3 ms·

I wish the problematic policies weren't perpetuated almost exclusively by one party, because then I wouldn't sound so partisan. Opposition to laws and policies

I wish the problematic policies weren't perpetuated almost exclusively by one party, because then I wouldn't sound so partisan. Opposition to laws and policies that set boundaries on the behaviour of drug addicts, like anti-vagrancy laws and forced rebab, comes only from Democrats. Empowering public sector unions that make public servants less accountable and government less effective is promoted primarily by Democrats. The creation of clusters of social housing that creates crime-ridden neighbourhoods that perpetuate anti-social and lawless behaviour, as well as government dependency, is done exclusively by registered Democrats. Look at major cities with severe trash/homelessness problems, and how many of them are run by Democrats. In the short-term, a lot of Democrat policies help the people they set out to help. In the long run, they create government dependency and ghettos, and that harms far more people. If you want law and order, Republicans are the party to vote for. The longer this reality is denied for political correctness reasons, the stronger the populist right-wing political backlash will be when it comes.

rossdavidh 7y ago
So, in this country, the Democrats tend to do better (electorally) in the big cities, and the Republicans find more success in small towns or rural. So, when a big city is run by Republicans, there is always a very real and ever-present chance of Democrats taking it away at the next election. On the other hand, there are many big cities where Democrats think they will never lose to Republicans, and in some cases (e.g. Chicago) they're right. So there is less of a check on their power. So, the better comparison to Democrats running a big city, would be Republicans running a state where Democrats haven't won state-wide elections in a long time.
- varelse 7y ago
  It goes back and forth, and the Democrats grabbed an early lead in Big Data to insure Obama's victory in 2012, but I think they seriously underestimate the ability of republican operators to catch up and game the existing system. They've been at this for decades and they play a very long game. That's how Republican candidates can lose the popular vote yet win the electoral college. I see no sign of the Democrats playing catch-up for 2020 and I think they are in for a rude awakening despite our current leader's seemingly low numbers because that guy brings out his base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
  - rossdavidh 7y ago
    The electoral college is, by original design, intended to keep the few large (population-wise) states from dominating the federal government. In other words, not much about it works as originally designed, but the one thing that does is what it did in 2016, which was to guarantee that you cannot dominate federal government if you ignore rural and small states. Which, given the Democrats urban emphasis, means it is biased against them, not as an accident or via a loophole, but by original design. I don't know that the Republicans deserve a lot of credit for seeing this, it was no secret, it was the original stated intention of giving each state 2 senators, and making electoral college votes equal senators plus representatives. One does have to ask, though, why the Democrats have resolutely refused to acknowledge that this is how the electoral college works, and pay more attention to winning in rural and small states.
    - varelse 7y ago
      >One does have to ask, though, why the Democrats have resolutely refused to acknowledge that this is how the electoral college works, and pay more attention to winning in rural and small states. Nailed it. I lost almost all respect for Hillary Clinton when she refused to campaign there whilst Trump, all of my dislike for him and his ideology aside, campaigned there and truly earned every vote he got. Doubly so when her own husband, all of his failings aside someone insanely great on the campaign trail himself, urged her to do so. https://wtvr.com/2016/11/11/bill-clinton-strategy/ https://wtvr.com/2016/11/11/bill-clinton-strategy/

rossdavidh 7y ago

So, in this country, the Democrats tend to do better (electorally) in the big cities, and the Republicans find more success in small towns or rural. So, when a big city is run by Republicans, there is always a very real and ever-present chance of Democrats taking it away at the next election. On the other hand, there are many big cities where Democrats think they will never lose to Republicans, and in some cases (e.g. Chicago) they're right. So there is less of a check on their power. So, the better comparison to Democrats running a big city, would be Republicans running a state where Democrats haven't won state-wide elections in a long time.

varelse 7y ago
It goes back and forth, and the Democrats grabbed an early lead in Big Data to insure Obama's victory in 2012, but I think they seriously underestimate the ability of republican operators to catch up and game the existing system. They've been at this for decades and they play a very long game. That's how Republican candidates can lose the popular vote yet win the electoral college. I see no sign of the Democrats playing catch-up for 2020 and I think they are in for a rude awakening despite our current leader's seemingly low numbers because that guy brings out his base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  The electoral college is, by original design, intended to keep the few large (population-wise) states from dominating the federal government. In other words, not much about it works as originally designed, but the one thing that does is what it did in 2016, which was to guarantee that you cannot dominate federal government if you ignore rural and small states. Which, given the Democrats urban emphasis, means it is biased against them, not as an accident or via a loophole, but by original design. I don't know that the Republicans deserve a lot of credit for seeing this, it was no secret, it was the original stated intention of giving each state 2 senators, and making electoral college votes equal senators plus representatives. One does have to ask, though, why the Democrats have resolutely refused to acknowledge that this is how the electoral college works, and pay more attention to winning in rural and small states.
  - varelse 7y ago
    >One does have to ask, though, why the Democrats have resolutely refused to acknowledge that this is how the electoral college works, and pay more attention to winning in rural and small states. Nailed it. I lost almost all respect for Hillary Clinton when she refused to campaign there whilst Trump, all of my dislike for him and his ideology aside, campaigned there and truly earned every vote he got. Doubly so when her own husband, all of his failings aside someone insanely great on the campaign trail himself, urged her to do so. https://wtvr.com/2016/11/11/bill-clinton-strategy/ https://wtvr.com/2016/11/11/bill-clinton-strategy/