The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion

19 views
US politics > Changing Demographics of the South (Future Elections)

Comments Showing 1-24 of 24 (24 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Alicja (new)

Alicja (darkwingduckie7) | 228 comments Interesting piece on how some solid southern states may become purple in the next couple of election making the Republicans fight for what used to be a sure thing.

http://prospect.org/article/end-solid...


message 2: by Jimmy (new)

Jimmy Good story. I'm hopeful.


message 3: by Mark (new)

Mark | 785 comments It seems evident that the current Republican plan, which they are implementing aggressively and supremely effectively, is to make demographics wholly irrelevant. With redistricting, ID laws, every kind of voter suppression humanly imaginable -- and that leaves aside systematic fraud and the use of Diebold and hacked machines -- complete electoral nullification has virtually been achieved already (it certainly has for purposes of the House), and senatorial and presidential elections are being corrupted in the same way. It'll soon reach the point at which it won't matter if 95% of *real* votes are for democrats: the repugs will still steal all the elections. So you'll have to count me as not encouraged or reassured, I'm afraid.


message 4: by Robert (new)

Robert Zwilling It was only a matter of time before the web became corrupted so it would show you only stories with the slant you have been "picked" to receive based on your buying habits.

Then there will be the pump sites dedicated to keeping certain sites above the rest powered by big time dollar signs.

The problems will intensify when envy is replaced by jealousy.


message 5: by Alicja (new)

Alicja (darkwingduckie7) | 228 comments Mark wrote: "It seems evident that the current Republican plan, which they are implementing aggressively and supremely effectively, is to make demographics wholly irrelevant. With redistricting, ID laws, every..."

I don't think it is as bleak as you make it out to be. Yes, there is a huge problem with the House elections district gerrymandering but that is harder to do for the Senate and Presidential elections. That, along with the under 35s being much more socially liberal, the GOP will have to change to compete.


message 6: by Robert (new)

Robert Zwilling The new younger vote is probably going to be liberal minded, contributes to causes they pick, and against taxes.

If the new healthcare turns out to be more expensive, more crappy policies (boosted by the new policies for the formerly uninsured and crappy means things like no doctors anywhere near you) and more money for the insurance companies this might turn away some democrats. Spying on everyone is not going to be a vote getter for everyone.

The repubs are two parties going in opposite directions at times. The older repubs who want no change along with the tea party are on one side, the new leadership and the more middle of the road (not knee jerk anti women, not anti immigration, not anti everything that is different) repubs are on the other side.

A dark horse candidate put up by the NSA might take the election by saying nothing and appealing to everyone. The trick would be to appear at the last moment to avoid any kind of serious spot light time so they could get away with saying nothing.


message 7: by Alicja (new)

Alicja (darkwingduckie7) | 228 comments Scocially liberal doesn't mean Democrat. I know many of my age group that identify as libertarian and are really torn between the social liberal view of the Democrats and as they view it, fiscally conservative Republicans. And even though I vote Democrat, I identify more with the Green Party than any other. Maybe what the US needs is a system that fuctions with more than two parties, if voting libertarian or green party wasn't throwing one's vote away, maybe then people would be able to get better representation in the government. Like you said, there are many misteps of the Decratic party that many Democrats don't like, but they feel like voting for the lesser of two evils.


message 8: by Mark (last edited Jun 11, 2013 09:31PM) (new)

Mark | 785 comments Alicja wrote: "Mark wrote: "It seems evident that the current Republican plan, which they are implementing aggressively and supremely effectively, is to make demographics wholly irrelevant. ... don't think it is as bleak as you make it out to be. "

I think it is bleaker than it is possible even to characterize. This is the express, orchestrated and fully-articulated Republican strategy, going forward. I've heard immeasurably worse since, but here are a few pre-election references I had earlier made note of:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/201...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/11...

http://www.demos.org/video/voter-frau...

http://www.demos.org/publication/bull...


message 9: by Mark (last edited Jun 12, 2013 12:49AM) (new)

Mark | 785 comments Alicja wrote: "Scocially liberal doesn't mean Democrat. I know many of my age group that identify as libertarian and are really torn between the social liberal view of the Democrats and as they view it, fiscally ..."

I've always personally felt that we ought to have a parliamentary system, with multiple parties represented and coalitions possible among them -- if only because European and other countries that operate on that basis seem to behave in ways that are less manifestly anti-human and insane. That said, we certainly won't ever have a parliamentary system, and I can't see any other way of sustaining a viable multi-party system, to overcome the dilemma in which, as you say, those averse to the choice between useless and satanic are effectively compelled to choose useless -- or throw away their votes.


message 10: by Robert (new)

Robert Zwilling Europe is as insane as it comes, they have a very diverse mixture from the ultra rich to large populations of virtually stateless people with high unemployment all within a stones throw of each other and acting as if they were worlds apart which they are.


message 11: by Mark (new)

Mark | 785 comments Robert wrote: "Europe is as insane as it comes, they have a very diverse mixture from the ultra rich to large populations of virtually stateless people with high unemployment all within a stones throw of each oth..."

They have single-payer universal health care. This country is UNIQUE among the wealthiest 17 in that we're happy (indeed, eager) to let people die in the street. Also, NO European country has a GINI index of wealth inequality that is even remotely close to ours. For approximately equal levels of wealth inequality, you have to go to Rwanda, Uganda, Madagascar and Cameroon. THAT is the company we keep.


message 12: by Mark (new)

Mark | 785 comments Also, speaking of wildly insane:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...


message 13: by Alicja (new)

Alicja (darkwingduckie7) | 228 comments Mark wrote: "Also, speaking of wildly insane:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w..."


One big difference in Europe is that on TV they tend to censor violence, especially during times that kids watch, but more freely show sex (I lived in Europe for some time and seeing bare breasts on TV at 8 pm was normal in movies and TV shows on any channel). Personally, I think we have a whole bunch (I do not mean most, just a significant number compared to outher countries) of sexually repressed men/boys (since most violent crimes tend to be perpetuated by men, although not exclusively men) who have been conditioned to respond with violence to let out their frustrations and a culture with readily avaliable guns at every corner.

And I am not trying to trivialize voter supression, I've read many stories about it during election times. However, I think the GOP will piss off enough people that even with voter suppression, gerrymandering, and all the other underhanded ways that the GOP is trying to get an upper hand, they will succeed less and less until they change. There is a limit to how much one can play the system and work the numbers.


message 14: by Mark (last edited Jun 12, 2013 07:59AM) (new)

Mark | 785 comments Alicja wrote: "Mark wrote: "Also, speaking of wildly insane:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w..."

One big difference in Europe is that on TV they tend to censo..."


I think you're exactly right about the effects of sexual repression and ubiquitous violence-as-entertainment, though since violent movies and video games are standard fare in Japan (which had zero gun deaths last year), ready availability of guns really does seem to be the potentiating factor. Absent the weapons, you just have a lot of repressed, impulsive and violent young males. But there's a limit to what they can do with knives.

I honestly hope you're right about some theoretical limit to suppression and corruption that can occur without instigating a virtual revolution, but I'm just not hopeful. Right now, the GOP is successfully prosecuting a campaign to make abortion unavailable and/or illegal (with no exceptions) state-by-state. And I just don't see the needed, proportionately aggressive counterattack, though heaven knows, Planned Parenthood is doing its best not to be euthanized.


message 15: by Alicja (new)

Alicja (darkwingduckie7) | 228 comments Regarding abortion, I think the conservative states are getting away from it because pro-choice isn't a "popular" movement of the moment so those not in the states that are leading this attack seem to be apathetic about it ("as long as its not in my state"). Planned Parenthood has also been misrepresented in the media and discussions. I can't remember the exact number now, but I was having a discussion with a pro-lifer who said that since PP performs 80% (or something high like that) of abortions then it shouldn't receive any public money. What they couldn't understand is that abortions are only 2% (or something close to that) of their entire operation. They have so many services, especially services to poor and young women, that they are a huge asset. They see the word abortion and don't see the women who wouldn't have STI tests, gunocological care, birth control (to reduce the chance of pregnancy and therefore abortions), etc. that it spends doing 98% of the time. But then again, many pro-lifers want women to just be walking wombs and those who enjoy sex as just a pleasure are evil anyway. The worst is the women who agree that woman are just walking wombs. I dislike them even more than the men who spew that bs.


message 16: by Robert (new)

Robert Zwilling In the name of austerity I believe that free healthcare is slowly disappearing in Europe as they seek to save money. England has made some changes and I think I read that Spain is getting ready to use private insurance.


message 17: by Mark (new)

Mark | 785 comments Alicja wrote: "Regarding abortion, I think the conservative states are getting away from it because pro-choice isn't a "popular" movement of the moment so those not in the states that are leading this attack seem..."

I did know that 98% of the services PP provides have nothing to do with abortions and was really just using PP synecdochically to refer to *all* providers of women's health services currently under vicious attack (though it wouldn't remotely bother *me* if the figure were 50%; abortion services *need* to be provided). I think, though, that it would reduce the hostility of the misogynistic troglodytes not one whit if PP performed zero abortions. I believe they object in principle to *any* form of medical assistance for women who might not otherwise be able to obtain it, and derive actual gratification from the prospect of inflicting harm through denial of care. So, for them, knowing that PP provides STI testing and general gynecological care would just be a further incentive for attempting to destroy the organization, their (wholly feigned) pious concern for embryos quite apart.


message 18: by Alicja (new)

Alicja (darkwingduckie7) | 228 comments I agree, for many not providing women (especially poor and minority women) is a way to exert control over their bodies. It is the modern version of women as property idea, that women couldn't and shouldn't govern themselves and make their own decisions. It is just more dangerous because it is hidden by ideas that can be justified as reasonable to many (like not using government funding for doing things that they object on religiously moral grounds).


message 19: by Mark (new)

Mark | 785 comments Oh, and incidentally, if government funding can't go to organizations deemed immoral on religious grounds by people of sincere convictions, then as a Quaker, I would like respectfully to request that the Pentagon be defunded, forthwith. I'm sure that more than 2% of their budget in the past 13 years has involved aborting humans (post-natally).


message 20: by Alicja (new)

Alicja (darkwingduckie7) | 228 comments Oh, haven't you heard, only one religion, theirs, is the only correct one? All the others (including various Christian denominations) are all following false idols.


message 21: by Mark (new)

Mark | 785 comments Robert wrote: "In the name of austerity I believe that free healthcare is slowly disappearing in Europe as they seek to save money. England has made some changes and I think I read that Spain is getting ready to ..."

You're right, though since they do have a diversity of political parties, there's been some significant pushback. The (wholly specious and pernicious) perception of a "need" to embrace austerity has been forced on them, though, by the global economic meltdown deliberately engineered by monstrous thieves on Wall Street, and parasitically opportunistic multinational insurance entities that would like for those countries actually to spend *more* (as we do) on healthcare with far worse outcomes. (It's the "No CEO Left Behind without a Third Castle in Monaco Program.") I don't think that Europeans have been stultified and "Foxotomized" quite to the extent that Americans have, though, so there *will* be further pushback.


message 22: by Mark (new)

Mark | 785 comments Alicja wrote: "Oh, haven't you heard, only one religion, theirs, is the only correct one? All the others (including various Christian denominations) are all following false idols."

Yes. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and embracing insane violence and war and misogyny in the name of a guy who supposedly said "love your enemy" and consistently honored and respected women is... um, Christian?

Well, I'm all for religious freedom (and freedom from religion for atheists), but if people want to worship at the altar of war and misogyny and bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, oppression of the poor and that pathological form of psychotic avarice known as "capitalism," then I really think they should call it something other than "Christianity." "Barbarous Anti-human Narcissistic Sociopathy and Passionate, All-Encompassing Ignorance" would do, but I suppose it's kind of hard to fit on a sign. Still, I do think we should use accurately descriptive words for our core commitments.

(To be clear, I think there are plenty of denominations that could accurately be described as forms of "Christianity," but American Right-Wing Misogynistic Fundamentalism is not one of them.)


message 23: by Alicja (new)

Alicja (darkwingduckie7) | 228 comments Mark wrote: "(To be clear, I think there are plenty of denominations that could accurately be described as forms of "Christianity," but American Right-Wing Misogynistic Fundamentalism is not one of them.)"

It seems that's the only version that gets any press time in America anymore.


message 24: by Mark (last edited Jun 15, 2013 01:19PM) (new)

Mark | 785 comments Alicja wrote: It seems that's the only version that gets any press time in America anymore.

There may be some kind of "Gresham's Law" of belief systems, I don't know, but it's certainly true that the nature of the substratum is determinative of the life forms that are gonna predominate (have a look at any reference on "artificial life"), and honestly, I can't think of one more pathological than American society as currently constituted. But even beyond that, the coup that effectively converted the official Fourth Estate into an instrument of the Fourth Reich was over decades ago (requiescat in pace, Walter Cronkite), so you're absolutely right: that is the only version that's going to get significant press time. [It's nice that MSNBC is still present in the journalistic ecosphere, but I think it's an instance of what Herman and Chomsky described as "defining the leftmost limits" of the public debate, and even MSNBC seems mostly to avoid the issue.]


back to top