Again, the Disrupter

[Daddie O]

Trust me, I don't need a civics lesson on democracy vs republic.  To say the winner of an election in a republic represents the what the majority wanted is inaccurate though.  You can't say Trump represents what the majority wants.  He is the most unpopular president in history, and he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.

The Electoral College is a joke, and a bad one at that.  You say the most populous states shouldn't decide what goes for the country?  Why should the least popular states decide?  Why should someone's vote in Montana count for more than someone's in Texas?  With 2 senators per state, and the Electoral College, too much power is given to small states.

[3fan4life]

When the middle class doesn't have to they don't say much, most just put their heads down and do what is necessary. When Trump came in it was not only a slap in the face for the left since they had been steam rolling along knowing how unpopular their agenda had been but it also stopped the momentum. So it was a double slap in essence, and they did not see it coming. Heck they dont even consider anyone else's feelings and living standards when building their utopia so why would they consider the possibility of being stopped a real option from those just plugging along in life. The appearance of apathy was taken as a sign of submissiveness and that is where the real division in this country and on this board is what we see.

They forgot that the ones plugging along love this country, the people, and they have compassion on those that deserve it and a fighting spirit to those that deserve it. I think the push to change was explosive in that Obama loaded all the bases in fighting back. The one he couldn't load and yet tried was the vote. Thank God for that. They are not the majority either and if the truth and final destination and results of their plans could be revealed there would be many more not in agreement with their policies. History is also against the idea of this form of government ever being a good thing. Hence history is not taught in schools.

The former Democratic presidential candidate also said that Trump had “incredibly strong grassroots opposition,” adding, “and I believe this will increase.”

 The Democratic Party is the main party that considers people's living standards, and fights to improve them.

In the 1960's this assertion may have been true.

However, the modern day Democratic Party has become the Socialist / Communist Party.  

Many in the Democratic Party believe that Bernie Sanders was cheated out of their parties nomination.

Bernie Sanders does not even attempt to hide the fact that he wants us to have a communist government system.


Whether you will admit it or not, the modern day Republican Party is what the Democratic Party was.

Anyone that truly wants to see America remain a country in which the "American Dream" is achievable should not support the Democratic Party.

By the way the "American Dream" is the belief that ANYONE can achieve wealth and success through hard work, great effort and dedication.

It is not about sitting around doing nothing collecting a government check and complaining because that check isn't bigger.

[Pete]

Trust me, I don't need a civics lesson on democracy vs republic.  To say the winner of an election in a republic represents the what the majority wanted is inaccurate though.  You can't say Trump represents what the majority wants.  He is the most unpopular president in history, and he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.

The Electoral College is a joke, and a bad one at that.  You say the most populous states shouldn't decide what goes for the country?  Why should the least popular states decide?  Why should someone's vote in Montana count for more than someone's in Texas?  With 2 senators per state, and the Electoral College, too much power is given to small states.

Apparently you do need the lesson. And apparently you want majority rule, then move to democracy.

As for the majority you do not know what they want nor do I since almost 50 percent did not vote.

3 or more million illegal votes - probably. More on that later.

48% current approval level does not translate to most disliked in history.

Because that is the way the framers wanted it to work as a republic NOT a democracy.

i can see you cannot get over it - so good luck with that.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Bernie Sanders does not even attempt to hide the fact that he wants us to have a communist government.

Would you care to back that statement up with some evidence ?

[Wizzard]

If his candidate had won the election,, you would not hear a word about the system or the electoral college.

[hubcapsc]

Bernie Sanders does not even attempt to hide the fact that he wants us to have a communist government.

Would you care to back that statement up with some evidence ?

He's not a communist, he just wants to soak the rich and make everything free:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

-Mike

[Gavin_Sons]

Bernie Sanders does not even attempt to hide the fact that he wants us to have a communist government.

Would you care to back that statement up with some evidence ?

He's not a communist, he just wants to soak the rich and make everything free:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

-Mike

In other words, he wants to control the people and every aspect of their lives. = communist 

[Gavin_Sons]

1888: Benjamin HarrisonEdit

Grover Cleveland (left) won more of the popular vote than elected President Benjamin Harrison(right) in 1888.In the 1888 election, Grover Cleveland of New York, the incumbent president and a Democrat, tried to secure a second term against the Republican nominee Benjamin Harrison, a formerU.S. Senator from Indiana. The economy was prosperous and the nation was at peace, but Cleveland lost re-election in the Electoral College by a vote of 233 to 168, even though he won a plurality of the popular vote by a narrow margin of 90,596 votes.Tariff policy was the principal issue in the election. Harrison took the side of industrialists and factory workers who wanted to keep tariffs high, while Cleveland strenuously denounced high tariffs as unfair to consumers. His opposition to Civil War pensions and inflated currency also made enemies among veterans and farmers. On the other hand, he held a strong hand in the South and border states, and appealed to former Republican Mugwumps.Harrison swept almost the entire North and Midwest (losing only Connecticut and New Jersey), and narrowly carried the swing states of New York and Indiana (Harrison's home state) by a margin of 1% or less to achieve a majority of the electoral vote. Unlike the election of 1884, the power of the Tammany Hall political machine in New York City helped deny Cleveland the electoral votes of his home state.

It has been since 1888 a democrat won by not getting the popular vote. Ylur theory about the electoral college is wrong, and you are wrong. But I'm sure all of those people praising you through personal messages are cheering you on. Why cant they do it publicly?  Are some Liberals still in the closet? I know I would be. And yes you need some lessons on civics.

[Alien]

Ok, I'll play.  Honestly, the pre election mood on the board and the treatment of those few of us who do not share the conservative leanings of the majority on this board have largely driven me away.  It seemed at the time, that even when I opened what appeared to be a bike related post, eventually someone would start the name calling (liberal, Obummer, Hildabeast, etc.)

There seems to be a prevailing attitude here that those of us who lean left of most of you are not only incorrect in our views but also stupid, whiney, uninformed and, worst of all, un-American.  

None of that fostered a desire in me to stick around.

 I went from being a daily visitor and frequent poster here and having a really positive viewpoint of this group after attending InZane last summer, to feeling that people with my viewpoints are really not welcome here.  

I visit rarely these days and post even more rarely.  When I do come, I see that many here are more interested in attacking a person with an opposing viewpoint than they are in attacking the viewpoint itself.

No one can express a viewpoint that deviates from the accepted norm here without being beaten down for it.

So yeah, people have been driven away.  Whether anyone cares is a separate question.  I really thought the liberal bashing would slow down once your guy got into the White House but I was very wrong.

I think Willow and the other mods do the best they can to keep things civil and fair but, honestly, there's a lot of crap for them to wade through.

I'm still going to InZane, because it was a really great experience last year.  In fact, that experience is the only reason that I've stayed around at all.  In person, I experienced none of the attitude that has driven me away from the board.  So...see ya on the road.

Ride Safe,

Alien

[The emperor has no clothes]

Bernie Sanders does not even attempt to hide the fact that he wants us to have a communist government.

Would you care to back that statement up with some evidence ?

He's not a communist, he just wants to soak the rich and make everything free:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

-Mike

In other words, he wants to control the people and every aspect of their lives. = communist 

Maybe a refresher course on different forms of government is in order. 

[Gavin_Sons]

Bernie Sanders does not even attempt to hide the fact that he wants us to have a communist government.

Would you care to back that statement up with some evidence ?

He's not a communist, he just wants to soak the rich and make everything free:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

-Mike

In other words, he wants to control the people and every aspect of their lives. = communist 

Maybe a refresher course on different forms of government is in order. 

For you? Ok go ahead. 

[Wizzard]

O

There seems to be a prevailing attitude here that those of us who lean left of most of you are not only incorrect in our views but also stupid, whiney, uninformed and, worst of all, un-American.  


Alien

I hear what you are saying but I feel the same way from some of the left leaning, (some) that we are exactly what you said.
Anyhow,, none of it keeps me from coming here. I like a good debate and just because I do not agree with some here, does not mean I dislike them or would not ride with them.
My theory is you are ok unless you give me reason to believe otherwise.  I have found that theory to serve me well. The admins do a great job here and no matter what forum you go to, politics or other things enter in. That's just the way the world goes round and we need to roll with it.

[Pete]

Sanders appears to be a socialist.
Is he a communist, not sure, but socialism gives him a head start.

And the democratic party and the communist party promote some common policies.

Will the democratic party become communist? Not sure but they are sure heading that way.

Neither socialism or communism reconciles with freedom.

[MP]

Trust me, I don't need a civics lesson on democracy vs republic.  To say the winner of an election in a republic represents the what the majority wanted is inaccurate though.  You can't say Trump represents what the majority wants.  He is the most unpopular president in history, and he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.

The Electoral College is a joke, and a bad one at that.  You say the most populous states shouldn't decide what goes for the country?  Why should the least popular states decide?  Why should someone's vote in Montana count for more than someone's in Texas?  With 2 senators per state, and the Electoral College, too much power is given to small states.

Why the electoral college?  Because that is the Constitution. Pretty simple.
As that is the basis of our voting, our Congressional set up, and an integral part of our country.
So, when you say it is a bad joke, you are saying the very foundation upon which our country was founded, and has operated ever since, is a bad joke. Pretty damn unamerican.

[art]

Pulled posts -  I don't make a habit of explaining myself.  I'm not interested in getting into an argument about how the board should or should not be administered.  I will make a short exception.

We have rules against personal attack.  When a poster begins to name-call or attack specifically o0r in general members of this board the post will likely be pulled along with any post that quotes the attack.  This is regardless of the political or social agenda of the poster.

If a thread is denigrated into becoming an exchange of name calling and seriously intellectually flawed accusations then I will choose to either remove the offending posts, lock the thread, or remove the thread.

If you don't like the way the board is administered you do have the option of communication with the VRCC staff.  You do not have the option of spreading your discontent on the board itself.  If you really have serious concerns about the corporate intellect of the VRCC or the acceptability of the conversations on the board you may establish your own message board.  The software is free and the cost of the website is not that much.  It is more than you pay for this one.

All that said, you can discuss almost anything on the general board if you can do so with proper respect.  If you can't you can't. 

Didn't read the post in question but I do agree with you, keep it clean and friendly.

[Jess from VA]

I was/am a Phi Beta Cappa Poly Sci major (undergrad).

Socialists and communists have pretty much the same political philosophies of total government control of the population.

It's just that communists would have the military and police force their programs down the populace's throat at the point of a bayonet, with gulags for all dissenters and professionals and well educated, and secret police coming to get you in the night (never to be heard from again).  They rule through absolute power, with constant terror and fear of that power as their mainstay.  They don't need true believers, you go along or they jail or kill you (and your family).

Socialists have the same goals (total control of the populace, all thoughts and deeds, freedom is what we say it is), and want it badly, but they want to do it through a hearts and minds program over time.  Socialists are the kinder and gentler version of communists.  They are generally deluded into thinking they have it right, and that all they have to do is sell their version of utopia over time to make everybody into true believers.

In this regard, I believe Communists are more realistic than Socialists.  Communists know most people will never go for their program voluntarily and have to be forced at bayonet point.  Socialists are dreamers who think that if they go at it for enough generations of education and government control, some day the people will willingly surrender all personal freedom and liberty for the collective good (as THEY see it).  

Accordingly, I like Socialsts better than Communists.... but not a lot more.

Our Constitution and history makes Communism pretty much a non player.  Our military and police are not going to willingly go about enforcing political ruthlessness.  But anyone paying attention can get the same feeling I do that many of our more active ruling political class Socialists really wish they could go to the bayonet thing..... if they could get away with it.  Because they are finally understanding that a real healthy percentage of us are NEVER going to go for their program (and at some point would raise arms against it).

That would be me.  Give me liberty, or give me death.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I was/am a Phi Beta Cappa Poly Sci major (undergrad).

Socialists and communists have pretty much the same political philosophies.

It's just that communists would have the military and police force their programs down the populace's throat at the point of a bayonet, with gulags for all dissenters and professionals and well educated, and secret police coming to get you in the night (never to be heard from again).  They rule through absolute power, with constant terror and fear of that power as their mainstay.  They don't need true believers, you go along or they jail or kill you (and your family).

Socialists have the same goals (total control of the populace, all thoughts and deeds, freedom is what we say it is), and want it badly, but they want to do it through a hearts and minds program over time.  Socialists are the kinder and gentler version of communists.  They are generally deluded into thinking they have it right, and that all they have to do is sell their version of utopia over time to make everybody into true believers.

In this regard, I believe Communists are more realistic than Socialists.  Communists know most people will never go for their program voluntarily and have to be forced at bayonet point.  Socialists are dreamers who think that if they go at it for enough generations of education and government control, some day the people will willingly surrender all personal freedom and liberty for the collective good (as THEY see it).  

Accordingly, I like Socialsts better than Communists.... but not a lot more.

Our Constitution and history makes Communism pretty much a non player.  But anyone paying attention can get the same feeling I do that some of our more active ruling political class Socialists  really wish they could go to the bayonet thing..... if they could get away with it.  Because they are finally understanding that a real healthy percentage of us are NEVER going to go for their program (and at some point would raise arms against it).

That would be me.  Give me liberty, or give me death.

You have me at a disadvantage, I have no college education. But I do know that not everything is so black and white. There are many shades of gray. Even most conservatives support many socialist programs. Hell, even Tricky Dick supported healthcare for all. As I understand Bernie Sanders shade of gray, it is closely aligned with how most Scandinavian countries are governed. Which is FAR from communistic.

[Jess from VA]

Rob, I agree entirely that politics from left to right is very often shades of grey.  Some favor a bit more social programs than others.  And some of us think the US G should be cut to the bone, and reduced to a standing military and Courts, and a couple other things, and NOTHING else.  They have proven conclusively they are simply unfit to run any large programs beyond those anyway.

By 2017, even most of us conservatives agree social security (retirement, NOT DISABILITY) is a good thing, especially since we paid into it our entire working lives.  Except the money collected should never have been allowed to be dumped into the general budget (and all spent on pork and social giveaways to buy votes), and we should have been allowed to invest per our own choices, and never trusted them with it at all.

But generally speaking, I stand by my characterizations of Communism and Socialism.  

And who knows, if the socialists have enough patience and perseverance, and go at it slow enough in baby steps, in 100 years or less, all America may indeed be true believers.  I will be long dead by then, thank the good Lord.  I want what our Founders envisioned, I emphatically do not want a happy Scandinavian socialistic model for MY country (until every member of the free crap army has a job and earns his own way, from cradle to grave...  maybe then.  Maybe.)  

The Scandinavian socialist model (pre-mass Islamic and other refugee and immigration acceptance) worked very well because those countries were made up almost entirely of the same homogeneous peoples who looked the same, prayed the same, all had a very high education and work ethic (cradle to grave) and no Free crap Army.  When everyone worked hard and contributed fairly to their social democracy, they could afford to provide their generous social programs and free education to all, and still be a very vibrant and productive economy.  It's a great model, for small scale highly educated and motivated homogeneous peopled countries.  The US (the great melting pot) has never been any of those things.  And the Scandinavian model is now failing because of their good hearts and mistaken generosity.  They (innocently and naively) thought.... how could anyone not see the greatness of our system and want to become part of it?  What they got was mostly takers, not contributors.       This is why socialism will always fail.  

[Daddie O]

It's Phi Beta Kappa...lol  Greek alphabet you know "Love of learning is the guide of life"

It's Poli-Sci....lol  As in Political Science.  Poly means many, and you obviously are not studying many-science.

I do not believe you are a Phi Beta Kappa poli-sci major, as your misspelling is not a typo.  Your statement that socialist and communists have the same political philosophies proves that you aren't.  I am Phi Theta Kappa, and soon to be Sigma Theta Tau as well.  Socialism and communism are vastly different in both philosophy and practice, and neither seek to control your thoughts.

Practically speaking, there are no governments that are purely socialist, communist, or capitalist.  For example, in America we are primarily capitalist, but with a vast array of social programs and institutions.  In China, which is thought of as a communist country they do practice a form of communism, but with a vast array of social programs and capitalist businesses.  In Scandinavia, they are social democrats, primarily a capitalist society with large array of social programs.

[Valkorado]

It's Phi Beta Kappa...lol  Greek alphabet you know "Love of learning is the guide of life"

It's Poli-Sci....lol  As in Political Science.  Poly means many, and you obviously are not studying many-science.

I do not believe you are a Phi Beta Kappa poli-sci major, as your misspelling is not a typo.  Your statement that socialist and communists have the same political philosophies proves that you aren't.  I am Phi Theta Kappa, and soon to be Sigma Theta Tau as well.  Socialism and communism are vastly different in both philosophy and practice, and neither seek to control your thoughts.

Practically speaking, there are no governments that are purely socialist, communist, or capitalist.  For example, in America we are primarily capitalist, but with a vast array of social programs and institutions.  In China, which is thought of as a communist country they do practice a form of communism, but with a vast array of social programs and capitalist businesses.  In Scandinavia, they are social democrats, primarily a capitalist society with large array of social programs.

[Robert]

Socialism/communism are incompatible with freedom as our founding fathers perceived freedom. We are getting it piece by piece though.

I dont understand how you can say the Democratic party considers living conditions. They have pushed the irs to stop approval of 501c3 charitable organizations, approved a health care system built on a lie without the true cost being revealed. With the famous Nancy Pelosi line we have to approve it to see whats in it. They act like children in Congress, have sit in's and fight the current government on everything regardless of good or bad. Out west they were taking cattle land, Obama approved the federal government control of water, all water, including run off from rain and ponds and lakes, I pay over 20k a year like many others out of the Obama exchange and if I was in the exchange it would have been over 28k a year without even seeing a doctor. So this is the Democratic/socialist party today. I think you had better rethink what you are saying because I see no good will to the people at all. I also dont see any respect for the founding of this country and its laws either. Let me ask you how about Schumer and Pelosi trying to impeach Trump, these are not the actions of anyone I would want to be associated with much less vote for or give approval of do you endorse all of this?

 I posted another post that I revealed that the cost of Obamas regulations and new laws cost the US billions of dollars, that impacts the middle class not the upper or lower. The printing of money has devalued the dollar. You will also find that under Obama that the middle class has taken a major hit and the lower class and upper class have benefited disproportionately from the policies of this 8 year policy maker.

The US has been around for over 400 years if you count the Mayflower compact then the Constitution and has been the wealthiest and most prosperous country known. We have given more and done more than another country out there and you want to cherry pic a few stats to show that the US is not tops in certain areas. Which I will not say is not true either but being on the whole I would not want to live in any other country and many will agree.

Communism has fallen and proved to be unworkable so we have socialism but it really has not been around long either and definitely not as long as the US has. So there is no real proven successes just limited areas of success. But Venezuela is a living model of the failure of socialism also, that one country we hear so little about in total chaos and people starving is a poster child for a failed socialist system.

I think you will find a few countries you listed as communist are wrong and really declared themselves to be socialists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ivonaiacob/2016/07/24/venezuelas-failed-socialist-experiment/#46bd615441dd

What we also see is a consolidation of power in socialism from the people to the government. That means less people having the say in their living. Now from there we have the socialist telling us its ok to open boarders like Germany and we see the destruction there. The next easy step is the one world government that would qualify as socialist on a global scale. We have many examples of communism and socialism not working.

As for the electoral college we agree more states voted for Trump than Hillary and more people voted for Hillary than Trump. But a system that allows left leaning states like California and NY deciding leaders is not good either. I think the system we have is the only fair system. I am not in favor of any form of government that gives the less power to the people, takes away incentives for working hard or doesn't allow a system of rewards for those that work and want to achieve something in life.

If you are for helping the poor and allowing more social programs lets say why do you not put your effort into abolishing the Federal reserve and taking the hand of corporations out of the laws of government. With those 2 things you could change the face of the US with more freedom less taxes more social programs less money going to government and more going to the people. There would be no change in government and infact the would be true to the nature and intent of what the Us is supposed to be. This is not accomplished by a party since both have proven to be corrupt and self serving.


NO one is saying the US doesn't have problems but to throw out a system of government and checks and balances to give fewer people more power, the ones that are the problem now doesn't make sense. How about cleaning up the system that we have, removing corruption, removing drains on the economy,removing corp honey pots, restoring the constitution and then see how we can go forward from there.

[3fan4life]

Trust me, I don't need a civics lesson on democracy vs republic.  To say the winner of an election in a republic represents the what the majority wanted is inaccurate though.  You can't say Trump represents what the majority wants.  He is the most unpopular president in history, and he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.

The Electoral College is a joke, and a bad one at that.  You say the most populous states shouldn't decide what goes for the country?  Why should the least popular states decide?  Why should someone's vote in Montana count for more than someone's in Texas?  With 2 senators per state, and the Electoral College, too much power is given to small states.

This map shows that the majority of the country did indeed want Donald Trump to be President:



If you look closely you can see that only the major metropolitan areas voted for Hillary Clinton.

It should not be lost on you that this is also where the majority of our society's "takers" are.

In this case the Electoral College did exactly what it was designed to do.

From:
The Electoral College (Why We Use It and Why It Matters)

"The Electoral College remains in place over two centuries after the framers of the Constitution empowered it to select presidents. Though occasionally maligned, this system of electing a chief executive has been incredibly successful for the American people.

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College after much debate and compromise, but it has provided stability to the process of picking presidents. Though the winner of the national popular vote typically takes the presidency, that vote failed to determine the winner in four elections: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016.

Some see the Electoral College as a peculiar and mystifying institution that ensures only a few, select individuals will ever cast a direct vote for president in the United States. Others complain that the system rewards smaller states with more proportional power than the large ones.

As one of The Heritage Foundations legal experts, Hans von Spakovsky, noted in a paper on the Electoral College: “In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.

The product of the Founders’ compromise has been well balanced and enduring, and we would be wise to leave it intact.”

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-electoral-college-why-we-use-it-why-it-matters-18331

[3fan4life]

It's Phi Beta Kappa...lol  Greek alphabet you know "Love of learning is the guide of life"

It's Poli-Sci....lol  As in Political Science.  Poly means many, and you obviously are not studying many-science.

I do not believe you are a Phi Beta Kappa poli-sci major, as your misspelling is not a typo.  Your statement that socialist and communists have the same political philosophies proves that you aren't.  I am Phi Theta Kappa, and soon to be Sigma Theta Tau as well.  Socialism and communism are vastly different in both philosophy and practice, and neither seek to control your thoughts.

Practically speaking, there are no governments that are purely socialist, communist, or capitalist.  For example, in America we are primarily capitalist, but with a vast array of social programs and institutions.  In China, which is thought of as a communist country they do practice a form of communism, but with a vast array of social programs and capitalist businesses.  In Scandinavia, they are social democrats, primarily a capitalist society with large array of social programs.

Straight out of the Liberal / Leftist playbook:

If know that you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

If you look closely you can see that only the major metropolitan areas voted for Hillary Clinton.

It should not be lost on you that this is also where the majority of our society's "takers" are.

I'm not sure where you get that info. But I believe much of the Deep South has pretty high "taker" statistics. Which would be areas that voted for Trump.

[Savago]

I second what @alien mentioned about the current 'climate' of the forum.

Diverging points of view move really fast to personal attacks, instead of keeping the discussion in the field of ideas. It seems that trying to find a common ground is not acceptable anymore...

Moderation is a tough job and I appreciate the effort forum moderators do trying to keep things civil.

That been said, I simply stop posting when any discussion gets way too out of hand (call it 'self-moderation'). I imagine some people just stop posting altogether or decide to just lurk in the technical forum.

But there are threads that I wonder how on earth were not pulled. One such example was that post that was 'funny' suggesting to castrate and forced sterilization of illegals. In my book, crimes against mankind is verboten. The same applies to racism and prejudice against gay people and women.

[3fan4life]

If you look closely you can see that only the major metropolitan areas voted for Hillary Clinton.

It should not be lost on you that this is also where the majority of our society's "takers" are.

I'm not sure where you get that info. But I believe much of the Deep South has pretty high "taker" statistics. Which would be areas that voted for Trump.

Then why do welfare recipients predominantly vote Democrat instead of Republican?


My take would be that while there are many welfare recipients living in the deep south and Appalachia.

They are outnumbered by people who believe that an honest day's work for an honest day's pay is the right thing to do.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

If you look closely you can see that only the major metropolitan areas voted for Hillary Clinton.

It should not be lost on you that this is also where the majority of our society's "takers" are.

I'm not sure where you get that info. But I believe much of the Deep South has pretty high "taker" statistics. Which would be areas that voted for Trump.

Then why do welfare recipients predominantly vote Democrat instead of Republican?


My take would be that while there are many welfare recipients living in the deep south and Appalachia.

They are outnumbered by people who believe that an honest day's work for an honest day's pay is the right thing to do.   

I think GENERALLY speaking, poorer people vote more D and richer people vote more R. I agree with your assessment of people in the Deep South and Appalachia. I disagree that by inference there is not the same ratio in CA and NY.

[3fan4life]

If you look closely you can see that only the major metropolitan areas voted for Hillary Clinton.

It should not be lost on you that this is also where the majority of our society's "takers" are.

I'm not sure where you get that info. But I believe much of the Deep South has pretty high "taker" statistics. Which would be areas that voted for Trump.

Then why do welfare recipients predominantly vote Democrat instead of Republican?


My take would be that while there are many welfare recipients living in the deep south and Appalachia.

They are outnumbered by people who believe that an honest day's work for an honest day's pay is the right thing to do.    

I think GENERALLY speaking, poorer people vote more D and richer people vote more R. I agree with your assessment of people in the Deep South and Appalachia. I disagree that by inference there is not the same ratio in CA and NY.

I won't argue that there aren't conservative thinking people in the rural areas of CA and NY.

I will argue that they are greatly outnumbered by the "takers" in the cities.

[The emperor has no clothes]

If you look closely you can see that only the major metropolitan areas voted for Hillary Clinton.

It should not be lost on you that this is also where the majority of our society's "takers" are.

I'm not sure where you get that info. But I believe much of the Deep South has pretty high "taker" statistics. Which would be areas that voted for Trump.

Then why do welfare recipients predominantly vote Democrat instead of Republican?


My take would be that while there are many welfare recipients living in the deep south and Appalachia.

They are outnumbered by people who believe that an honest day's work for an honest day's pay is the right thing to do.    

I think GENERALLY speaking, poorer people vote more D and richer people vote more R. I agree with your assessment of people in the Deep South and Appalachia. I disagree that by inference there is not the same ratio in CA and NY.

I won't argue that there aren't conservative thinking people in the rural areas of CA and NY.

I will argue that they are greatly outnumbered by the "takers" in the cities.

You might be surprised that there are many conservative enclaves in the urban areas.

[Robert]

Yes there are many conservatives in those places in fact California in a referendum voted against gay marriage only to have it instituted by a judge.