Now What? (American Politics)

BobHelm wrote:No criticism Ricohoc , just a desire for accuracy.

You do not have a monopoly on that...
The use of the final 'Conservative' in your last post is as inaccurate as, in your eyes, anyone who calls America a democracy. You can't pick & chose the truth, as much as you would like to....

What the hell are you talking about?

KHONDAHM wrote:Conservatives and Conservatism are absolutely associated with the Republicans in American politics. Sorry, but you do not get to choose your own reality.

But I do get to choose where I align myself, and that is MY reality. Isn't that what you do, KD? Good for you, but not anyone else?

I am not a Republican, but I am a Conservative, and there are many, MANY Conservatives who have great disdain for the Republican establishment. I am one of them.

BobHelm wrote:

Ricohoc wrote:Some text removed.... but Conservatives are not necessarily Republicans, rick.

If you want to be pedantic, Ricohoc, which I know that you often like to be...

Conservatives, with a capitalised first letter in mid sentence, can rarely be Republicans.
While it can, I understand, refer to Conservative Jew or Conservative Judaism & hence from that route possibly be a Republican, its main use is as a member of the Conservative Party of Great Britain & so highly unlikely to be Republican, indeed I believe that the rules of the party would prevent that being allowed...

If you mean conservative, with a small initial letter that is a different matter...

Well, there is a Conservative Party closer to the United States than Great Britain and that one resides in Canada. However, the Canadian Conservative MP's have less independence than their British counterparts, and in most cases must follow the guidance of the whip.

Laan Yaa Mo wrote:Well, there is a Conservative Party closer to the United States than Great Britain and that one resides in Canada. However, the Canadian Conservative MP's have less independence than their British counterparts, and in most cases must follow the guidance of the whip.

I understand from previous reading that the UK conservatives have a long association and preference for the whip ........ ............ and handcuffs ......... and latex ............ and ......

Now, back on topic please.

These are a few reasons why I voted for Ron Paul in 2004. While I will not be voting for him in 2012 (if he were to get the Republican nomination - which is unlikely), I would not be unhappy if he were to win. I would not vote for him because IMHO, Presidents need 2 terms to be effective at implementing changes. Obama needs his 2nd and I just don't see Paul lasting 2 terms at his age. An interesting play would be Paul as VP...I still would not vote for the ticket, but it would attract a decent number of Independent votes.

The Geography of Government Benefits

Very interesting link:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... d=fb-share

Income Support

Big cities have populations that rely heavily on these benefits, but many are rural counties like Owsley County, Ky.,
where payments for food stamps are the highest per capita. The county voted Republican overwhelmingly in 2008.

WTF?? The Dumbocrats are usually associated with welfare programs.....these people are biting the hand
that feeds em.....

Owsley County, Kentucky the 2010 population is 4,755 and 98.7% is white. The median household income 2006-2010 was $19,351 and the percent of persons below poverty level is 41.5%. This was coal country. Not hard to understand why they need food stamps. THE NYT could do better research but why bother the facts may get in the way of the story they are trying to spin.

This area probably has always been Republican since the time of Lincoln. They were poor then so not much has changed.

Jing Jing wrote:Owsley County, Kentucky the 2010 population is 4,755 and 98.7% is white. The median household income 2006-2010 was $19,351 and the percent of persons below poverty level is 41.5%. This was coal country. Not hard to understand why they need food stamps. THE NYT could do better research but why bother the facts may get in the way of the story they are trying to spin.

This area probably has always been Republican since the time of Lincoln. They were poor then so not much has changed.

What story is the NYT trying to spin? Seems to me it's a pretty dry (but interesting) article of income stats from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. I just thought it unusual (as perhaps the writers of the article did) these particular folks would vote Republicant since this party is normally perceived to be against the lower economic class.......(as in Mitt Romney saying, "I'm not worried about the poor").

The story and the facts highlight one of the biggest problems of the electorate. People vote because "that's how they've always voted" rather than actually paying attention. If the majority of poor and working class Republican voters were paying attention, they would have figured out by now that Republicans are essentially not doing anything for them and have no plans to do anything for them (empty "jobs" rhetoric notwithstanding). So, yes it is pretty dumb that they would continue to vote Republican rather than Democrat - as it is the Democrats who are advocating programs which would better their situation.

LoveDaBlues wrote:as in Mitt Romney saying, "I'm not worried about the poor").

You really need to finish the statement if you're going to quote someone. 'I'm not worried about the poor. There is a safety net for them.'

And of course, even the statist media tries to spin it. In his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnxHBK6zMY

The story and the facts highlight one of the biggest problems of the electorate. People vote because "that's how they've always voted" rather than actually paying attention.

If the majority of poor and minority Americans were paying attention, they would have figured out by now that Democrats are not doing anything for them except buying their votes and keeping them on the Liberal Plantation of welfare, food stamps and entitlements. So yes, it is pretty dumb that they would continue to vote Democrat. How is it that Democrats can be so insulting to these Americans by repeatedly reminding them that they can't make it alone without government handouts? Are these groups incapable of success and achievement? I think Democrats need them to think that they are incapable.

After all of these decades since LBJ's "War on Poverty" in the 1960s, there are generations of poor and minorities who are still on food stamps and welfare. The Democrat solution has not solved the problem. How long will it take? How much money will the government continue to take from productive Americans to fund it? At what point will the Utopian Liberals finally admit that it's not working? Liberal Democrats can't answer those questions. They just want more and more and more.

@Ricohoc - How did you come to be so misinformed? I am genuinely curious. What is your education background? What publications do you typically read? Where did you grow up and under what conditions? You can reply with a PM if you would like.

KHONDAHM wrote:@Ricohoc - How did you come to be so misinformed? I am genuinely curious. What is your education background? What publications do you typically read? Where did you grow up and under what conditions? You can reply with a PM if you would like.

Refute it. And do so with something other than Ms. Madow from MSNBC or the Huffington Post.

I already told you. I don't play your games. Move along.

It seems Rick Santorum is no environmentalist (mind you, he is a Republican, so that's no surprise). But it seems he doesn't believe in Global warming, and wants more oil exploration and coal mining. Such a nice, old fashioned outlook. But i doubt it will increase his voter base.

Ricohoc wrote:

LoveDaBlues wrote:as in Mitt Romney saying, "I'm not worried about the poor").

You really need to finish the statement if you're going to quote someone. 'I'm not worried about the poor. There is a safety net for them.'

And of course, even the statist media tries to spin it. In his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnxHBK6zMY

His gaff shows he has no real concern for the poor. Otherwise he would have said something along the lines of, "Although there's a safety net for the poor, if elected I'll make it a priority to lift all Americans who want to work
out of poverty.