Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for voicing what conservatives have been trying to get through to liberals for years. I mean, if we're being fair, this has to apply to both viewpoints, right? Disagreeing with some of your half-baked ideas and values doesn't make conservatives not open minded or accepting, just disagreeing with you. That is allowed.
I live twenty minutes from Ann Arbor and my daughter graduated from U of M Ann Arbor last year. Much of Ann Arbor is tolerant only of others who share their viewpoint and dismiss others as hopelessly out of touch. If you can't see this, you aren't well acquainted with Ann Arbor at all.
That's why I find it amusing that two of the most conservative Catholic churches in my area are in Ann Arbor and Whitmore Lake. (Christ the King and Old St. Patrick)
I also tend to think that America, as whole, would be more like Canada and Europe......if not for its history with racial minorities. I think conservatism and the republican party is often or sometimes a Trojan Horse for anti-minority. People want small government because they see racial minorities disproportionately sucking up their tax dollars in the transfer payments to society and redistribution. Some see groups as lazy and wanting something for nothing and hence they want to reduce the size of government to thwart such policies. Harvard University did a study that conclude that race was one of the major reasons that the US does not have a European style welfare and social policy system.
I think most people are basically good, hard working and want a better life for themselves and their offspring....the problem is often "isms", however.
Why I'd like a smaller government - in no particular order -
1) I want a government that's more responsive to my actual needs - that solves actual problems and not interested in creating solutions for problems that don't exist. You know "solutions in search of a problem".
2) I want a government that can figure out when to leave me alone and treat me like the adult that I am.
3) I want a government that assumes that I'm not a servant of the government, nor an ATM. Oh - I'd also prefer representation that doesn't assume that I'm a criminal or have evil intent towards politicians or my government if I disagree. Politicians don't get to say that they need to be protected from the people they are meant to serve and that they are somehow "above" us.
4) I want to be free. Freedom means that I can make choices that my neighbors disagree with (as long as they don't harm other people - i.e. the non-aggression principle).
Please note that I don't mention anything about my neighbors being different than me. I assume that my neighbors are individuals and are inherently different than I am because none of us are 100% the same -ever.
It really is okay if people look different or have different ideas than I do. That doesn't mean that they get to dictate how I live my life - just like I don't get to dictate how they live theirs. (geez)
5) Because I think that the constitutional set up of limited government and checks and balances gives maximum freedom to individuals and communities. Maybe if the government actually followed the constitution, then we'd be better off than we are now. Not all communities are supposed to be cookie cutter - each state was meant to be a laboratory of experimentation and choice.
It's okay if Michigan doesn't share the cultural values of NYC or CA. It's okay if we don't want to be like Mississippi either.
Why would we want our country to be like Europe or Canada when one of the main reasons why our ancestors came here was to get away from the old ways of doing things? It almost seems like a betrayal to say we want to be more like Europe.
Also - if it wasn't for the US military - then Europe would be spending a lot more on defense than social programs. Let's just be real about that as well - while we are on the topic.
There are numerous organizations with 501(c)(3) status. What is it about churches you find particularly unworthy?
Most 501c3 non-profits serve some "common good" and provide some need to the community, and are open to pretty much anyone (American Diabetes Association, American Red Cross, Goodwill Industries, various foundations, etc etc etc). In fact, there are very strict laws which dictate how a 501c3 can operate, and it can be revoked. Churches are more like private clubs that primarily only serve their members. While some do provide donations to the community at large, even much of that is tied to the church (missions, homeless centers where churches teach doctrine, etc.).
Churches take up large amounts of real estate and use municipal infrastructure, yet contribute nothing in the form of taxation. Churches don't even have to be 501c3 status but most do because they can, even though they shouldn't. Particularly churches that get involved in politics.
In other words, churches receive 501c3 status as a "privilege," whereas many other private clubs do not (country clubs for instance). It should be up to them to prove that they should receive said exemptions.
I say this as someone who grew up in the Catholic Church. There's no reason the Catholic Church should be exempt from paying all taxes.
Metro Detroit has one of the largest concentrations of blacks in America. If not for the rapid growth of Atlanta, Houston and Miami the last decade, Detroit MSA/CSA would be about 4 or 5 in terms of black population in the nation. Thus, it stands to reason that Detroit would rank high in the number of black owned businesses.
Minnesota is a little more nuanced. About a quarter of blacks in Minnesota are recent immigrants from Africa, mostly Somalians, Liberians, Nigerians, Ethiopians. Another large percentage of blacks are poor migrants from Chicago and Gary.....in other words, imported poverty and problems that originated in Chicago and Gary. My point being that Minnesota did not create the conditions of many of its black residents. Michigan black folks have been in Michigan awhile and their problems and conditions have strong organic Michigan influence (as well as legacy influences to the culture and economics brought from the south).
Principle Cities (the core city of the metropolitan area, usually where the skyscrapers are) tend to mostly be Democratic. NYC is crazy large. Its over 8 million people. Thus, the way the state goes politically is heavily influenced by those 8 plus million people in the city. Also, NY is even more heavily union than Michigan. The East Coast is heavily unionized. Thus, it goes Democrat almost always....and people there just don't really care about stuff....live and let live, which comports to liberalism I guess. They are into themselves.
Chicago is a smaller version of NYC. Its a huge city and cities nearly always go blue. Hence, the influence of such a large city on the results for the state is powerful, and that state has heavy unions too. Indiana is a good state to juxtapose with Michigan, because its borders Michigan but is clearly a red state. Its one of the weakest states in the Midwest in terms of union membership rates. It's biggest city, Indianapolis, has had 6 mayors since 1968 and all but two of them have been Republicans. If Michigan union membership rate mirrored that of Indiana the last 40 years, Michigan would be as consistently red as Indiana.
Inequality exists socioeconomically between the races in Michigan (and the nation). Whether you see it in your daily life or whether or not you feel bounded by race does not alter that. Something happened to create that inequality or it would not exists. Maybe it was mostly formed in the generations before you and hence you do not notice it in your generation. I mean, you cannot see how things were created unless you were there to see it, but because you have not witnessed it does not mean that it does not explain why things are shaped the way they are....because the way things are is much more a product of the past...than the present.
Here is the thing. Every issue that is important to you, every pet peeve, every "ism" you have, every etc, has to be represented politically by one of two choices. You might only like one song on the album, but if you really want that song you have to buy the whole album because they don't sell it as single. More for your generation, you might only want to watch one Channel that comes on Cable, but you have to buy the whole package of channels just to get that one, because they don't offer JUST that channel. Thus, what you have in America politically is similar to buying Cable or an Album. I mean, are you REALLY a liberal if you only vote democrat for one or two issues? Are you really a conservative if you only vote for Republicans because of one or two issues?
As I noted before.....the two party system forces people to becoming either Democrat or Republican, just to get the one or two issues that is most important to them, when really, there should be, like in Europe, multiple parties, including a Labor party. There are just way to many interest to be represented by two parties. Hence, in America, how you vote does not really define your beliefs, because the definition becomes based upon the package you chose and the assumption is made that you support the whole package, and not just a couple items in the package.
I'm aware things have changed quite a bit. I'm aware of the racial tensions from back in the day and know some of them still exist today. But Michigan in 2017, there is no way... union or not that it would be as red as Indiana. And the more younger people are able to vote and older people retire and move out of state or die out, the less "red" MI is it seems. MI is pretty moderate. How many people in MI are in a union and compare that to how many people in MI voted for Obama? there you will have your answer as far as unions go. And your talking about the same state that voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries over Hillary and all of the republican party candidates and Bernie is pretty far left. This past election was a historically low minority turnout. But when you add up the large black population, the large Arab population, the large Muslim population, and the sizeable Latino population, the college students and young professionals. There is no way you can say that Michigan is some deep red state like Mississippi. Union interest or not, Michigan is almost the definition of a moderate state right now. If it wasn't for the idiots who decided not to vote because they wanted Bernie or the other idiots who didn't vote because they thought Hillary had this in a bag... Democratic presidents would have went on a 28 year winning streak in MI, and would have won for the 7th time in a row.
And I agree, this nation is too big to be dominated by just 2 parties. This nation is too big for electoral college crap as well. I don't agree with everything democrats do but I agree with most of their policies and that is pretty much the story for most democrats in MI. While so many other democrats were choosing not to vote, Trump told all the swing voters that he would snap his fingers and magically bring the blue collar jobs back "like the good ol days", on top of that he said he would snap his fingers two more times and fix our schools, infrastructure, and inner city crime. But when I hear from most of the people who didn't vote for one of those reasons, they still agree more on liberal policies than conservative policies. When people actually turnout to vote, you can see just how moderate the state of Michigan is. Again, I guarantee you if you take out union votes, there is still a very large population of MI that voted for Obama both times.
Quote:
Also, Michigan is not culturally the same as Indiana, Ohio and Non-Chicago Illinois. It is much more culturally similar to Wisconsin and Minnesota. This is due to who settled the areas. The Upper Midwest was settled by New Englanders, who were culturally distinct from the settlers of Greater Appalachia. They held different values, different governments. Michigan is, at its heart, a liberal state - much like Wisconsin and Minnesota - this is due to its New England influence, which has only been moderated by an influx of Southern and Appalachian immigration over the course of the last century, but overall Michigan is still very much a "Yankee" state. That is its roots. There's a great book about this called American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America, if you're interested.
I'm aware things have changed quite a bit. I'm aware of the racial tensions from back in the day and know some of them still exist today. But Michigan in 2017, there is no way... union or not that it would be as red as Indiana. And the more younger people are able to vote and older people retire and move out of state or die out, the less "red" MI is it seems. MI is pretty moderate. How many people in MI are in a union and compare that to how many people in MI voted for Obama? there you will have your answer as far as unions go. And your talking about the same state that voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries over Hillary and all of the republican party candidates and Bernie is pretty far left. This past election was a historically low minority turnout. But when you add up the large black population, the large Arab population, the large Muslim population, and the sizeable Latino population, the college students and young professionals. There is no way you can say that Michigan is some deep red state like Mississippi. Union interest or not, Michigan is almost the definition of a moderate state right now. If it wasn't for the idiots who decided not to vote because they wanted Bernie or the other idiots who didn't vote because they thought Hillary had this in a bag... Democratic presidents would have went on a 28 year winning streak in MI, and would have won for the 7th time in a row.
And I agree, this nation is too big to be dominated by just 2 parties. This nation is too big for electoral college crap as well. I don't agree with everything democrats do but I agree with most of their policies and that is pretty much the story for most democrats in MI. While so many other democrats were choosing not to vote, Trump told all the swing voters that he would snap his fingers and magically bring the blue collar jobs back "like the good ol days", on top of that he said he would snap his fingers two more times and fix our schools, infrastructure, and inner city crime. But when I hear from most of the people who didn't vote for one of those reasons, they still agree more on liberal policies than conservative policies. When people actually turnout to vote, you can see just how moderate the state of Michigan is. Again, I guarantee you if you take out union votes, there is still a very large population of MI that voted for Obama both times.
Thanks Geo . Yet once again reinforces my point.
The demographics of Indiana are a little different, that is all. Indiana has a greater percentage of white residents than does Michigan. Nationally, of participating voters, the majority of whites have voted Republican for as long as I have been living. Indiana being "whiter", in and of itself, makes in more probable to be red than Michigan. However, you underestimate the influence of unions. You do not have to belong to a union to be influenced to vote democrat because a lot of peoples politics are inherited or passed down from their parents....kind of like ones religion. Many younger people are the children of union workers. Therefore, even if the children have grown up and are not in unions, they have been conditioned to be union supporters and democrats by their parents and maybe even grand parents. You cannot simply look at current union membership to understand the influence of unions on the vote.
Its kind of hard to fathom a Michigan minus the historical influence of the auto industry and unions and what the politics today would be like without it. However, I do believe that unions in Michigan has created higher democrat voting propensities in the white demographic. Take away that and you have a smaller percentage of whites voting democrat in Michigan, which would turn the state more consistently red like Indiana. In fact, I think that is happening already. As union membership and influence in Michigan continues to wane, I can almost guarantee that the state will be leaning more red. Even now you have a republican Governor and legislature. Why? One reason is because the black vote does not get out for state elections like they do for national elections....which leaves the white vote to pretty much decide and again, the majority of white voters vote Republican nationally at least. In Michigan, the union influence has given the white demographic more reason to vote Democrat. However, like I said, the unions are getting weaker every year.
That having been said, if you get a president and things go really bad under that president, then whatever party that president was is going to suffer in the next election. The swing voters are the ones who generally decide elections. When things go bad under a given party, the swing voters are going to swing in the other direction. Hence, that is really not a good time to make a judgement about voting trends. Its my belief that the white vote will trend more and more to the Republican party, while minorities will continue to vote democrat. Michigan does not have strong growth in minority population like many other states and without that it will not offset the trend of whites moving more towards the republican party. The only thing that will offset it is really strong voter turnout among blacks. I also think that without shared interest, like union membership and jobs, as states become more minority in percentages, the white demographic will lean republican even more.
Minnesota is not like Michigan. For one, Minnesotans have strong Scandinavian roots and a more "liberal" heritage. Also, the Twin Cities has a very large LGBTQ community and they are politically active. The Twin cities dominate the state and hence the white demographic in Minnesota is more liberal than the white demographic in Michigan, and Minnesota also has a union history. Michigan is likely more like Indiana than Minnesota and as someone pointed out, the auto industry attracted a lot of whites from the south to Michigan, as well as blacks.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 05-20-2017 at 03:32 PM..
I'm curious as to how many people you see as liberals have shunned you.
Good chunks of two separate social groups.
It seemed to get worse right around the election. I was open about my thoughts on the election on social media. Thing is, my views weren't even that extreme. I was vehemently opposed to Trump from the beginning. In the Democratic primary, I actually supported Sanders and even attended one of his rallies. I was concerned about the Republican primary, largely because I wanted someone other than Trump to win. In the general, I didn't support either Trump or Clinton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggie77
My hope is that those people who could be defined as classically conservative start standing up for themselves and making a distinction between themselves and what much of conservatism has come to be today.
That's why I find it amusing that two of the most conservative Catholic churches in my area are in Ann Arbor and Whitmore Lake. (Christ the King and Old St. Patrick)
It may not be a coincidence. Many conservative Christians socialize mostly with people from their own church. Being completely out of sync with the area socially may not impact them as much.
The demographics of Indiana are a little different, that is all. Indiana has a greater percentage of white residents than does Michigan. Nationally, of participating voters, the majority of whites have voted Republican for as long as I have been living. Indiana being "whiter", in and of itself, makes in more probable to be red than Michigan. However, you underestimate the influence of unions. You do not have to belong to a union to be influenced to vote democrat because a lot of peoples politics are inherited or passed down from their parents....kind of like ones religion. Many younger people are the children of union workers. Therefore, even if the children have grown up and are not in unions, they have been conditioned to be union supporters and democrats by their parents and maybe even grand parents. You cannot simply look at current union membership to understand the influence of unions on the vote.
Its kind of hard to fathom a Michigan minus the historical influence of the auto industry and unions and what the politics today would be like without it. However, I do believe that unions in Michigan has created higher democrat voting propensities in the white demographic. Take away that and you have a smaller percentage of whites voting democrat in Michigan, which would turn the state more consistently red like Indiana. In fact, I think that is happening already. As union membership and influence in Michigan continues to wane, I can almost guarantee that the state will be leaning more red. Even now you have a republican Governor and legislature. Why? One reason is because the black vote does not get out for state elections like they do for national elections....which leaves the white vote to pretty much decide and again, the majority of white voters vote Republican nationally at least. In Michigan, the union influence has given the white demographic more reason to vote Democrat. However, like I said, the unions are getting weaker every year.
That having been said, if you get a president and things go really bad under that president, then whatever party that president was is going to suffer in the next election. The swing voters are the ones who generally decide elections. When things go bad under a given party, the swing voters are going to swing in the other direction. Hence, that is really not a good time to make a judgement about voting trends. Its my belief that the white vote will trend more and more to the Republican party, while minorities will continue to vote democrat. Michigan does not have strong growth in minority population like many other states and without that it will not offset the trend of whites moving more towards the republican party. The only thing that will offset it is really strong voter turnout among blacks. I also think that without shared interest, like union membership and jobs, as states become more minority in percentages, the white demographic will lean republican even more.
Minnesota is not like Michigan. For one, Minnesotans have strong Scandinavian roots and a more "liberal" heritage. Also, the Twin Cities has a very large LGBTQ community and they are politically active. The Twin cities dominate the state and hence the white demographic in Minnesota is more liberal than the white demographic in Michigan, and Minnesota also has a union history. Michigan is likely more like Indiana than Minnesota and as someone pointed out, the auto industry attracted a lot of whites from the south to Michigan, as well as blacks.
We'll see. It's kind of said how many people think presidential elections are the only ones that matter when in reality, they actually matter the least out of house, senate, governor, and mayor elections. There you have the problem with how many people have liberal values but don't vote until the presidential elections. With everything going on right now it's hard for me to see if this will hurt the republican party or not. Some of these bills they're trying to get passed is probably going to hurt their party in the next few years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Yet once again reinforces my point.
