Mighty big brush you’re using there. Is your contention then that anyone not living in an urban area in the US is a redneck? Or even that the majority of Bush voters are rednecks? Dare I say it? Cite?
The reference is to the total population in the counties, not to the voters, or even to the number of voters for each candidate.
Mighty big brush you’re using there. Is your contention then that anyone not living in an urban area in the US is a redneck? Or even that the majority of Bush voters are rednecks? Dare I say it? Cite?
Naturally, I managed to screw up the coding in my previous post, here it is again.
Spoken like a true bigot. You must be very proud of your narrowmindedness to paint people with such a broad bruch.
One could claim with equal validity to your “conclusion” that Gore got the murderer vote while Bush got the people who refrain from murder vote. Therefore, Gore is the candidate for people who favor murder. My “conclusion” is every bit as valid as your “conclusion”.
Oh really?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr124.pdf
As you’ll see, the Bush states clearly leech off of the hard-working Gore states.
And see this too…
http://www.ppinys.org/Reports/jtf/Table%2030.htm
Look like good ol’ Prof. Olsen has some homework to do.
There’s never been any question that less populous states get more than their fair share of electoral votes.
Seats in the house are apportioned more or less evenly, according to a mathematical algorithm based on the census returns, although the fact that each state gets at least one seat means that the proportions can wind up off from the true numbers. Wyoming does not have 1/435th of the country’s population, but that’s how many seats they get. I have no problem with this, but it remains a fact.
If I have one state with 90% of the population, one with 10%, and I have 100 House seats, they are split 90-10. With two senators per state, the electoral votes are split 92-12, meaning the smaller state gets 11.5% of the electoral votes, rather than 10%. If the 100 seats are split between three states, with 32%, 28% and 40%, the electoral votes are split, 34, 30, 42, with the smallest state getting 28.3% of the votes. The fact that smaller states are represented in the Electoral College out of proportion to their population numbers has never been in question.
This is not a problem to me, as it keeps less populous states from becoming disenfranchised in the election process, but it does over-emphasize the effect of the votes from the associated demographic profiles of the less inhabited states so apparently beloved by Olsen.
I don’t understand this at all. Is “lost” a typo? Can you expand on this? What about capitalism keeps the voters from becoming apathetic?
I would say that the trend towards “diversity” is just as likely to cause a major change in the governing of the USA. Certainly, each culture or way of life has a valid viewpoint, at least as far as they’re concerned. However, achieving consensus on almost anything, whether on a local or national level is becoming harder and harder. How will we be able to elect leaders that address national or community issues when there are so many conflicting factions?
Guess he never heard of farm subsidies or looked at map of all federally owned land. I’d love to see the evidence that agriculture contributes more to the national wealth per dollar invested than the manufacturing, financial, or retail industries.
The appearance of the “largesse” quote in the OP reminds me of that guy a few months back who kept harping on the 17th amendment (electing Senators by direct vote), claiming it would destroy the nation.
In any case, “America” isn’t doomed, but the United States almost certainly has a limited lifespan. My guess is that increasing economic integration with Canada and Mexico will eventually make the current national borders irrelevant and the “United States” will disappear by being merged into the larger mega-nation of “North America”.
I don’t expect this to happen anytime soon, though. One of the benefits of living in (mostly) peaceful democracies is that you can take your time making changes.
You’re not alone. London’s entire post reads like an exercise in clouded jargon. He might be trying for irony.
And yet, Lincoln’s confidence notwithstanding, I believe that the powers that were circa 1940-ish figured that America’s interests concerning the Hitler situation would be best served by an armed and belligerent Britain.
Abe was unquestionably a great man, but I don’t see a logical proof in the above quote, only some fine rhetoric - especially since he wrote it much less than a generation after British troops kicked butt at Bladenburg, ate the President’s dinner from his table in the White House and burned Washington DC. (We’re sorry. Subsequent events have shown the USA to be a friend in need.)
I wish I was! Thanks for the reviews, though.
Well, sometimes it’s just not enough to say 'the round thing goes on the screw thing, and the long thing over there fits on the square think over here . . . ’
Maybe I need to watch FOX. I’ll get back to you in a while with another effort pervert, if you haven’t been arrested.
America doomed? I may get flamed for this, but I’ll say yes.
I don’t mean that the country will collapse under its own weight and going through a new dark age. I just think that the US is the strongest nation in the world right now. And that can’t last forever. It may be because of a natural disaster, war, or otherwise but eventually the US will no longer be on top of the game. I can’t give a time, but I’d say within the next 100 or so years another country will step up as a result of superior economic tactics and resources. The US may fight it tooth an nail, but I have no doubt that there time on top is finite.
Thanks. I look forward to it. I found most of your post quite interesting. I was simply confused by the wording of your final paragraph, and since this contained the punchline to your point, I was confused by your point.
BTW If my post seemed snippy, I appologize. I wrote it quickly and did not intend any insult or snide attitude.
The plain and simple facts are this:
America is just about the only nation on Earth which is self sufficient, the nation as a whole could, if needs be, isolate itself from the rest of the world and still be top dog.
It is a nation of people who will take no shit from anyone, it is a nation that having been born out of violence has now, in the main, turned away from violence ** unless threatened by others **
I truly believe all of this and moreover I believe that The United States of America will, as Lincoln said, ** LIVE THROUGH ALL TIME **
God, some of you Americans (thankfully only a very small number) are ignorant of history - and falsely conceited as a result. The world’s only existing democracy in 1787 was The United States of America? Get a grip!
A quick history lesson on the Palaces of Westminster and the Westminster System of Government - as provided by www.parliament.uk - which is a pretty serious website okay?
I believe the Swiss have some compelling claims to make regarding democracy as well. I just have to say that I, as an Australian living in an equally stable and prosperous country as the United States or the United Kingdom am getting heartily sick of this revisionist nonsense I’m hearing these days that the United States somehow invented electoral representation, and or the concept of democracy, and that in turn, you’ve graciously given it to us, the rest of the world, out of the goodness of your hearts.
The bottom line? The American forefathers took the existing British system, tweaked it where they could, and left other parts of it alone. You came up with another system - neither better nor worse - but you did NOT invent it OK? To this day, American legislatures still refer to Canon Law which goes all the way back to the Magna Carte so please, stop insulting the intelligence of the rest of the world with the outright false claim that the United States invented democracy - it’s crap.
Spogga? Are you living in some parallel universe where the realities of this world no longer hold true? The Continental United States is blessed with abundant resources - no doubt. And with Alaska you have shitloads of oil too. But there is no way the United States could sustain her current status without the massive amounts of overseas trade and foreign investment she presently enjoys.
For decades now, the level of foreign investment INTO the United States has kept her dollar in the position it remains. In the abscence of such foreign investment, her trading position due to her negative trade imbalance and budget deficits would long, LONG ago have brought the USA back to the pack. The only reason that such massive foreign investment capital remains at positive inbound level is because the dividends are deliberataly tweaked to keep the incentives in place. It’s an artificial propping up which I’m sure Hawthorne could explain far more eloquently than myself but in short the reality is this - the US Dollar is artificially being kept strong, but at the expense of a falling standard of living INTERNAL to the United States in relation to the rest of the world. And this is quid pro quo in action. The United States has massive bills to pay and she can no longer have the benefits of BOTH a strong dollar and the world’s highest standard of living. One, or both, have to give and that’s what we’re seeing right now.
Your assertions earlier are fantasy. Perhaps they were somewhat true 120 years ago in the Vanderbilt era - but not now. The United States needs the rest of the world far more than the rest of the world needs the United States - at least as trading economies go.
Can I have a cite for any of this? Artificial proping of the dollar for decades? The “only” reason is because of dividend tweaking? Can you even define what that is?
I agree with your assesment that the US did not invent democracy (Note that the OP contained a reference to Athens). But the rest of your assertions seem like little more than the same sort of blather aimed in the other direction.
Pervert, this is my understanding one how floating exchange rates are governed… and if I’m wrong, I will gladly concede such a thing - at least I tried and further, didn’t just run away from the thread.
The US dollar is a floating exchange rate, and many other currencies choose to fix their currency pegged in very discreet amounts to the USD as means of governing their own expenditure rates. One notable example, I understand, is China.
For decades, foreign governments would deliberately invest in US dollars and THEN consciously devalue their dollar so as to offset debt payments. Certainly, Australia did this for years up until 1984 I believe was the year the AUSD finally was floated.
A notable method of purchasing US dollars was for foreign governments to purchase US Government Bonds - insofar as they were a very, very stable and reliable bet.
Also, contrary to popular belief, a major export economy is not the strongest economy on the block. Indeed, the opposite is true. The strongest economies are those with the strongest buying power - for in the jungle of supply vs demand, it’s he who has an abundance of product who is forced to sell it cheaply. The United States possesses such a huge domestic market, along with such a strong dollar that the consumption of foreign goods also propped up the dollar in relation to those countries who are doing the exporting.
And lastly, the US possesses the most mature and stable stock exchanges in the world. And those stocks go far, far beyond just the Dow Jones. Futures stocks, Bonds, Nasdaq Companies, Raw Materials - all of them receive massive, and I mean really really massive amounts of purchases each day from foreign countries wishing to purchase into American investment opportunities. All of the world’s superannuation funds, and the insurance funds etc etc - eventually deal in American shares in som capacity.
The combination of the three represents what I called “foreign investment” in my previous post. In short, cash flow leaves more countries and goes INTO the United States than the other way around - and in doing so - the trend props the American dollar higher than it would otherwise be because the US Dollar is the currency which determines the value of all of these transactions.
However, in 1980 I was still a young man in the United States and I recall hearing headlines in the leadup to Jimmy Carter’s election that for the first time ever, the United States had begun to import more than she exported. And at the same time, internal inflation was hovering near 12%. Under normal circumstances, this would have resulted in a massive diminution of the value of the US Dollar - but it continued to stay up - even as the inherent strength of the US economy reduced itself in relation to foreign economys. My understanding is that Paul Volcker is the man who set the trend in motion which is carried by Bud Greenspan to this day - namely, by tweaking the Federal Reserve lending rate, the value of the US Dollar, and US Govt Bonds in particular, could maintain their strong position - and in doing so - the value of the US major stock exchanges could continue to attract an increasing amount of foreign investment purchases (along with an incredible amount of venture investments too).
However, my understanding is that the price to pay is that the trade deficit has continued to grow every year in favour of the import side of the question - and further, the US Federal Govt has continued to plunge further and further into deficit. As a result, Americans now owe more debt than at any time in their lives - and when you owe debt - your buying position diminishes. And when your buying position diminishes, foreign exporters search other markets to hedge their bets.
Now, I’m happy to concede I might not have explained that intricate Catch-22 very well, but I’m pretty sure I’ve got the gist of it.
Well, the thirteen colonies became thirteen sovereign nations in 1776, only to fail under a mutual pact called the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was signed in 1787, but not ratified until 1788 and did not take effect until 1789, when there were eleven states comprising this country. We would not have thirteen states until 1790.
It might help the writer of the hypothesis got their facts correct from the start if he/she desires to have the rest of it have any meaningful debate attached to it.
As for our democracy, we have more homegrown democracy than whatever Athens may have had. One may find more Native American influence in our democracy than Athens gave us.
Carry on.