of economic services. People with income go to college and the more eduction the more people skew left, and the more people participate in urban living (or organized labor) the more they skew left.

To suggest that income inequality is created by Democrats instead of created by Republican policy and in response to urbanization is either disingenuous or an unintended reversing of cause and effect.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

calbear93 said:

So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
To put that idea forward is to deny the difference in urban and rural realities. These is no income inequality in rural America because there is so little wealth. Income is created in cities and cities require tiers of income to provide complex layers of economic services. People with income go to college and the more eduction the more people skew left, and the more people participate in urban living (or organized labor) the more they skew left.

To suggest that income inequality is created by Democrats instead of created by Republican policy and in response to urbanization is either disingenuous or an unintended reversing of cause and effect.
That was not my question.

Income gap is the greatest in large cities that are primarily driven by tech or by finance. Those cities, including the liberal policies, have not done anything to reduce the wealth gap in the jurisdictions they control. Why are Republicans vilified for wealth gap when the wealth gap is coming from blue cities controlled by blue policies?
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

1. If you had to separate the country it wouldn't be based on states, it would be somehow separating the liberal urban areas from the conservative rural areas, and that is not so easily done since they're all right next to each other.

2. A new consensus will form as Millennial and younger voters command a larger share of the electorate and Silent and Boomer voters continue to die off. This new consensus will probably not be something Republicans like.
Heard the same thing in the late '60s, and all those younger voice are now our running around in golf carts screaming white power. People get conservative, especially those that obtain more to conserve.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Biden will win big and the Dems will lose the House and Senate ( if they own it) in two years. The country is in free fall with a public health disaster, skyrocketing unemployment and inequality , shortened life expectancy, growing addictions and suicides, erupting racial tensions, and historic lack of confidence in the country's institutions. Biden is incapable of dealing with this other than homilies and centrifugal forces will spin the country further into chaos.

Both parties will re-align. The Democrats are now a shaky coalition of educated, upper middle class urban professionals and less educated ethnic minorities; the latter- particularly the young ones aren't going to settle for an emphasis on cultural blackwash- diversity training and naming opportunities- while schools, housing, policing and economic opportunities remain in apartheid.

BLM and other groups will attempt to create a new urban coalition- achieving enough numbers to control or at least block legislation and create what Sanders couldn't- a diverse coalition based on economic and social justice. Somebody has to emerge to knit this together but the days of Obamas are over. Whoever he or she is, is not on the scene currently.

The Republicans have their own uneasy alliance with white working class and wealthy suburbanites. The former are also going to be uneasy with settling for cultural tropes- hordes of immigrant rapists and tearing down of our precious heritage of slave owners- instead of an increased economic safety net. Someone ( Josh Hawley?) will run on a new economic populism that will be anti- globalist (read Chinese) with expanded workers rights. This will have some appeal but the other requisite social conventions- anti abortion, religious rights- will prevent a mass appeal to leftist populists, but is likely to pick up some of the centrist BI types and disaffected Democrats

Mostly waiting for shoes to drop. The stoking of cultural tensions by both parties- racial fears, foreigners- as a response to continued failures may have a boomerang effect in worsening economic times-sectarian violence and the fraying of what little social cohesion remains.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
Roxie Richter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:



2. A new consensus will form as Millennial and younger voters command a larger share of the electorate and Silent and Boomer voters continue to die off. This new consensus will probably not be something Republicans like.

Do you believe that the current Republicans were always Republicans when they were young? Or is it possible that, as younger generation marry, have career, and accumulate assets (including inheriting from their hated older generation family members), that they may become more conservative?

Also, do you not get the sense that Generation Z are more independent than Republican or Democrats? They seem to be more issue driven than party driven, but I may be mistaken.
Young people are growing up realizing that the Democrats don't give a **** about them, which is reflected by the amount of voting they do for them.
Roxie Richter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets. Is that burly truck driver really voting Democrat because he has a soft spot for LGBT rights? No, he wants to make sure the Teamsters remain powerful enough to succeed in the next contract talks.

Some may claim to vote one way or another on ideological grounds, but when push comes to shove, most won't pay more to advance that ideology. College-aged kids are especially prone to falling for the liberal side of the argument. Yet something happens when you start working, paying bills, raising kids, and paying taxes. You look at things from a wider angle. Most people, when they start to work, really notice how much tax they pay, and the more intelligent ones start to ask where it's all going. Rational thought slowly overtakes ideological, feel-good thought.
You want to know where your taxes are going?

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary-spending-pie-chart.png

57% of every dollar to the miltary and defense contractors.

All that stuff that conservatives think their money is wasted on? Drop in a bucket compared to how much money is wasted defending ourselves from enemies that aren't going to attack us and making war against countries who have done nothing to deserve it.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The federal government won't allow states to take ownership of the industrial military complex including bases and nuclear weapons.
Roxie Richter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

I wouldn't be surprised if there is some mild and small scale violence after this election, but I actually think the political parties realign rather than the country breaks apart. The demographics are on the side of the democrats and they will be dominant over the back half of the decade
You're dreaming. Democrats have never been less popular than they are right now. Not even during the 12 years of Reagan/Bush. People are excited about the Squad, Charles Booker, and Jamaal Bowman, but Joe Biden? Hillary Clinton? Nancy Pelosi? Chuck Schumer?

Get out of your bubble because you obviously don't know what's going on.
Roxie Richter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:


And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes
If you think it wasn't, I have nothing but derision for you.
Quote:

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
And that is my issue with the moderate liberals on this board. They talk a good game and then when the SAT stops being a measure of their child's privilege, they go ape****. They talk a good game, but then vote for establishment politicians like Joe Biden. They talk a good game, but then vote for Mike Bloomberg, who isn't even a Democrat. They talk a good game, but then they vote for Elizabeth Warren after she torpedoes her own progressive credibility.

They should just admit that they are Democrats culturally and Republicans economically and stop pretending otherwise.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Roxie Richter said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets. Is that burly truck driver really voting Democrat because he has a soft spot for LGBT rights? No, he wants to make sure the Teamsters remain powerful enough to succeed in the next contract talks.

Some may claim to vote one way or another on ideological grounds, but when push comes to shove, most won't pay more to advance that ideology. College-aged kids are especially prone to falling for the liberal side of the argument. Yet something happens when you start working, paying bills, raising kids, and paying taxes. You look at things from a wider angle. Most people, when they start to work, really notice how much tax they pay, and the more intelligent ones start to ask where it's all going. Rational thought slowly overtakes ideological, feel-good thought.
You want to know where your taxes are going?



57% of every dollar to the miltary and defense contractors.

All that stuff that conservatives think their money is wasted on? Drop in a bucket compared to how much money is wasted defending ourselves from enemies that aren't going to attack us and making war against countries who have done nothing to deserve it.
OK, well if you say so. I guess I just needed one of your sock puppets to confirm that point for the rest of the world to stop worrying about what Russia, China, Iran and North Korea would do with a toothless American military.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am exasperated by those who exacerbate our divisions.

That said, tRump is a pig.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

sycasey said:

1. If you had to separate the country it wouldn't be based on states, it would be somehow separating the liberal urban areas from the conservative rural areas, and that is not so easily done since they're all right next to each other.

2. A new consensus will form as Millennial and younger voters command a larger share of the electorate and Silent and Boomer voters continue to die off. This new consensus will probably not be something Republicans like.
Heard the same thing in the late '60s, and all those younger voice are now our running around in golf carts screaming white power. People get conservative, especially those that obtain more to conserve.
The R/D voter splits and/or polling by generation were not nearly as stark in the 60s as they are now. And also the parties were not so neatly sorted by liberal/conservative ideology. So this is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison. Again, I think the closer comparison is the Greatest Generation of FDR.

But hey, no one has a crystal ball so anything is possible.
Not Me - Us
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:


Income gap is the greatest in large cities that are primarily driven by tech or by finance. Those cities, including the liberal policies, have not done anything to reduce the wealth gap in the jurisdictions they control. Why are Republicans vilified for wealth gap when the wealth gap is coming from blue cities controlled by blue policies?
Because moderate Democrats are the biggest hypocrites in our society. They're not the worst people (Trump voters in 2020 have that one locked down), but at least they wear their hatred of the people they hate openly. Moderate Democrats pretend to care about segments of society that they don't support with their laws, their taxes, or their sweat. That's all put in the "Somebody Else's Problem" field (to quote blungold's favorite author).4
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.