If the assumptions in the cited article are true, then why would the poorest of the urban poor EVER vote democratic?
Democrats Run America’s Ten Poorest Cities
Having lived in NOLA for most of my life, it didn't escape me that the city's mayoral office hasn't been occupied by a republican since 1872. NOLA has been controlled exclusively by democrats since before 1892, including the Confederate Mayor (who was also a Jesuit), Capdevielle, and the military mayors Weitzel and Shepley in 1862.
Given they're sporting a poverty rate of roughly 37% by comparison to the national average... it's noteworthy.
If this were still a free country where putting voice to such things wouldn't land a person in jail, I'd be all too eager to offer you that which you seek!! In the interim, paragraph 4 of the Declaration of Independence will suffice. Let me know if you have any difficulties understanding its meaning. You seem to have trouble with the written word:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Indeed.
And like I told Boz I'm willing to concede that this is a problem which is perpetuated (if not perpetrated) by both wings of America's ologarchic uniparty. It's just that those on the left of same seem brazenly unapologetic about the desire to continue a system of government servitude via generational dependency.
That, and having once been a liberal myself, I feel the need to pay a certain amount of penance by going after my former own. :-)
I've no idea how you imagine the Declaration of Independence to be the stuff of conspiracy theory, nor do I care to know.
And you still argue like a girl. :-)
I do not conflate them, but I do VIEW them as interchangeable. I don't have to ask whether you comprehend the difference. I know you clearly do not. :-)
As for the impossibility of civil discourse between an abolitionist (me) and a statist slaver (you), you're only just NOW copping a clue!? Are you always this late to the party? How can there be a civil exchange of ideas between a person bent on state enslavement and oppression of other human beings, and one who desires for humanity to be free of all government (etc.) fetters? We might as well be from different planets! Only difference is, nobody has anything to worry about from me whereas, from statists such as yourself, the threat is constant.
Sapphic ah my mistake.
Ahh... I know exactly what you mean. Formerly conservative repub, I do the very same thing with them. Either way, the point is easily made with both, they'll only do so much as doesn't conflict with their ideology... They'll never actually rethink the possibility that they could be wrong, much less deviate from the, how did you say: "statist quo." Love that!
Honestly, I take umbrage with modern day dems referring to themselves as "liberal" anything. John Locke was a Liberal, even those farthest to the left today don't even come close to deserving the title. Gotta admit, to even hear it ticks me off something fierce.
ROTFLMAO! Is that the best you have, little girl?
I repeat: ROTFLMAO! Thank you, Rpf (short for Really Prissy Female?)! You just made my friggin' day!
Hey, wait a minute. I thought you didn't believe in God.
BwwwwAHAHAHAHAHA!
Look into the mirror. The image in front of you is all the explanation you need. :-)
Like a horse and carriage, high poverty and democratic pols, administrations and policy go together. And it couldn't be any other way. Liberals can only maintain generational dependency (a form of slavery) by gutting the very economic mechanisms which allow people to rise out of poverty.
Sadly, those who are dependent on the democratic welfare-drug pushing machine cannot escape the addiction because they lack the academic and vocational resources to do so--again by the nearly exclusive design of democrats.
No. High poverty and oligarchs go hand in hand. A government in league with businesses that have government contracts go hand in hand with poverty. Unchecked billion dollar corporate machines greased by government back room deals go hand in hand with poverty. The government can be Democrat or Republican. The differences are very minimal. Why does ANYONE vote under these circumstances. It's all predetermined for the lowest peons and serfs.
Spot on!!
I will assume you meant 'liberal administrations' since "The Democrats" are currently the more liberal US party ;-)
I do not think so. Denmark have much more liberal politics than the US, and much fewer poor people.
I think that is a rather simplistic assumption of causation. I have lived on the outskirts of Detroit and in the city of Flint, both Democratic strongholds and both in dire straits financially. The single biggest reason for that is the loss of our auto factories and the jobs they produced. The blame for which can hardly be laid solely upon a few mayors who were/are Democrats.
We will never have a meaningful discussion on anything in this country as long as people continue to take partisan stands and posit that all the ills of our economy (or society or your topic of choice) can be found in the policies of the opposing party. Neither party is truly in charge. The bankers and corporations that have bought and paid for them are. Neither party represents the people, they represent their owners. Sure, local politicians are more responsive and responsible to the people, but the mass exodus of our manufacturing base nationwide cannot be blamed on a few big city mayors.
1) That would be an excellent assumption, and precisely how I would have worded the poll, if the author(s) of the article had used such phraseology. These days I'm more inclined to let them do the talking...at least initially. :-)
2) True, but the article doesn't relate to Denmark. I will concede, though, that 'progressive' policies prolly work better in the part of the world where they were hatched.
Kind of but not for the reasons you may draw upon as valid. Rather, the poor look to the Democratic rule over the Republican rule since the Republican rule is the suck the poor guy dry and keep them that way method of rule.
