Politics

Cervus, I was being politically correct in my assumption of intelligent Dems, but I do hope that it may be interpreted as sarcasm of those members under the Pelosi, Schumer banner. The Democratic Texas Representative that travelled to DC and decided to go back home, has now returned to DC.
I got it because nobody could confuse the democrats with intelligence, and thought of a funny reply. I believe some of them took covid-19 with them. Hope it infects the whole of rotten DC.
They really are spoiled little children with tantrum overtones.
 
Certainly in this minute sample so far I see that the divide is pretty strong. With Saul's civility I am sure we will get to explore a heap more avenues, and without pre-judging I think it fair to say the divide will continue. My question I guess at this stage is whether this continuing divide into perpetuiety is tenable, or will it ultimately tear the USA apart? Has it always been there, but the silence of the Conservative majority kept the equilibrium and that all disappeared with the voice they found in Donald Trump? Perhaps the divide has always been as strong but was accentuated with the tools and reach of modern media? The world has rumbles, but it is largely peaceful now. Heaven forbid WW3 comes along, but if it did could the USA muster the unity necessary to save the day yet again? I worry about this, especially in the age of weak Biden who seems unwilling let alone able to seek out the unity compromises that are fading into the distance as the global adversaries peer around the corner?
Sorry for the long diatribe, but I'll end with a direct question to you Saul - how strong is the philosophy amongst Democrats that the USA system has to be thoroughly torn down to build the new utopia they desire? This will obviously trigger a massive push back from Republicans and Conservatives, the stuff of civil war in whatever form that may take.
 
With regards to lifting people out of poverty, the left wants the safety net that is social security along with all the added fringe benefits attached to that but the person on benefits has almost zero incentive to actually be a productive member of society. The left's version of social upliftment is largely based on emotional and short-sighted policy. The right want policies that are STATISTICALLY based and don't incentivise behaviour that LEADS to poverty such as policies that promote the family unit (we all know the statistics relating to fatherless homes, only having enough kids that you can afford) as well as a policy that gets people off drugs and makes them actually work for a living.

Welfare recipients currently get free money every month, free housing, free medical, money for each kids they push out, cell phones/air time/data, free schooling, free college/university, etc etc etc... why would anyone want to actually have a job? Your welfare along with a little "black market / illegal" income and you can have quite a cushy life!

Under the current system there is no incentive or big stick to get anyone off welfare. We have all seen the memes like "If I have to take a drug test to earn a living then the welfare recipient needs to take one in order to receive their welfare".... we all clap and applaud this meme and think "Yeah I agree!!!" and we move on to the next... Why is it not implemented??

As a welfare recipient if you want part of my paycheck then you have earn it by doing the following:
1. Actually look for a job. (and take a job even if it is "beneath" you!!!!!!
2. Stay off drugs.
3. Stay out of prison.
4. If you haven't had a job in 4-6 months then your benefits get cut or removed.

There are far too many feckless waste of oxygen individuals feeding off the system!

Now, the right isn't saying (from what I can gather) that there should NOT be a safety net but that unless the above is adhered to you get squat. It's not unreasonable.

As for immigration into the USA, you simply cannot just open the border as it currently is, that is all borders and flights in etc. The policy is basically if you can slip into the country you won't be thrown out. This may not be policy verbatim but it is the reality. Again there are no consequences for illegal actions but if I apply for a HOLIDAY visa and knowingly or unknowingly make a mistake on my visa application then chances are good that I'll be barred from obtaining a visa for several years!

It all boils down to making policies and governing with your head or your heart. It ABSOLUTLY HAS TO BE 90% HEAD AND 10% HEART.... Without the head policy and governance then you won't have the money to to do the heart stuff.

Rant over. Here endeth the lesson ;)
 
Last edited:
Stop handouts to those that are able to work but choose not to work and high unemployment stops. Hunger is a great motivator….referencing the Depression of the thirties, no handouts existed to any great degree and everyone was looking to work….but few jobs existed…today so many jobs go unfilled that many employers pay a sign on bonus of Thousands of dollars. Local McDonalds offering $1,000 bonus at the end of 90 days. Local Supermarket…begging for employees. it never stops.
 
Look at places like SA / Zim / Zam etc... if you don't work you have no house and you starve. We have a built in work ethic because we know what happens if we don't. It's amazing what job you'll do or take to feed your kids and yourself!

We have bugger all decent governmental hospitals, government pension that would last a a day or two in the real world and government old age homes that you NEVER want to enter.
 
A lot of the worker shortage is some older employees retired when covid hit. As far as restaurants getting help it the child care issue. It a big problem finding a babysitter. Nobody wants to do the babysitting. It isn't all lazy people.
 
With regards to lifting people out of poverty, the left wants the safety net that is social security along with all the added fringe benefits attached to that but the person on benefits has almost zero incentive to actually be a productive member of society. The left's version of social upliftment is largely based on emotional and short-sighted policy. The right want policies that are STATISTICALLY based and don't incentivise behaviour that LEADS to poverty such as policies that promote the family unit (we all know the statistics relating to fatherless homes, only having enough kids that you can afford) as well as a policy that gets people off drugs and makes them actually work for a living.

Welfare recipients currently get free money every month, free housing, free medical, money for each kids they push out, cell phones/air time/data, free schooling, free college/university, etc etc etc... why would anyone want to actually have a job? Your welfare along with a little "black market / illegal" income and you can have quite a cushy life!

Under the current system there is no incentive or big stick to get anyone off welfare. We have all seen the memes like "If I have to take a drug test to earn a living then the welfare recipient needs to take one in order to receive their welfare".... we all clap and applaud this meme and think "Yeah I agree!!!" and we move on to the next... Why is it not implemented??

As a welfare recipient if you want part of my paycheck then you have earn it by doing the following:
1. Actually look for a job. (and take a job even if it is "beneath" you!!!!!!
2. Stay off drugs.
3. Stay out of prison.
4. If you haven't had a job in 4-6 months then your benefits get cut or removed.

There are far too many feckless waste of oxygen individuals feeding off the system!

Now, the right isn't saying (from what I can gather) that there should NOT be a safety net but that unless the above is adhered to you get squat. It's not unreasonable.

As for immigration into the USA, you simply cannot just open the border as it currently is, that is all borders and flights in etc. The policy is basically if you can slip into the country you won't be thrown out. This may not be policy verbatim but it is the reality. Again there are no consequences for illegal actions but if I apply for a HOLIDAY visa and knowingly or unknowingly make a mistake on my visa application then chances are good that I'll be barred from obtaining a visa for several years!

It all boils down to making policies and governing with your head or your heart. It ABSOLUTLY HAS TO BE 90% HEAD AND 10% HEART.... Without the head policy and governance then you won't have the money to to do the heart stuff.

Rant over. Here endeth the lesson ;)
What I'm saying (won't speak for anyone else) is our system must be based on morals. Taking my money via coercion or directly at gunpoint, to be given to people who've produced nothing, is immoral. It is literally theft (morally and ethically) to take my money in that manner. But when the government does it, we call it "paying our fair share" or some other such meaningless nonsense that the blank-outs just swoon over.

Man should only stand to be dispossessed of money/property or liberty because he has injured someone else, either physically or financially. It is no injury to a poor person for me to not give him any money.

The one thing too many seem to utterly fail to grasp is the nature of wealth and of poverty. The latter has no cause...if you produce nothing, you will literally have nothing. That's poverty.

What is a wealthy person? In most cases, it is someone who has learned to be very productive, and who only consumes a small portion of what he produces. For those of us who aren't c-levels or entrepreneurs, this takes years and years.

10 years ago, I was so broke that my diet was peanut butter and crackers and ramen noodles because that's all I could afford. I struggled and struggled and pulled myself back up. For this year, I will have an income tax bill north of $50K. The missus and I have struggled to get where we are, and now to own a few rent houses in addition to our income. I didn't take a penny from anybody, least of all from tax payers.

I resent the AF out of anybody who thinks that money shouldn't belong to me and my wife, to buy things *we* think we should be buying. At the very least, I could help my son finish paying for med school, or could have helped my daughter pay for law school. But no, it is better they should incur massive debt so some non-productive brood mare can squeeze out a few more kids.

I am not saying there should be no charity. But each man should be the final arbiter of how much he actually gives to charity, and even to what type of charity he donates. The welfare state ain't charity.

Actual charity involves a single person, deciding based upon his current fiscal circumstance, how much to donate, and to what he should donate. He donates THE maximum he believes he can afford. Do note that 2 people in an identical fiscal circumstance may have different notions about what each can afford.

Welfare-as-charity is just idiotic and doesn't survive as such past a scratch of the surface. We all pay the least amount in taxes that we can legally get away with paying.

Charity is about giving one's best, welfare is about giving the least. Charity's translation from old Latin is "dear"; since the ascendancy of Christianity, it has come to mean "love." When we love a person or people, we tend to give them our very best, not the very least we can get away with "giving."

No, I want a civilized system, a system where no man may initiate force against any other man, no matter how "noble" the purposes for. Frankly, I'd rather deal with a highwayman than an ominpotent moral busybody. I don't have to sit around listening to the highwayman's vacuous platitudes. He steals what he steals and moves on. From the omnipotent moral busybody, I get lectured non-stop, even after my pound of flesh has been taken from me.
 
A lot of the worker shortage is some older employees retired when covid hit. As far as restaurants getting help it the child care issue. It a big problem finding a babysitter. Nobody wants to do the babysitting. It isn't all lazy people.

I want to believe that.. but unfortunately what I have personally seen and witnessed so far is exactly the opposite..

I have had people tell me directly that they are not interested in returning to work until they can make more than unemployment pays, and that they understand they have no desirable job skills or education, but that as long as the government is paying, they see no reason to pursue additional skils or education, and see no reason to attempt to work.

My wife works in an industry that employs a significant number of unskilled labor and semi-skilled labor personnel. They literally have more than 100 jobs available right now.. Their issue isnt people applying and then declining the position because they cant find or cant afford a babysitter... their issue is they literally couldnt get anyone to apply at all.. It was taking months to fill positions that pre-covid took less than a few days.. Theyre being advised by the few employees that did accept work in those positions that their "friends" simply have no desire to return to work as long as they are getting enough money from the govt to pay their bills while not working..

Amazingly when the federal unemployment subsidy in TX ended on June 26th, it was like someone flipped a light switch.. and people started applying for jobs.. Positions are now getting filled reasonably easily..

The new problem is.. now companies that employ restaurant staff, housekeepers, and other unskilled and semi-skilled labor have "new" untrained, and/or inexperienced teams that are reporting to work in groups, that dont know what to do, how to do it, etc.. and arent very motivated to actually do the job well or perform.. they simply want a paycheck now since the federal govt paycheck ran out.. Its not as easy as "training" and/or monitoring and supervising 1 or 2 new hires and getting them up to speed.. companies now have a significant % of their workforce that is "new" or even if experienced, that have sat on their rumps for a year and have diminished skills and drive to deal with.. So even though their staffing numbers are coming up, the actual quality of service, performance of duties, etc.. continues to lag significantly..
 
I want to believe that.. but unfortunately what I have personally seen and witnessed so far is exactly the opposite..

I have had people tell me directly that they are not interested in returning to work until they can make more than unemployment pays, and that they understand they have no desirable job skills or education, but that as long as the government is paying, they see no reason to pursue additional skils or education, and see no reason to attempt to work.

My wife works in an industry that employs a significant number of unskilled labor and semi-skilled labor personnel. They literally have more than 100 jobs available right now.. Their issue isnt people applying and then declining the position because they cant find or cant afford a babysitter... their issue is they literally couldnt get anyone to apply at all.. It was taking months to fill positions that pre-covid took less than a few days.. Theyre being advised by the few employees that did accept work in those positions that their "friends" simply have no desire to return to work as long as they are getting enough money from the govt to pay their bills while not working..

Amazingly when the federal unemployment subsidy in TX ended on June 26th, it was like someone flipped a light switch.. and people started applying for jobs.. Positions are now getting filled reasonably easily..

The new problem is.. now companies that employ restaurant staff, housekeepers, and other unskilled and semi-skilled labor have "new" untrained, and/or inexperienced teams that are reporting to work in groups, that dont know what to do, how to do it, etc.. and arent very motivated to actually do the job well or perform.. they simply want a paycheck now since the federal govt paycheck ran out.. Its not as easy as "training" and/or monitoring and supervising 1 or 2 new hires and getting them up to speed.. companies now have a significant % of their workforce that is "new" or even if experienced, that have sat on their rumps for a year and have diminished skills and drive to deal with.. So even though their staffing numbers are coming up, the actual quality of service, performance of duties, etc.. continues to lag significantly..
Great service at restaurants down here around Houston, I always pay 25% in tip. I haven't given a 25% tip in quite some time, and it isn't for want of eating out. I always used to be able to count on stellar service at Chuy's. I won't say the service is bad there now, but it isn't what it was pre-covid. With two teen-aged boys and 6'6" 250# grown man, you can imagine how much food we order. Even 20% on what we consume is a nice tip.
 
Certainly in this minute sample so far I see that the divide is pretty strong. With Saul's civility I am sure we will get to explore a heap more avenues, and without pre-judging I think it fair to say the divide will continue. My question I guess at this stage is whether this continuing divide into perpetuiety is tenable, or will it ultimately tear the USA apart? Has it always been there, but the silence of the Conservative majority kept the equilibrium and that all disappeared with the voice they found in Donald Trump? Perhaps the divide has always been as strong but was accentuated with the tools and reach of modern media? The world has rumbles, but it is largely peaceful now. Heaven forbid WW3 comes along, but if it did could the USA muster the unity necessary to save the day yet again? I worry about this, especially in the age of weak Biden who seems unwilling let alone able to seek out the unity compromises that are fading into the distance as the global adversaries peer around the corner?
Sorry for the long diatribe, but I'll end with a direct question to you Saul - how strong is the philosophy amongst Democrats that the USA system has to be thoroughly torn down to build the new utopia they desire? This will obviously trigger a massive push back from Republicans and Conservatives, the stuff of civil war in whatever form that may take.
I honestly do not know if society is more divided today but at the very least, technology and social media has made it all the more visible. Regardless, viewing someone in your own society with a different opinion as the enemy is hardly conducive to national unity, and both sides are just as guilty.

To answer your question, I think that virtually no Democrats in the USA want to tear down the current system. In fact, doing so is antithetical to a common Democratic position that government systems are good. Those who espouse such radical views from the far left (Bernie, AOC, etc.) are not Democrats, and they have openly made that clear. They are socialists who have chosen to seek office as Democrats because running as a third party is unwinnable, at least on the national stage. Unfortunately, it is the loudest voices at the fringes of politics that are amplified by the media.
 
What I'm saying (won't speak for anyone else) is our system must be based on morals. Taking my money via coercion or directly at gunpoint, to be given to people who've produced nothing, is immoral. It is literally theft (morally and ethically) to take my money in that manner. But when the government does it, we call it "paying our fair share" or some other such meaningless nonsense that the blank-outs just swoon over.

Man should only stand to be dispossessed of money/property or liberty because he has injured someone else, either physically or financially. It is no injury to a poor person for me to not give him any money.

The one thing too many seem to utterly fail to grasp is the nature of wealth and of poverty. The latter has no cause...if you produce nothing, you will literally have nothing. That's poverty.

What is a wealthy person? In most cases, it is someone who has learned to be very productive, and who only consumes a small portion of what he produces. For those of us who aren't c-levels or entrepreneurs, this takes years and years.

10 years ago, I was so broke that my diet was peanut butter and crackers and ramen noodles because that's all I could afford. I struggled and struggled and pulled myself back up. For this year, I will have an income tax bill north of $50K. The missus and I have struggled to get where we are, and now to own a few rent houses in addition to our income. I didn't take a penny from anybody, least of all from tax payers.

I resent the AF out of anybody who thinks that money shouldn't belong to me and my wife, to buy things *we* think we should be buying. At the very least, I could help my son finish paying for med school, or could have helped my daughter pay for law school. But no, it is better they should incur massive debt so some non-productive brood mare can squeeze out a few more kids.

I am not saying there should be no charity. But each man should be the final arbiter of how much he actually gives to charity, and even to what type of charity he donates. The welfare state ain't charity.

Actual charity involves a single person, deciding based upon his current fiscal circumstance, how much to donate, and to what he should donate. He donates THE maximum he believes he can afford. Do note that 2 people in an identical fiscal circumstance may have different notions about what each can afford.

Welfare-as-charity is just idiotic and doesn't survive as such past a scratch of the surface. We all pay the least amount in taxes that we can legally get away with paying.

Charity is about giving one's best, welfare is about giving the least. Charity's translation from old Latin is "dear"; since the ascendancy of Christianity, it has come to mean "love." When we love a person or people, we tend to give them our very best, not the very least we can get away with "giving."

No, I want a civilized system, a system where no man may initiate force against any other man, no matter how "noble" the purposes for. Frankly, I'd rather deal with a highwayman than an ominpotent moral busybody. I don't have to sit around listening to the highwayman's vacuous platitudes. He steals what he steals and moves on. From the omnipotent moral busybody, I get lectured non-stop, even after my pound of flesh has been taken from me.
So is it only using tax money that goes directly to others in the form of financial assistance that you morally disagree with or is it all government expenditures? I certainly understand and actually agree with you that people should be free to do with their money as they please and that individual liberty should be of utmost consideration. However, I also believe that living in a functional society and reaping the benefits of that society requires giving up some liberty. Otherwise, we would not have a military or highways or the like. To what extent we ask each other to give up liberty is a different question.

Those who are able but choose to not be productive members of society should receive no assistance, but no one who is in legitimate need of aid should be denied. For instance, the elderly, mentally disabled, and children should receive some form of government assistance when necessary.
 
Those who espouse such radical views from the far left (Bernie, AOC, etc.) are not Democrats, and they have openly made that clear. They are socialists who have chosen to seek office as Democrats because running as a third party is unwinnable, at least on the national stage. Unfortunately, it is the loudest voices at the fringes of politics that are amplified by the media.

While I agree with you that Bernie, AOC, Omar, and the others on the extreme far left are not Democrats... The problem is long standing Democrats are who is electing them.. They clearly prefer what AOC, Tlaib., Bowman, etc offers over what other genuine democrats have offered during the primaries, and certainly over what any republican has offered during the general elections..

To your point, there arent enough third party voters to make running on a socialist party, green party, or whatever other party ticket winable... So they run on the democrat ticket.. and democrats are electing them... That says a lot about where the heart and the mind of a democrat voter is in several districts spanning across the country..

Look at Cori Bush... one of the "squad" members, labeled a "progressive democrat", but endorsed by Bernie, AOC, and several clearly socialist organizations.. heavily involved in the BLM protests last year.. from the midwest (not a hard left leaning area like the west coast or the north east).. she unseated a 10 term incumbent democrat in the primaries.. clearly stating she is a member of the "Democratic Socialists of America"... Clearly this is what "democrats" in several parts of the country want in their party..

Watching Pelosi, Schumer, and others placate them, kiss their asses, etc.. also tells me quite a bit about where the heart and minds of the actual democrat platform supporting politicians is at..
 
Last edited:
While I agree with you that Bernie, AOC, Omar, and the others on the extreme far left are not Democrats... The problem is long standing Democrats are who is electing them.. They clearly prefer what AOC, Tlaib., Bowman, etc offers over what other genuine democrats have offered during the primaries, and certainly over what any republican has offered during the general elections..

To your point, there arent enough third party voters to make running on a socialist party, green party, or whatever other party ticket winable... So they run on the democrat ticket.. and democrats are electing them... That says a lot about where the heart and the mind of a democrat voter is in several districts spanning across the country..

Look at Cori Bush... one of the "squad" members, labeled a "progressive democrat", but endorsed by Bernie, AOC, and several clearly socialist organizations.. heavily involved in the BLM protests last year.. from the midwest (not a hard left leaning area like the west coast or the north east).. she unseated a 10 term incumbent democrat in the primaries.. clearly stating she is a member of the "Democratic Socialists of America"... Clearly this is what "democrats" in several parts of the country want in their party..

Watching Pelosi, Schumer, and others placate them, kiss their asses, etc.. also tells me quite a bit about where the heart and minds of the actual democrat platform supporting politicians is at..
I see their current election success as temporary, and the recent NYC mayoral primary indicates this. Rather, voter apathy in their districts combined with outsized media coverage propelled them to surprise wins. I predict and hope that they will be drummed out soon enough. Pelosi and Schumer are no friends of the far left, especially if you listen to what the far left thinks of Pelosi and Schumer. And yes, there are some Democrats that want the party to move more toward the left, but the same can be said for those on the far right of the Republican party. What is important is that we collectively forget about the whackos and focus on the average voters.
 
I still don't understand how you draw unemployment if you haven't work a certain amount of time. Back when I was working you had to work certain amount of time. Also you had to be actively searching for work. You did have the right to turn down a job for lower pay for awhile. But after a certain amount of time you would be cut off if you didn't accept a job. They must be letting anyone draw. Are the state unemployment offices that understaffed that they can't implement the rules.
 
So is it only using tax money that goes directly to others in the form of financial assistance that you morally disagree with or is it all government expenditures? I certainly understand and actually agree with you that people should be free to do with their money as they please and that individual liberty should be of utmost consideration. However, I also believe that living in a functional society and reaping the benefits of that society requires giving up some liberty. Otherwise, we would not have a military or highways or the like. To what extent we ask each other to give up liberty is a different question.

Those who are able but choose to not be productive members of society should receive no assistance, but no one who is in legitimate need of aid should be denied. For instance, the elderly, mentally disabled, and children should receive some form of government assistance when necessary.

First, I will refer you back to my earlier quote from Bastiat.

2nd, I don't do strawmen, which you've here presented, as I predicted only just yesterday would come up.

3rd, you're contradicting yourself (again). I am either a free moral agent, to dispose of my "excess" as I see fit, or I am only a different form of chattel, and what I produce doesn't really belong to me.

You cannot espouse the absolute right of man's liberty in one breath, and in the next, say "eff that, I didn't really mean it because 'needs'."

Nobody's need trumps my rights. If you wish to give up those rights, that's your business and right. You have no authority to deprive me of mine, yet you advocate for it, which is merely an exercise of power, not of rights. Rights exist for the primary reason to protect the minority from the whims of the majority, and the smallest minority on earth is the individual.

And none of this even touches on the disastrous economic policies of statists of all stripes (including a lot of republicans, here thinking of both Bushes and Nixon).
 
Certainly in this minute sample so far I see that the divide is pretty strong. With Saul's civility I am sure we will get to explore a heap more avenues, and without pre-judging I think it fair to say the divide will continue. My question I guess at this stage is whether this continuing divide into perpetuiety is tenable, or will it ultimately tear the USA apart? Has it always been there, but the silence of the Conservative majority kept the equilibrium and that all disappeared with the voice they found in Donald Trump? Perhaps the divide has always been as strong but was accentuated with the tools and reach of modern media? The world has rumbles, but it is largely peaceful now. Heaven forbid WW3 comes along, but if it did could the USA muster the unity necessary to save the day yet again? I worry about this, especially in the age of weak Biden who seems unwilling let alone able to seek out the unity compromises that are fading into the distance as the global adversaries peer around the corner?
Sorry for the long diatribe, but I'll end with a direct question to you Saul - how strong is the philosophy amongst Democrats that the USA system has to be thoroughly torn down to build the new utopia they desire? This will obviously trigger a massive push back from Republicans and Conservatives, the stuff of civil war in whatever form that may take.

While I am not an American, what has me more intrigued is what effect America's rapidly changing racial demography will have on politics. https://www.brookings.edu/research/...n-is-diversifying-even-faster-than-predicted/

If the census estimates are true America is expected to be minority white by 2045. So say in 20-30 years whites will be a minority in the US. If you look at the 3 biggest "non-white" racial groups in America- Hispanics, blacks and Asians they all tend to vote democrat. Asian-Americans though tend to be pretty liberal and hold a fairly standard "democrat" view of the world. Probably due to where they live. However, with blacks and Hispanics this is not the case. While most blacks and Hispanics tend to be Democrat voters they certainly do not agree with Democrats on everything. Unlike White or Asian democrats, the blacks and Hispanics tend to be much more socially and religiously conservative. They are quite often opposed to abortion and the ever expanding LGBTABCD sect. But at the same time they are also opposed to the Republican views of fiscal conservatism and tend to be more in favor of robust social safety nets and increased government spending to help the poor. For instance as a group they certainly seem supportive of a government run healthcare system. They do not seem to share in the extreme individualism of Anglo-Saxon or "white" America and tend to be much less pro-military than Anglo-Saxon republicans are. It also doesn't help that a non-negligible # of them perceive the Republican party as being "racist".

While Hispanics and Blacks as a collective tend to agree with both Democrats and Republicans on several key points- they also disagree with both parties on a number of other key issues. Going forward, I think this will play a large role in shaping America's future political landscape. More than any other divide will.
 
While I am not an American, what has me more intrigued is what effect America's rapidly changing racial demography will have on politics. https://www.brookings.edu/research/...n-is-diversifying-even-faster-than-predicted/

If the census estimates are true America is expected to be minority white by 2045. So say in 20-30 years whites will be a minority in the US. If you look at the 3 biggest "non-white" racial groups in America- Hispanics, blacks and Asians they all tend to vote democrat. Asian-Americans though tend to be pretty liberal and hold a fairly standard "democrat" view of the world. Probably due to where they live. However, with blacks and Hispanics this is not the case. While most blacks and Hispanics tend to be Democrat voters they certainly do not agree with Democrats on everything. Unlike White or Asian democrats, the blacks and Hispanics tend to be much more socially and religiously conservative. They are quite often opposed to abortion and the ever expanding LGBTABCD sect. But at the same time they are also opposed to the Republican views of fiscal conservatism and tend to be more in favor of robust social safety nets and increased government spending to help the poor. For instance as a group they certainly seem supportive of a government run healthcare system. They do not seem to share in the extreme individualism of Anglo-Saxon or "white" America and tend to be much less pro-military than Anglo-Saxon republicans are. It also doesn't help that a non-negligible # of them perceive the Republican party as being "racist".

While Hispanics and Blacks as a collective tend to agree with both Democrats and Republicans on several key points- they also disagree with both parties on a number of other key issues. Going forward, I think this will play a large role in shaping America's future political landscape. More than any other divide will.
I think the world is a bleaker place after the demographic change. Too many people move here (from south of the border, from some rathole in Asia) and do not recognize that it was their native culture which produced the politics they decided to leave by coming here. They come here, and do not "become American," they just continue on as they were before, believing they can just vote for a better form of turd here and expecting different results.
 
Screenshot_20210727-133813.jpg
 
First, I will refer you back to my earlier quote from Bastiat.

2nd, I don't do strawmen, which you've here presented, as I predicted only just yesterday would come up.

3rd, you're contradicting yourself (again). I am either a free moral agent, to dispose of my "excess" as I see fit, or I am only a different form of chattel, and what I produce doesn't really belong to me.

You cannot espouse the absolute right of man's liberty in one breath, and in the next, say "eff that, I didn't really mean it because 'needs'."

Nobody's need trumps my rights. If you wish to give up those rights, that's your business and right. You have no authority to deprive me of mine, yet you advocate for it, which is merely an exercise of power, not of rights. Rights exist for the primary reason to protect the minority from the whims of the majority, and the smallest minority on earth is the individual.

And none of this even touches on the disastrous economic policies of statists of all stripes (including a lot of republicans, here thinking of both Bushes and Nixon).
The reality of living in a country that has a government is that you will have to pay taxes and abide my laws, all of which infringes upon your rights. Unless advocating for anarchy, that is a reality of any political system. Now, you can make the argument that taxation for the purpose of financial aid for others is more morally wrong than taxation for the purpose of infrastructure since the first is not paying for a service that you use, but that is not what you seem to be saying unless I am mistaken, and that is what I was trying to clarify in my question to you.
 
I want to believe that.. but unfortunately what I have personally seen and witnessed so far is exactly the opposite..

I have had people tell me directly that they are not interested in returning to work until they can make more than unemployment pays, and that they understand they have no desirable job skills or education, but that as long as the government is paying, they see no reason to pursue additional skils or education, and see no reason to attempt to work.

My wife works in an industry that employs a significant number of unskilled labor and semi-skilled labor personnel. They literally have more than 100 jobs available right now.. Their issue isnt people applying and then declining the position because they cant find or cant afford a babysitter... their issue is they literally couldnt get anyone to apply at all.. It was taking months to fill positions that pre-covid took less than a few days.. Theyre being advised by the few employees that did accept work in those positions that their "friends" simply have no desire to return to work as long as they are getting enough money from the govt to pay their bills while not working..

Amazingly when the federal unemployment subsidy in TX ended on June 26th, it was like someone flipped a light switch.. and people started applying for jobs.. Positions are now getting filled reasonably easily..

The new problem is.. now companies that employ restaurant staff, housekeepers, and other unskilled and semi-skilled labor have "new" untrained, and/or inexperienced teams that are reporting to work in groups, that dont know what to do, how to do it, etc.. and arent very motivated to actually do the job well or perform.. they simply want a paycheck now since the federal govt paycheck ran out.. Its not as easy as "training" and/or monitoring and supervising 1 or 2 new hires and getting them up to speed.. companies now have a significant % of their workforce that is "new" or even if experienced, that have sat on their rumps for a year and have diminished skills and drive to deal with.. So even though their staffing numbers are coming up, the actual quality of service, performance of duties, etc.. continues to lag significantly..
I live by an Army base and most of the restaurant people were army wives. They cannot fill the jobs and some have had to close a day or two a week. Some says it a child care issue some say that some just don't want the risk when there husbans have a job. My 15 year old nephew got a job at McDonald's 11 bucks a hour. Starting to see more high school kids back working at the fast food restaurants like in the 60s.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,613
Messages
1,131,113
Members
92,664
Latest member
Leonslab
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

Early morning Impala hunt, previous link was wrong video

Headshot on jackal this morning

Mature Eland Bull taken in Tanzania, at 100 yards, with 375 H&H, 300gr, Federal Premium Expanding bullet.

20231012_145809~2.jpg
Living life like a lion for 1 day is better than living life like a jackal for 100 years.
 
Top