What Does This Country Look Like In 20 Years?

[Unkotare]

we'll build a new, better country out of the rubble....

No, "we'll" keep this country, and you will go on being a disappointed fool squatting in a country he does not deserve.

Not a student of history, I see. ....

Far more so than you, idiot. Come back in 20 years and eat your hat, you fucking pessimistic pussy.

 

[kiwiman127]

An interesting thread Mac.
I was going to start a thread about partisanship and how much it has increased in the US but I think I'll just post a synopsis of two articles that I have read that hit the nail on the head.
From;
'Partyism' Now Trumps Racism
If you are a Democrat, would you marry a Republican? Would you be upset if your sister did?
Researchers have long asked such questions about race, and have found that along important dimensions, racial prejudice is decreasing. At the same time, party prejudice in the U.S. has jumped, infecting not only politics but also decisions about dating, marriage and hiring. By some measures, "partyism" now exceeds racial prejudice -- which helps explain the intensity of some midterm election campaigns.
In 1960, 5 percent of Republicans and 4 percent of Democrats said that they would feel “displeased” if their son or daughter married outside their political party. By 2010, those numbers had reached 49 percent and 33 percent. Republicans have been found to like Democrats less than they like people on welfare or gays and lesbians. Democrats dislike Republicans more than they dislike big business.
For more: Partyism Now Trumps Racism - Bloomberg View

And: Partisanship Is the New Racism
Partisanship is the new racism. We love to criticize it, and we love to claim we've transcended it. We recognize it in our enemies but not in ourselves. We use it to discriminate against others. And increasingly, we find sophisticated ways to mask it in a veneer of open-mindedness.
New psychological research and insights from political science suggest parallels between partisanship and racism. Both seem to arise from aspects of social identity that are immutable or slow to change. Both are publicly decried and privately practiced. Both are increasingly employed in ways that allow practitioners to deny that they are doing what they are doing.
For more:
Partisanship Is the New Racism Psychology Today
=========================================================
Now I've been posting on boards like USMB since the late mid-nineties and I have seen the bitter partisanship on on political boards on the rise to the point were it is basically inescapable. I don't know how many times I've tried to have a civil discussion only have have it degenerate to name calling.
But at this point, I really don't see that happening in my life away from political boards.
I have a wide range of friends. When were's sitting around having cocktail or whatever, political discussions do arise. I have very, very rarely seen anyone lose their cool. We have conservatives, liberals and moderates, yet there is no name calling, voices rising, pointing fingers or any other displays of anger. There are just nice and informative discussions that are rich in substance that lead to an exchange of ideas.
I think boards like USMB attract the most die-hard partisan individuals. Most are so indoctrinated they are incapable carrying an objective conversation. It gets to be a talking-point-of-the-day echo chamber. This all leads to the source of their talking points, who is typically someone getting paid big bucks to get all their followers all riled up, while dividing America.
A small percentage of Americans subscribe to these paid dividers of America. Most get their news from sources who aren't hyper-partisan and this majority usually aren't all riled up in a partisan way.
If we are to see partisan violence evolve, it won't be by any Main Street American, it'll be from a hyper-partisan who's mind has been inundated and sucked in by the hateful hyper-partisan talking head media.

 

[Samson]

Not sure about the rioting being a barometer of gullibility but whatever...enjoy your day.

If you don't have any idea what the "barometer of gullibility" is, then it is because YOU are gullible.

Thanks for playing.

???

Anyway, no segment of the nation consistently votes in national elections against their best interest more than the South. It's a proven fact over and over again.

Proven fact huh?

Is this "proven fact" something that exists outside your imagination?

Otherwise, it would be called, "an uninformed opinion."

 

[candycorn]

Not sure about the rioting being a barometer of gullibility but whatever...enjoy your day.

If you don't have any idea what the "barometer of gullibility" is, then it is because YOU are gullible.

Thanks for playing.

???

Anyway, no segment of the nation consistently votes in national elections against their best interest more than the South. It's a proven fact over and over again.

Proven fact huh?

Is this "proven fact" something that exists outside your imagination?

Otherwise, it would be called, "an uninformed opinion."

Those in poverty still vote for the Party that wishes for them to remain in poverty. It's been happening for nearly a generation now. No opinion; just fact.

 

[Samson]

Not sure about the rioting being a barometer of gullibility but whatever...enjoy your day.

If you don't have any idea what the "barometer of gullibility" is, then it is because YOU are gullible.

Thanks for playing.

???

Anyway, no segment of the nation consistently votes in national elections against their best interest more than the South. It's a proven fact over and over again.

Proven fact huh?

Is this "proven fact" something that exists outside your imagination?

Otherwise, it would be called, "an uninformed opinion."

Those in poverty still vote for the Party that wishes for them to remain in poverty. It's been happening for nearly a generation now. No opinion; just fact.

What Party has said, "we wish for 'them' to remain in poverty?"

Quote the source.

Otherwise, continue with your delusion, its somewhat amusing to read your incredibly ignorant blitherings.

 

[Mac1958]

An interesting thread Mac.
I was going to start a thread about partisanship and how much it has increased in the US but I think I'll just post a synopsis of two articles that I have read that hit the nail on the head.
From;
'Partyism' Now Trumps Racism
If you are a Democrat, would you marry a Republican? Would you be upset if your sister did?
Researchers have long asked such questions about race, and have found that along important dimensions, racial prejudice is decreasing. At the same time, party prejudice in the U.S. has jumped, infecting not only politics but also decisions about dating, marriage and hiring. By some measures, "partyism" now exceeds racial prejudice -- which helps explain the intensity of some midterm election campaigns.
In 1960, 5 percent of Republicans and 4 percent of Democrats said that they would feel “displeased” if their son or daughter married outside their political party. By 2010, those numbers had reached 49 percent and 33 percent. Republicans have been found to like Democrats less than they like people on welfare or gays and lesbians. Democrats dislike Republicans more than they dislike big business.
For more: Partyism Now Trumps Racism - Bloomberg View

And: Partisanship Is the New Racism
Partisanship is the new racism. We love to criticize it, and we love to claim we've transcended it. We recognize it in our enemies but not in ourselves. We use it to discriminate against others. And increasingly, we find sophisticated ways to mask it in a veneer of open-mindedness.
New psychological research and insights from political science suggest parallels between partisanship and racism. Both seem to arise from aspects of social identity that are immutable or slow to change. Both are publicly decried and privately practiced. Both are increasingly employed in ways that allow practitioners to deny that they are doing what they are doing.
For more:
Partisanship Is the New Racism Psychology Today
=========================================================
Now I've been posting on boards like USMB since the late mid-nineties and I have seen the bitter partisanship on on political boards on the rise to the point were it is basically inescapable. I don't know how many times I've tried to have a civil discussion only have have it degenerate to name calling.
But at this point, I really don't see that happening in my life away from political boards.
I have a wide range of friends. When were's sitting around having cocktail or whatever, political discussions do arise. I have very, very rarely seen anyone lose their cool. We have conservatives, liberals and moderates, yet there is no name calling, voices rising, pointing fingers or any other displays of anger. There are just nice and informative discussions that are rich in substance that lead to an exchange of ideas.
I think boards like USMB attract the most die-hard partisan individuals. Most are so indoctrinated they are incapable carrying an objective conversation. It gets to be a talking-point-of-the-day echo chamber. This all leads to the source of their talking points, who is typically someone getting paid big bucks to get all their followers all riled up, while dividing America.
A small percentage of Americans subscribe to these paid dividers of America. Most get their news from sources who aren't hyper-partisan and this majority usually aren't all riled up in a partisan way.
If we are to see partisan violence evolve, it won't be by any Main Street American, it'll be from a hyper-partisan who's mind has been inundated and sucked in by the hateful hyper-partisan talking head media.

Good stuff.

My amateur psychological/anthropological/sociological fascination with the behaviors of partisan ideology notwithstanding, it does seem to me that a higher percentage of the population is getting sucked into it. That's what concerns me. Partisan ideologues are going to do what they do, unfortunately, but if it spreads further into the populace the noise is simply going to get louder and solving problems will get even tougher.

I hope I'm wrong. These people are doing enough damage with their narcissism and their dishonesty, that's all.

.

 

[Unkotare]

Those in poverty still vote for the Party that wishes for them to remain in poverty.

And which party would that be?

 

[Unkotare]

My amateur psychological/anthropological/sociological fascination with the behaviors of partisan ideology notwithstanding, it does seem to me that a higher percentage of the population is getting sucked into it. That's what concerns me. Partisan ideologues are going to do what they do, unfortunately, but if it spreads further into the populace the noise is simply going to get louder and solving problems will get even tougher.

I hope I'm wrong. .

.

Congratulations, you are. More people are registered as independents today than ever before.

 

[Rotagilla]

Those in poverty still vote for the Party that wishes for them to remain in poverty.

And which party would that be?

both.
....but indoctrinated hyperpartisans think "their" party is superior..LMAO...as if there were really any differences...

 

[candycorn]

Not sure about the rioting being a barometer of gullibility but whatever...enjoy your day.

If you don't have any idea what the "barometer of gullibility" is, then it is because YOU are gullible.

Thanks for playing.

???

Anyway, no segment of the nation consistently votes in national elections against their best interest more than the South. It's a proven fact over and over again.

Proven fact huh?

Is this "proven fact" something that exists outside your imagination?

Otherwise, it would be called, "an uninformed opinion."

Those in poverty still vote for the Party that wishes for them to remain in poverty. It's been happening for nearly a generation now. No opinion; just fact.

What Party has said, "we wish for 'them' to remain in poverty?"

Quote the source.

Otherwise, continue with your delusion, its somewhat amusing to read your incredibly ignorant blitherings.

Ahh

No more solidly GOP area than the South...is that why it was called the "solid south" (feigning curiosity)?

 

[Mac1958]

My amateur psychological/anthropological/sociological fascination with the behaviors of partisan ideology notwithstanding, it does seem to me that a higher percentage of the population is getting sucked into it. That's what concerns me. Partisan ideologues are going to do what they do, unfortunately, but if it spreads further into the populace the noise is simply going to get louder and solving problems will get even tougher.

I hope I'm wrong. .

.

Congratulations, you are. More people are registered as independents today than ever before.

But that doesn't preclude more registered Democrats and more registered Republicans from going off the deep end and pretending that they're media pundits and going hardcore, nutso partisan. As we see on this board.

I dunno. The fact that more are saying they're independent is a good sign.

 

[g5000]

Not talking about the size & scope of government or health care or demographics.

I'm talking about the seething hatred that I can damn near FEEL oozing from my computer screen when left wingers and right wingers post to each other (and to me sometimes, but I'm a big boy, so that's okay).

The worrisome thing is that I'm seeing more and more of this in real life, not just on this board. This type of raw anger is becoming more and more a part of our culture. How can anyone so lucky to live in America be so damn angry all the time?

For those of you who regularly post this way, what are you trying to accomplish? Seriously. Does it make you feel better somehow?

And how much worse can this get? Regular violence? That kinda seems like the next logical step.

.

You can put most of the blame for tard rage on the hack partisan media outlets.

Madison Avenue thrives on helping corporations make people feel like they are missing something from their lives. Whiter whites, a sexy car, hot women.

The piss buckets and manufacturers of bullshit that call themselves "news" these days thrive by going one step further and making the rubes feel as if something is being taken from them.

But this is nothing new. Just read the newspapers of a hundred, or a hundred and fifty, or two hundred years ago. Nothing new under the sun.

Here's a flash from the past. An excerpt from a very famous speech in 1896 which became known as the "Cross of Gold" speech by William Jennings Bryan. See if it sounds familiar:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

 

[candycorn]

If you don't have any idea what the "barometer of gullibility" is, then it is because YOU are gullible.

Thanks for playing.

???

Anyway, no segment of the nation consistently votes in national elections against their best interest more than the South. It's a proven fact over and over again.

Proven fact huh?

Is this "proven fact" something that exists outside your imagination?

Otherwise, it would be called, "an uninformed opinion."

Those in poverty still vote for the Party that wishes for them to remain in poverty. It's been happening for nearly a generation now. No opinion; just fact.

What Party has said, "we wish for 'them' to remain in poverty?"

Quote the source.

Otherwise, continue with your delusion, its somewhat amusing to read your incredibly ignorant blitherings.

Ahh

No more solidly GOP area than the South...is that why it was called the "solid south" (feigning curiosity)?

Not so solid...but just as Dense!!!

 

[Rotagilla]

If you don't have any idea what the "barometer of gullibility" is, then it is because YOU are gullible.

Thanks for playing.

???

Anyway, no segment of the nation consistently votes in national elections against their best interest more than the South. It's a proven fact over and over again.

Proven fact huh?

Is this "proven fact" something that exists outside your imagination?

Otherwise, it would be called, "an uninformed opinion."

Those in poverty still vote for the Party that wishes for them to remain in poverty. It's been happening for nearly a generation now. No opinion; just fact.

What Party has said, "we wish for 'them' to remain in poverty?"

Quote the source.

Otherwise, continue with your delusion, its somewhat amusing to read your incredibly ignorant blitherings.

Ahh

No more solidly GOP area than the South...is that why it was called the "solid south" (feigning curiosity)?

Lets look at the demographics of those states...black/white populations...which group has the most dropouts/least literacy? Hmmmmm

 

[g5000]

"All the political journals of the United States are, indeed, arrayed on the side of the administration or against it; but they attack and defend it in a thousand different ways. They cannot form those great currents of opinion which sweep away the strongest dikes. This division of the influence of the press produces other consequences scarcely less remarkable. The facility with which newspapers can be established produces a multitude of them; but as the competition prevents any considerable profit, persons of much capacity are rarely led to engage in these undertakings. Such is the number of the public prints that even if they were a source of wealth, writers of ability could not be found to direct them all. The journalists of the United States are generally in a very humble position, with a scanty education and a vulgar turn of mind. The class spirit of the French journalists consists in a violent but frequently an eloquent and lofty manner of discussing the great interests of the state, and the exceptions to this mode of writing are only occasional. The characteristics of the American journalist consist in an open and coarse appeal to the passions of his readers; he abandons principles to assail the characters of individuals, to track them into private life and disclose all their weaknesses and vices."

Tocqueville Book 1 Chapter 11

 

[candycorn]

???

Anyway, no segment of the nation consistently votes in national elections against their best interest more than the South. It's a proven fact over and over again.

Proven fact huh?

Is this "proven fact" something that exists outside your imagination?

Otherwise, it would be called, "an uninformed opinion."

Those in poverty still vote for the Party that wishes for them to remain in poverty. It's been happening for nearly a generation now. No opinion; just fact.

What Party has said, "we wish for 'them' to remain in poverty?"

Quote the source.

Otherwise, continue with your delusion, its somewhat amusing to read your incredibly ignorant blitherings.

Ahh

No more solidly GOP area than the South...is that why it was called the "solid south" (feigning curiosity)?

Lets look at the demographics of those states...black/white populations...which group has the most dropouts/least literacy? Hmmmmm

Look at who runs the school boards, the legislatures, and the Governor's mansions. Which group is in power in most places, most often? Hmmmm

Only the gullible would continue to elect these people when they have shown zero interest in clawing their way out of the pit of idiocy.

 

[Rotagilla]

Lets look at the demographics of those states...black/white populations...which group has the most dropouts/least literacy? Hmmmmm

Look at who runs the school boards, the legislatures, and the Governor's mansions. Which group is in power in most places, most often? Hmmmm

So the reason literacy is down in those states is because the school boards, legislatures and governors all work together to prevent negroes from becoming literate and finishing school...yeah..ok..that makes perfect sense.

Only the gullible would continue to elect these people when they have shown zero interest in clawing their way out of the pit of idiocy.

Like I've said many times...only the most indoctrinated hyperpartisan shill would really argue that "their" party is "better" than the other one.
The two party electoral system is a failure. At this point, both parties are irredeemably corrupt and neither works toward the best interests of the nation.

 

[Samson]

If you don't have any idea what the "barometer of gullibility" is, then it is because YOU are gullible.

Thanks for playing.

???

Anyway, no segment of the nation consistently votes in national elections against their best interest more than the South. It's a proven fact over and over again.

Proven fact huh?

Is this "proven fact" something that exists outside your imagination?

Otherwise, it would be called, "an uninformed opinion."

Those in poverty still vote for the Party that wishes for them to remain in poverty. It's been happening for nearly a generation now. No opinion; just fact.

What Party has said, "we wish for 'them' to remain in poverty?"

Quote the source.

Otherwise, continue with your delusion, its somewhat amusing to read your incredibly ignorant blitherings.

Ahh

No more solidly GOP area than the South...is that why it was called the "solid south" (feigning curiosity)?

So you're definition of gullible is "basic Prose Literacy."

What about California, D.C., New Jersey, and New York? I guess they're pretty Gullible. But wait, they're not GOP strongholds, so I guess we don't count them.

Keep trying, like I said, hilarious.

 

[Mr Natural]

Despite what the whiney cry babies are saying, America will look the same in 20 years as it looks today except be 20 years older.

 

[Rotagilla]

Despite what the whiney cry babies are saying, America will look the same in 20 years as it looks today except be 20 years older.

That's what the greeks, romans, british, russians, french...etc...all thought before their collapse.