Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Religion and Philosophy What % of humanity is batsh!t crazy?

All of this may or may not be true. Interesting though. I think the change for whatever reason from Democratic to independent since the GOP has basically stayed within a few points of where they were in 1960. Is control of congress. Democrats controlled the house for 40 straight years from 1955-1994 and for 58 out of 62 going back to 1933.

It took the very popular Eisenhower to finally wrestle control of the House from the Democrats. Of course, everyone liked IKE. But that lasted but 2 years and then back to normal Democratic control. I was born right after WWII and never dreamed the Republicans would ever control the house.

But since then, 1994, the house has switch several times, 1994, 2006, 2010, 2018 and by large numbers. 54,33, 63 and 44 seats. Perhaps the power of the independent vote today whereas prior to 1994, they didn't make up that large part of the electorate along with a much larger Democratic base vote.

Perhaps besides racism as you all put it, is the religious aspect that Reagan embraced. Protestants voted Republican since 1972, the farthest back my figures take me, sometimes by large amount, sometimes by a small amount. But Catholics voted Democratic until 2000 when they switch to Republican and have voted that way ever since. Jewish has always been Democratic.

Lots have changed demographically, HS and less educationally wise was solid Democratic until Trump 1972-2012. College grads voted Republican until 2008 and then again for Romney in 2012 before going for Clinton and Biden. Blacks have remain constant Democratic usually with 90% of the vote along with Hispanics, low of 53% for Kerry 2004, a high of 69% for Bill Clinton in 1996. Whites have been solid Republican at least since 1972, Not counting 1992 and 1996 when Perot received 20% and 9%, the GOP candidate received 55-60%.

Somethings remain the same, others change.

...from another thread:

I don't think that groups of people have switched Parties so much as both Parties have very consciously sought out and changed positions in order to attract groups of people. The best example of this is LBJ and the Civil Rights Act. He was pretty damned racist, and he made the decision to lose Southern Conservatives, in favor of people of color. I think it was simple math, not some higher ethics!

Trump embraced that choice and went full KKK.

...went full KKK / flat Earther.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way. I know from the civil war until the great depression, the Republican Party was the majority party, Democratic Party the smaller one. The Great Depression, FDR and then WWII reversed that. Big time in some years. The Democrats had majorities in the House like 333-89 in 1937-38 and 75-17 in the senate. FDR swamping all 4 of his Republican opponents. The GOP carrying just a couple of meaningless states in the Northeast against FDR.

The south remained Democratic until Reagan in 1980 even with LBJ's Civil Rights Act. The northeast mainly Republican until Bill Clinton. Here's some maps.

https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

But yes, it does seems the parties switch to going after people, groups instead of people switching parties. LBJ may have been the last Democratic presidential candidate to win the white vote. He did in 1964 59-41 over Goldwater. The problem is demographics were lost in 1968 and didn't pick up again until 1972. Carter in 1976 came close to winning the white vote, losing it to Ford 47-52. No Democratic presidential candidate has come close to Carter's 47% since 1976.

Then again, no Republican presidential candidate has come close to Ford's 16% of the black vote in 1976. Trump's 12% last year was the closest along with Reagan who received 12% in 1988 in his 49-1 state wallop of Mondale.

Simple Math makes sense to me.

I believe your polls are irrelevant to meaningless without state demographics.

As an example, Republicans in Texas fear demographic dynamics will castrate their stranglehold on power. They have therefore used the delusion of fraudulent voting to enact a voting law which will make voting for selected groups of predominantly Democrat voters more difficult to actually vote. The theory is in razor close elections, just disenfranchising mere thousands of potential "enemy" voters could mean the difference in remaining in power. As it becomes more difficult to remain in power expect even more onerous laws to be enacted.

Would the word fascist adequately describe laws enacted by Texas Republicans????

I don't see Texas being much different from anywhere else, especially Florida.

Fascist is a funny word. No one really knows what it means. A bundle of rods is stronger than a single rod. The fascia tries the rods together just as the fascist government ties the people together. Whether they want to be tied together or not...

Yes, Mr. Porter, Republicans of all stripes everywhere are fascist in a sense, but not everyone knows or understands the early 19th-century Italian politics that led to it, nor the fate of Mussolini who made it famous.

Republicans have not yet garnered the kind of power it takes to establish a genuine fascist dictator. Once a nation heads that direction its fate is pretty much sealed.



For clarity's sake, I think "authoritarian" is the best word to use at this time. Though I won't argue that they're definitely leaning in a fascist direction.

Things appear pretty bleak right now but it's just the last gasps of a dying generation trying to reclaim the glory years.

Eat right, stay healthy and try to live long enough to see the republican party step on leggos, eat sh*t, and die...

That's my plan.

Went full enabler for the batshit crazy 30%

In the end their votes won't be worth the trouble they cause.

Here's a splendid example:

Lindsey Graham was making a speech where he advocated getting vaccinated. His crowd didn't like that. One man with a loud voice declared that he was losing his civil service job in 60 days. Graham asked if he was anti-vaccine and Loud Boy said he wasn't, but he was anti-mandate.

I tried doing the math, on the presumption that Loud Boy wasn't batsh!t crazy, but was unable to find a formula that worked. I couldn't get past the arithmetic that if Loud Boy had acted on the fact that he wasn't anti-vaccine, and had gotten one before there was a mandate, then the mandate wouldn't have been a factor in his equation at all.

Using human calculus, solving for the function of x as batsh!t approaches crazy, the derivative is that Loud Boy is insane.

The Supreme Court decided long ago that total mandates are constitutional. These are not even real mandates: They just say you can't work here if you are not vaccinated. You are perfectly free to go do something else. Since being unvaccinated does actually present danger to the immune-compromised, the elderly, and such, there is a rational basis for these job requirements. Certain jobs have job requirements. That's all these are.

The armed forces have been very strict about vaccine mandates for a very long time. They don't even ask! They just tell you to stand in this line and get a bunch of shots.