Doc

As usual you are trying to club Democrats with the same problems that the Republicans have.

I am defining Evangelicals as per the US political stats. Not my definition. I realise that in the North where you are from, the Presbyterians, Lutherans etc. are also categorized with Evangelicals. The racism problem is far more a Southern problem.

I will accept that not all Christians are racists but a large majority of the evangelicals are. Your claim that they changed their policy fails to recognise the political versus cultural aspects of the problem. Here is the link to the article I have referred you to many times.

https://www.politicalorphans.c...icalism-is-so-cruel/

The fact remains that Evangelicals are a huge chunk of Trump voters - about 20% of all Trump voters.

Regarding women's rights, you are wrong. Any woman who is really concerned about women's rights will tell you that abortion is only a part of the issues. Equal pay, equal employment opportunity, equal opportunity to leadership etc. are all well known factors. The chart showing the huge gap between parties of women in congress is evidence. I am really surprised that you are avoiding this evidence and denying the facts.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I kind of wonder... Who should the evangelicals vote for?

Or should they be barred from voting in your view?

Should religion be made illegal?

Whats the correct answer?

Religion should be made impotent. Powerless to influence government and unable to affect the lives of non-believers.

Oh, come on. Without religion, there would hardly any wars, and without wars the U.S. economy would crater.

Religion is very important! Not to me personally, but certainly to anyone heavily invested in the Great War Machine.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I kind of wonder... Who should the evangelicals vote for?

Or should they be barred from voting in your view?

Should religion be made illegal?

Whats the correct answer?

Religion should be made impotent. Powerless to influence government and unable to affect the lives of non-believers.

Yes



And no.


The older I get, the more I realise that every fucking group in our democratic society's are trying to dictate how we should live our lives according too their beliefs.
Vegans, environmentalists, socialists, capitalists, right wing, left wing. The stupidly woke.
Why not the religious? Its how we all have defined our democracies. The most votes win.

That above all else might be the main attraction of the right. less government. less governance. It is for me.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
ME, Naki.

I want you both to watch this, and someone quote me so that Naki sees it.

This is what I have been saying for along time. But you can ignore me. Nial Fergusson is harder to ignore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUJMyTJ9gyI&t=745s

Okay, Shanks, I'll oblige and quote your post and links. I'm pretty sure you started it with the section about the USSR and vodka intentionally. That's the section I watched. I also looked at his credentials on Wikipedia.

This is definitely an appeal to authority. Whether fallacy or not is debatable.

He made an argument for equivalence or similarity with the "the people had lost their belief in the system and the party was a massive scam" in the final years of the USSR to the democratic party in the USA. He claims that's why Russian men drank so much vodka and smoked themselves to death.

IMO, one should watch and listen to the video. But my advice is don't if you already feel a bit queasy. If one IDs as a democrat or leans that way there's a good chance you'll throw up all over your keyboard. A shot or two in advance of that good vodka made in Texas might help.

I think the guy is way out there, but certainly I'm not as well studied nor intellectual as he is. I think we all "feel" some disillusionment with the "System". But frankly, it's my understanding, developed over time, that the deep disillusionment is mostly on the Right. After all, MAGA screams it. It's a fundamental basis for all of Trump's speeches - "American Carnage". It is preached all the time - the left vermin, woke, evil socialist social structure, secularism, and so forth. It seems to me to be a fact that the disillusionment on the Right is the primary reason for Trump(ism)'s rise. It astonishes me that anyone could think he can "fix" anything. Thus I infer that Trump supporters must be dwelling in a very dark place regarding disillusionment.

I also think many on the left are disillusioned with the "System" but for different reasons. First, I think they see the division and divisiveness a sooo unnecessary and actually a strategy to exploit the Right by the Right establishment, and put down, quell, the Left. And foremost, a System that enables the rise of a demagogue, like Trump, talking fascist trash, in itself has become corrupt, although a good idea from the beginning till now. Any fool can see there is something very wrong in La La Land based solely on the rise of Trump(ism).

After all, Trumpism as a remedy is the ultimate farce and boobie prize.

Essentially, the way I see it, the contest between the Left and Right, in the USA, now, is all about affirming the American Carnage disillusionment of the Right, or disaffirming it, or at least get on with the business of a democracy and let the Right stew in their own toxic soup.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I kind of wonder... Who should the evangelicals vote for?

Or should they be barred from voting in your view?

Should religion be made illegal?

Whats the correct answer?

Religion should be made impotent. Powerless to influence government and unable to affect the lives of non-believers.

Atheism and humanism fill the role of religion for the remaining people. But how DARE you tell other people how to live their lives and be moral by their own codes.

Says the agnostic

I can’t help but roll my eyes at all these religious people who “ KNOW THE TRUTH!”.

Nobody Knows anything. For all they know, all of the insignificant life forms on this insignificant rock might be the equivalent of viruses on a molecule of shit in the septic tank of reality.

But, hey. Whatever gets you through the night…as long as you don’t have to think, right?

IMO, it's not that complicated.

Go back to the basics - the constitution and so forth, which protects freedom of religion and worship, but in no way provides carte blanche to religion in governance.

Here's something interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...h_freedom_of_worship

excerpts:

Freedom of religion is linked to the countervailing principle of separation of church and state, a concept advocated by Colonial founders such as Dr. John Clarke, Roger Williams, William Penn, and later Founding Fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.[3][4]

All the way at the bottom of the article:

In 2014, Kamala Harris and others signed a brief submitted to the Supreme Court that "Rights to the free exercise of religious beliefs [...] protect the development and expression of an 'inner sanctum' of personal religious faith. Free exercise rights have thus also been understood as personal, relating only to individual believers and to a limited class of associations comprising or representing them."[118]

================================

Also, no true agnostic would ever claim his belief thereof is a substitute for religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
ME, Naki.

I want you both to watch this, and someone quote me so that Naki sees it.

This is what I have been saying for along time. But you can ignore me. Nial Fergusson is harder to ignore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUJMyTJ9gyI&t=745s

Okay, Shanks, I'll oblige and quote your post and links. I'm pretty sure you started it with the section about the USSR and vodka intentionally. That's the section I watched. I also looked at his credentials on Wikipedia.

This is definitely an appeal to authority. Whether fallacy or not is debatable.

He made an argument for equivalence or similarity with the "the people had lost their belief in the system and the party was a massive scam" in the final years of the USSR to the democratic party in the USA. He claims that's why Russian men drank so much vodka and smoked themselves to death.

IMO, one should watch and listen to the video. But my advice is don't if you already feel a bit queasy. If one IDs as a democrat or leans that way there's a good chance you'll throw up all over your keyboard. A shot or two in advance of that good vodka made in Texas might help.

I think the guy is way out there, but certainly I'm not as well studied nor intellectual as he is. I think we all "feel" some disillusionment with the "System". But frankly, it's my understanding, developed over time, that the deep disillusionment is mostly on the Right. After all, MAGA screams it. It's a fundamental basis for all of Trump's speeches - "American Carnage". It is preached all the time - the left vermin, woke, evil socialist social structure, secularism, and so forth. It seems to me to be a fact that the disillusionment on the Right is the primary reason for Trump(ism)'s rise. It astonishes me that anyone could think he can "fix" anything. Thus I infer that Trump supporters must be dwelling in a very dark place regarding disillusionment.

I also think many on the left are disillusioned with the "System" but for different reasons. First, I think they see the division and divisiveness a sooo unnecessary and actually a strategy to exploit the Right by the Right establishment, and put down, quell, the Left. And foremost, a System that enables the rise of a demagogue, like Trump, talking fascist trash, in itself has become corrupt, although a good idea from the beginning till now. Any fool can see there is something very wrong in La La Land based solely on the rise of Trump(ism).

After all, Trumpism as a remedy is the ultimate farce and boobie prize.

Essentially, the way I see it, the contest between the Left and Right, in the USA, now, is all about affirming the American Carnage disillusionment of the Right, or disaffirming it, or at least get on with the business of a democracy and let the Right stew in their own toxic soup.

Thank you ME,

I just cracked up laughing. No that spot was at least, not consciously where I intended to start it. The whole thing is worth a listen, but the key points are in the end there.

You know I feel that Biden stepping aside was wise. At the time I felt Kamala was and is a better option. regardless of her politics, she's healthy etc.

But she's also proving to be unable to convince centre right voters to switch. The democratic party is conceited. They have stuck with a candidate who was showing age related issues for way too long- until it became a raging obvious problem... to damn near everyone in the world except them. And despite all indicators too the contrary, they nominated someone who never had support. Was never liked or held respect. Because they know better. They never wanted this election on the publics terms. They only want it on theirs. Meanwhile Joe is calling the opposition voters Garbage. While Trump is on Joe Rogans show.

None of that is an endorsement of the republican playbook.
The key is equal. That that social legitimacy is in real strife!

quote:

The democratic party is conceited.

I think I know conceit when I see it:

https://youtu.be/FznbfmZ0JZE?si=XZoiRk9AfMykGJGE

Pro-Trump think tank leader makes ominous threat about ‘second American Revolution’

Yeah.


So why are the democrats fucking about with beatable, unlikeable candidates?

I can only speculate an answer.

But I think Harris is gonna win.

You could have had a slam dunk with a moderate democrat. Instead they are too invested in the progressives just like the GOP is too invested in Trump.

Harris is moderate.

People are trying every trick in the book and inventing new ones to make the Right wing look plausible.

Calling Democrats "conceited" is not even funny.

Heare is a definition

Definitions of conceited. adjective. characteristic of false pride; having an exaggerated sense of self-importance. “a conceited fool” “an attitude of self- conceited arrogance”

That describes Trump to a T as well as his rump.

It describes all the lying Republicand who thump their chests and claim moral superiority.

Doc Butler is back to his old play book. Kamala Harris is as liberal as Reagan was. She is as capitalist as any average American. That is 99.9%.

The Republicans are caught in a trap they set and in a hole they dug. The Economy. They drive the economy down with tax cuts. Now their national debt is huge and interest payments are higher than the defence budget.

So called Evangelical Christians don't really care.

They are the self-righteous conceited ones.

For arguments sake.

Lets say the right wing isn't plausible.

lets accept that the left is never going to get the evangelical Christian vote. No matter what.

Why is this election so close?

My money is still on Harris. But only just.

What Im saying and asking you guys is, Why is it so. It shouldn't be. DOC is correct, absolutely correct.

And Naki, I didnt say conceited fool. But the arrogance fits.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Heare is a definition

Definitions of conceited. adjective. characteristic of false pride; having an exaggerated sense of self-importance. “a conceited fool” “an attitude of self- conceited arrogance”

Is that one of your diagnosis, little naki? Good for you seeking help

I really watched and listened to the Niall Ferguson YouTube clip.

That is the slickest piece of spin and selective use of data and history I have seen in a VERY long time.

Unfortunately the fundamental assumptions and motives are DISHONEST.

I was struck by the comment at 13 min 34 seconds when he says the DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS THE PROBLEM.

While he gives all the stats about death of despair, he fails to point out that it the Republicans who have prevented the CDC from studying those deaths, their causes, implementing corrective measures etc. The GOP just banned ANY study on gun violence and death. Same with Opioid use. The Pharma companies fund the GOP and not the Democratic party.

Let us go to his attack on the press. He failed to point out that the LARGEST cable TV ownership & following along with Funding is on the RIGHT.

The chart about University professors is really interesting. In the 1970s, US academics was dominated by the Right. Sociology, Economics, History etc. were totally anti East, anti emerging economies and very defensive about Colonialism & US Imperialism. I grew up with my university studies in that era and into the 90s when I went back to university in my 30s. The fall of the Soviet union completely eliminated Marxism as the bogy man and enemy no 1. Independence from colonialism was almost complete with the liberation of South Africa from Apartheid. Facts could no longer be spun. The US trade barriers on Japan and the continuing decline of the US and the rise of China were no longer a hidden fact. Once people start looking at REAL data and all of it and analysing it with all the modern tools, the fallacy of the free market and the oppressive nature of criminal oligarchy became obvious.

Harvard the original patron of Conservative academics had to accept facts. Time magazine the original Conservative beacon of political and economic news along with Forbes had to drop the blatantly false right wing pieces but continue to manage a balancing act.

What Niall Ferguson failed to point out is not that the Democratic party is controlling the narrative but that FACTS are exposing the BS of the Right.

He failed to point out the stats that GOP administrations drive down the economy even in the rust belt. The chart of the economic status of Blue and Red districts was spun in a false interpretation. He claimed that the Democrats had control over the economy instead of pointing out the truth that the GOP has more to gain by keeping people on pay check to pay check and pay a higher rate of tax. They pay a higher rate of their wages as tax. They face more of the negative impacts of pollution from toxic industries. He failed to point out that West Texas is so poor despite generations of Conservative State governments.

Niall Ferguson failed to show any chart on over all health and on wealth distribution as such charts would have absolutely blown his arguments to pieces.

I actually have this chart on my Imagur! Tjhe same one Nigel Ferguson used.


But the next one that he failed to post give the TRUE picture



In other words the GOP is under control of Oligarchs like the Heritage foundation that wants to destroy democracy and establish permanent oligarchic rule from the Right.

The reason why the elections are so close is obvious. The disinformation strategy was started by Carl Rove to move the country to the Right. The false allegations about John Kelly were just the beginning. They also opened up the ignorant underbelly of the less educated poor who had grievances but were left behind in a culture warp of the 1800s.

You cannot expect people with limited IQ and no understanding of 21st century knowledge base to vote based on facts. They just follow the populist. Simple - it is just plain predisposed prejudice - they see and believe what they want to. They have lost all faith in "Facts" and their ability to find and understand facts.

Its not what recent polls and studies are telling us.
I think your premise is based on your bias.

Example of the conceit---

quote:

You cannot expect people with limited IQ and no understanding of 21st century knowledge base

From last election.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/c...0-presidential-race/

This election
https://fortune.com/2024/09/30...trump-2024-election/
https://www.cambridge.org/core...F35BA5BC54DE799F291B
https://www.independent.co.uk/...e-poll-b2623262.html

Naki. Ive just spent two weeks in the regions and with people who will, per your charts, vote republican. Went and visited the university extension programme ands talked with one of the co-ordinator's. How do you proclaim limited IQ from such a large proportion of the community?

My argument is just supported by the heading "Most multimillionaire investors are voting for Harris, despite thinking Trump is better for the economy". The super rich get rich faster when the economy as a whole is down. They say that Trump will give THEM a better economy, not the country. They are referring to what is good for THEM.

I have repeatedly posted evidence that the Super rich have no incentive to establish a booming economy. They make more money faster during a poor economy.

The Heritage Foundation is not supporting the Democratic party. It is controlling the GOP - the super rich Billionaire class oligarch are GOP. Project 2025 agenda is GOP.

Today's millionaires are mostly middle class or upper middle class. According to some financial experts you need to earn a million $ a year to be called wealthy, where your marginal returns go up significantly and you marginal tax rate comes down significantly. Just because my house value tripled in the last 25 years does not mean that I am rich. I have had my ups and downs - lived pay cheque to pay cheque and owned 3 properties including a beach resort at one time. At the end of the day $1 million does not make one rich. Not even $5 million in assets. I am referring to the larger picture of total economy & population.

In the US anyone having net wealth below $2.5 mil are in the 90 percentile. Not really rich.





The above chart in 2024 is way more skewed. Data is available at the source (I have not updated my Iagur library)

This article below shows that the top 10% of the population have most of the business wealth. If you read that along with distribution above you see that the top 0.1% control most of it.
https://equitablegrowth.org/th...for-a-net-worth-tax/

The Trump voter base consist mostly of the poorest districts (as per Nigel Ferguson's chart) with least educated people and is funded by the richest who do not really care about the poor. Hence my comment about low IQ.

They are low IQ for various reasons. All of them are FACTS and not just my reading of the facts.

1. Less educated people tend to vote for Trump
2. People who are MAGA have no clue about facts and buy into all the conspiracy theories and his populism
3. The core 35% GOP / MAGA base are culture warriors and will not shift under any circumstances. Thier choice is not based on fact or reason but purely cultural identity. This includes the so called Evangelicals (20% of trump voters), rich old white men from the South in particular and other such demographics.

The other point that I missed was the major shift in demographics in 2012 when the number of non-white voters made a big shift. Notional census and stats show that the US is no longer majority "white". By 2032 the voting population will be majority non-white.

All the conspiracy theories and fear mongering are responses to this shift in demographics. hence the Fascist / racist rhetoric.

Better for the economy. Does not mean better for themselves.

I beleive you are misinterpreting for the sake of your argument.

Look the fact is your premise is incorrect. wealthy or not the chance of voting for either party is broadly similar.

So given that, why are the democrats failing to pick up more votes if the republicans are as bad as you say?

laying all the blame on maga is shallow. Why are the democrats not more palatable?

I am repeating myself several times.

This is CULTURE issue.

Nigel ferguson posted this chart



It is clear that the Red districts are the poor ones. My reading of facts is correct and obvious.

My point about culture is the same as the Jihadis. Their convictions and passion is not base on facts, logic or reason. Same with MAGA. Same with the Marxists I used to clash with in the 70s & 80s. I used to wind up the Marxists by accusing them of being religious fanatics. Wow - did that get them going! LOL.

The same with Farmers in NZ. They will never vote Labour.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
My argument is just supported by the heading "Most multimillionaire investors are voting for Harris, despite thinking Trump is better for the economy". The super rich get rich faster when the economy as a whole is down. They say that Trump will give THEM a better economy, not the country. They are referring to what is good for THEM.

I have repeatedly posted evidence that the Super rich have no incentive to establish a booming economy. They make more money faster during a poor economy.

The Heritage Foundation is not supporting the Democratic party. It is controlling the GOP - the super rich Billionaire class oligarch are GOP. Project 2025 agenda is GOP.

Today's millionaires are mostly middle class or upper middle class. According to some financial experts you need to earn a million $ a year to be called wealthy, where your marginal returns go up significantly and you marginal tax rate comes down significantly. Just because my house value tripled in the last 25 years does not mean that I am rich. I have had my ups and downs - lived pay cheque to pay cheque and owned 3 properties including a beach resort at one time. At the end of the day $1 million does not make one rich. Not even $5 million in assets. I am referring to the larger picture of total economy & population.

In the US anyone having net wealth below $2.5 mil are in the 90 percentile. Not really rich.





The above chart in 2024 is way more skewed. Data is available at the source (I have not updated my Iagur library)

This article below shows that the top 10% of the population have most of the business wealth. If you read that along with distribution above you see that the top 0.1% control most of it.
https://equitablegrowth.org/th...for-a-net-worth-tax/

The Trump voter base consist mostly of the poorest districts (as per Nigel Ferguson's chart) with least educated people and is funded by the richest who do not really care about the poor. Hence my comment about low IQ.

They are low IQ for various reasons. All of them are FACTS and not just my reading of the facts.

1. Less educated people tend to vote for Trump
2. People who are MAGA have no clue about facts and buy into all the conspiracy theories and his populism
3. The core 35% GOP / MAGA base are culture warriors and will not shift under any circumstances. Thier choice is not based on fact or reason but purely cultural identity. This includes the so called Evangelicals (20% of trump voters), rich old white men from the South in particular and other such demographics.

The other point that I missed was the major shift in demographics in 2012 when the number of non-white voters made a big shift. Notional census and stats show that the US is no longer majority "white". By 2032 the voting population will be majority non-white.

All the conspiracy theories and fear mongering are responses to this shift in demographics. hence the Fascist / racist rhetoric.

I accept the wealthy are getting wealthier. You dont need to present those graphs any more. Its the extrapolation you make from that thats at issue. Pew research showed more middle class climbing into wealth than dropping into poverty. So wheres the problem?
Everything I have been able to find shows no great imbalance in voting preference of the rich. So wheres the problem?

Lets take another metric. Homlessness. 44% of the US homeless population abide in just two democratic held states. New york, California, Vermont, Washington, Oregon. All democratic and the highest in homelessness.
https://www.security.org/resou...#geographical-trends

In 2023 homelessness reached an all time high and a record 12 % increase Under Biden.

How does any of that fit your premise?

quote:

Same with the Marxists I used to clash with in the 70s & 80s. I used to wind up the Marxists by accusing them of being religious fanatics. Wow - did that get them going! LOL

And therein lies your true reason for your position.

You enjoy finding a target for your trolling. Its historical and long standing and enjoyable too you.

Not only that but targeting religion is a trait of yours.

The Pew research you quote is not reflected in my research. The Middle class has not climbed upwards for 50 years. Below video shows that. This is only up to 2009 data. It is far more skewed now.

Homelessness is a different socioeconomic issue.

It is a malaise of urban populations right through history. Same in NZ. A lot of homeless are also people with mental health issues or drug addicts. Less of such homeless people where public heath is easy accessed. Canada, Scandinavia etc. are good examples.

This needs a reasonable understanding of social anthropology and how communities live together. In villages and small settlements we all know each other and have family / social networks. Urban centres are more fragmented with a lot more single or smaller families and fewer extended families. This leads to greater social alienation AND concentration of such a problem. Fewer support for the ill, the needy, etc. This is magnified several fold in huge cities where the problem gets concentrated into the poorest and most isolated parts of the city that is least known to the general population.

The urban populations tend to vote Democrat while rural populations are very strongly GOP. This is true even in Texas or California. Houston is largely Democrat and has many homeless people.

Many homeless are also veterans with PTSD that the system has just abandoned. No different to the Vietnam war days.

I am ignoring your next post.
 
Here is a great video to illustrate my points again.

https://fb.watch/vzMVNbhK1_/

You are telling me that the wealthiest, most educated democratic strongholds are also the ones with highest levels of homelessness.

I understand why you would ignore the next post.

Everyone here will.

You have admitted too a history of claiming religious extremism as a means of winding up for laughs.

As for farmers in nZ. We did actually switch left 2 elections ago. Alot of traditional National seats went left and margins all round decreased.

But yes there is also a rural urban difference like in the US, but you can not claim the religious cultural reasons for such.

So heres a chance to explain to the person who lives rurally in NZ, why we do so. Id love it if you could do so objectively.

Im now going to make a claim based off of what I have posted.
The rural, republican districts show more even spread of wealth despite being overall poorer, than democratic ones do.

You are free to interpret what you want. That is not what I said.

I said that I was winding up Marxists. I did not give you the context or the background. I will try ... don't know why I am doing it.

"Religion is the opium of the masses" was a famous quote from Marx. The sociological definition of a religion is to have a totem / god, some rituals /chants like a temple or church and a scriptural text or oral tradition. (Durkheim's Sociology of religion). The debate with Marxist students was often academic and intellectual as well youthful passion. The analogy was that Marxism was a religion because Marx was a God to them, his writings were scripture and the political chants were rituals. If you find any old student rallies and their chants from the 70s, they do look like religious conventions.

FYI, my "wind up" conclusion has been repeated in more serious academic publications by reputed scholars.

Going back to the topic on religion, I doubt I would use that to wind up people though I would definitely challenge values and beliefs along with practice. Hence my posts about Evangelicals. I take my faith seriously.

I do seem to recall you telling us you enjoy winding up republicans at some point. Im not going to try find it, but others might be able too.
The similarities are there.
It Was worth mentioning anyway. Back too the topic at hand.

I'll try my best with all sincerity.

Let us look at History. NZ is a lot newer - just 170 years old for practical discussions while the US has more like a 300 year old history.

NZ is very small (historically it was miniscule) & quite homogenous in its culture - you have Maori and Europeans with more diversity in the last 40 years. The US is far more diverse and complex. The US also had slavery particularly in the South, that NZ did not have. We also did not have a Civil war to divide us for the next 150 years!

NZ has continued to have a significant agricultural economy while the US has agricultural subsidies now. Most of the large agricultural operations are dominated by giant corporations. NZ has far more cooperatives.

The religious cultural aspect WAS there in NZ. Plenty of small village churches all over NZ. In the last 30 years I have seen some shut down. Most older mainstream churches are getting smaller. Membership consists of older people. I do not claim to know all the intricacies of Church history in the two countries but I can see several major differences. About 30% Americans are regular church goers. NZ is more like 7% or less.

One major difference is that the NZ churches are far less Right wing. NZ does not have many rich churches while the US has many. Many Christian leaders in the US have become extremely wealthy and one even had influence over diamond mining in Africa. Yes it was a big scandal. Brian Tamaki and the Destiny church may be the exception in NZ.

NZ has far greater separation of Church and state. In the US the major Evangelical Leaders have a significant impact on right wing politics. Endorsement for the Christians (20% of GOP voters are Evangelicals) is a major political event. Don Brash and his tryst with the Exclusive Brethren was an outlier in NZ politics in the last 50 years.

The other thought in my mind is the nature of the economy. I think urban economies are more organised with wage earners and hence you get more unions who vote Labour. Rural economy is less unionised and that just might be a factor.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
As for farmers in nZ. We did actually switch left 2 elections ago. Alot of traditional National seats went left and margins all round decreased.

But yes there is also a rural urban difference like in the US, but you can not claim the religious cultural reasons for such.

So heres a chance to explain to the person who lives rurally in NZ, why we do so. Id love it if you could do so objectively.

The context? THAT is the key.

My response was to personal attacks and insults. Winding up rude idiots is fair game. It exposes them. Their inability to debate with facts and genuine engagement is exposed.

You may think it was "Passive aggressive" but you read it wrong. It is defence - like a rugby tackle! LOL

For example I never try to wind up Doc Butler though we disagree a lot. I did apologise to Lane when I realised I was out of line. We hardly agree on anything and often at diametrically opposite ends.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I do seem to recall you telling us you enjoy winding up republicans at some point. Im not going to try find it, but others might be able too.
The similarities are there.

Close. the reason I beleive we tend to vote right is more self employment. More risk and reliably harsher treatment from left wing govts.

But also I find it very ironic, that the average farm is the closest business we have too the socialist ideal.

Take dairy. The average farm would earn around 1.2 million at the farm gate. I see the average living and growth return too the famers is 360,000 at a 10 year peak.
That means that over 75% of the businesses earnings go back too the community outside of banks.

My reason for mentioning that is it also explains why the larger rural communities outside of cities tends to vote right as well.

The wealth of farms outside of capital gains/banks is shared widely. Rural communities know this. I would lead back too the claim I made that while rural electorates are on average poorer. There is less wealth disparity.

Interesting, if that is true.

I've not looked at it with data.

Would agricultural subsidies have an impact? Agricultural socialism in the US? (I couldn't help that!)

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Im now going to make a claim based off of what I have posted.
The rural, republican districts show more even spread of wealth despite being overall poorer, than democratic ones do.

So while you might make the claim that the rich republican likes a harsher economy to make more money. it could be equally said that the rich democrat likes income disparity to keep power.

BTW, what you don't see at all is my Private message community.

I get some communication based on my posts. That keeps me grounded in the knowledge that I have supporters here who "get me".

I really miss my good friend Lloyd who passed away a few years ago. A Canadian / American and ex Stanford. We used to communicate a lot on rifles and politics.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Interesting, if that is true.

I've not looked at it with data.

Would agricultural subsidies have an impact? Agricultural socialism in the US? (I couldn't help that!)

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Im now going to make a claim based off of what I have posted.
The rural, republican districts show more even spread of wealth despite being overall poorer, than democratic ones do.

Yes they would and do. Lets take dairy again, because I know it better, But TB 40 will be better informed.

dairy farming exports from the US are the single largest by volume,me in the world. Second comes NZ or European union depending on how you measure.
But NZ exports 95% of its produce. The US exports only 18%

Its highly critical that the US produces food for its own population, and at a reasonable price. The subsidies may well help that. wheres NZers have to pay export values with no subsidy.

edit to add- because it dosnt make sense for Kiwi tax payers/population of 5 million, to be subsidising exports for 45 million people.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
BTW, what you don't see at all is my Private message community.

I get some communication based on my posts. That keeps me grounded in the knowledge that I have supporters here who "get me".

I really miss my good friend Lloyd who passed away a few years ago. A Canadian / American and ex Stanford. We used to communicate a lot on rifles and politics.

Thats irrelevant if they are not prepared to back you up in public. I actually brought that up recently.

I am not able to connect the dots there.

They keep power by undoing the damage done by Republicans. Evidence of last 50 years. Every time the Republicans grind the economy down, the people vote Democrat.

I also do not see any rich democrats in actual power. No Democrat president since Kennedy can be called wealthy.

Rich Democrats like Warren Buffet & Bill gates are not active in politics like the heritage foundation. They also give a major chunk of their wealth to philanthropy. They have not formed some exclusive club like the Heritage Foundation.

I would strongly suggest you get a copy of this book and read it carefully. Worth reading it actually checking the references for validity. https://www.amazon.com.au/Dark...adical/dp/0385535597

This is a really seriously researched book. Not some political hit job. That will give you a good understanding of my position on criminal oligarchy in the US.

It even delves into Charles Koch's intellectual and academic pursuits, which I was very interested in, and which greatly influenced my conclusions.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
So while you might make the claim that the rich republican likes a harsher economy to make more money. it could be equally said that the rich democrat likes income disparity to keep power.