Democratic enclave in Wyoming? - is it possible? (Laramie, Jackson: sales, lawyers)

[sugarbomb]

Thanks, ckwarren08! I'm looking forward to exploring the area.

[DreamworksSKG]

I was merely asking because typically Wyoming votes RED every election

In terms of conservative right wing, I was probably thinking more of the midwest,

I guess you're right that a lot of Wyoming might be considered more libertarian.

I am more of a moderate liberal democrat. not super liberal, but I do believe the government needs to be in control of some aspects of people's lives , just not everything.

I do believe in gun control, because we need to make sure the right people are obtaining guns, especially assault weapons, we need to be careful as to who is obtaining these weapons . I think background checks for weapons especially assault weapons are adequate.

But anyway I would like to visit Wyoming sometime, maybe even work there for a summer or something - but I want to be accepted and not ostracized for what I believe if I do come.

I am a bit hesitant to visit Wyoming because of this

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

You can be anything you care to be in Wyoming as long as you are opposed to gun control. If you are in favor of gun control, you will be a pariah.

I am not saying this with sarcasm or irony. It is the simple truth.

I hadn't thought about that. I live in Colorado, it's sort of the same but different down here with a big metro area, etc. You guys are more supportive of education, that's for sure!

[sunsprit]

DreamworksSKG ... please, before you come to Wyoming, try getting a bit more educated about 2nd amendment issues. You might have a lot more empathy with the folks out here if you do, and you won't be so hesitant to visit if you understand where your fellow Wyoming co-workers and neighbors are coming from.

To begin with, the firearms industry is already one of the most highly regulated businesses in the country. That includes background checks on most of the sales/transfers now taking place, and has been that way for years. Even when I go to auctions of private firearms collections, there are paperwork and background checks to be complied with, and several states have yet more stringent laws than the Fed laws. In my experience, everyone is very concerned and conscientious about dotting all the i's and crossing the t's to ensure compliance with the law and responsibilities of firearm transactions and ownership. It's a right that we all value very highly, and we don't want to run afoul of the law over some trivial detail.

You've apparently been well indoctrinated into the political concept of "assault weapons", which is a gun banner ploy to play upon the fears of people that certain "evil looking" firearms are more destructive, more deadly, and more capable of killing people (as their only purpose). These firearms have already been well regulated, and the fact that in some cases they cosmetically "resemble" full military automatic weapons is the extent of their capability. They are not military automatic weapons, they are not the weapons of choice of the criminal element, and they're not what you should be afraid of. Many are extremely expensive, and simply aren't the "street guns" that Hollywood "shoot 'em up images" and the mainstream press would have you fear.

I can assure you that if you run around here talking about "assault weapons", you'll have identified yourself as some sort of left-wing anti-gun nut. There simply aren't any "assault weapons" except as defined by the gun banners on cosmetic issues. If you really are ... as you say ... a more moderate person, then I don't think you'll really want to place such a label upon yourself.

Frankly, I don't own any of these types of firearm, and I don't get any pleasure from them. But I respect and support the right of those who choose to own and enjoy these firearms and their right to head to the target range or other safe and legal shooting environment and shoot them to their heart's (or budget) content.

FWIW, you might want to actually review the crime results in Britain and Australia after they banned firearms in those countries. It would appear that crimes using firearms have gone up dramatically, because the criminals know that their victims are most likely law abiding citizens and unarmed. Further, the actual crime data in the USA is that the states that have enacted "shall issue" concealed carry permits have lower firearm related crime than the states that have not. In fact, the highest firearm crime rates are in the most highly regulated areas, where firearm possession and carry is at a minimum ... look at Washington D.C., or Chicago, or other places where the criminals know that the population has been disarmed.

[thedrizzlemonster]

Originally Posted by DreamworksSKG

Is it possible to be a Democrat and live in Wyoming? Are there any parts of cities or towns, that are more liberal in Wyoming than conservative? Or is everyone basically right wing envangelical conservative republican?

try Laramie. Many dems and a campus to boot!

[willarn]

All I got to say is

[ckwarren08]

Originally Posted by sugarbomb

Thanks, ckwarren08! I'm looking forward to exploring the area.

No problem! It's a great area to explore, one I enjoy visiting often.

Originally Posted by DreamworksSKG

... but I want to be accepted and not ostracized for what I believe if I do come.

I am a bit hesitant to visit Wyoming because of this

If you follow the eight "guidelines" I outlined in my post, you won't! Trust me -- I know people of all colors, beliefs, politics, etc., and none of them ostracize me for my beliefs, nor do I ostracize them for theirs. You're always going to get those few people who won't accept you, but those people are in every city, every county, and every state.

Don't let those few prevent you from enjoying this great state.

[Itz]

Originally Posted by GEORGIAINMT

I really wonder, too, why you would lump all of those things in one description of a person living in Wyoming. I am democrat, don't see myself as either liberal or conservative, and am a member of a church that's denomination is the Evangelical Church of N. America. One nice thing about living in Wyoming is that you can be almost anything you want to be, and like another poster stated, if you are a good neighbor and treat people right, you will fit right in!

As a former Wyoming Resident who would love to move back... being out of Wyoming in a metro area... EVERYONE is LUMPED into groups.. Your either a right-wing nut job or your a democrat.. If you say anything against "democrat" - your rascist, hateful, not politically correct, etc. etc..
When I moved out of Wyoming.. the HATE towards myslef from FAR left wing liberals was just weird.. the comment was "What you say doesnt matter your from..... x state"

So I can see why the OP would have a question on this.

Frankly I never ever felt "segregated" in Wyoming and knew democrats who were comfortable speaking their minds and being involved in politics.

BUT wyoming is very libertarian in the fact the majority of the people do NOT want govt in their lives.. and it shows due to the fact the state budget is not in major deficits as it is here in Colorado.. *these people are IGNORAMOUS* when it comes to govt spending.

[NVDave]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

The national deficit didn't just balloon up in 2-3 months.

The massive corporate bailouts due to a very failed system began while Bush was still in office. A complete lack of regulation on corporations. Wall Street could do anything they wanted, banks could do anything they wanted, as many ripoffs and schemes could go as much as they wanted unchecked. It all caught up to him while he was STILL in office! That original MASSIVE 9 Billion dollar corporate bailout was a BUSH emergency and policy and idea!!

All of that occured because of Presidential policy for 8 years. The world works on 'cause-and-effect'. A president's policy or lack of policy make other things occur.

In addition, well-before that, most of the European Union and the Gulf States and everyone else you can imagine wanted to move away from being dependent on the U.S. dollar because few could stand the direction that George Bush was leading.

The idea that IMF and the World Bank or whatever other organizations just suddenly decided in the last 3 months completely out of the blue just because Bush isn't in office is taking some serious FOX/RUSH Limbaugh pill.

I do completely agree with you that the U.S. is in serious financial trouble...but to blame it 100% on Obama is a completely ridiculous allegation..and particularly that any criticism of GOP is now null and void. If McCain was in office, we'd have the exact same problem right now. Heck, even if RON PAUL had got into office (the ONLY guy that is for serious fiscal responsibility), we'd STILL be having the SAME problem right now.

WHY? Because we have to PAY for the massive fiscal irresponsibility of the Federal government the last 8 years, that doesn't just go away because a new man gets elected, regardless of who it would have been who got elected - even if Bush had somehow mandated himself 'President for Life', we'd still be having the EXACT same problem.

Oh, where to begin.

It wasn't the IMF or World Bank who brought up the issue of the dollar as reserve currency. It was the world's largest lender to the United States, the People's Republic of China.

The PRC didn't decide "out of the blue" that they wanted to move away from the dollar as a world reserve currency. It was after reading such things as the CBO's projections of deficits and income to the US government.

Here is a link to that report:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc...dentBudget.pdf

Pay attention to Figures 1-1 and 1-2. That came out on March 19th/20th, 2009, but pieces of it were dribbling out prior to the release of the entire report.

The Chinese started calling for changes in the dollar as a reserve currency by March 23rd, 2009:

China Takes Aim at Dollar - WSJ.com

The Federal Reserve then threw gasoline on this particular fire with their announcement of $1.15 trillion in quantitative easing on March 18th, 2009:

FRB: Press Release--FOMC statement--March 18, 2009

Contrary to your mash-up of talking points, yes, the PRC has come to this position very quickly. There was nothing done during the past administrations (Republican or Democrat) since the end of Bretton Woods II that has prompted anyone (aside from some hard-line Islamic suppliers of crude oil) to call for a change away from the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Obama is playing a very high-stakes game of chicken with the level of spending and indebtedness now. If exporting countries in the world decide that they'd rather have a commodity-backed reserve currency (as the PRC has suggested, with their idea of resurrecting the bancor), then the US is in for some very tough times ahead.

If someone like Ron Paul had taken office, then no, we would not be in quite the same position. If you know anything about Ron Paul, you know that he is one of the Fed's biggest critics, and the Fed's quantative easing would have prompted Paul to come down on the Fed like a ton of bricks. The Fed would have lost their independence almost overnight after such a move.

Obama is allowing the banks to call the tune here, to our collective detriment. The divergence between the actions taken against the auto companies vs. the kid gloves used by the Obama administration in handling the banks shows that this administration is every bit as much in the bankers' pockets as the previous one was, if not more. If you do some homework on Geithner, you'll see that he precipitated the Asian currency crisis of '98 with his actions. He's hardly the whiz-kid he's made out to be.

BTW -- there was no "complete lack of regulation" under the Bush administration. If we look to European banks (since looking to "the European model" is so much in vogue now among liberals), we see that many European banks are levered up to even higher levels than US banks. The reason why Paulson (as co-head of Goldman) asked the SEC to allow investment banks to lever up 40:1 was to compete with European banks. So if the US was, by your assessment, operation under a "complete lack of regulation," then so were European banks, who are in much the same spot in the UK, Ireland, Germany, Iceland, Spain, Greece, etc.

[Tiger Beer]

NVDave, actually we both share the same knowledge and information about it. There is nothing I am reading or that you are sharing that I disagree with, and Ron Paul REALLY appealed to me as well.

The only real difference is that I felt that Bush's 8 years accelerated everything to the negative and put us in the predicament that we are in...whereas your opinion is that Obama's 3 months in office accelerated everything to the negative and is putting us in the predicament we are in.

But, I think we'd both agree that the nation is severely messed up...and I think both of us would have loved to have seen Ron Paul in office.

I will say that most of Obama's spending is exact continuation of Bush's administration. If you recall back before the Obama and McCain election...Bush called a State of Emergency and requested billions and billions of dollars to quickly bailout Wall Street and the Banking Industry. Then Bush went forward with massive payouts bankrupting our country. That was all set in motion at the end of Bush's term in office...and Obama is just continuing that same theme.

However, if Bush hadn't neglected the economy and neglected Wall Street and deregulated corporate responsibility to the point he had during his administration, then this is a strong possibility we wouldn't have had to bail them out. Bailing them out wasn't a Obama-inspired idea in a bubble...it is an inheritance of the state of our nation when he got it.

Anyways, I think you and I will probably differ greatly on my Bush blame and your Obama blame. But the heart of the matter is that we BOTH STRONGLY AGREE that the nation and its intense spending habits are WRONG for this country.