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.
I was merely saying some people place religion and morals as #1, some people place fiscal issues as #1. Not all poor people vote democrat, but depending on their personal beliefs, many do. Typically the democrats support programs which tend to benefit the underprivileged.
And some people who are atheists and place fiscal issues as #1 vote Republican....like me. You seem, based on your comments, to equate fiscal issues with people who want to get stuff from government. I equate my interest in fiscal issues as the desire to limit the power of government to tax the productive in our society in order to transfer that money to the less productive.
In my opinion, Democrats don't favor programs that benefit the poor. They favor programs that give stuff to the poor. How many people who were poor 5 years ago and collecting "help" are still poor and collecting "help?" Also, the use of the term "underprivileged" is a huge misnomer. There is no privilege in working hard and taking responsibility for yourself, only to have the government take more as you make more, and there is nothing "underprivileged" about those who have not achieved success. It's due to effort (or lack thereof), ambition (or lack thereof), and choices (good and bad).
Good point, but if they could read and write, they might find Ron Paul as a much truer advocate of their interests.
Possibly, but the problem is that Ron Paul really only appeals to view people overall. He is too religious and too conservative to appeal to most libertarians. He is too liberal to appeal to many conservatives. He has associated himself with some really sleazy people, which alienates a lot more people. Plus he is neither well known nor charismatic enough to gain more than the anti-establishment vote along with a few libertarians (who by their very nature tend to be anti-establishment) and paleo-conservatives.
I think it is kind of neat that the Democrats support the poor while the Republicans support the rich. The problem is the people in the middle pay for both.
The "support" Democrats supply the poor is just a pacifier so they don't realize that both parties are corrupt.
An overwhelming proportion of those below poverty line consistently voted Republican, if you drive through parts of the south, (particularly West NC,Kentucky,etc.) die-hard old school Democrats have been replaced with Republican supporters who live in trailers. They vote on only 2 isssues that I can see; guns and abortion, none of them seem to work,so I guess the economy isn't relevant to them?
The southern white appalachian man was that of today's "illegal immigrant" because labor was artificiallly depressed, hence the strong mode of individualism to put food on the table and heavy leanings on religion in tough times.
Then the Republican party came along and exploited this base for votes with religous overtones...
The southern white appalachian man was that of today's "illegal immigrant" because labor was artificiallly depressed, hence the strong mode of individualism to put food on the table and heavy leanings on religion in tough times.
Then the Republican party came along and exploited this base for votes with religous overtones...
Hook, line and sinker.
kind of like the Dems exploiting the minorities and poor for their votes?
kind of like the Dems exploiting the minorities and poor for their votes?
Not so, at least the minorities and poor have enough common sense to realize that voting for religious lines and/or purposes is a moot point in this country....
An overwhelming proportion of those below poverty line consistently voted Republican, if you drive through parts of the south, (particularly West NC,Kentucky,etc.) die-hard old school Democrats have been replaced with Republican supporters who live in trailers. They vote on only 2 issues that I can see; guns and abortion, none of them seem to work,so I guess the economy isn't relevant to them?
Since you provided no statistics, quotes or links, we'll just have to take you word for it that they vote that way. And since our discussion is basically void of any other factual information, I'll just go right ahead and speculate wildly about the motivations of others. But before I do, I would like to correct what seems to be more that just a little bias on your part against these people. You assert that "none of them seem to work, so I guess the economy isn't relevant to them." If it is in fact true that "none of them seem to work", perhaps the most important issue for them is the economy. We have an official unemployment rate of 15.3% here in MI, but believe me, it's way higher. Someone from a part of the country not nearly as badly impacted by the recession may conclude that since so many of us don't work, the economy is of little interest to us. I would say that's an asinine assumption.
Our new administration is committed to the destruction of the coal industry because it is using the myth of AGW to advance its new economy crippling energy consumption taxes. That is definitely an economic issue that would impact red states, and especially those brave souls who work the mines so that the jacuzzi stays nice and warm at Al Gore's mansion.
I expect that these same persons would be strong supporters of school voucher programs since they are clearly victims of the NEA themselves. I expect they find the very successful DC voucher program that was ended by King Hussein to appease his union supporters an outrage since the Obamas send their children to a private academy. I would further speculate that they view this action as the ultimate expression of hypocrisy.
They probably lay awake at night, tossing and turning while trying to figure out where that trillion dollars of stimulus money went, since it hasn't stopped job loss, and how their children are going to live with this ever increasing federal debt hanging over their heads. I expect they wonder why we are paying new car dealerships to destroy the engines and transmissions in used vehicles that they need to keep their 10 yr old Ford Explorer going a few more years. I guess Obama never needed to replace a bad engine with a junk yard engine because he couldn't afford a new car. Guess the mechanic who lives next door doesn't need to work either.
Let's not forget race either since the white people who live in the trailer park are the primary beneficiaries of white privilege. See, AA programs don't apply to the UMC and wealthy since they don't apply for jobs. They know people who give them a leg up, or they take over a family business. The white people who live in the trailer park, fill out job applications that have a statement to the effect of "We are an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer" as though the two were not self-contradictory. It's only the poorest whites, the ones with the fewest opportunities that are impacted negatively by affirmative action. I would suppose the anti-white, "I don't know the facts, but the police acted stupidly", droning from the White House is a turn off to a guy who can't get a job because he came out of the wrong vagina. Well, at least he can cut the black guys grass and deliver his pizza.
I would also speculate that a number of these humble folks are Viet Nam veterans who understand that weak, appeasement prone Democrats get us involved in wars that poor eighteen year-old boys have to fight. The indecisiveness of Carter led to the collapse of the friendly Iranian government and five wars. Any Republican worth his salt would have replaced the Shah with a new west-friendly government. We now face a terrorist Islamo-fascist state hell-bent on acquiring a nuclear arsenal while Obama does nothing to stop it. I expect they realize that sooner or later we will have to do what Carter didn't. The only question left unanswered is will our sons, those poor eighteen year-olds who didn't have a rich daddy pulling strings for them, face nuclear weapons. You may not give that much thought, but this guy does.
kind of like the Dems exploiting the minorities and poor for their votes?
Exploitation, seems more like a quid pro quo.
What do poor whites, strike that, what have poor whites ever gotten from their wealthier brethren? They got played by the plantation aristocracy before, during and after the Civil War. As long as they could be convinced that they were at least one step above on the social ladder they were more than content to live one step below the economic level of their darkie neighbors, despite the fact that those darkies were their natural economic allies. This situation is no less true in 1869 than it is today in 2009.
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.
Oh, this is easy....
