Posted on 03/26/2017 10:04:22 PM PDT by detective
Ethnicity.
In 1972, about 85% of Boomers were white.
In 2016, about 55% of eligible 18 year old voters were white.
Young white people in 2012 still voted about the same way they voted in 1972.
For instance, Romney beat Obama 49%-48% among white women under 30 years of age.
On the other hand, Obama beat Romney by close to 80%-20% among young non-white voters.
Massive LEGAL immigration is destroying Conservative political power.
Since a majority of Republicans still support massive LEGAL immigration, I think violent civil conflict in the USA is inevitable within one or two decades.
Why is it that people refuse to repudiate their past even though they now realize that they were wrong?
People frequently jump on a political tide which is set in motion before their time. It is troubling if they jump on in huge numbers and give it a decisive momentum. We all make choices. We cannot claim that we had no choice but sign up for it even if nobody put a gun in the head.
It is interesting that those who used to say, “Do not trust anybody over 30,” now turn around to insist that they are sensible mainstream establishment guarding virtuous society. It is not you but lots of people from the same generation. It should not be difficult to separate yourself from them, including any shared connection with the past.
Every sustained movement reaches a critical mass after which huge number of people start to participate and it turns into a tidal wave. The fact that the tide is so overwhelming does not mean that you have to embrace it since you can not actively resist it in public. The scale of liberal tidal wave in fact dramatically increased after 60’s and 70’s. Large public display of support for Mao, Yasser Arafat, and sundry of left-wing terrorists was common. Jane Fonda was one of their icons, and China's Cultural Revolution was supposedly to usher in a new utopia. Not a single day had passed by without another talk of uprising, revolution, bombing, and imminent collapse of capitalist order. The mood was deeply unsettling and always angry. If you lived at the time, you would have had no idea that you were living at the zenith of prosperity. Somehow every institution was wrong, and had to be destroyed. This was espoused by large number of people.
You can claim that you were merely puppets hence free of any faults by being one of them during that time. That may be true. You could have changed and now be firmly against what you espoused. You could be now part of bulwark defending conservatism against liberal left.
So why is it difficult to say that the movement you once embraced grew on a massive scale and is now destroying the society from within, and you repudiate the past? If you were not part of it and always opposed to it, you were not at fault as I made it clear in previous posts. There were people who went to Nam and got condemned for merely being drafted to fight the war there. There were people who spat on veterans returning from the war.
If we track historical origin of some movement, it usually goes further back than we thought. Sometimes it goes way back. But there is a point when it is set in motion in earnest and that is usually viewed as a starting point. For example, when suddenly a huge number of people join. So many could view that moment as a real starting point.
I am confining this argument to a segment of boomer generation who espoused liberal left politics. If they had changed, I no longer have anything against them. But it could be a problem if they tried to defend or play down what they did in the past. They were all active participants even though many of whom walked away from it.
I don't understand why people attempt to conflate this with across-the-board condemnation of all boomer generation or what aging boomers are now.
“Bring up the Constitutional authority question, and they go berserk.”
On the war on drugs, too.
bmp
Seems more like a war on crime where one side seeks to enforce existing law while the opposition proactively resists. Because its ignorance is global, the opposition’s struggle is mainly within itself.
When men can’t feed their family is when civil war begins.
Constitutional = send it to the states if not an enumerated power.
Wrong on its premise.
The civil war is not between Left and Right. Left and Right are agitated by those in power to retain power.
The civil war is between those that believe in freedom and natural law and those that believe in control.
That day draws near as long as America’s chief cultural engines continue to export propaganda for homosexuality, feminism, libertinism and the rest of it.
What a silly argument for ignoring the Constitution. I could just as well bring up the old argument of the leftists who say that semi and full auto guns didn't exist at the time of the Contitution's signing, therefore the government can exercise full power over their existence/banning.
Your argument boils down to "If the Constitution doesn't specifically mention it, then the federal government has power over it." - which is completely at odds with the text of the Constitution itself which specifically enumerates the few powers it is limited to.
Ping
Bump!
>>This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule.
That’s why this civil war is an actual civil war and not a failed revolution.
We were in Spain several years back and vendors were selling Che shirts on every corner. That was the first time I realized how screwed up they were.
bump
In his white paper on the subject of the increasing inability to govern a large complex society Edward Martin of the Society of American Governance Professionals outlined the concept of conspiracy to obstruct governance and obstruction of governance. Both are crimes against the Republic that can rise to the capital level.
Obstruction of governance is defined to be an action or actions by an individual or group of individuals to ignore the existing laws or to administer those laws in such a manner that there is in effect no law. The conspiracy to obstruct occurs when individuals engaging in obstruction gather and or act to obstruct governance on a regional or national scale.
Accused are arrested and being flight risks are confined without bail
The punishment initially consists of removal from active society and placement in a village with other conspirators/obstructionists. Within the village there is relative freedom. The village is not composed of cells or other such confinement. Rather the village is a sort of campus including living, recreational and dining facilities to which the village residents can move about freely. The residents are confined to the village and not permitted to visit the other areas of the island
On arrival, the residents clothing is removed. The resident is permitted to enter the clothing warehouse and select from the available clothing. It is anticipated that the most common mode of dress will be what might be described as jeans and various colored T shirts. The resident may return for additional and different clothing but may not exceed the quantity regulation. The island climate is considered mild such that the requirement for clothing is not great.
The sleeping facilities are barracks like but the beds can be removed to other village buildings the resident might find more to his liking. Sheets, pillow cases and blankets are provided in an assortment of types and colors. There is no restriction on gender segregation in any of the sleeping or bathroom facilities.
The dining facility includes what amounts to a commercial or school kitchen and includes a large comfortable dining room with an assortment of various sized tables. The food is provided to the kitchen pantry weekly. It is the necessity of the residents to organize and carry out the various functions of cooking, cleanup and actual eating. The food provided is considered nutritious but simple to prepare. Commodities including beans and rice, surplus cheese and peanut butter and canned fruit will be provided for preparation will be provided to the pantry.
Well then Ingiess we are lost. Totalitarianism is a logical outcome of democracy.
Agreed! But after the Constitutional question there needs to be a political discussion. We need to keep our principals front and center but never miss the chance to step towards them even if it is a smaller step than desired.
She was not exercising Freedom of expression as understood via the Constitution. Bravo for her just the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.