# What's going to happen when all the conservatives die?



## vilk (Feb 16, 2015)

I sometimes feel like a dummy in this section. But I'm working on it. I read PC&E all the time, and I'm always on news sites and reading articles... but somehow many of the regular posters in this section just constantly put me in my place. But actually, I like that--and more importantly I learn from it. Anyhow.

I was reading the comments on npr a minute ago and got to thinking...

People who maintain the values of the current GOP are pretty much limited to old people. The only young people who've got their backs are pretty much either raised by religious zealots, OR: I almost feel like among younger folks, many people who are "right-wing" are actually just posers who are only doing it to be counter to everyone else... but with so much easy access to information I don't actually believe they are going to stick with their classist/racist/sexist/anti-science opinions in the long run. Obviously old people are practically incapable of mental change so in their case they'll just have to die off, probably kinda slowly because of modern medicine but w/e.


So what I was wondering is... what will fill the void? I mean, chances are we will be seeing this before the end of our lifetime, so might as well make some projections, right?

My totally uneducated/uninformed guess is that current lefty ways of thinking are going to essentially become the righty ways of thinking. But instead of being obsessed with building military vehicles and fighting over oil, we will instead be obsessed with reviving American-manufactured goods, especially automatons (industrial drones) and whatever becomes the choice renewable energy source. We probably have it ingrained into our heads that having money being generated in the USA and a good economy will make life better for all, so we will probably stick to our guns there. I know I think that, at least. It's just what we know. We like buying stuff, and you gotta buy stuff to buy stuff!

My guess for the new Left is going to be people essentially suggesting we live in nature communes and farming communities and try to have like a renaissance of pre-War/manufacturing-superpower-America. Probably be all anti-consumerism, every part of the buffalo, libertarian and all that jazz.

Old religion will be dead and gone on both sides, but I imagine it being replaced with philosophical schools that have more to do with defining reality and achieving happiness than to do with arbitrary rules for 'moral' behavior. On the right we will still be pushing the philosophy that success/happiness is measurable by numbers. On the left it will maybe be like more of an altruism thing, like happiness is measured in how much you can help other people or something.

I dunno what I'm on about but maybe lets talk about it? I'm just curious what you [smart] people think about this stuff.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 16, 2015)

There are a lot of people younger than me in rural areas who adhere strongly to GOP rhetoric. Starting with Gen X, it seems to be a rural/urban divide. I don't think the GOP will be going away any time soon.


----------



## vilk (Feb 16, 2015)

I dunno, man. I'm from Indiana. We invented the KKK. There are a lot of backwards people in that rural state... but in my own personal experiences I really do think that young people can't hang onto hick-ism as much as past generations. No doubt there is a divide... but it's all about the internet--it makes sense, too. In rural areas with nothing to do, you spend a lot more time online! And, at least in my mind, internet = information = the cessation of the present state of right-wing.

that one dicknose can go on about this bubbaland and his bubbleland, but as far as I can tell the internet has_ for young people _popped that bubble right in the face.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 16, 2015)

Hmm, I used to live in Indianapolis, and the inner city was certainly very Democratic, and the outskirts were very Republican. These were all people around my age. The few older people I knew were divided geographically the same way. Old guy living in the city center never voted anything other than Democrat in his life / Old guy from Martinsville never voted Democratic. I think Indiana might be a bit of a special case, as there are a lot of people shifting from rural areas to urban areas there. The state is a battleground, because the Democrats can win votes if they get city people out to vote. The Republicans win if the city folks do not go out to vote. It's a similar situation elsewhere in the USA, but particularly in Indiana, as the major cities are growing and rural populations are stagnant.


----------



## vilk (Feb 16, 2015)

But wouldn't you suppose that this is true for basically any rural state? Maybe Indiana is a special case _right now_, but how many more states are going to be "special cases" in the future? 

With rural populations shrinking, doesn't this kinda of drive home the idea that the present state of US conservatism is going to die out?


----------



## tedtan (Feb 16, 2015)

vilk said:


> People who maintain the values of the current GOP are pretty much limited to old people.



I don't agree. Head pretty much anywhere in the South or Midwest and you'll find plenty of young people who are conservative. You'll also notice that this isn't always about religion (contrary to what you may be lead to believe by reading this subforum) or "hickdom". In short, those with money, power and privilege don't necessarily care to share that money/power/privilege with others, so they tend to want to keep things the way they are now. Changes desired by more progressive people will cause them to lose money, power and/or privilege, so the "haves" will typically fight tooth and nail to prevent these changes. 

So in terms of predictions, I think we'll slowly creep towards todays' left, but I don't think it will happen anywhere near as quickly as you seem to.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 16, 2015)

Not die out. Shrink, yes, but die, no.

What surprises me is that this has already been happening for decades, yet, the GOP, rather than become more moderate to appeal to a wider base, simply becomes more extreme in order to get its polarized base out to vote. You don't need to hold a majority of popular opinion to win the election, you just need to get your supporters out to vote more than your opponent.

For example, say you have an extreme guy and a moderate guy. The extreme guy, 20% of the population loves him and 70% of the population hates him (10% don't care). The moderate guy, 15% of the population loves him and 20% of the population (guess who) hates him (and 65% don't care). Then there is an election. Extreme guy's 20% all show up and vote. Moderate guy's 15% all show up and vote. Of the remaining 65%, only one in ten people votes, and 20% of those vote for extreme guy, either because they don't know what they are doing, or because they decide that he is better. Extreme guy gets 20% + 20% of 6.5% = 21.3% [51.3% of the people who actually voted]. Moderate guy gets 15% + 80% of 6.5% = 20.2% [48.7% of the people who actually voted]. Out of the total votes, extreme guy wins by a margain of 2.6%, a landslide.

That's how this crap always happens in the USA, except when, like in 2000, the GOP guy loses the popular vote, but is ahead in the electoral college (still not winning, though) and is thusly appointed president by the Supreme Court.

EDIT: So, then the idea is to get out and vote, right? Well, sure, but people in urban centers will follow the thinking of "Pssht, why should I vote? I am one of over a million people who would vote Democrat in my district." Maybe the districts are mostly rural, which gives the GOP candidates more pull with the electoral college (for presidential ellections) and more pull in the legislature by having more representatives.


----------



## asher (Feb 16, 2015)

^also incredible gerrymandering of districts in many places for the House to minimize the big population slant towards cities.


----------



## vilk (Feb 16, 2015)

So what you all are saying to me is that 50 years from now right and left will still be arguing about trickle down economics, religious issues abortion/gay marriage/ID in school, and whether or not poor people deserve good health? GOPpers are still going to be driving for spending all the money on military bullshit and trying to keep latinos from voting? I wanted to believe all of that will be done with soon enough.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 16, 2015)

vilk said:


> So what you all are saying to me is that 50 years from now right and left will still be arguing about trickle down economics, religious issues abortion/gay marriage/ID in school, and whether or not poor people deserve good health? GOPpers are still going to be driving for spending all the money on military bullshit and trying to keep latinos from voting? I wanted to believe all of that will be done with soon enough.



Some of those, probably not.

The debate was different 50 years ago, but yeah, there will continue to be a lot of bickering in which neither side is necessarily correct nor consistent.


----------



## kmanick (Feb 16, 2015)

vilk said:


> So what you all are saying to me is that 50 years from now right and left will still be arguing about trickle down economics, religious issues abortion/gay marriage/ID in school, and whether or not poor people deserve good health? GOPpers are still going to be driving for spending all the money on military bullshit and trying to keep latinos from voting? I wanted to believe all of that will be done with soon enough.


Well first of all right wingers do not want to stop Latinos from Voting, they want to stop people who are here illegally and are not citizens from voting.
Bit of a difference there.
Oh and speaking of military , you happy with the progress ISIS is making across the Middle East. You good with them coming here and starting to kill all of us Infidels. Ready to bow down to them and pray to Allah. 
You don't think this shit is real ask the 21 Christians' families that got butchered today if they think it's real.
I love how the left always paints the right as a war mongering machine but what is the first country the whole world looks to to help them when shit hits the fan? Let me help you along here....it ain't Haiti.
Stop drinking the Liberal propaganda. Being a Conservative does not mean you a a bible thumping religious Racist anti Science Hick, any more than being Liberal means you a Socialist Marxist fascist. There are plenty of Conservatives that laugh at that shit. It's amazing how "liberals" love to paint anyone that is not totally on board with their agenda as Extremist,
I would think it was hilarious if it wasn't so horrifying.
And no I am not a Republican but I am in many ways a Conservative.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 16, 2015)

Indiana is actually a great example of what good conservative practices can do for a state's economy and job growth. Compare Indiana's economic situation to that of Illinois for example.
Politicians on both sides need to start focusing on economics and defense (not only our own but also of our allies) and quit with this social engineering B.S..


----------



## Watty (Feb 17, 2015)

When all the old conservatives die, we'll get people on that side of the equation who don't care about the bullshit positions on social issues. It's a lot easier to pull those folks on the left to the center when you aren't inviting them to step into the deep end of crazy.

In short, it should end up being a solid party if it only focuses on real issues. The GOP isn't going anywhere, but it will be changing pretty significantly.


----------



## 7stg (Feb 17, 2015)

I see a shift towards libertarianism in the republican party. 

Due to the difficulties faced by 3rd parties in America, there has been a continued push from libertarians to infiltrate the republican party and change it from within, this accelerated with Ron Paul. The libertarian push has had some successes and in some cases been subverted. Libertarian ideals really resonate with the younger generations. Where it stands, there have been many conservatives take the term libertarian and liberty as it is popular with the young, but their actions and views do not align with the classic libertarian principals. This has defamed what libertarianism stands for in the eyes of those who don't know better. Rand Paul has made many compromises and is bitter sweet to many but still supported because he is seen as the best option of unsavory choices.

Many christian conservatives from the tea party tend to use the term liberty but are really only for the liberties that their close minded morals will tolerate. Christianity is ultimately incompatible with libertarian ideals Platform | Libertarian Party. These Christians are the biggest source of failure for the republicans as they are the ones who express racist, homophobic, sexist, and bigoted views that the rest of America wants nothing to do with.
Republican Official Says Gays Should Be Purged From GOP, Blames Homosexuality On Satan 
This example is kinda racist NSFW.


They have really shot themselves in the foot for 2016 especially considering how many candidates there are A Brokered GOP Convention in 2016? - US News


----------



## Explorer (Feb 17, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Indiana is actually a great example of what good conservative practices can do for a state's economy and job growth.



Short term or long term growth?

I'm just asking because of what I think are two common-sense ideas.


The economy relies on embrace and utilization of science.
If a leader is against science, that leader is bad for the economy.
Given that Indiana conservative legislators are again trying to undercut science...

Bangert: Evolution, science back in bill's cross hairs

...those efforts will not only have long term effects on the economy, but even on the lives of students who are being denied a decent, accurate education. 

Trenchlord, you and I recently discussed how there was only one GOP Presidential hopeful who completely embraced vaccination science. *It turns out that there is not a single GOP Presidential hopeful who completely endorses science, because either science violates their own beliefs, or because those hopefuls are pandering to those who are anti-science.*

*I'd love to hear your views on why you would be willing to endorse or vote for someone who would have a negative effect on the economy because of antiscientific views. *

(I'm assuming you're not about to vote for a Democrat, but if the anti-science stuff does make you reject such Republican candidates, that would be interesting, and would definitely set you apart from those who excuse such foolishness.)

The other topic, specifically about the antiscience of the GOP Presidential hopefuls, can be found here.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po...t-science-its-positive-effect-us-economy.html

i can't wait to hear your views on the matter.

*And, if you feel that being against science and accurate knowledge are not detrimental to the economy, and to those who suffer in terms of income and knowledge due to being poorly and inaccurately educated because of that anti-science bias, I'd love to hear your reasoning on that as well. *


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 17, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Short term or long term growth?
> 
> I'm just asking because of what I think are two common-sense ideas.
> 
> ...



You can't have long-term economic growth without first achieving short-term growth, and I'm sure most can agree that modern liberal policies have completely decimated the economies of many states.
Now to continue on and repeat such impractical policies when we know they aren't sustainable is a completely unscientific policy is it not?
I thereby propose to you that there are many on both sides who are embracing an anti-scientific approach to government.


I think you're maybe wasting too much thought in theory instead of examining the results of good conservative policy.
Just observe the advances that has been made in Wisconsin since Scott Walker has been chief executive.
Maybe if Obama had gained some leadership experience before assuming the world's most powerful office we'd all have been for the better.

inB4 "well Bush sucked too, and it's all really his fault!!!"


----------



## fantom (Feb 17, 2015)

Against my better judgment... procrastinate and get involved in politics!

Preface: I'm very centralist and care a lot more about issues than right/left wing. IMO, the concept of conservative vs. liberal is probably the biggest problem with the US political system. It should be about issues, not about which group you try to appeal to. People getting pigeonholed into a group makes them vote opposite of their beliefs sometimes because they feel stronger about other beliefs.




tedtan said:


> In short, those with money, power and privilege don't necessarily care to share that money/power/privilege with others, so they tend to want to keep things the way they are now. Changes desired by more progressive people will cause them to lose money, power and/or privilege, so the "haves" will typically fight tooth and nail to prevent these changes.



^^^^ This. ^^^^

I know several conservatives that are not "old". Most of them laugh at the religious fanaticism as much as liberals. Their main stance: "I lived broke for 4 years, got a degree, got a job, and work 10+ hours a day; I don't want to support people who are too lazy to apply themselves, stay in school, and get a job." One of my very conservative ex-gfs... she doesn't have a job, her parents and government programs pay for everything. When asked, "Don't you find this hypocritical?" Her response was, "If immigrants are taking taxpayer money, I should too." She actually thought it was fair to taxpayers if she took money to prevent "them" (immigrants and underprivileged families) from getting it, despite having a family capable and willing to help.

Really, it's about distribution of wealth. And it always will be. From my little time on this planet (living in a red and blue state), I would classify liberals as "trust everyone, help everyone, save the planet, sometimes the cost of us" and conservatives as "trust a small set of people that are vetted, help them as much as possible, and save them, sometimes at the cost of others."

You could almost label it as a "global" mentality and a "tribal" instinct. Both extremes have been taken so far out of context in politics that we completely miss the "what is best for the people that live around me".



Explorer said:


> The economy relies on embrace and utilization of science.
> If a leader is against science, that leader is bad for the economy.



Economy needs to embrace and utilize science? Please provide some kind of evidence here or justify your statement. Economy depends on transactions of goods and services. Science is not a requirement at all. I can see an argument that the global market includes a huge technology sector, but there's housing, food, entertainment, etc.

And a leader that puts his personal beliefs before his people is a bad leader.


----------



## Andromalia (Feb 17, 2015)

tedtan said:


> So in terms of predictions, I think we'll slowly creep towards todays' left, but I don't think it will happen anywhere near as quickly as you seem to.



Which is why you're screwed, because your "left" is our right's wet dream. Don't believe for a moment there is any left political party in the USA that has a slim chance of winning. Your "haves" took a lot of care that there is not one.


----------



## vilk (Feb 17, 2015)

kmanick said:


> Well first of all right wingers do not want to stop Latinos from Voting, they want to stop people who are here illegally and are not citizens from voting.



This guy who lives in my building worked IL governer's campaign, explained to me how their guy won by gerrymandering areas with latino populations so that they were long strips that would get overruled by white people. He was like almost kinda proud of it.

Yeah it's an anecdote... but I guess maybe sometimes I have a tendency to base my opinions on stuff I see/hear about first-hand instead of stuff people say online. It just seems so much more real when a dude who works for a republican campaign says stuff like "We win by stopping latino votes from counting".



I liked what dudeman said how the different sides are like embodiment of "global" vs "tribal". I don't really have anything to say about it I just thought it was good.


Anyhow, this thread wasn't exactly supposed to be about whether or not you think right wingers are a bunch of jerks. It was more about what do you think will replace their many standing points since modern information can often point to them being unequivocally "wrong" on a lot of issues. But if you think the current platform of conservatives is steady and will stick around for a while, what I have to ask is--how do you figure? what with religion dying, minority populations growing, rural residents moving to urban centers, etc. etc... why wouldn't that spell certain doom for the good-ol-boy-ism on which the current conservatives thrive?


----------



## asher (Feb 17, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> and I'm sure most can agree that modern liberal policies have completely decimated the economies of many states.



Many would be wrong when actually looking at the data though, or that we'd be much further down the shitter as a national economy had we followed the breathless warnings of "INFLATION! ZIMBABWE! WEIMAR REPUBLIC! DEBASED CURRENCY! DEFICIT HAWKS!" that many on the right have been issuing *since 2008*.


----------



## tedtan (Feb 17, 2015)

Don't get me wrong, the long term trend is to the left. But that change tends to happen VERY slowly here in the US.




vilk said:


> with religion dying



I don't see this happening as quickly as you do. I can't even begin to fathom religion dying off in less than three generations at a bare minimum, even with modern communications and information availability.

And do note that religious people aren't necessarily conservative; that is primarily the fundamentalist Christians. Catholics, and based on my ten years' experience working in an international engineering firm with colleagues from over 30 countries, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists tend to be more progressive (though I admit that this sample may be skewed because it is comprised of engineers rather than entrepreneurs, investment bankers, etc.).

And, even though I work in an engineering company (where I thought most of my colleagues would be atheist when I first started working here) it turns out somewhere around half are religious. Most of those are not fundamentalist Christians, however. They are the Hindus and Buddhists I mentioned above, along with a handful of more progressive Muslims and Christians thrown in the mix. So even if fundamentalist Christianity is on the decrease, there are plenty of other religions in play (though they tend to be more progressive, at least as compared to the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and Islam).




vilk said:


> minority populations growing



While many minorities in the city tend to be progressive, there are still tons of minorities that are conservative, too (if you don't believe me, come to Texas (or Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, etc.) and see for yourself). Trust me - they're here.




vilk said:


> rural residents moving to urban centers



This pretty much already happened after World War I and, in particular, World War II, so there aren't all that many rural people left to move to the cities these days (your specific situation in Indiana is not really representative of the country as a whole). But if this is a trend, I only see it as bringing more conservative people into the cities rather than as conservative people becoming progressive simply because they moved to the cities.


----------



## pink freud (Feb 17, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm sure most can agree that modern liberal policies have completely decimated the economies of many states.



Only because most people don't know what "Decimate" means.


----------



## Randy (Feb 17, 2015)

We'll throw a barbecue?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Feb 17, 2015)

How about a system that isn't a political 2 party mafia like we currently have? Or we change the views most people seem to have that asshole A isn't as bad as asshole B because of party affiliation while COMPLETELY ignoring that the same corporations pushing politicians to pass laws are funding both sides of the equation so they win either way? Not to mention ignoring what their past is, whom their friends are, their upbringing, etc.

America is a ....ing joke.

On a less cynical note [which I may or may not have already shared on this forum], I love to tell people my favorite president was Ronald Reagan [which he is], only to hear them bitch and moan about him being a republican and how I am a "tea bagging redneck" [yeah, right... from the hippie capital that is Washington state], only to go "Oh, by the way, JFK is my other favorite president. ...Moron."


----------



## 7stg (Feb 17, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> How about a system that isn't a political 2 party mafia like we currently have?


Exactly, this is a good quiz that points to multiple political parties. It works best to answer all the extra questions with the detailed answer options.
I Side With

There are models that are more advanced than the narrow left right paradigm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
Here is a test 
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 17, 2015)

Randy said:


> We'll throw a barbecue?



I just knew you'd be in here with something of the like .:


----------



## estabon37 (Feb 18, 2015)

7stg said:


> Exactly, this is a good quiz that points to multiple political parties. It works best to answer all the extra questions with the detailed answer options.
> I Side With
> 
> There are models that are more advanced than the narrow left right paradigm.
> ...



Dang, you beat me to it!

Here's why I was going to reference the political compass:







The Labor Party is Australia's major 'left' party. Yeah, that's them in the top right corner, only two spaces lower left of our major 'right' and currently-governing Liberal / National Coalition (combination of two parties). 

Just for fun, here's a compass with five names from the 2012 US Presidential Election:






Realistically, despite what many of us (me included) said in the "Why So Many Lefties?" thread from last year, very few Westerners are actual lefties. The more I look at the substance of many current debates, the more the divide seems to be social services vs market services, and the idea that only a 'lefty' would support social services is fairly new.

Conservatism itself isn't really measured on the political compass, unless you think the word 'conservative' is synonymous with 'right-wing'. I've always understood conservatism as essentially not wanting laws or society to change, or wanting the laws to better reflect those of the past. Occasionally I hear the term 'fiscal conservative' thrown around by people that are essentially saying: "I don't need welfare, and I think that anybody that does is human scum, but I look bad if I say that out loud, so I'm going to describe myself as a fiscal conservative instead". Unfortunately, the world's shittier people aren't very good at coming up with their own ideas, so instead they hijack the ideas of movements that might otherwise have done some good in the world.

 Huh. I just noticed a chip on my shoulder. I wonder whether or not that's been there since I moved back to a politically-conservative stronghold as a student on welfare benefits. I'll see myself out...


----------



## 7stg (Feb 18, 2015)

I always land strongly libertarian and slightly left.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Feb 18, 2015)

Here's where I landed.


----------



## asher (Feb 18, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> Realistically, despite what many of us (me included) said in the "Why So Many Lefties?" thread from last year, very few Westerners are actual lefties. The more I look at the substance of many current debates, the more the divide seems to be social services vs market services, and the idea that only a 'lefty' would support social services is fairly new.
> .



Plenty of Westerners are actual lefties. Almost no Western *candidates* are. They're probably generally unelectable, at least right now in the US on a wide scale. Hell, there have been a bunch of polls done right around our midterms that basically said that all the ideas that many Democrats support (health care reform, higher minimum wage, some stronger social services, etc) are really popular on their own as issues, and then the same people turn around and vote for a Republican that will never do any of those things and doesn't claim to


----------



## vilk (Feb 18, 2015)

If American left isn't real left then how left is the European left left?


----------



## UnderTheSign (Feb 18, 2015)

Only ~60% right? Obama, freaking commie.





I don't know about the American left but I do know there are some very socialist/further left leaning parties here in Europe. You know, further left than just "proper healthcare for everyone".


----------



## Mike (Feb 18, 2015)

Every now and again I have similar thoughts about what the political, economic, and social structure of the US will be like when the old people die (more specifically the right wingers in power). To put my perspective of them simply, they're a religiously guided, closed minded selfish bunch that only do what betters themselves and their kin. 

I think every up and coming generation has had the same thought(s) as their time to take the wheel (so to speak) draws closer. Many of the people that are in power now are the children of the 60's. They were all about love and open mindedness back in their youth. What happened? Where are they today? When they were young, they were thinking the same things as the 20 and 30 somethings of today. When we grow up, it'll all be different, and yet it's not. I think the modern liberal youth we see is only a small sample of what exists in the country. It's because it's the culture and peers we choose to surround ourselves with. This site, imgur, reddit, tumblr?, other blog sites, youtube, etc. They're left wing ideology breeding grounds. It doesn't really paint the whole picture when you only associate and surround yourself with like minded people and ideas.

When tomorrow comes, I think there will be just as many bible humping, right wing, rich old people in power. They just hand the keys to their son, daughter, granddaughter, and so on. Even if their (The old people, power keepers, keyholders) successors may not whole-heartedly agree with every point of the system they'll be in control of, everyone loves a free ride and easy money.

edit: Also this lol


----------



## estabon37 (Feb 18, 2015)

asher said:


> Plenty of Westerners are actual lefties. Almost no Western *candidates* are. They're probably generally unelectable, at least right now in the US on a wide scale.



Yeah, that's way better worded than how I put it. I definitely should have tried to make my thoughts a little more intelligible on that point. Oops.

When I think about it, my own 'left-leaning' stance is more a reaction against how far right the first world has gone than it is an actual desire to see leftist parties creating leftist policies. Although I keep landing in that same green square on the compass whenever I take the test, I can't help feeling that being forced to provide simplistic responses to complex questions leaves me overcompensating in some of my responses. I'm sure if the major parties started shifting closer to the middle of the compass I'd start shifting to meet them.


----------



## asher (Feb 19, 2015)

I know where I stand on that scale, I don't need over simplified mediocre quiz questions to tell me it


----------



## will_shred (Feb 19, 2015)

I hope that eventually people will realize the left/right dichotomy is a veil designed to divide working class people so they'll fight among themselves while corporate executives and wall street bankers steal their future out from under their noses. 

As for people who hold beliefs that are inherently rooted in ignorance or outright denial of reality, I figure they will eventually just be phased out of society. That's assuming people are given living conditions conductive to knowledge/truth seeking. If you look in industrialized nations, each succeeding generation is becoming more secular, more "liberal", and are trending towards preferences of less authoritarian rule/oversight in all aspects of life. I think that's a good thing.


----------



## asher (Feb 19, 2015)

Designed by whom?

It's a divide that's been going on for 200 something years, and back then everyone here hated landed aristocracy.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 19, 2015)

Will's and asher's comments made me think about how the current political climate leads some to accommodate the crazies for gain.

And that made me think of how, even back in colonial days, the rational folks had to accommodate the slave-owners and religious nuts in order to present a united front against the British. 

I hadn't really thought about that history of accommodationism, so thanks for leading me to think about it!


----------



## piggins411 (Feb 20, 2015)

I actually prefer over simplified mediocre quiz questions to tell me


----------



## pushpull7 (Feb 20, 2015)

I did one of these once. I was smack dad in the middle.

edited, I'm too chicken to get into that


----------



## wat (Feb 24, 2015)

You're not taking into account the young liberals who will become rich and inevitably become republicans.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 24, 2015)

I took that quiz ages ago, but I took it again and was surprised that I landed near the bottom, but on right side of the center. Maybe it's true that you lean more to the right as you get older.


----------



## wat (Feb 24, 2015)




----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 25, 2015)

bostjan said:


> I took that quiz ages ago, but I took it again and was surprised that I landed near the bottom, but on right side of the center. Maybe it's true that you lean more to the right as you get older.



I have continually moved farther left and down, on that scale, as I age. *shrugs*


----------



## Hollowway (Feb 25, 2015)

pink freud said:


> Only because most people don't know what "Decimate" means.



Well, not to be pedantic, but decimate technically means: to reduce by 10%. It's Latin, meaning "taken as a tenth." It was a Roman thing where they would execute one of 10 men in a legion if they tried to mutiny. Today we use the term meaning way more than 10%, but technically to decimate is not nearly as damaging as we make it out to be. Now, I realize I've just been "that guy" at our cocktail party conversation, but I just couldn't help myself.


----------



## Hollowway (Feb 25, 2015)

You know, the other thing is that the "old people" that make up the conservatives weren't always that way. In other words, people change. Often times, people become more conservative when they have kids and start earning lots of money. It's easy to believe that millionaires should have the crap taxed out of them - until you become one. So I think that a lot of times people age and become more conservative.

But, as Trench said, there is a huge amount of focus on social stuff, by both parties, and unfortunately it ends up happening at the expense of fiscal stuff. Which sucks, because most conservatives love Reagan, and he didn't focus much on social stuff.

EDIT: Just noticed wat said essentially the same thing I said a couple posts above me.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 25, 2015)

I've taken that quiz many times, and it always places me in the left-wing libertarian quadrant. If I was to describe myself though I would always tell you that I'm not a fan of libertarianism. Personally, I've always heard it described as a weak state with few regulations. Taken to its extreme, anarcho-syndicalism on the left or anarcho-capitalism on the right. However, I tend to believe that a lack of regulation from a starting point of our current situation would result in the latter. Extreme exploitation and inequality. I guess I might be down with anarcho-syndicalism, but I'm far too pessimistic about human nature to ever believe that deregulation and shrinking the state would result in that kind of system.

I also think the questions that would skew you to the authoritarian side of things are badly worded to sound negative.

So, I think I'd settle for increasing taxes on wealthy to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth, guaranteed liveable income, etc. Generally, legislated equality.

Some of my craziest opinions would revolve around education. For-profit/private education should be illegal. I would settle for private universities, etc. being mandated to approximatey match the tuition of comparable public entities. Also, increasing funding for universities and K-12 education at the national level on a per-student basis to mitigate the effects of state budget cuts to education. Making student loans such that repayment on the principle is all that's required, and if payment of that in ~10 years isn't possible without reducing you below the poverty level (which should be set higher) then remaining balances would be discharged. How would this be payed for?Not really sure, but I'm being idealistic here. Of course, this is mostly informed by my present situation as a graduate student and how I've seen the funding for higher education in this country go into the shitter.

Pretty much, I would be unelectable in this country.






Anyway... that was kind of off topic so I'll post again with something more relevant.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 25, 2015)

So, I'll tell you a story about a kid from a small town in Michigan. Let's call him groverj3. He was raised in a fairly centrist environment, which was not overly religious. While he was growing up in this environment he had many friends, also from this small town. Some of whom were from fairly conservative, sometimes very religious, families. A lot of them opposed government policies that would help their situation (this is a small town with not a lot of racial diversity, but plenty of poor people because there aren't decent jobs in small towns... usually). Some of those people had lived in that town their entire lives, and their parents had lived there as well. During this time he didn't see the need for affirmative action programs, didn't really care about the legality of abortions, had great health insurance through his parents' insurance, and his parents had saved up some money for college.

Groverj3 left for college and met lots of people that weren't the same race, weren't from middle-class families, were from different parts of the country (or from different countries), and generally heard many different opinions. Gradually he experienced new things. Grappled with not having money for necessities. Grappled with increasing student loan burden because society judged him not poor enough for help, but too poor to deserve an education. Grappled with navigating a job market following graduation in a field dependent on governmental support (science). Slowly he began to realize that the free market is not a god to be worshipped. It can drive innovation, sure, but also exploitation, and it doesn't value things that don't drive profits in the short term. He also learned not to be quite as reactionary to new ideas.

He also noticed a similar trend in his friends that also went away to univerisities. At least when they weren't from extremely wealthy families. However, those that stayed cloistered in his 2,000 person hometown remained largely ignorant to the other ideas and ways of life out there. Generally, they became more socially conservative if they weren't already.

What am I getting at? This is just one specific example, and I think it applies well to small town upbringing. I use it because that's what I knew in my younger days. It's likely that being exposed to new situations and diverse peoples makes you more accepting of new ideas and less "conservative" in some ways. There are also some ways in which conservatives' brains differ from leftists' when processing information. Based on the conditions of your upbringing and the effect that has on political opinion (plus whatever component is inborn) there are always going to be "conservatives."

I do think, however, that some positions that conservatives oppose are going to change over time. Gay marriage, for example, will likely be legalized nationwide relatively soon. As people grow up used to a world in which that is accepted it will no longer garner such strong reactions.

I do fear for the future in one area in particular. Climate change. Lots of people on both the right and the left are unwilling to accept scientific evidence on a lot of issues. The right in the US has issues with climate change (and the left to some extent with GM-food). This is, I think, fueled by a lack of support for science education and continued defunding of education, in general.

Sorry for the novel


----------



## asher (Feb 25, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> But, as Trench said, there is a huge amount of focus on social stuff, by both parties, and unfortunately it ends up happening at the expense of fiscal stuff. Which sucks, because most conservatives love Reagan, and he didn't focus much on social stuff.



Except two things:

1) His economic policies were kind of garbage, and

2) He more or less invented the welfare is for "young bucks riding around in their Cadillacs getting t-bone steaks with it" line/mother-of-all-dog-whistles.

I'd call that very social.


----------



## Hollowway (Feb 25, 2015)

asher said:


> Except two things:
> 
> 1) His economic policies were kind of garbage, and
> 
> ...



Yeah, that may all be true. I was pulling most of that out of my ass.  all I know is that a lot of conservatives like him. I'm ignorant as to what his actually policies were.


----------



## asher (Feb 25, 2015)

In a word:

Turrble.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 25, 2015)

It may or may not be a coincidence, but the day Reagan stepped into office all the way until even now 90% (in relation to GDP) have been on a steep decline as far as economic growth while the top 10% has been on a steep rise. Today, growth for the bottom 90% is actually in the negatives. Me thinks Reaganomics doesn't work at all.

It's been on a steady decline for almost 100 years now due to technology changes, but the trend changed for the worse in the 80's (well even more so). The data is out there for people to view, but no one is interested beyond the talking points.


----------



## wat (Feb 25, 2015)

LOL I love how alike all our test results are. As if it comes as much of a surprise


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 25, 2015)

flint757 said:


> It may or may not be a coincidence, but the day Reagan stepped into office all the way until even now 90% (in relation to GDP) have been on a steep decline as far as economic growth while the top 10% has been on a steep rise. Today, growth for the bottom 90% is actually in the negatives. Me thinks Reaganomics doesn't work at all.
> 
> It's been on a steady decline for almost 100 years now due to technology changes, but the trend changed for the worse in the 80's (well even more so). The data is out there for people to view, but no one is interested beyond the talking points.



You're right. Reaganomics was a joke. Trickledown economics doesn't work.


----------



## pwsusi (Feb 25, 2015)

Reagan hasn't been president since 1988. So since this is a continuing problem what you're saying is that past and present presidents are also to blame for the stagnant lower class. Either they too guilty of implementing trickle down (ie the problem), or perhaps trickle down isn't the real problem. It's either one or the other because Reagan is long gone.


----------



## asher (Feb 25, 2015)

God forbid policy actions have long running effects and political realities!


----------



## flint757 (Feb 25, 2015)

pwsusi said:


> Reagan hasn't been president since 1988. So since this is a continuing problem what you're saying is that past and present presidents are also to blame for the stagnant lower class. Either they too guilty of implementing trickle down (ie the problem), or perhaps trickle down isn't the real problem. It's either one or the other because Reagan is long gone.



I said Reagonomics which is still very much a thing in today's political climate.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 25, 2015)

It's worth pointing out that every time there has been a Republican in the White House beginning with Nixon, the next President has been stuck with the terrible economic consequences of bad fiscal policies.

It happened with Carter being stuck with Nixon's economy, Obama being stuck with W. Bush's economy... and Bush the father being stuck with the fallout from Reagan's economy. 

Carter bit the bullet and Whipped Inflation Now. Obama managed to get out of the employment and economic hole left by W's deficit spending policies, and Clinton had to fix the Bush/Reagan economy, managing to bring the economy to a great place before W squandered it.

i was also vastly amused by conservatives who bashed Obama for not fixing W's mess fast enough, while they maintain silence on the policies which caused the mess in the first place. it's like they're either dishonest, or just so stupid that they really think the economy tanked under Obama instead of during W's term. 

Just some facts for consideration. The facts about Reagan's terrible economic results are what always get my conservative friends to say, I have to research this... and then they never bring it up again.


----------



## pwsusi (Feb 25, 2015)

> I said Reagonomics which is still very much a thing in today's political climate


Didnt answer the question. The low income stagnation statement above includes the last 6 years under obama. So either he is either also guilty of failed Reaganomics or regeanomics is not to the issue. It had to be one or the other.the statement "part of the political climate" is vague. Either his economic policies have continued the trend or not.


----------



## tedtan (Feb 25, 2015)

pwsusi said:


> Reagan hasn't been president since 1988. So since this is a continuing problem what you're saying is that past and present presidents are also to blame for the stagnant lower class. Either they too guilty of implementing trickle down (ie the problem), or perhaps trickle down isn't the real problem. It's either one or the other because Reagan is long gone.



In addition to what others have already said, Alan Greenspan was head of the Federal Reserve from Reagan's second term through GWB's last term ('87 through '06), so you might want to do a bit of research on Mr. Greenspan, too, as the head of the Fed has considerable economic influence in the US.


----------



## pwsusi (Feb 25, 2015)

> It's worth pointing out that every time there has been a Republican in the White House beginning with Nixon, the next President has been stuck with the terrible economic consequences of bad fiscal policies.
> 
> It happened with Carter being stuck with Nixon's economy, Obama being stuck with W. Bush's economy... and Bush the father being stuck with the fallout from Reagan's economy.
> 
> ...


Bush was a republican but not a fiscal conservative. the big spending under his watch is often (rightfully) criticized but his actions were often not consistent with conservative principles. They are more akin to the spending under Obama yet the left gives him a pass. Either you're against fiscal irresponsibility or not. You can't have it both ways based on whether or not 
your party is in the white house.

As far as the "facts" above. As bad as I think bush was I do not blame him soley for the economic crisis. The reality is that it was largely caused by the housing market crash. It happened under his watch and he gets the blame but honestly it wasn't his doIng. One could argue legislation under CInton had more to do with the bottom eventually falling out. Just blaming bush because he was sitting in the oval office is a simplistic view and disingenuous.

As for.Clinton, You give him credit for a great economy yet don't do the same for Reagan who also enjoyed a strong economy for most of his administration. They are similar in that regard, as well in the fact that we faced difficult economic times shortly after both left office. In the case of regean you blame future problems on policies from the past administration but don't that for clinton. Interesting. I don't blame clinton for the dot Com bust just as much as I don't blame bush for the housing bust....both of which hit our economy hard. What's probably closer to the truth is that we go through cycles...both high and low. all the while both sides are doing nothing for the middle class and the deficit continues to grow terribly under both.


----------



## pink freud (Feb 25, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> Well, not to be pedantic, but decimate technically means: to reduce by 10%. It's Latin, meaning "taken as a tenth." It was a Roman thing where they would execute one of 10 men in a legion if they tried to mutiny. Today we use the term meaning way more than 10%, but technically to decimate is not nearly as damaging as we make it out to be. Now, I realize I've just been "that guy" at our cocktail party conversation, but I just couldn't help myself.



But I was that guy! You're just the guy who sounds like they are disagreeing with somebody whilst actually agreeing with them! You're that guy.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 25, 2015)

pwsusi said:


> Didnt answer the question. The low income stagnation statement above includes the last 6 years under obama. So either he is either also guilty of failed Reaganomics or regeanomics is not to the issue. It had to be one or the other.the statement "part of the political climate" is vague. Either his economic policies have continued the trend or not.



Since the term Reaganomics was coined it has been in play. It has been the default economic policy for quite some time now. 

You really love dichotomy's.  

I never once said Reagan was the only person to implement these policies, but he was obviously one of the first. I find it very amusing when people try to make a point by not making a point at all.



pwsusi said:


> Bush was a republican but not a fiscal conservative. the big spending under his watch is often (rightfully) criticized but his actions were often not consistent with conservative principles. They are more akin to the spending under Obama yet the left gives him a pass. Either you're against fiscal irresponsibility or not. You can't have it both ways based on whether or not
> your party is in the white house.
> 
> As far as the "facts" above. As bad as I think bush was I do not blame him soley for the economic crisis. The reality is that it was largely caused by the housing market crash. It happened under his watch and he gets the blame but honestly it wasn't his doIng. One could argue legislation under CInton had more to do with the bottom eventually falling out. Just blaming bush because he was sitting in the oval office is a simplistic view and disingenuous.
> ...



No Republican is actually fiscally or socially conservative IMO. Even Reagan himself was a big spender in the oval office. While their views line up with conservative christian values socially, their efforts to implement them isn't all that conservative either (in a small government sense).

As for Clinton I also partially blame him for what happened. His bi-partisan nature caused him to push through a lot of Wall Street deregulation, such as Glass-Steagall, which IMO contributed a lot to what happened the following years. 

As for what I was originally discussing, the data is clear as day. There is a sharp drop in economic growth for the bottom 90% during Reagan's terms and a slight bump up from the internet boom. Then from there a steady decline to where we are now which is in the negatives. That is from outsourcing, technology growth and bad economic policies. I think it is important to note that both parties have implemented very Republican fiscal policies. The only difference lying really in some social policies and certain regulations like with the EPA and such. Both parties have kept the trickle down economic model in play since its introduction. Funny enough this country was at its healthiest when it was the reverse. What we have now is a system that highly favors stockholders which are already the wealthiest 10%. Not exactly a fiscally productive approach.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 28, 2015)

vilk said:


> People who maintain the values of the current GOP are pretty much limited to old people. The only young people who've got their backs are pretty much either raised by religious zealots, OR: I almost feel like among younger folks, many people who are "right-wing" are actually just posers who are only doing it to be counter to everyone else... but with so much easy access to information I don't actually believe they are going to stick with their classist/racist/sexist/anti-science opinions in the long run. Obviously old people are practically incapable of mental change so in their case they'll just have to die off, probably kinda slowly because of modern medicine but w/e.
> 
> 
> So what I was wondering is... what will fill the void? I mean, chances are we will be seeing this before the end of our lifetime, so might as well make some projections, right?



The thing is that people naturally become more conservative as they get older. As you age, you'll notice more and more of your friends complaining about the kids today, and the "good old days," and all of that - while this doesn't necessarily mean they'll change their political alignment, it's the same general thinking process. Conservatives tend to oppose change unless it's in a direction perceived as being "back to the good ol' days" and thus it lines up perfectly with how people become stubborn as they get older.

So in short, when the conservatives die, the people that are the age of the current conservatives will have taken up the mantle! Plus there are plenty of kids who were raised with a strict conservative belief system who start out with the mindset. I don't know very many people who ended up having different political beliefs than their parents once they were out of college, except in minor ways. I think kids of conservative parents are less likely to be racist or anti-gay rights. This is all based on working in a pretty majorly right-wing college and watching the kids and their student council meetings all the time, though. I'd say only 10% of them are the really nutty ones who think the Koch brothers are awesome and want nothing more than to exterminate the poor.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 28, 2015)

Reaganomics absolutely work for those willing to go get it.
It's not designed for those who want to sit around and have it fall right into their laps .
It's about an opportunity, not a guarantee.


----------



## asher (Feb 28, 2015)




----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 28, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Reaganomics absolutely work for those willing to go get it.
> It's not designed for those who want to sit around and have it fall right into their laps .
> It's about an opportunity, not a guarantee.



if trickle down didn't work, cities would be competing to have the largest service-based economy... However at last check, nobody wants to be Rhode Island... Even Rhode Island. Our governor wants more $60k a year jobs because those people buy homes and pay property taxes and still have money left over for dining and entertainment


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 28, 2015)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> if trickle down didn't work, cities would be competing to have the largest service-based economy... However at last check, nobody wants to be Rhode Island... Even Rhode Island. Our governor wants more $60k a year jobs because those people buy homes and pay property taxes and still have money left over for dining and entertainment




Exactly.


It's not about lifting the poor man up, it's about creating a climate that provides the chance for the poor man to lift himself up .


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 28, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> It's not about lifting the poor man up, it's about creating a climate that provides the chance for the poor man to lift himself up .



I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment.

I think we all just disagree with what can be done to create that climate.

For instance: trickle-down economics and tax-cuts are what so-called fiscal conservatives continually espouse as the way to create an environment conducive for the lower class to rise up as a consequence of their efforts. The thing is, we've tried that over and over again and it just doesn't provide that outcome.

Of course, it does provide a way for the rich to get richer in the short term while destabilizing the economy in the long term.


----------



## asher (Feb 28, 2015)

So if I brought in a bunch of evidence that stronger social safety nets/welfare/whatever *improve* upwards social mobility, what would you say to that?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 28, 2015)

Mordacain said:


> For instance: trickle-down economics and tax-cuts are what so-called fiscal conservatives continually espouse as the way to create an environment conducive for the lower class to rise up as a consequence of their efforts. The thing is, we've tried that over and over again and it just doesn't provide that outcome.



It does though.
There has never been and never will be a system that lifts the lower-class (and I mean that in a $way) entirely up.

Just look at how many more wealthy, or at least well off people there are now in the USA compared to the days just before Reagan.

Reaganomics nor anything else will deplete the lower-class of citizens.

The sad truth is that you can give all the poor people say $50,000 (just for examples sake), and just one year later about 75% of them would be absolutely dead broke again.

Obamanomics is a system designed to prop the poor up artificially, and the second they're no longer propped up, they'll be right back in the gutter financially speaking.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 28, 2015)

By "Obamanomics," do you mean the opposite of running up the credit cards and debt like Reaganomics did?

Because I think Obama has cut the national debt and grown employment more than Reagan did. 

Are there any numbers on the national debt with Reagan and with Obama? I think I read somewhere that Obama managed to deal with the lost jobs and the huge credit card bills George W. Bush ran up. Is that just a mistaken impression, or reality?

Oh, and trenchlord... you were defending Bill O'Reilly's truthfulness in the other topic, but haven't commented about the audio where Bill himself puts a lie to his being in Miami for that suicide, as Bill claims in his book (among other places). Since it's Bill's word against Bill's word, I look forward to seeing which Bill you think is lying, but I suspect there will just be silence rather than you acknowledging the reality of Bill's lies. 

I look forward to being surprised, though, and I'm hopeful you might turn it around!


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 28, 2015)

1 Out of Every 25 American Households Is a Millionaire

What was the % before Reagan? I'm sure betting it wasn't even close to that, even accounting for inflation.

Liberals seem to think there's some magical permanent solution to expel poverty, but there just isn't because it's a state of habitual being for many no matter what policies are enacted.


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 28, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> It does though.



Really? Every economist from here to Timbuktu would probably disagree with that statement.

There are a bevy of statistics showing the negative net-effect of von Hayek inspired financial policies on the middle class on down. Interesting side note, in general, most fortune 500 companies also clear greater profits during the years that a Democrat is president and the congress and house are not owned by Republicans. The trend of GDP growth during Democrat tenure is undeniable and that is in-spite of having only a half-functional government while the GOP closes ranks and puts the proverbial emergency brake on the country.

What's funny is that personally, I despise the idea of some lazy asshole gaming the system and in general I don't like the idea of social safety nets; I've never had to use one and I doubt I ever will. Everytime I've lost a job I've had another one within 42 hours, even if it was minimum wage; I'll scraped by until I could rise up again. The thing is, I don't let my personal biases skew my vision enough to ignore evidence.

And the evidence has never supported the claims that fiscal conservatives make with regards to the economy. Not once. Ever.

In fact, if we had an alternative to oil in the 70's, there is every chance
we'd still be practicing Keynesian principles and the off-shoring trend never would have occurred.


----------



## Eliguy666 (Mar 1, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Politicians on both sides need to start focusing on economics and defense (not only our own but also of our allies) and quit with this social engineering B.S..



Is my right to eventually marry my boyfriend "B.S."? Is the right of a person to control their own body regardless of religious opposition "B.S."? Is the right of black people to not get murdered by police who get off for free "B.S."? Is the ability of a poor, sick person to receive medical care without losing everything they own "B.S."?
My livelihood is not a political triviality, and shame on anybody who says it is.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 1, 2015)

Eliguy666 said:


> Is my right to eventually marry my boyfriend "B.S."? Is the right of a person to control their own body regardless of religious opposition "B.S."? Is the right of black people to not get murdered by police who get off for free "B.S."? Is the ability of a poor, sick person to receive medical care without losing everything they own "B.S."?
> My livelihood is not a political triviality, and shame on anybody who says it is.



Wow!!! I just didn't realize the level of persecution we still suffer here.
And here I thought people living in Syria under ISIS control had it bad.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Mar 1, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Wow!!! I just didn't realize the level of persecution we still suffer here.
> And here I thought people living in Syria under ISIS control had it bad.



My my, Trench. That's rather close-minded and unsympathetic of you. For shame!


----------



## Eliguy666 (Mar 1, 2015)

Trivializing systemic persecution by comparing it to something else that's terrible doesn't make it better.
If that is your perspective, though, congratulations, because now you've just admitted that nobody has to care about anything that you say because _I'm_ more politically targeted than you are!


----------



## Mordacain (Mar 1, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Wow!!! I just didn't realize the level of persecution we still suffer here.
> And here I thought people living in Syria under ISIS control had it bad.



ISIS kills people for being a different religion / country / mindset

Cops kill people for having a different colored skin / economic class

Homophobes kill and beat people because their religion told them to / that they can't take that they might also be gay / insert whatever reason

There are plenty of Christians in this country that advocate killing all Muslims, Jews, Atheists (insert any other religion or lack of here) and if given the chance probably would.

I'm not really seeing a difference in the mentalities there.


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 2, 2015)

Not _quite _true. Cops take out their frustrations and power-play on MANY upon MANY that are white. The mentally ill for example. The idea that it's just cops against minorities (and let's face it, 95% of time people mean blacks when they say minority) isn't completely true. Oh, they .... with blacks....I'm not saying that isn't true. But they .... with many people.

Worked for THREE companies owned by cops. GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT was mentioned more than once


----------



## bostjan (Mar 2, 2015)

I don't understand the argument that people in the middle east have it worst, therefore we should trample domestic social liberties.


----------



## asher (Mar 2, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Not _quite _true. Cops take out their frustrations and power-play on MANY upon MANY that are white. The mentally ill for example. The idea that it's just cops against minorities (and let's face it, 95% of time people mean blacks when they say minority) isn't completely true. Oh, they .... with blacks....I'm not saying that isn't true. But they .... with many people.
> 
> Worked for THREE companies owned by cops. GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT was mentioned more than once



Nobody will argue they don't .... with everyone.

But there are large amounts of data that show that they particularly .... with black people to a much greater degree.

@bostjan: Because sit down and shut up that's why.


----------

