In regards to demographics, does anyone reasonably believe that the surge in numbers of current minorities in the U.S. is inevitable and unstoppable?
Unless you are going to the tie the tubes of hispanic women and start a forced breeding program for white women, then yes the current surge is pretty unstoppable for the next 50 years or so.
This surge could be legally and ethically mitigated by deporting the ones who are here illegally, along with their offspring.
No it can't. Even if all of a sudden whites and non-whites started reproducing at exactly the same rate the white population is going to decline as a percentage of population... significantly. It's called replacement. The Americans that are over 65 are over 80% white. Those under 5.... 50%. So with replacement (older generation dying, replaced by younger generations) alone, minority populations are going to surge. Throw in the fact that minorities are reproducing faster and in greater numbers than whites and even if you were to kick out every single illegal immigrant (good luck with that) here, the surge of minorities is inevitable and unstoppable. Best get used to the idea. Don't worry too much though, you've got time to adjust. White's aren't projected to lose our majority (50%+1) until 2048.
Yes, you did, stop lying. You said to deport illegals AND their native born children. You do know what the constitution says about people born in the US wrt to citizenship, right?
I think a lot of people would not have a problem closing the anchor baby loophole, yes, I know it would require an amendment.
Which is fine but the tea party rants about "protecting the constitution" but then ignores the parts they don't like.
The Tea Party does not rant. And if he does, I'll go find him and kick his ass. (See the problem with the logic there? It's not an individual. It's a group of individuals, all with individual likes and individual gripes.)
I dunno, shutting down the government and playing chicken with the debt ceiling seems like a rant to me.
Yes some parts of the country are evangelical, they should get to be represented by evangelicals if they want. So I can't have an opinion without taking this to personally? Forgive me I will try not to talk to much since you think having an opinion is a bad thing. I did say above that I was not identifying with any group. So these areas don't have as many patents. Why is that bad? It seems like that is what you are saying. It's not like these parts of the country don't do anything. There is a lot of using and modifying others patents and actually using those patents in these areas. A lot of this country gets your oil out of the ground and grows the food on most people's plates. Truthfully how much time do most of the people in these areas have for patent formulation. So you want to study these groups because you are not a fan of their ideas and you want to find a way to beat them and keep their ideas from coming to fruition? So what's the chink in their "armor" that you want to exploit? These areas may not have a lot of degrees but they generally know bullshit. They have decided the bullshit coming from the two main parties won't cut it anymore and have turned to someone else's. Why is a third party a bad thing? Truthfully in general I don't see any politicians really trying to work together. So what I see in this is another way to beat or get around a groups ideas to get their own way. If this was going to be used to come to a middle ground in our country so that all sides are at least somewhat happy then that is one thing. But we all know its not. It's going to be used to say "see see ...that part of the country is backwards and we should try really hard to get our ideas through because we know more and it's for their own good".<---- That is what history has shown me is going to happen. Until politicians start trying harder to change the status quo in DC this is what will happen. Call me disillusioned. But I don't believe our government is out for our own good anymore, just their own.
Today's Wall Street Journal has an article that tangentially touches on this. Basically a review of how Congressional polarization is measured, with most results indicating that polarization is about as high as it has ever been in the Constitutional era. http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304384104579141884050712874?mobile=y Then comes something very interesting at the end: This fits with my idea that tea party politics is about economic populism, and also fits somewhat with the descriptive data in the OP citation.
You can say you aren't taking it personally but you are getting very defensive when people just discuss the economic and demographic trends of Tea Party dominated areas. Just a few points. Yes depending on the issue, I do think people should be opposed based on their beliefs. See upthread where one of the Tea Party founders wants to outlaw homosexuality. THAT should be a threat to anyone who cares about liberty. Which gets me to my next point, the Tea Party now is nothing but the reactionary wing of the republican party. They may have started out as some grassroots populist libertarian uprising but if they did they were quickly co-opted by the reactionaries. If you look at the platform of Tea Party republicans what you have is very conservative republicans, that is all. Looking at the economic situation of Tea Party dominated areas is important not for laughing or condescending, but for understanding. Once you realize that these areas (AS A WHOLE) are losing out compared to the rest of the nation, getting left behind in the new economy then their 'Burn it all down' attitude makes a lot of sense. The system isn't working for them, so why shouldn't they risk destroying it to get what they want? Considering they just cost us $24 BILLION dollars, 0.6% GDP, and hundreds of thousands of jobs, it's VERY important that we understand their motivations.
I think it sounds snobby and elitist to suggest that only poor and uneducated people vote republican or have republican values. That is insulting. A lot of educated, middle class, and rich people vote for republicans as well. If you really want to have a real discussion, then lets discuss the real situation. Every time anyone brings up the real situation, they are called racist because it deals with an inconvenient truth ( Royalties to Al Gore). If you look at this map: You can see the 2012 election by county. As you can see, most of the country is red. The parts in blue are mostly urban cities. You may already be aware of this, but I just wanted to bring it up again. Why are cities blue? Why do they go liberal? A theory that I've heard more than once is that urban centers need more infrastructure, they rely on more government programs and benefit from government intervention. If we cut into it a little deeper, you could argue that certain groups of people benefit from government programs like blacks and Latinos/as. Look at Baltimore, DC., LA., NY., and places in the South-West and Florida. They are all blue. Coincidentally, those places also have a large amount of electoral votes. It's no secret that candidates only pander to a few key states while leaving the rest high and dry. Both parties do that. It's also no secret that a lot of those urban centers contain poor, uneducated people who vote Democrat. So, the argument isn't hat only poor and uneducated people support the tea party. The question is, what kind of education are people getting? Is there education geared towards a left leaning mind set that government is good, it helps you out? That could be one factor. The other factor could be that a lot of poor black people and Latinos could be voting Democrat because they know that the Democrats will ensure that they continue to receive their government assistance. The worst thing of it all is that none of this factors in the people who are eligible to vote, but don't. They believe that nothing will ever change and what's the point? I gotta say, I used to be that way and I'm starting to go that way again. A lot of people are disenfranchised with the electoral college system we have and even more people are disenfranchised with the cap on the House of Representatives. The concept of limited government and fiscal responsibility aren't new concepts, Thomas Jefferson was a highly educated slave owning aristocrat, yet he believed in these concepts. He helped develop those concepts. The fact is that people in rural areas work hard and simply don't invest in the concept that government should take care of your every need. They don't trust the government, they don't trust banks and they don't believe in high taxes. Yes, some have never went beyond high school, but they understand basic concepts of tax and spend and freedom and tyranny. I know some people who never went to college, but were smart enough to go, but didn't because they thought it was a waste of time or they didn't want to be in debt or both. I got to say, in this economy, a lot of people are wondering why they spent four years of their life going to college, when they just end up working at a restaurant; myself included. The fact is, a lot of people aren't voting and there's a battle between those who do vote. The big cities are wining right now because people believe that government will save the day. It doesn't help that the media is liberal as well. People are starting to get fed up with both sides though and more and more young people are starting to lean Libertarian. I think things can swing either way, but I think pretty soon we are going to see huge changes in America, especially when all of this starts to crumble.
In regards to demographics consider two things. 1) While strictly from a numbers stand point, in the U.S. whites will be less than 50% of the population sometime around 2050....white people will be far and away the LARGEST minority group in the U.S. for decades and decades well BEYOND then. 2) Even while they are a minority, white people in the U.S. are likely to control the vast majority of the wealth and wealth producing infrastructure in the U.S. for even decades well beyond the years mentioned in #1. 3) Imagine after 2050, when you have the largest minority group in the country, which controls a huge chunk of the countries wealth, AND can make a legitimate political case for legal and constitutional protections given they are a minority.
If I make it that long I'll be 84 years old. Who knows -- there may be some medical advances that make 80 the new 30 or something like that.
We likely be rebuilding after the war with the Terminators and then factions will emerge that will divide us again.
I'm on my phone so this isn't going to cut and paste... ANC we've gotten drunk together trust me this isn't personal it's trying to explain a point of view and why you can't get through to people by talking a certain way. You have to change your approach. Truthfully you can't fully understand this point till you have immersed yourself in this culture, for me that's through their kids and watching what these kids with so much promise do after high school. You can't talk to them about how poor and less educated they are. The fact that you are putting their embarrassment ( isn't the right word but its what I have at the moment) out there for the world to see pisses them off and shuts them down. You can oppose a view, yes. But the extent of bile that is spewed these days helps nothing. We should be talking and discussing not name calling and going behind the back of people, which is all we seem to see these days by all sides. The tea parties message has been corrupted by the media who puts out only the sound bites that they want to put out. So the people who were moderate have thrown up their hands in disgust and left. Who is John vault anyone. <--- not changing the subject just saying fuck this shit. We should have four or five parties, the media should be pushing to have more. Losing out to the rest of the nation ..... and here is what we can all do to put this part of the country ahead of the game .... There is the start to a good speech for these people to bring them to your side of the thought process. Make it about what is going to be, not the sad state of affairs they are in. Maybe we need to wake up to the fact that they were a big enough force to do it in the first place, and stop the name calling and suppression of the original messages.
Yeah. By 2050 I'll be 89, assuming I make it that far. I already don't give a shit about a lot of this stuff any more. By then I'll just be screaming at those damn kids to stay off my lawn.
I think we need to push for an amendment to eliminate the electoral college. I've discussed various other amendments that I'd like to see, the only one that most people agree on is getting rid of the electoral college. I think that would allow the other parties to get a real voice and a real chance to govern. More ideas would flow in and I think more people would be inclined to vote. Honestly, with more parties, the Tepublican party would probably have to change or get out of the way. I think popular election of the President would be a step in the right direction to try and fix some of our problems.
Not sure if I agree. Since most of the population is on the coast what would be the incentive for a Presidential Candidate to even consider the middle of the country?
What's the incentive now? If polling indicates that a candidate is going to have a majority in a state (thus ensuring that he takes all of that state's electoral college votes), the opposition candidate is unlikely to pay a visit. If the lead's large enough, even the candidate who's got the votes may not show up, assuming that he's got the state "in the bag" and can concentrate on battleground states.
It doesn't require an amendment to eliminate the electoral college problem. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
