White Republicans are revolting: They keep winning elections, and keep getting angrier

Ya know what? All of this blame game bullcrap that does nothing but create noise-making whelps that semi-resemble humans, all of the divisions, it's you, all nine pages of voters like you endlessly bickering back & forth in a purgatory-like ideological stalemate that results in sh&*ty politicians getting voted in to office and further ramming home that point that nothing will ever get done. Hell, listen to you. Compromise? OFF WITH THE TRAITORS' HEADS! Rural bumpkins expected to try to understand city folk's wishes and vice versa? HOW DARE THEY EXPECT SUCH NONSENSE.

Your "MEMEMEMEALLLLLMEEEEEEE" take on politics is sinking you, not your "competition". Wise up.

I think this country is probably going to have to crash, burn and turn into a horror of all horrors before anyone really gets the idea behind "For the people BY THE PEOPLE." That in & of itself entails compromise & working together, not sticking your fingers in your ears and crying about it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I think the problem with this ultimately is that half the states are below average and thus will see their condition worsen by separating. To name a few the south east would essentially devolve into a third world country. It has few resources outside of oil, the oldest population on average, and the worst education. Then you have the midwest which is landlocked and would be at the mercy of everyone. Then you have the west/south west (I'm assuming Cascadia would be the north western split) which is largely desert so dead land, has a population it doesn't have the water to support, and has no industry outside of commercial products. It also has the highest cost of living.

Texas, could somewhat survive on it's own but it would have to spend a lot of money on border defense, and it is already a major welfare state returning just 79 cents for every dollar spent on it. Economic and defense realities would mean it would cease to be the low tax conservative utopia that it is today.

New England and stretching west to Illinois or so would be fine. They have food, water, industry, and rivers for shipping when ports aren't available. West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and so on wouldn't fare so well but they're outright prosperous compared to the Louisiana/Mississippi area.

On top of this, defense would become much more expensive. We could no longer keep a fleet of 20 fighter jets on standby for the entire nation, each region would need to purchase their own hardware and cover their land, even if we worked on developing new equipment as a joint venture.

In short, I think the area with roots stretching back to colonial times would be fine, and I think the northwest would be fine but all the rest would be in serious trouble. That is why we'll never see a division along these lines. 26 states comprising over probably 70% of the population (rough guess) would see their situations worsen.

Oddly enough, none of these areas split cleanly into a very clear right wing religious nation based on current geography. The south east comes the closest, but the religious folks in Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, and Louisiana, are split pretty evenly between Democrats and Republicans. I suppose one could make an argument for the midwest, but thanks to being landlocked it won't be a nation of it's own and will instead split into all the surrounding territories. So in the end the population that is most promoting secession still wouldn't have a true land of their own.

You always were opposed to dissolving the Union as a possible solution, weren't you. Plenty of land-locked nations out there doing fine. The ones that aren't faring well can always apply to join in other groups of states. Perhaps even move out and relocate. Lots of possibilities....

originally posted by: Nyiah
Ya know what? All of this blame game bullcrap that does nothing but create noise-making whelps that semi-resemble humans, all of the divisions, it's you, all nine pages of voters like you endlessly bickering back & forth in a purgatory-like ideological stalemate that results in sh&*ty politicians getting voted in to office and further ramming home that point that nothing will ever get done. Hell, listen to you. Compromise? OFF WITH THE TRAITORS' HEADS! Rural bumpkins expected to try to understand city folk's wishes and vice versa? HOW DARE THEY EXPECT SUCH NONSENSE.

Your "MEMEMEMEALLLLLMEEEEEEE" take on politics is sinking you, not your "competition". Wise up.

I think this country is probably going to have to crash, burn and turn into a horror of all horrors before anyone really gets the idea behind "For the people BY THE PEOPLE." That in & of itself entails compromise & working together, not sticking your fingers in your ears and crying about it.

So? Run for office. Fix it....and quit YOUR crying.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

THAT is your solution? No dialogue whatsoever, just a cheap jab? If this mentality is commonplace among the degrees of conservatives, no wonder you have infighting. Can't be diplomatic with others, can't be diplomatic with yourselves. That's otherwise known as a death knell.

Why the racist opening aren't BLACK republicans angry too? I seem to know about a couple.
I AM, because we have an incompetent traitor running our country ,YEAH that does ruffle my feathers a tad.
A cold WAR going HOT because a chicago hustler desn't have the brains to listen to the experts but instead plays politics and gets our troops MURDERED because of unworkable rules, THAT is not a good thing.
I suppose I shouldn't worry,he's going to get what he wants if we hit Russian's in Syria nad THEN we will have a draft.
Running away to Canada won't work this tme AND they Progs want women in combat ,THAT way they can more effectively decimate the population.
I should be HAPPY of course because the survivors would ALL be like me or worse,I just HATE death.
So I guess there are a few things happening that could cause that.
I DON'T see how skin works in any of THAT.

a reply to: Kali74

Not this runaway SCOTUS. I honestly believe this Court has been compromised, and particularly, Roberts has been compromised. He will go whichever way those who hold information on him instruct him to... as has been proved by essentially every decision he's been involved in over the past few years.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
You always were opposed to dissolving the Union as a possible solution, weren't you. Plenty of land-locked nations out there doing fine. The ones that aren't faring well can always apply to join in other groups of states. Perhaps even move out and relocate. Lots of possibilities....

I am opposed to it, and I've given some actual reasons why in my post.

No, land locked nations out there are not doing fine. The most successful land locked countries get by through remaining neutral towards everyone and they're able to enforce their neutrality by having a small country (easy to shift troops around) with very defensive terrain. The land locked US states wouldn't have that option. Furthermore splitting the country wouldn't divide us into 50 states, it would probably divide us into 6 smaller nations. Cascadia, SW no mans land desert, Texas, SE third world country, New England, and then the poor bread basket right in the middle of the other 5. They would most likely be divided up by everyone else. Texas (which I am assuming Okalahoma would also join) would probably push north into Nebraska, while the Colonial lands would gobble up Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Cascadia would probably get North and South Dakota along with Montana and Wyoming Colorado would be up for grabs based on who New Mexico goes with.

Most land locked nations wind up extremely poor if they continue to exist at all. I think they wouldn't exist in this case, and would be divided up between coastal powers instead.

A better solution would be in trying to get along, I realize that's a radical concept but it works when all parties act in good faith. What we need more than anything is strong political leaders who can actually negotiate with each other rather than try to shut down government. Losing people like Boehner is a real blow because him and McConnell were some of the good guys in Congress. I don't know how Paul Ryan will do, but I do know his career is over. Either he tries to compromise and he gets thrown out, or he craters the government and gets thrown out when the election is lost.

Plus, I refuse to believe it's an unworkable situation. There's the fringe elements of society such as the extremely vocal American Taliban that's trying to take over the GOP, and then you have the groups on the left that have been decimated by welfare, but for the 90% of folks who are in the middle they really aren't that far apart on issues. This country has been governed more or less by center right politicians for atleast the last 35 years. Outside of the fringe elements, Republicans and Democrats are extremely close on issues. So close that I really can't see why it's impossible to actually run a government that we can all agree on.

The biggest danger in my mind isn't that we're fracturing, everyone hates each other, and everyone just wants to split into their own countries. Rather it's that the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are nearly identical on issues. Before our eyes we're seeing a melding into a one party system, and the group who most noticed it... the fringe right has taken it upon themselves to further make that happen by purging their own party and pushing everyone to the Democrats.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kali74

Not this runaway SCOTUS. I honestly believe this Court has been compromised, and particularly, Roberts has been compromised. He will go whichever way those who hold information on him instruct him to... as has been proved by essentially every decision he's been involved in over the past few years.

Be as stubborn as you like. If you guys can't win the Presidency the Court will get actually more liberal (y'know not just liberal because you disagree with him). Then with redistricting you guys are truly screwed because you will lose the House too.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Edumakated

There is a reason the states have largely swung Republican as noted above in terms of Governorships and local politics. Middle America is sick of what is going on. They can see the impact of progressive policies more clearly at the state level.

As indicated in the article, redistricting has quite a bit to do with Republican majorities in certain areas. It would be ignorant to make vast generalizations about what Middle America wants because the nation is still equally divided on politics and policies.

Redistricting has nothing to do with Senate or Governor elections, just FYI.

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kali74

Not this runaway SCOTUS. I honestly believe this Court has been compromised, and particularly, Roberts has been compromised. He will go whichever way those who hold information on him instruct him to... as has been proved by essentially every decision he's been involved in over the past few years.

Be as stubborn as you like. If you guys can't win the Presidency the Court will get actually more liberal (y'know not just liberal because you disagree with him). Then with redistricting you guys are truly screwed because you will lose the House too.

At least you can acknowledge the court is liberal and not objective. There will be a pendulum swing eventually, and at this rate it's going to be scary and border on the true theocracy that liberals dread.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t The left is just afraid that true republican ideas might start to emerge from the party again where as all of the compromise over the last few presidencies have left us with a lot of watered down bad for business ( the American people) legislature that sort of aligned with what the left has wanted and neither party has given their constituents much besides a failing economy.

No, what scares the Left the most is that the party of fiscal responsibility has become the party of theocracy, war, and xenophobia. They say they don't want government in our lives and then want to legislate a bible into our bedrooms and control who marries and what religion gets preference.

I miss the 80's when the fundamental debate between Republicans and Democrats was economic. That's the Republican party I could take more seriously.

a reply to: AudioOne

Well, the way I see it ...

As reasons to stick with the Republican party stopped working, an appeal to religious ideology began to be thrown around. More God, more religion. If you can't keep people in the party by promising lower taxes, less interference, and less spending -- appeal to their emotions through religion might work. 70% or so Americans claim to be "Christian" -- so tying your politics to the Christian religion isn't a bad way to get people to vote for your party.

It's not like Republicans have always had some kind of Christian monopoly, there are plenty of Christian Democrats -- it seems, however, Republicans pull the "God card" a lot more often with their constituents. I know a few liberal people that are Christian (so I know they do exist!). I don't think its fair to say that the Republican party is the "Christian party" in this nation -- it just *feels* like it because the candidates have been toting their religious beliefs as qualifiers more and more lately.

a reply to: Nyiah

Your post was "diplomatic"?

It seemed rhetorical to me, more like a rant. The 'age old' lets get along play. Usually pulled out when the left believes things aren't going their way.

Where was the 'dialogue' and compromise when the ACA was passed. The laws on immigration ignored by Obama and Co.?

Just rammed through. Where was the 'compromise' on the XL Pipeline? The list is long....

At least your getting honesty. Get along? Forget it!

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
You always were opposed to dissolving the Union as a possible solution, weren't you. Plenty of land-locked nations out there doing fine. The ones that aren't faring well can always apply to join in other groups of states. Perhaps even move out and relocate. Lots of possibilities....

I am opposed to it, and I've given some actual reasons why in my post.

No, land locked nations out there are not doing fine. The most successful land locked countries get by through remaining neutral towards everyone and they're able to enforce their neutrality by having a small country (easy to shift troops around) with very defensive terrain. The land locked US states wouldn't have that option. Furthermore splitting the country wouldn't divide us into 50 states, it would probably divide us into 6 smaller nations. Cascadia, SW no mans land desert, Texas, SE third world country, New England, and then the poor bread basket right in the middle of the other 5. They would most likely be divided up by everyone else. Texas (which I am assuming Okalahoma would also join) would probably push north into Nebraska, while the Colonial lands would gobble up Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Cascadia would probably get North and South Dakota along with Montana and Wyoming Colorado would be up for grabs based on who New Mexico goes with.

Most land locked nations wind up extremely poor if they continue to exist at all. I think they wouldn't exist in this case, and would be divided up between coastal powers instead.

A better solution would be in trying to get along, I realize that's a radical concept but it works when all parties act in good faith. What we need more than anything is strong political leaders who can actually negotiate with each other rather than try to shut down government. Losing people like Boehner is a real blow because him and McConnell were some of the good guys in Congress. I don't know how Paul Ryan will do, but I do know his career is over. Either he tries to compromise and he gets thrown out, or he craters the government and gets thrown out when the election is lost.

Plus, I refuse to believe it's an unworkable situation. There's the fringe elements of society such as the extremely vocal American Taliban that's trying to take over the GOP, and then you have the groups on the left that have been decimated by welfare, but for the 90% of folks who are in the middle they really aren't that far apart on issues. This country has been governed more or less by center right politicians for atleast the last 35 years. Outside of the fringe elements, Republicans and Democrats are extremely close on issues. So close that I really can't see why it's impossible to actually run a government that we can all agree on.

The biggest danger in my mind isn't that we're fracturing, everyone hates each other, and everyone just wants to split into their own countries. Rather it's that the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are nearly identical on issues. Before our eyes we're seeing a melding into a one party system, and the group who most noticed it... the fringe right has taken it upon themselves to further make that happen by purging their own party and pushing everyone to the Democrats.

I say Bull. "Pushing everyone to the Democrats" is the biggest load of bull you've posted yet. Those that are within the Republican party that feel pushed to the democrats were in fact proof of the RINO label. They were anyways and the right is better off without them.

As far as the public goes, poll after poll after poll disagrees with the majority of Obama/Democrat policies-not to mention elections and the 1400 or so seats now in "Republican" control.....

As far as land locked nations goes, Please, a little reality here, if these middle states aren't viable they can join any of these six so-called regions, as you say. They would, at least, have choice! Something that rural citizens apparently feel they are losing now, if not haven't lost already.

Tell me being the food source for those coastal powers doesn't allow for agreements and accords to occur, I.E. grain and meat for port access. Water is another one.

Sorry, you paint the worst case scenario, and you know it.

Frankly, it IS a compromise. You do your thing, we do ours. Now there's getting along, in my books...

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I dont know if I can continue to read your post after the first paragraph because you did not acknowledge that republicans did not vote for the bill. How is that indicative of compromise?

Oh. Come. On. If you're going to revise history, at least try it when the history is not so recent and so clear ...
Timeline of the health care law - CNN

April 21, 2009 -- Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley hold the first of three roundtables of health policy and industry experts to discuss the development of health care legislation.

July 15, 2009 -- The Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passes The Affordable Health Choices Act. The bipartisan bill includes more than 160 Republican amendments accepted during the month-long mark-up, one of the longest in congressional history.

Emphasis mine. Are you saying Chuck Grassley is not a Republican? Are you saying Republicans aren't Republicans???

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


You're describing what I believe is intended by the Constitution. There are 3 Constitutional responsibilities of the US government:
1. Provide general defense
2. Protect and regulate trade between the states
3. Protect the enumerated rights of the citizens
Everything else they have taken upon themselves is beyond their rightful claim and should be relegated directly to the states.

Nope:

For starters ...

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

As far as how the Republican party still holds onto any power at all at the national level (and State level for that matter) ...

How Republicans Rig the Game - Rolling Stone, November 11, 2013

Despite the fact that Republican Congressional candidates received nearly 1.4 million fewer votes than Democratic candidates last November, the Republicans lost only eight seats from their historic 2010 romp, allowing them to preserve a fat 33-seat edge in the House. Unscrupulous Republican gerrymandering following the 2010 census made the difference, according to a statistical analysis conducted by the Princeton Election Consortium. Under historically typical redistricting, House Republicans would now likely be clinging to a reedy five-seat majority.

And before you start whining about what a liberal rag Rolling Stone is ...

The Republican State Leadership Committee - REDMAP

How a Strategy of Targeting State Legislative Races in 2010

Led to a Republican U.S. House Majority in 2013

On November 6, 2012, Barack Obama was reelected President of the United States by nearly a three-point margin, winning 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney’s 206 while garnering nearly 3.5 million more votes. Democrats also celebrated victories in 69 percent of U.S. Senate elections, winning 23 of 33 contests. Farther down-ballot, aggregated numbers show voters pulled the lever for Republicans only 49 percent of the time in congressional races, suggesting that 2012 could have been a repeat of 2008, when voters gave control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Democrats.

But, as we see today, that was not the case. Instead, Republicans enjoy a 33-seat margin in the U.S. House seated yesterday in the 113th Congress, having endured Democratic successes atop the ticket and over one million more votes cast for Democratic House candidates than Republicans. The only analogous election in recent political history in which this aberration has taken place was immediately after reapportionment in 1972, when Democrats held a 50 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives while losing the presidency and the popular congressional vote by 2.6 million votes.

To be sure, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) built on its strong recruitment and successful strategy that gave them a Republican majority in 2010 by going on offense over Democratic cuts to Medicare and by linking their Democratic opponents to President Obama’s most unpopular policy proposals.

However, all components of a successful congressional race, including recruitment, message development and resource allocation, rest on the congressional district lines, and this was an area where Republicans had an unquestioned advantage.

and

2010 State Elections: REDMAP’s Execution

As the 2010 Census approached, the RSLC began planning for the subsequent election cycle, formulating a strategy to keep or win Republican control of state legislatures with the largest impact on congressional redistricting as a result of reapportionment. That effort, the REDistricting MAjority Project (REDMAP), focused critical resources on legislative chambers in states projected to gain or lose congressional seats in 2011 based on Census data.

The rationale was straightforward: Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.

Keep sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "We're #1, we're #1" ...

Ask Mitt Romney how successful that is as a political strategy.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

That's not what I said, see the parentheses. The pendulum is just starting to reach center, if it ever swings back it will be a long, long time.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

it seems, however, Republicans pull the "God card" a lot more often with their constituents.

Not really the God card though, more like the justify your hate with God card. As society and government become more accepting, the bigots feel left out and the easiest, most effective way to force your way back is to jump into religious beliefs and the religious freedom to hold onto the these "traditional" values. Then they get to scream how they're not bigoted but religious and now they're being persecuted.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

You essentially have described a republic LOL. I am not picking on you but I found it funny. Recently there was an article about a town with the first all Muslim city council. Some people on the right and Islamophobes were up in arms but this is really how the country is supposed to work and I have no issues with it.

If someone from the right proposed this people would be crying about segregation, rise of the old south, racist, homophobes, dominionist ,etc.