America spent hundreds of billions of dollars since September 11 to prevent "terrorist" attacks from apparent foreign "terroriest organisations". Perhaps they should start from internal control.
Our prisons are currently too full of marijuana offenders to house all the true dangers to society, sorry.
Still cracks me up, America doing all this work to prosecute people who're smoking marijuana, destroy plantations and all that. Yet there's still more people smoking it compared to The Netherlands. Yes, even in proportion.
Our prisons are currently too full of marijuana offenders to house all the true dangers to society, sorry.
Pretty much, yeah.
Our antiquated drug laws are a huge part of what ultimately leads to violent crime in the U.S.
Not to say users aren't committing many violent crimes, but the drug lords who fight for supply and territory do commit many violent crimes.
This also brings me to what I do find offensive about sensational stories like this theater massacre. And that's that people in urban areas, decaying cities live in some of the worst crime ridden areas of all and a lot of that crime stems from poverty and ridiculous drug laws. But it's not really news that some poor neighborhoods are getting shot up all the time over drug dealers fighting for real estate.
We're so fascinated by the random shooter who was seemingly normal and had a good life going for him. And yeah I'll admit I'm fascinated by it also, but only to a point. Beyond that point, I really don't think there's a lot to learn in terms of societal behavior by the killing spree of this guy. I mean, even suicide bombings happen frequently enough that we have begun to find sociological explanations for them and have even dispelled the myth that suicide bombers are not necessarily insane as opposed to just extremely socialized. But a lone shooter like this, there is a deep psychological explanation for his behavior perhaps, or maybe there is not that even.
What I'm saying is I think it's overestimated in what there is to learn from this incident. Yet the media will plug it into their overextended news cycle and bring in analysts and pundits and just as I knew they would, they will politicize and sensationalize what happened. And I think that's offensive just because there are other incidents of gun violence, such as those connected to gang violence and the drug trade. And we understand the patterns and the solutions to these kinds of deaths by firearms, only they happen more over time and not all at once in a nice bundle of a news story.
I mean, sure enough, it seems much of this conversation has devolved into a gun control debate. But like I said, gun violence is a symptom of a much larger problem such as poverty or outdated drug laws. We all remember prohibition. Well none of us were alive during that time, but we were all taught about it. They could've done all the gun control in the world during that time and still people would've been getting gunned down like crazy. And why? Because there was money to be made in bootlegging. And because people had to fight over product and territory because they could not do it by legitimate means. It's no different today with the war on drugs. And that's one of the real causes of gun deaths each year.
So if you restrict guns more, you're kind of applying a treatment, but that's still ignoring the fundamental problem. There are still too many incentives connected to owning a gun (legal or otherwise). Even regular middle class folk who live in the suburbs, they own guns a lot of the time out of fear. They feel they must protect themselves because their neighbor's house or car was broken into and now they're scared. Most property crimes are caused by people who need money for drugs or they are simply in poverty and they're resorting to a life of crime to help sustain themselves.
So poverty, drugs, these are the things I see leading to all the violence in this country. But Americans are tired of that conversation. And no politician wants to decriminalize drugs or lessen the mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses because that makes them appear soft on crime. And being soft of crime doesn't get you reelected. And unfortunately, poor people don't really vote that much.
I'd just like to add that people do vote, but they fail to vote for their interests. ie. Most of the poor rural population votes republican
The conservative movement enjoys the freedom to keep retrograde substance laws in place because it locks down at least half the population the moment they utter the word "Jesus." Therefor any attempt by a progressive to look "centrist," (and gain the coveted swing vote) must include a bow to some of these conservative values which most of the developed world knows to be a completely backward approach to governance. Chief among these issues to be adopted by "pragmatic," politicians is anti-drug policy and draconian imprisonment for minor criminals.
To put it bluntly, evangelicals are the root cause of most crime in the US.
There seems to be a lack of sympathy for the multiple victims in this case and this thread has boiled down to gun laws and politics. The thread title is pretty offensive as well. A little tact goes a long way.
As someone said above, people just go crazy. It happens. The guns and ammo were purchased legally. To scream for stricter gun laws is a slap in the face to the majority of gun owners who are responsible and carry their firearms for personal protection. Seems to me like more laws and addendums to existing laws to allow people more rights to carry personal protection could have saved lives in this case. But I guess that's part of why I live in Arizona. Aside from government buildings and banks I have the ability to protect myself, my family, and others and am able to do it legally.
You can't predict crazy. Minority Report was not based on true events or real people. More laws won't stop criminals from committing crimes.
My heart goes out to the victims and their families regardless. Men, women, and children died for nothing other than trying to enjoy a midnight release.
I'd just like to add that people do vote, but they fail to vote for their interests. ie. Most of the poor rural population votes republican
Well, they believe they're voting their interests sure. Because they vote more on social issues. But I can assure you that poor black people don't vote the same way as poor white people.
The conservative movement enjoys the freedom to keep retrograde substance laws in place because it locks down at least half the population the moment they utter the word "Jesus." Therefor any attempt by a progressive to look "centrist," (and gain the coveted swing vote) must include a bow to some of these conservative values which most of the developed world knows to be a completely backward approach to governance. Chief among these issues to be adopted by "pragmatic," politicians is anti-drug policy and draconian imprisonment for minor criminals.
To put it bluntly, evangelicals are the root cause of most crime in the US.
There seems to be a lack of sympathy for the multiple victims in this case and this thread has boiled down to gun laws and politics. The thread title is pretty offensive as well. A little tact goes a long way.
People DID go to see Batman and they DID get shot. I thought I was being succinct.
There seems to be a lack of sympathy for the multiple victims in this case and this thread has boiled down to gun laws and politics. The thread title is pretty offensive as well. A little tact goes a long way.
As someone said above, people just go crazy. It happens. The guns and ammo were purchased legally. To scream for stricter gun laws is a slap in the face to the majority of gun owners who are responsible and carry their firearms for personal protection. Seems to me like more laws and addendums to existing laws to allow people more rights to carry personal protection could have saved lives in this case. But I guess that's part of why I live in Arizona. Aside from government buildings and banks I have the ability to protect myself, my family, and others and am able to do it legally.
You can't predict crazy. Minority Report was not based on true events or real people. More laws won't stop criminals from committing crimes.
My heart goes out to the victims and their families regardless. Men, women, and children died for nothing other than trying to enjoy a midnight release.
Death is always senseless. I have nothing but empathy for those effected and those who lost their lives. Having said that, waiving the white flag and throwing up hands doesn't bring anyone back or console anyone for that matter. Discussing systemic issues that cause crimes like this is tactful and appropriate, if not politically correct.
I'd just like to add that people do vote, but they fail to vote for their interests. ie. Most of the poor rural population votes republican
Well, they believe they're voting their interests sure. Because they vote more on social issues. But I can assure you that poor black people don't vote the same way as poor white people.
There are many poor black republicans here in the south, actually. It may be the pinnacle of irony, but it is a fact. The only people who vote in a more self-discriminating fashion are the "log-cabin" (gay) republicans.
There are many poor black republicans here in the south, actually. It may be the pinnacle of irony, but it is a fact. The only people who vote in a more self-discriminating fashion are the "log-cabin" (gay) republicans.
Hmm, I mean I suppose there are geographical factors that transcend race in voting patterns. The south does overwhelmingly vote Republican, and I did picture a lot of poor white people voting Republican on the basis of gun rights, small government and anti-gay marriage laws, but I thought black people in the south just didn't vote as much because of all the disenfranchisement they go through every election.
Black people in urban areas of major cities though are definitely voting Democrat for the most part.
I'd just like to add that people do vote, but they fail to vote for their interests. ie. Most of the poor rural population votes republican
The conservative movement enjoys the freedom to keep retrograde substance laws in place because it locks down at least half the population the moment they utter the word "Jesus." Therefor any attempt by a progressive to look "centrist," (and gain the coveted swing vote) must include a bow to some of these conservative values which most of the developed world knows to be a completely backward approach to governance. Chief among these issues to be adopted by "pragmatic," politicians is anti-drug policy and draconian imprisonment for minor criminals.
To put it bluntly, evangelicals are the root cause of most crime in the US.
See, this is what happens when people are allowed to just say things on the internet with no data to support it. And frankly, it's embarassing given that the first result I got when I googled "party affiliation by income level" was this:
See, I knew instinctively the poster of this falsehood was wrong, but I took a couple extra minutes to do some HOMEWORK before correcting. And therein lies the issue: people who know even less than this cat hear reads what he/she wrote, and repeats it, turning the lie into "truth".
Excerpted from the same article:
"
Party identification is strongly linked to family income levels – people in the highest income households are roughly twice-as-likely as those in the lowest income households to say they are Republicans. But over the past decade, the Republican Party has also lost adherents across all income levels while Democratic identification has remained fairly stable. A greater proportion of people in every income category are identifying as independents.
As recently as 2004 the Republican Party held an 11-point advantage (39% vs. 28% Democrat) in party identification among people in the top 20% income group (with family incomes of roughly $100,000 or more in 2009 dollars). This advantage has virtually disappeared in 2009. Today, 35% of high-income Americans say they are independents while 32% identify with the GOP and 30% with the Democratic Party.
Democrats continue to have a wide advantage among those with incomes in the lowest quintile (under $20,000 in 2009 dollars). In 2009, 42% of lower income Americans consider themselves Democrats – virtually unchanged in recent years – while just 15% are Republicans, down slightly from 19% four years ago. But in the next income level up (those earning between $20,000 and $40,000 in 2009 dollars) the GOP’s decline has been particularly sharp. In 2004, the Democrats held a 13-point edge within this income group (38% vs. 25% Republican). Today, that has opened up to a 24-point lead (40% vs. 16%) as Republican identification has dropped off by 9 points."
As we can see, Republican representation among poorer families is actually DECREASING.
The internet is a damp, dark place where lies or half-truths are allowed to fester and take root. Do your own research guys.
Beyond this, to call it a crime and define it per "systemic issues" - What systemic issues? Please, do define a single ISSUE with the system that made this happen. Given that laws are upheld by the matter of fact that you find it right/wrong, it holds NOTHING, i repeat, NOTHING in weight in comparing to what a man will do with a gun, if he so god damn pleases to do it. NO AMOUNT, of "systemic" changes, can change this. None. Nada. 0. Even if you so apply security checks, could he not just shoot down the guards as well? What would stop him? "political correctness"? The man is EVIDENTLY delusional to begin with, so PLEASE don't imagine that the "system" has anything to do with it. God damn.
I'm not sure many here, especially Prol, was saying there was anything we could've done to stop any of this. Most here will agree that a madman bent on death and destruction will find a way. We're merely discussing some of the hypocrisies that are highlighted in the aftermath of incidents like these and they way people search for meaning in senseless acts or ignore what should be explored further.
The internet is a damp, dark place where lies or half-truths are allowed to fester and take root. Do your own research guys.
I second this advice. I'd just like to point out a few things you might want to consider, despite the fact I do find Pew to be a wonderful resource.
1. The data suggests that there is no marked decline in conservatism. This roughly fits my argument, although I suppose using the words republican and conservative interchangeably is in poor taste.
2. Regional data suggest that "red" states have lost republican votership for decades; however, this has not reflected in national elections.
3. "Independent" is being used to describe undecided individuals when this is not always the case. In point of fact most "independent," voters in Atlanta are those who consider themselves too conservative for the "main-line republican party," ie. Tea Party affiliates, Libertarians, etc. Feel free to examine exit polls to confirm this, but these groups vote republican.
tl;dr: Party affiliation data is obviously not a perfect corollary for voting habits.
Beyond this, to call it a crime and define it per "systemic issues" - What systemic issues? Please, do define a single ISSUE with the system that made this happen. Given that laws are upheld by the matter of fact that you find it right/wrong, it holds NOTHING, i repeat, NOTHING in weight in comparing to what a man will do with a gun, if he so god damn pleases to do it. NO AMOUNT, of "systemic" changes, can change this. None. Nada. 0. Even if you so apply security checks, could he not just shoot down the guards as well? What would stop him? "political correctness"? The man is EVIDENTLY delusional to begin with, so PLEASE don't imagine that the "system" has anything to do with it. God damn.
Yes, I think the tangent discussion was worth having. Related issues to crime and punishment have been presented. You can discuss them or you can continue to bleat on with righteous indignation at the fact the conversation is happening.
Also, I find the "how dare you question the system at a time like this," more than a little amusing.
The internet is a damp, dark place where lies or half-truths are allowed to fester and take root. Do your own research guys.
I second this advice. I'd just like to point out a few things you might want to consider, despite the fact I do find Pew to be a wonderful resource.
1. The data suggests that there is no marked decline in conservatism. This roughly fits my argument, although I suppose using the words republican and conservative interchangeably is in poor taste.
Ummm. First paragraph of the page I linked. You might want to, like, READ it.
"The Republican Party is in the weakest position it has been in two decades of Pew Research Center polling. Interviews with more than 7,000 respondents nationwide so far this year found just 23% identifying themselves as Republicans. This is down from 25% in 2008 and 30% as recently as 2004. In total, the GOP has lost roughly a quarter of its base over the past five years."
I suppose you think a quarter (25%) of the base is not a marked decline.
You also indicated that poor people vote "republican" (sic) in your original post, yet failed to mention the correction in your reply.
Overwhelmingly, poorer people vote Democratic, for obvious reasons.
The internet is a damp, dark place where lies or half-truths are allowed to fester and take root. Do your own research guys.
I second this advice. I'd just like to point out a few things you might want to consider, despite the fact I do find Pew to be a wonderful resource.
1. The data suggests that there is no marked decline in conservatism. This roughly fits my argument, although I suppose using the words republican and conservative interchangeably is in poor taste.
Ummm. First paragraph of the page I linked. You might want to, like, READ it.
"The Republican Party is in the weakest position it has been in two decades of Pew Research Center polling. Interviews with more than 7,000 respondents nationwide so far this year found just 23% identifying themselves as Republicans. This is down from 25% in 2008 and 30% as recently as 2004. In total, the GOP has lost roughly a quarter of its base over the past five years."
I suppose you think a quarter (25%) of the base is not a marked decline.
You also indicated that poor people vote "republican" (sic) in your original post, yet failed to mention the correction in your reply.
Overwhelmingly, poorer people vote Democratic, for obvious reasons.
I think you are continuing to confuse declared affiliation with exit polls. Also, you should read further into your data as there is a graph entertaining the exact point I was making.
I think you're on to so interesting points, but you're just using the research as a blunt instrument when it cannot be taken as such.
All apologies to the OP, who obviously wanted to have a deeper discussion about violence, 'twas not my intent to sidetrack the discussion.
Your original implication was "most of the poor rural population votes republican". Through the art of obfuscation and distraction, we have arrived here at this point, where you are attempting to convince others you were really talking about exit polls, or other non-such. So:
I'd just like to add that people do vote, but they fail to vote for their interests. ie. Most of the poor rural population votes republican
The conservative movement enjoys the freedom to keep retrograde substance laws in place because it locks down at least half the population the moment they utter the word "Jesus." Therefor any attempt by a progressive to look "centrist," (and gain the coveted swing vote) must include a bow to some of these conservative values which most of the developed world knows to be a completely backward approach to governance. Chief among these issues to be adopted by "pragmatic," politicians is anti-drug policy and draconian imprisonment for minor criminals.
To put it bluntly, evangelicals are the root cause of most crime in the US.
To date, you have yet to provide any background to support this. You have, however, waxed poetic about the usefulness of Pew Research. Let us settle the original argument, and its fallacy, in this post, so that the OP and others can get back to actually dealing in (hopefully) facts:
Clearly, poorer people do not vote nor consider themselves Republican. I do realize you have attempted to minimize the impact of being drawn out here, but calling the facts " a blunt weapon" makes me no less right.
By all means, back to blaming religious folks and the poor for all the problems, don't concern yourself with factual accuracy.
Once again, voting and affiliation clearly are not one in the same. How does the Republican party, apparently loosing affiliates over the last decade, GAIN seats in the house of representatives?
Clearly more people vote republican than actually identify themselves with the party when prompted to do so. I would think that great leap of conscious thought would be simple for a poster capable of up-rooting a Pew research article, but thus far you appear to have missed the reading comprehension boat three times now.
By all means, continue to miss the point being made.
Unless you mean to imply that 50% of the population resides in the top two income brackets, there's not much to be said. Clearly there is a discrepancy between people who are identified with a party and how they vote.
To put it bluntly, evangelicals are the root cause of most crime in the US.
I thought he was just making a wry comment when he said that though. Like, in the most indirect way it was still kind of a facetious claim but if you wanted to interpret the data in such a way you probably could make a connection.
Clearly, poorer people do not vote nor consider themselves Republican. I do realize you have attempted to minimize the impact of being drawn out here, but calling the facts " a blunt weapon" makes me no less right.
There really are a lot of poor Republicans though. Because a lot of poor people are appealed to on social issues which are typically an affront to their Christian beliefs. The Republican party knows this and that's why in Bush's reelection campaign, they fought to get referendums on the ballots supporting federal bans on gay marriage. This draws out not just the typical Republican voters, but the ones who are socially conservative and simply vote Republican across the ballot.
It's a similar strategy that Democrats want to do now with legalization of marijuana. They figure, they're not gonna get socially conservative people to vote for Obama, but what they can do is get non-committed citizens who might vote Democrat but lack an incentive to do so, and have them vote for the legalization of marijuana and subsequently across the ballot all Democrat.
By all means, back to blaming religious folks and the poor for all the problems, don't concern yourself with factual accuracy.
I will at least say that a lot of arguments against the legalization of drugs is a moral one. A moral one based on Christian beliefs. And Christian interests have a lot of power in this country and give a lot of money to politicians to maintain their ideal status quo. That said, some Christian interests that are lobbied for in Washington actually can help people and bring about the right thing. But the notion that doing drugs is a sin and legalizing them is a slippery slope into moral decay, this idea definitely gets in the way of making prudent policy.
I thought he was just making a wry comment when he said that though. Like, in the most indirect way it was still kind of a facetious claim but if you wanted to interpret the data in such a way you probably could make a connection.
How do you or anyone on the left expect to be taken seriously when someone calls you out for being incorrect, provides evidence of said falacious statements, and you continue to obfuscate without providing one iota of data to support your own claim?
You went from "poor people vote republican"
to
"there are more rich republicans than poor"
to
"a wry comment"
Had you just admitted you were wrong from the start you could have avoided this embarassment.
Spot on, old chap. lol\
EDIT: If I've missed the "comprehension boat" three times now, please feel free to link your data supporting your claim.
Watch as I play your own game:
Rich Hollywood elites tend to vote Democratic.
Rich white guys tend to vote Democratic.
See? Nothing to it. I can't prove any of that, obviously. It's conjecture and supposition. Right up your alley.
I think people tend to follow voting trends not as much on income but more on the area and people you grow up around. A lot of lower income families may see things like Obama's healcare plan and see it as a good thing or at least a step in the right direction towards ACTUAL free healthcare. Some people might have grown up being taught to never let the government take too much power from you, guns included. From a lower income vantage point I can see benefits to both sides really, or at least what they claim to stand for and want. Just like not all rich people are republican, some want to see some more of the democratic type ideas and laws implemented rather than save themselves a few bucks. Certainly finances play a big part but personal values and family conditioning plays a bigger part.
Should we just start a new thread? This really has nothing to do with Batman or insane gunmen anymore.
I think people should have the right to bear arms.
I DO NOT believe that people should be able to legally purchase automatic assault rifles. Hand guns, hunting rifles, sure, but assault rifles and military grade weapons should be kept ONLY to the military.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Still cracks me up, America doing all this work to prosecute people who're smoking marijuana, destroy plantations and all that. Yet there's still more people smoking it compared to The Netherlands. Yes, even in proportion.
Our antiquated drug laws are a huge part of what ultimately leads to violent crime in the U.S.
Not to say users aren't committing many violent crimes, but the drug lords who fight for supply and territory do commit many violent crimes.
This also brings me to what I do find offensive about sensational stories like this theater massacre. And that's that people in urban areas, decaying cities live in some of the worst crime ridden areas of all and a lot of that crime stems from poverty and ridiculous drug laws. But it's not really news that some poor neighborhoods are getting shot up all the time over drug dealers fighting for real estate.
We're so fascinated by the random shooter who was seemingly normal and had a good life going for him. And yeah I'll admit I'm fascinated by it also, but only to a point. Beyond that point, I really don't think there's a lot to learn in terms of societal behavior by the killing spree of this guy. I mean, even suicide bombings happen frequently enough that we have begun to find sociological explanations for them and have even dispelled the myth that suicide bombers are not necessarily insane as opposed to just extremely socialized. But a lone shooter like this, there is a deep psychological explanation for his behavior perhaps, or maybe there is not that even.
What I'm saying is I think it's overestimated in what there is to learn from this incident. Yet the media will plug it into their overextended news cycle and bring in analysts and pundits and just as I knew they would, they will politicize and sensationalize what happened. And I think that's offensive just because there are other incidents of gun violence, such as those connected to gang violence and the drug trade. And we understand the patterns and the solutions to these kinds of deaths by firearms, only they happen more over time and not all at once in a nice bundle of a news story.
I mean, sure enough, it seems much of this conversation has devolved into a gun control debate. But like I said, gun violence is a symptom of a much larger problem such as poverty or outdated drug laws. We all remember prohibition. Well none of us were alive during that time, but we were all taught about it. They could've done all the gun control in the world during that time and still people would've been getting gunned down like crazy. And why? Because there was money to be made in bootlegging. And because people had to fight over product and territory because they could not do it by legitimate means. It's no different today with the war on drugs. And that's one of the real causes of gun deaths each year.
So if you restrict guns more, you're kind of applying a treatment, but that's still ignoring the fundamental problem. There are still too many incentives connected to owning a gun (legal or otherwise). Even regular middle class folk who live in the suburbs, they own guns a lot of the time out of fear. They feel they must protect themselves because their neighbor's house or car was broken into and now they're scared. Most property crimes are caused by people who need money for drugs or they are simply in poverty and they're resorting to a life of crime to help sustain themselves.
So poverty, drugs, these are the things I see leading to all the violence in this country. But Americans are tired of that conversation. And no politician wants to decriminalize drugs or lessen the mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses because that makes them appear soft on crime. And being soft of crime doesn't get you reelected. And unfortunately, poor people don't really vote that much.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I'd just like to add that people do vote, but they fail to vote for their interests. ie. Most of the poor rural population votes republican
The conservative movement enjoys the freedom to keep retrograde substance laws in place because it locks down at least half the population the moment they utter the word "Jesus." Therefor any attempt by a progressive to look "centrist," (and gain the coveted swing vote) must include a bow to some of these conservative values which most of the developed world knows to be a completely backward approach to governance. Chief among these issues to be adopted by "pragmatic," politicians is anti-drug policy and draconian imprisonment for minor criminals.
To put it bluntly, evangelicals are the root cause of most crime in the US.
As someone said above, people just go crazy. It happens. The guns and ammo were purchased legally. To scream for stricter gun laws is a slap in the face to the majority of gun owners who are responsible and carry their firearms for personal protection. Seems to me like more laws and addendums to existing laws to allow people more rights to carry personal protection could have saved lives in this case. But I guess that's part of why I live in Arizona. Aside from government buildings and banks I have the ability to protect myself, my family, and others and am able to do it legally.
You can't predict crazy. Minority Report was not based on true events or real people. More laws won't stop criminals from committing crimes.
My heart goes out to the victims and their families regardless. Men, women, and children died for nothing other than trying to enjoy a midnight release.
LOL I like how you connected the dots there.
People DID go to see Batman and they DID get shot. I thought I was being succinct.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Death is always senseless. I have nothing but empathy for those effected and those who lost their lives. Having said that, waiving the white flag and throwing up hands doesn't bring anyone back or console anyone for that matter. Discussing systemic issues that cause crimes like this is tactful and appropriate, if not politically correct.
There are many poor black republicans here in the south, actually. It may be the pinnacle of irony, but it is a fact. The only people who vote in a more self-discriminating fashion are the "log-cabin" (gay) republicans.
Black people in urban areas of major cities though are definitely voting Democrat for the most part.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
See, this is what happens when people are allowed to just say things on the internet with no data to support it. And frankly, it's embarassing given that the first result I got when I googled "party affiliation by income level" was this:
http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/
See, I knew instinctively the poster of this falsehood was wrong, but I took a couple extra minutes to do some HOMEWORK before correcting. And therein lies the issue: people who know even less than this cat hear reads what he/she wrote, and repeats it, turning the lie into "truth".
Excerpted from the same article:
"
Party identification is strongly linked to family income levels – people in the highest income households are roughly twice-as-likely as those in the lowest income households to say they are Republicans. But over the past decade, the Republican Party has also lost adherents across all income levels while Democratic identification has remained fairly stable. A greater proportion of people in every income category are identifying as independents.
As recently as 2004 the Republican Party held an 11-point advantage (39% vs. 28% Democrat) in party identification among people in the top 20% income group (with family incomes of roughly $100,000 or more in 2009 dollars). This advantage has virtually disappeared in 2009. Today, 35% of high-income Americans say they are independents while 32% identify with the GOP and 30% with the Democratic Party.
Democrats continue to have a wide advantage among those with incomes in the lowest quintile (under $20,000 in 2009 dollars). In 2009, 42% of lower income Americans consider themselves Democrats – virtually unchanged in recent years – while just 15% are Republicans, down slightly from 19% four years ago. But in the next income level up (those earning between $20,000 and $40,000 in 2009 dollars) the GOP’s decline has been particularly sharp. In 2004, the Democrats held a 13-point edge within this income group (38% vs. 25% Republican). Today, that has opened up to a 24-point lead (40% vs. 16%) as Republican identification has dropped off by 9 points."
As we can see, Republican representation among poorer families is actually DECREASING.
The internet is a damp, dark place where lies or half-truths are allowed to fester and take root. Do your own research guys.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I second this advice. I'd just like to point out a few things you might want to consider, despite the fact I do find Pew to be a wonderful resource.
1. The data suggests that there is no marked decline in conservatism. This roughly fits my argument, although I suppose using the words republican and conservative interchangeably is in poor taste.
2. Regional data suggest that "red" states have lost republican votership for decades; however, this has not reflected in national elections.
3. "Independent" is being used to describe undecided individuals when this is not always the case. In point of fact most "independent," voters in Atlanta are those who consider themselves too conservative for the "main-line republican party," ie. Tea Party affiliates, Libertarians, etc. Feel free to examine exit polls to confirm this, but these groups vote republican.
tl;dr: Party affiliation data is obviously not a perfect corollary for voting habits.
Yes, I think the tangent discussion was worth having. Related issues to crime and punishment have been presented. You can discuss them or you can continue to bleat on with righteous indignation at the fact the conversation is happening.
Also, I find the "how dare you question the system at a time like this," more than a little amusing.
Ummm. First paragraph of the page I linked. You might want to, like, READ it.
"The Republican Party is in the weakest position it has been in two decades of Pew Research Center polling. Interviews with more than 7,000 respondents nationwide so far this year found just 23% identifying themselves as Republicans. This is down from 25% in 2008 and 30% as recently as 2004. In total, the GOP has lost roughly a quarter of its base over the past five years."
I suppose you think a quarter (25%) of the base is not a marked decline.
You also indicated that poor people vote "republican" (sic) in your original post, yet failed to mention the correction in your reply.
Overwhelmingly, poorer people vote Democratic, for obvious reasons.
This also only goes up to 2009 which was right after two horrible terms under Bush and Obama's promising of change.
I think you are continuing to confuse declared affiliation with exit polls. Also, you should read further into your data as there is a graph entertaining the exact point I was making.
I think you're on to so interesting points, but you're just using the research as a blunt instrument when it cannot be taken as such.
Your original implication was "most of the poor rural population votes republican". Through the art of obfuscation and distraction, we have arrived here at this point, where you are attempting to convince others you were really talking about exit polls, or other non-such. So:
To date, you have yet to provide any background to support this. You have, however, waxed poetic about the usefulness of Pew Research. Let us settle the original argument, and its fallacy, in this post, so that the OP and others can get back to actually dealing in (hopefully) facts:
Clearly, poorer people do not vote nor consider themselves Republican. I do realize you have attempted to minimize the impact of being drawn out here, but calling the facts " a blunt weapon" makes me no less right.
By all means, back to blaming religious folks and the poor for all the problems, don't concern yourself with factual accuracy.
Clearly more people vote republican than actually identify themselves with the party when prompted to do so. I would think that great leap of conscious thought would be simple for a poster capable of up-rooting a Pew research article, but thus far you appear to have missed the reading comprehension boat three times now.
By all means, continue to miss the point being made.
Unless you mean to imply that 50% of the population resides in the top two income brackets, there's not much to be said. Clearly there is a discrepancy between people who are identified with a party and how they vote.
There really are a lot of poor Republicans though. Because a lot of poor people are appealed to on social issues which are typically an affront to their Christian beliefs. The Republican party knows this and that's why in Bush's reelection campaign, they fought to get referendums on the ballots supporting federal bans on gay marriage. This draws out not just the typical Republican voters, but the ones who are socially conservative and simply vote Republican across the ballot.
It's a similar strategy that Democrats want to do now with legalization of marijuana. They figure, they're not gonna get socially conservative people to vote for Obama, but what they can do is get non-committed citizens who might vote Democrat but lack an incentive to do so, and have them vote for the legalization of marijuana and subsequently across the ballot all Democrat.
I will at least say that a lot of arguments against the legalization of drugs is a moral one. A moral one based on Christian beliefs. And Christian interests have a lot of power in this country and give a lot of money to politicians to maintain their ideal status quo. That said, some Christian interests that are lobbied for in Washington actually can help people and bring about the right thing. But the notion that doing drugs is a sin and legalizing them is a slippery slope into moral decay, this idea definitely gets in the way of making prudent policy.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Spot on as usual, old chap.
You went from "poor people vote republican"
to
"there are more rich republicans than poor"
to
"a wry comment"
Had you just admitted you were wrong from the start you could have avoided this embarassment.
Spot on, old chap. lol\
EDIT: If I've missed the "comprehension boat" three times now, please feel free to link your data supporting your claim.
Watch as I play your own game:
Rich Hollywood elites tend to vote Democratic.
Rich white guys tend to vote Democratic.
See? Nothing to it. I can't prove any of that, obviously. It's conjecture and supposition. Right up your alley.
Should we just start a new thread? This really has nothing to do with Batman or insane gunmen anymore.