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

originally posted by: jimmyx
considering that the supreme court is controlled by a conservative majority, 31 state governors are controlled by republicans, 31 state legislative bodies are controlled entirely by republicans, the congress, both senate and the house are controlled by republicans, I would say that the problems in this country are caused by republicans...but....the right wing blames ALL THE PROBLEMS on the one democrat in high office, Obama.....
where is the daily bombardment of cynicism and anger, toward all these republican controlled institutions?????.......I hear crickets chirping...

another analysis of that information would say that, on a state level (where the GOP tends to be in greater control) things appear to be working smoother. Its on the federal level, where things like Obamacare and the department of education reside, that are causing friction.

But in the end, they are all screwing us. So i guess it doesn't matter.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: MystikMushroom

A party should represent its constituents. To say they are radicalized because you don't agree with their views does not make it so. You mention disrupting caucuses but the same thing happens on the left. Remember Bernie Sanders and Black Lives Matter? Remember Occupy Wall street? Honestly if the left is this upset about what the right is doing in regards to reorganizing their party and attempting to place candidates that represent their values and goals into the party then they must be doing something right. I say keep it up.

What were your thoughts on the shake ups in the DNC back around '68?

I'm not saying they're radicalized because I don't believe with their views, I say that a small faction is radicalized because they've taken traditional conservative values and doubled down on them in an extreme way.

We're not discussing BLM or Bernie Sanders, we're not discussing the Democratic party. We're discussing a minority group among the Republican party.

I don't think or see the left as being "upset" -- rather they are simply making note that in comparison to their own party, the GOP has shifted further to extremism.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and a loud minority often times can get what it wants by-out shouting the competition. The general will of the party may not be so radical, but in order to silence the unending cacophony of the zealots, the majority makes concessions and bends to their will. It happens in any group, political or social.

America is shifting to the left, or socially liberal:

With each new poll, it’s becoming clear that the United States is shifting to the left. A majority of Americans now supports same-sex marriage. And legalization of marijuana. And normalization of relations with Cuba.

Gallup reports that, in 2013, the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as liberals reached its highest level since 1992.

Reuters

Any like any group who feels their authority and power diminishing, the wagon train begins to circle and the opposition begins to go on the offensive. When people are backed into a corner, the natural response is to become more aggressive. As the GOP and Republicans slowly start to see a new paradigm emerging in the USA, its predictable that a "return to fundamental values" will be seen.

Acting frantic and fanatical isn't a good way to retain the power and hold over the US's political system -- it only alienates moderates and pushes them past the middle and into the left. The Republican party is acting instinctively, and at the same time causing the shift in power to happen more dramatically.

Oh, and I wasn't alive in 1968 -- would have been cool to see the "Summer of Love" and go to Woodstock in 1969 though.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Last point first you should understand the changes to the democrat party that resulted from the 68 DNC and you might understand some of what is happening in the GOP today.

As far as America becoming more left? Dems are losing at the local level all over the place, governorship's and most likely POTUS yet they keep saying the GOP is dying. Is this wishful thinking? The only things coming from the left are things like ACA and some marijuana decriminalization although many on the right support the business of decriminalized pot so I fail to see how it is entirely a leftist issue, and homosexual marriage.

A lot of people don't even know what republicans stand for. All they see is the christian caricature the media throws up. Libertarians although right and left are the ones you are calling radicals within the GOP and they are the one group on the right who support the things you mentioned like homosexual marriage haha.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

CITIES are becoming more liberal. There is an ever growing divide in America between urban and rural political spectra. Rural America is, to be blunt, sick and tired of the horsecrap flowing from the cities. The "white flight" into the suburbs in the 80s and 90s reduced this rift in the short term, but we're now seeing it even more venomous than it was when that migration happened.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: MystikMushroom

CITIES are becoming more liberal. There is an ever growing divide in America between urban and rural political spectra. Rural America is, to be blunt, sick and tired of the horsecrap flowing from the cities. The "white flight" into the suburbs in the 80s and 90s reduced this rift in the short term, but we're now seeing it even more venomous than it was when that migration happened.

BINGO

America is in a culture war between urban and rural people. Folks in Illinois, NY, and California all know too well the pain of having a single city dominate the states political direction in a way that isn't what the rest of the state want. We have the same thing here in West Texas, with the I35 corridor dominating the political and financial world of our state, to our detriment.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

A lot of people don't even know what republicans stand for. All they see is the christian caricature the media throws up.

It's not a caricature. It's the truth. Aren't the Republicans the ones openly discussing religion and how if it weren't for god and Jesus they could not do what they do? Aren't they going around the country holding prayer breakfasts, "Family value" meetings and fundraisers with religious organizations. And is it not the Republicans that state the constitution is divinely inspired?

That's not a media-manufactured lie.....it's the truth.

a reply to: introvert

Your statement is true of SOME republicans. Who cares if they want to attribute their successes to a divinity. The things that SOME republicans are doing that you are complaining about is exactly how politics and elections work. You mean to say that Gay and Lesbian Alliance and other groups don't do the same for the democrats? You also seem to be of the opinion that there are no democrat Christians?

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Who cares if they want to attribute their successes to a divinity

I don't have a problem with them giving thanks to their god.

The things that SOME republicans are doing that you are complaining about is exactly how politics and elections work.

All. Not some. To be a player in the Republican party you have to attend prayer breakfasts and pro-life, pro-family events. That is where the funds are and how they gather support. Priests and preachers attend these meetings and then "spread the word" to their congregations. If you doubt me, turn on Catholic radio and listen to what they say when it comes to voting and politics. Religion is one of, if not the number one, form of voter outreach for the Republicans.

You also seem to be of the opinion that there are no democrat Christians?

I never said anything to that effect. Of course there are democrat Christians.

a reply to: introvert

What can I say other than being pro life and pro family are conservative social and religious values. It is reflective of the voter base. The reason I bring up Dem Christians is they also use religion as a form of voter outreach usually in regards to racial issues or assistance programs. Christians fall under many political headings republican being one of them. So how is the caricature true exactly?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: MystikMushroom

CITIES are becoming more liberal. There is an ever growing divide in America between urban and rural political spectra. Rural America is, to be blunt, sick and tired of the horsecrap flowing from the cities. The "white flight" into the suburbs in the 80s and 90s reduced this rift in the short term, but we're now seeing it even more venomous than it was when that migration happened.

I agree with you -- the largest population centers happen to be along the coastlines, and it's no surprise that those areas of the US tend to vote blue. This is why I keep saying that America is to large for a single centralized government. Someone living in inner-city NYC has completely different needs and concerns vs. someone living in rural Nebraska. Trying to reconcile the cultural, political, and social needs of such a diverse nation leaves an over-arching centralized government paralyzed.

I honestly think moving forward America is going to have to split up into regional powers, loosely affiliated by commerce and mutual defense. We can learn, and take the best parts of what Europe did right with so many countries coexisting on a single continent. I think a government that is closer to its people is more responsive and more responsible to its people. This "one size fits all" approach isn't working -- and its fracturing and dividing us.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
What does the word "white" in the title have to do with anything? I know plenty of black conservatives who are sick of elected officials not delivering on their promises.

Because in the "non-racist" liberal worldview, "white" is a point of derision.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I honestly think moving forward America is going to have to split up into regional powers, loosely affiliated by commerce and mutual defense. We can learn, and take the best parts of what Europe did right with so many countries coexisting on a single continent. I think a government that is closer to its people is more responsive and more responsible to its people. This "one size fits all" approach isn't working -- and its fracturing and dividing us.

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. This includes environmental regulations, all taxation unrelated to across-state-lines trade, labor laws, welfare (a concept which has become confused with "well being" and has resulted in nationalized redistribution), etc. There should be ZERO acres of federally owned land outside of Washington DC and strategically chosen military bases. There should be ZERO federal level regulations unrelated to protection of individual rights and/or interstate commerce.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
There should be ZERO acres of federally owned land outside of Washington DC and strategically chosen military bases.

Would that include National Parks?

a reply to: masqua

Parks are a bit different in some ways, assuming they function as intended: places for the public to enjoy the wilderness. I'm not going to argue that the Organic Act was in any way a bad thing. I'm more bristly in regards to the massive swaths of western land the federal government has laid claim to in the past few decades which is not classified as park land, and has a lot more restrictions attached to it with the states receiving a pittance in return for the land.

Alaska, especially, has to deal with an enormous amount of federally controlled land and, in many cases, the feds have grabbed the land primarily to block improvements and usages which the local residents want and need. A great recent example is the Tongass forest logging initiative. The plan would have allowed 6,000 acres to be selectively logged (out of 17 million acres of old growth forest). The feds found they weren't able to directly block the logging, so instead they applied a roadless area blockade on the forest. www.latimes.com... This simple should NOT happen. I understand the need for some environmental protection and laws, but they have crossed the line into extremism. Similarly, in New Mexico some years back there was a massive forest fire that killed a lot of old growth trees, but left them recoverable for logging... the feds allowed several Sierra Club (Other groups were involved) lawsuits and delays until, nearly 2 years later, they got off their duffs and threw it all out, granting permission for that dead timber to be reclaimed... except for the fact that it had rotted in the forest by that time and held no value to the logging companies who were eager to pay NM some very tidy sums of money to remove it immediately after the fire.

That's the type of overreaching land domination I think the Feds are out of line with.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think this is one huge issue the two of us can agree on...

I think individual states should keep their state identities -- but maybe several of them can join together to form smaller, autonomous, sovereign nations of their own.

It would be hard though -- as some states are so much richer in resources, manpower, port access. I've seen some proposals on how it could be done. It wouldn't be easy, but breaking America up into 5-6 regional countries would better represent the people that live within those areas.

I mean, someone in Florida shouldn't be making decisions on how we Alaskans run our business.

I think instead of the "United States" we might someday see the "American Union" with 7-8 independent countries, with several states belonging to each. Each regional country could negotiate their own trade agreements, form their own armies -- be totally autonomous like how Europe was before the EU. A NATO-like defense pact could be put into place where joint training exercises existed.

I think America would become more flexible, more responsive, and better poised to compete globally like this. I also think the smaller regional governments would better reflect the will of the people they serve.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: mapsurfer_
I read the salon article and thought it was poorly constructed but as far as this thread goes. The author is a democrat and the content is provocative to White, Male, Christians saying they are angry because they lost leverage in key areas goes on to say Repub activists blame their own leadership. That's a large demographic and I know many of them are content with blaming Obama administration. Our government would be alot better if we abolished the two party system and we elect politicians based on their platform issues.

The problem is voters are simply lazy and will not investigate each individual candidate. The parties are way to help distinguish the overall philosophy of each candidate. So while I am not a registered Republican, I tend to believe they represent my interest say 75% of the time. There are times that I do vote for Democrats too though, but as a whole, I believe the party doesn't represent the interest important to me.

Personally, I believe voting should be restricted. I believe all voters should be required to pass a basic civics test similar to what we require of immigrants when they become legal citizens.

Christ! It's racist to require a person to have an ID to vote!

Good luck with that!

Really? Is it racist to require ID to apply for credit? A driver's license? To open a bank account? To purchase a gun? On and on...and you wonder why we are tired of putting up with this double standard idiocy......

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Bravo!

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. This includes environmental regulations, all taxation unrelated to across-state-lines trade, labor laws, welfare (a concept which has become confused with "well being" and has resulted in nationalized redistribution), etc. There should be ZERO acres of federally owned land outside of Washington DC and strategically chosen military bases. There should be ZERO federal level regulations unrelated to protection of individual rights and/or interstate commerce.

Promote the general welfare has an extremely broad definition, it essentially covers anything that could be interpreted as benefiting the country.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not quite so.

Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in Section Eight:

The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money 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.

wikipedia

And:

Clause 2: Property Clause

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.[8]

The Property Clause (also called Territorial Clause) gives the United States Congress power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations regarding territories or other property owned by United States. While Article IV deals with state matters, this clause does not specifically address a federal power with relation to State lands. It has been argued that the term property is referring to chattel property. Additionally, the clause also proclaims that nothing contained within the constitution - may be interpreted to harm (prejudice)- any claim of: the United States, or, of any particular State.

Pursuant to a parallel clause in Article One, Section Eight, the Supreme Court has held that states may not tax such federal property. In another case, Kleppe v. New Mexico, the Court ruled that the Federal Wild Horse and Burro Act was a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Property Clause - at least insofar as it was applied to a finding of trespass. The case prohibited the entering upon the public lands of the United States and removing wild burros under the New Mexico Estray Law.[9]

A major issue early in the 20th century was whether the whole Constitution applied to the territories called insular areas by Congress. In a series of opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States, referred to as the Insular Cases, the Court ruled that territories belonged to, but were not part of the United States. Therefore, under the Territorial clause Congress had the power to determine which parts of the Constitution applied to the territories. These rulings have helped shape public opinion among Puerto Ricans during the ongoing debate over the commonwealth's political status.

wikipedia

I suppose it could be argued that the Supreme Courts upholding broad Congressional power over Federal Land and what it can be used for, is the wrong decision but let's not forget that the Supreme Court did not violate it's Constitutional limits by doing so because they upheld the necessary and proper part of the enumerated powers and agreed that protecting wildlife was necessary and proper.

Maybe it should be brought to the Supreme Court again?

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.