PDA

View Full Version : Elderly shifting GOP



Peter1469
03-26-2014, 07:39 PM
Elderly shifting GOP (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168083/seniors-realigned-republican-party.aspx)


U.S seniors -- those aged 65 and older -- have moved from a reliably Democratic group to a reliably Republican one over the past two decades. From 1992 through 2006, seniors had been solidly Democratic and significantly more Democratic than younger Americans. Over the last seven years, seniors have become less Democratic, and have shown an outright preference for the Republican Party since 2010.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 07:57 PM
Whatever the GOP does, they better not waste their time, because the Elderly don't have much of it.

They're not exactly the Future of The Republican Party :old::grampa::smiley_ROFLMAO:

patrickt
03-26-2014, 08:06 PM
Cigar, you do realize that almost all the youngsters will be elderly some day? They won't start voting Democrat again until they die.

sachem
03-26-2014, 08:09 PM
Whatever the GOP does, they better not waste their time, because the Elderly don't have much of it.

They're not exactly the Future of The Republican Party :old::grampa::smiley_ROFLMAO:Yeah, but they all don't go at once.

Peter1469
03-26-2014, 08:15 PM
Whatever the GOP does, they better not waste their time, because the Elderly don't have much of it.

They're not exactly the Future of The Republican Party :old::grampa::smiley_ROFLMAO:

OK, that is funny.

Like the "news" story that came out today about elderly people with bad posture might die prematurely. :smiley:

Peter1469
03-26-2014, 08:16 PM
Cigar, you do realize that almost all the youngsters will be elderly some day? They won't start voting Democrat again until they die.

Hopefully not me. I don't want any part of that elderly stuff.

Matty
03-26-2014, 08:25 PM
The democrats might be pleasantly surprised to find out how many millennials have shifted to the Republican side too. You know, the ones Obama is trying to shake down?

Peter1469
03-26-2014, 08:27 PM
The democrats might be pleasantly surprised to find out how many millennials have shifted to the Republican side too. You know, the ones Obama is trying to shake down?

The millennials have shifted libertarian, or Rand Paul style GOP. Not establishment GOP.

Matty
03-26-2014, 08:35 PM
The millennials have shifted libertarian, or Rand Paul style GOP. Not establishment GOP.


Some maybe,

Peter1469
03-26-2014, 08:41 PM
Some maybe,

Maybe what? I see zero youth movement towards the establishment GOP. It is fiscal conservative or libertarian.

Matty
03-26-2014, 08:44 PM
Maybe what? I see zero youth movement towards the establishment GOP. It is fiscal conservative or libertarian.


Where do you see it? You have something to link so I can read it. My sources of course are the Fox News Polls. I just watched a focus group on Kelley Live.

Peter1469
03-26-2014, 08:47 PM
Where do you see it? You have something to link so I can read it. My sources of course are the Fox News Polls. I just watched a focus group on Kelley Live.

The OP has polls that show that the millennials have not shifted to the GOP. This forum is littered with posts about the millennials moving into the libertarian camp.

Bob
03-26-2014, 08:53 PM
Yeah, but they all don't go at once.

I changed to conservative once I understood government when I was about 40. By 42 I voted for republicans.

If kids truly understood government, they would never vote for democrats. EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Undercover FBI Agent Reveals Senator Leland Yee’s Alleged Ties to Gun Traffickers, Muslim Rebels, And Russian Arms ... (http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApNPToAl2zjdNw_nYMDmmjybvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTJnN3R kMWg1BGJwb3MDMQRjY29kZQNnYQRjcG9zAzE3BGN0AzEEaW50b AN1cwRwa2d0AzMEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3RkLXN0cm0Ec2xrA3RpdGx lBHRlc3QDOTAx/RV=1/RE=1397090397/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RO=2/RU=aHR0cDovL3NhbmZyYW5jaXNjby5jYnNsb2NhbC5jb20vMjA xNC8wMy8yNi91bmRlcmNvdmVyLWZiaS1hZ2VudC1yZXZlYWxzL XNlbmF0b3ItbGVsYW5kLXllZXMtYWxsZWdlZC10aWVzLXRvLWd 1bi10cmFmZmlja2Vycy1tdXNsaW0tcmViZWxzLWFuZC1ydXNza WFuLWFybXMtc3VwcGxpZXJzLWluLWZlZGVyYWwtY2FzZS8-/RS=%5EADAW.Lh2d_dJSzxYrvgJVLnGcdEwUA-)An undercover FBI agent known as "UCE 4599" in the federal criminal complaint unsealed Wednesday reveals 137 pages of evidence in a years-long investigation leading to the arrest of State Senator Leland Yee on charges related his alleged roles in money laundering, arms dealing, and his close association with suspects in a murder for hire plot.

CBS San Francisco

Bob
03-26-2014, 08:57 PM
Hopefully not me. I don't want any part of that elderly stuff.

Don't fear it Peter and you will feel better, look better and perform better.

Fear of old age makes you that much older. At age 75, I appear much younger. But i wanted to get old. Better than dying young.

Matty
03-26-2014, 09:00 PM
The OP has polls that show that the millennials have not shifted to the GOP. This forum is littered with posts about the millennials moving into the libertarian camp.
Do you have enough to win an election or do you intend to hand it to the Democrats?

Peter1469
03-26-2014, 09:03 PM
Don't fear it Peter and you will feel better, look better and perform better.

Fear of old age makes you that much older. At age 75, I appear much younger. But i wanted to get old. Better than dying young.

Other than a specific medical issue, I am in great shape. I will stay in great shape and get better, unless that specific issue cuts it short. But that is better than the alternative.

Cigar
03-26-2014, 09:09 PM
Cigar, you do realize that almost all the youngsters will be elderly some day? They won't start voting Democrat again until they die.

How's that theory worked out 4-yea sport? :grin:

Looks to me like Obama can connect better ... after all ... who's in The White House :laugh:

zelmo1234
03-27-2014, 01:48 AM
Maybe what? I see zero youth movement towards the establishment GOP. It is fiscal conservative or libertarian.

Collage Republicans have more than doubled in the past 3 years.

The NSA is really moving people, but they are not establishment or TEA party, they are have their own agenda, and I think that it is great!

KC
03-27-2014, 02:14 AM
Some maybe,

I think the presidency of George W. Bush has had a profound impact on the otherwise more conservative members of my generation.

Matty
03-27-2014, 05:19 AM
I think the presidency of George W. Bush has had a profound impact on the otherwise more conservative members of my generation.
More so than Obama? I think the country is in a state of shock from the sheer dumb assert of the Obama administration.

KC
03-27-2014, 12:36 PM
More so than Obama? I think the country is in a state of shock from the sheer dumb assert of the Obama administration.

Not moreso than Obama, but then Obama is no neo-Conservative.

nic34
03-27-2014, 12:54 PM
Dems disappointed with Obama will look beyond Hillary and estab. dems. The shift is leftward. Most folks think Obamacare doesn't go far enough.

Most still believe in unemployment insurance, abortion rights, contraception, and reasonable gun regulations.


Number Of Liberal Americans Growing, Number Of Conservatives Dropping, Says Gallup

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/number-of-liberal-americans-growing-number-of-conservatives-dropping-says-gallup/politics/2013/05/24/67452

Green Arrow
03-27-2014, 04:15 PM
Not moreso than Obama, but then Obama is no neo-Conservative.

Since when?

KC
03-27-2014, 04:50 PM
Since when?

Since he's been elected. Sure, he puts special interests before the public good, but he's still a liberal whereas Bush was a neo-con.

Cigar
03-27-2014, 05:46 PM
Dems disappointed with Obama will look beyond Hillary and estab. dems. The shift is leftward. Most folks think Obamacare doesn't go far enough.

Most still believe in unemployment insurance, abortion rights, contraception, and reasonable gun regulations.


Number Of Liberal Americans Growing, Number Of Conservatives Dropping, Says Gallup

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/number-of-liberal-americans-growing-number-of-conservatives-dropping-says-gallup/politics/2013/05/24/67452


I think The GOP is going to have to Import them some more Old White Dudes :old::grampa::roflmao:

Green Arrow
03-27-2014, 07:55 PM
Since he's been elected. Sure, he puts special interests before the public good, but he's still a liberal whereas Bush was a neo-con.

"Neo-con" typically refers to a foreign policy stance. Even in a broader sense, though, outside of rhetoric and election years the President has not done that much different than his predecessor.

Mister D
03-27-2014, 07:58 PM
Dems disappointed with Obama will look beyond Hillary and estab. dems. The shift is leftward. Most folks think Obamacare doesn't go far enough.

Most still believe in unemployment insurance, abortion rights, contraception, and reasonable gun regulations.


Number Of Liberal Americans Growing, Number Of Conservatives Dropping, Says Gallup

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/number-of-liberal-americans-growing-number-of-conservatives-dropping-says-gallup/politics/2013/05/24/67452

Who doesn't believe in those things?

Peter1469
03-27-2014, 07:59 PM
"Neo-con" typically refers to a foreign policy stance. Even in a broader sense, though, outside of rhetoric and election years the President has not done that much different than his predecessor.

Regarding foreign policy- presidents must face reality. There are limited options, so it isn't strange to see that Obama mirrors Bush, Jr.

Green Arrow
03-27-2014, 08:08 PM
Regarding foreign policy- presidents must face reality. There are limited options, so it isn't strange to see that Obama mirrors Bush, Jr.

Candidate Obama believed we should use one of those limited options, yet he still chose to be Bush.

KC
03-28-2014, 01:48 AM
"Neo-con" typically refers to a foreign policy stance. Even in a broader sense, though, outside of rhetoric and election years the President has not done that much different than his predecessor.

I would say the individual mandate is a fairly significant departure to the left.

Green Arrow
03-28-2014, 02:02 AM
I would say the individual mandate is a fairly significant departure to the left.

Not when you consider that conservatives advocated for it first.

GrassrootsConservative
03-28-2014, 02:09 AM
Not when you consider that conservatives advocated for it first.

I argue that anyone who wants such a thing cannot possibly be Conservative because Conservative in and of itself involves conserving our founding documents, including the constitution, which an individual mandate would violate.

/Edit: As with most things perpetrated against our country by modern Liberals, it is the thing done that makes someone Liberal and whether or not someone identifies with whatever "party" is irrelevant.

This is how I know Bush was a Liberal. Look at what he DID, not his "party."

Green Arrow
03-28-2014, 02:23 AM
I argue that anyone who wants such a thing cannot possibly be Conservative because Conservative in and of itself involves conserving our founding documents, including the constitution, which an individual mandate would violate.

/Edit: As with most things perpetrated against our country by modern Liberals, it is the thing done that makes someone Liberal and whether or not someone identifies with whatever "party" is irrelevant.

This is how I know Bush was a Liberal. Look at what he DID, not his "party."

That's not what it means to be a conservative, at all, and this is why I hate American politics. We've dumbed down everything and muddled so many terms it's impossible to discuss things without confusion. All by design, I imagine.

GrassrootsConservative
03-28-2014, 02:27 AM
That's not what it means to be a conservative, at all, and this is why I hate American politics. We've dumbed down everything and muddled so many terms it's impossible to discuss things without confusion. All by design, I imagine.

That is what Conservative is about, you don't get to define Conservatism.

Why do you think we spend so much time on keeping to the limits defined by the Constitution?

And to think it means nothing to the rest of everyone else? Ridiculous. It saddens me.

Those papers and founding fathers are the reason why our nation thrived so much back in the day, until the rise of modern Liberalism.

The sooner people start realizing that the sooner we can start fixing this country and fixing the recession and fixing inflation and getting people their jobs back.

/Edit: It's not muddling and it's not confusing. It's a defined term:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative

con·serv·a·tive [kuhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
adjective1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

2.cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.

3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

4.( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

5.( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.






There's no reason for you people to keep trying to redefine everything. THAT'S what's muddling and confusing!

Green Arrow
03-28-2014, 02:39 AM
That is what Conservative is about, you don't get to define Conservatism.

Why do you think we spend so much time on keeping to the limits defined by the Constitution?

And to think it means nothing to the rest of everyone else? Ridiculous. It saddens me.

Those papers and founding fathers are the reason why our nation thrived so much back in the day, until the rise of modern Liberalism.

The sooner people start realizing that the sooner we can start fixing this country and fixing the recession and fixing inflation and getting people their jobs back.

/Edit: It's not muddling and it's not confusing. It's a defined term:

There's no reason for you people to keep trying to redefine everything. THAT'S what's muddling and confusing!

I have redefined nothing. The definition you presented is correct. Your interpretation of it earlier was not. The constitution was never intended to be a static document. Under your interpretation of "conservatism," it stays static.

GrassrootsConservative
03-28-2014, 02:52 AM
I have redefined nothing. The definition you presented is correct. Your interpretation of it earlier was not. The constitution was never intended to be a static document. Under your interpretation of "conservatism," it stays static.

My "interpretation" of it earlier was just one aspect of Conservatism, I said it "involves" conserving our founding documents, not even an implication of sole purpose. That said, the Constitution has not been halted or repealed, why would anyone suddenly not support it just because it wasn't intended to be static?

It's a thousand fold better than any of the permanent rubbish our government is introducing today, IMO that only makes it's greatness that much more obvious.

/Edit: It was your interpretation of my interpretation that was incorrect, my friend.

KC
03-28-2014, 04:00 AM
Not when you consider that conservatives advocated for it first.

Rather than considering who supports what, consider what the policy itself entails. If you take intervention in the economy to purse social equality as a left leaning policy, it's clear that the individual mandate is left wing.

zelmo1234
03-28-2014, 04:51 AM
I have redefined nothing. The definition you presented is correct. Your interpretation of it earlier was not. The constitution was never intended to be a static document. Under your interpretation of "conservatism," it stays static.

You are correct it was not designed to be changed by amendment only not pissed on by every politician that comes along!

Libhater
03-28-2014, 05:01 AM
Let us not forget the majority masses of Republican/Conservative Evangelicals that will be
coming out it droves for this year's mid term election and for all elections that follow. Lets
face it, with close to 75% of the American people claiming to be Christian, and with the
democrap disregard for religion, human life and GOD himself, chances will hover around
100% that Republicans will carry most of the Evangelical vote along with the hearts of the
majority of Americans.

Did you see where the POPE has a favorability and or job approval rating around 85%
whereas that clown obama has a rating somewhere around 40%?

zelmo1234
03-28-2014, 05:49 AM
Not when you consider that conservatives advocated for it first.

This would cause one to assume that Romney was a conservative! It would be better to say the Republicans advocated for it first!

Green Arrow
03-28-2014, 06:31 AM
My "interpretation" of it earlier was just one aspect of Conservatism, I said it "involves" conserving our founding documents, not even an implication of sole purpose.

My bad, I misread you. Apologies.


That said, the Constitution has not been halted or repealed, why would anyone suddenly not support it just because it wasn't intended to be static?

I wouldn't suggest anybody not support it for that reason. I don't support it because I am a student of Lysander Spooner, who believed it to be a "constitution of no authority" because without the people to enforce it, it is powerless to stop the expansion of government beyond its means.

I also don't support it because I recognize that the vagueness of the language allows the federal government to be near limitless in power. Even Jefferson recognized this, as he suggested we have a new revolution and constitution every twenty years.

Green Arrow
03-28-2014, 06:35 AM
This would cause one to assume that Romney was a conservative! It would be better to say the Republicans advocated for it first!

Romney didn't craft his prelude to Obamacare until 2006. It was the Heritage Foundation in 1989 that put America on the path to an individual mandate. They created the idea as an alternative to the single-payer healthcare the Democrats were putting forward.

Green Arrow
03-28-2014, 06:36 AM
Rather than considering who supports what, consider what the policy itself entails. If you take intervention in the economy to purse social equality as a left leaning policy, it's clear that the individual mandate is left wing.

Single-payer is left-wing healthcare. The individual mandate is right-wing in that it helps fill the coffers of big business.

texan
03-28-2014, 08:25 AM
Whatever the GOP does, they better not waste their time, because the Elderly don't have much of it.

They're not exactly the Future of The Republican Party :old::grampa::smiley_ROFLMAO:

Wait until you see the dip in young dem participation when the cool black man's hope & change term ends and Hillary or Joe or whomever old person becomes the candidate.

KC
03-28-2014, 11:41 AM
Single-payer is left-wing healthcare. The individual mandate is right-wing in that it helps fill the coffers of big business.

I think of left vs right more as control vs. freedom.The left wants more economic control, the right more economic freedom.

Green Arrow
03-28-2014, 11:57 AM
I think of left vs right more as control vs. freedom.The left wants more economic control, the right more economic freedom.

Leftists like Bakunin were opposed to control of any type. Social conservatives are all about social control. It's a lot simpler if we just stick to the academic definition: right-wing advocates capitalism in all its forms, left-wing advocates socialism in all its forms.

nathanbforrest45
03-28-2014, 12:10 PM
Hopefully not me. I don't want any part of that elderly stuff.

You have to do like I do. This year I will celebrate the 50th anniversary of my 20th birthday

nathanbforrest45
03-28-2014, 12:15 PM
I changed to conservative once I understood government when I was about 40. By 42 I voted for republicans.

If kids truly understood government, they would never vote for democrats. EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Undercover FBI Agent Reveals Senator Leland Yee’s Alleged Ties to Gun Traffickers, Muslim Rebels, And Russian Arms ... (http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApNPToAl2zjdNw_nYMDmmjybvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTJnN3R kMWg1BGJwb3MDMQRjY29kZQNnYQRjcG9zAzE3BGN0AzEEaW50b AN1cwRwa2d0AzMEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3RkLXN0cm0Ec2xrA3RpdGx lBHRlc3QDOTAx/RV=1/RE=1397090397/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RO=2/RU=aHR0cDovL3NhbmZyYW5jaXNjby5jYnNsb2NhbC5jb20vMjA xNC8wMy8yNi91bmRlcmNvdmVyLWZiaS1hZ2VudC1yZXZlYWxzL XNlbmF0b3ItbGVsYW5kLXllZXMtYWxsZWdlZC10aWVzLXRvLWd 1bi10cmFmZmlja2Vycy1tdXNsaW0tcmViZWxzLWFuZC1ydXNza WFuLWFybXMtc3VwcGxpZXJzLWluLWZlZGVyYWwtY2FzZS8-/RS=^ADAW.Lh2d_dJSzxYrvgJVLnGcdEwUA-)

An undercover FBI agent known as "UCE 4599" in the federal criminal complaint unsealed Wednesday reveals 137 pages of evidence in a years-long investigation leading to the arrest of State Senator Leland Yee on charges related his alleged roles in money laundering, arms dealing, and his close association with suspects in a murder for hire plot.

CBS San Francisco


Interestingly, it does not state that the Esteemed Senator Lee is a a Democrat.

nathanbforrest45
03-28-2014, 12:19 PM
I would say the individual mandate is a fairly significant departure to the left.


I also see the "Imperial Presidency" as somewhat different than anything Mr. Bush did.

nathanbforrest45
03-28-2014, 12:22 PM
I have redefined nothing. The definition you presented is correct. Your interpretation of it earlier was not. The constitution was never intended to be a static document. Under your interpretation of "conservatism," it stays static.

If the meaning of the Constitution can be changed because of the current conventional wisdom IT IS just a piece of paper with no true meaning.

Ravi
03-28-2014, 12:34 PM
The democrats might be pleasantly surprised to find out how many millennials have shifted to the Republican side too. You know, the ones Obama is trying to shake down?
You are incorrect.

Young Americans' Affinity for Democratic Party Has Grown Majority have consistently aligned with Democratic Party since 2006 by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- Young adults -- those between the ages of 18 and 29 -- have typically aligned themselves with the Democratic Party, but they have become substantially more likely to do so since 2006.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168125/young-americans-affinity-democratic-party-grown.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

Green Arrow
03-28-2014, 12:37 PM
If the meaning of the Constitution can be changed because of the current conventional wisdom IT IS just a piece of paper with no true meaning.

I do not believe in changing the constitution except by amendment or revolution.

KC
03-28-2014, 01:27 PM
Leftists like Bakunin were opposed to control of any type. Social conservatives are all about social control. It's a lot simpler if we just stick to the academic definition: right-wing advocates capitalism in all its forms, left-wing advocates socialism in all its forms.

Bakunin was a left anarchist. Entirely different from a standard American liberal.

You can think of political philosophy however you prefer, I prefer to think of it this way:

http://wmbriggs.com/pics/nolan_chart.png

Green Arrow
03-28-2014, 01:33 PM
Bakunin was a left anarchist. Entirely different from a standard American liberal.

You can think of political philosophy however you prefer, I prefer to think of it this way:

http://wmbriggs.com/pics/nolan_chart.png

That is how I think of it, lol.

KC
03-28-2014, 01:34 PM
That is how I think of it, lol.

Then wouldn't the individual mandate be advocating less economic freedom? Several parts of Obamacare limit the economic freedom of both individuals and corporations. It's left wing crony capitalism.

Green Arrow
03-28-2014, 01:40 PM
Then wouldn't the individual mandate be advocating less economic freedom? Several parts of Obamacare limit the economic freedom of both individuals and corporations. It's left wing crony capitalism.

As your own chart shows, socialism is left-wing. Socialism and capitalism are incompatible, so "left-wing crony capitalism" is an oxymoron. At best, you could say it's centrist.

KC
03-28-2014, 01:46 PM
As your own chart shows, socialism is left-wing. Socialism and capitalism are incompatible, so "left-wing crony capitalism" is an oxymoron. At best, you could say it's centrist.

Crony capitalism mixes socialism and capitalism. Socialism is incompatible with free market capitalism . Crony capitalism is where the government intervenes in the economy on the behalf of special private interests in the economy.

Green Arrow
03-28-2014, 01:48 PM
Crony capitalism mixes socialism and capitalism. Socialism is incompatible with free market capitalism . Crony capitalism is where the government intervenes in the economy on the behalf of special private interests in the economy.

In what way?

KC
03-28-2014, 01:52 PM
In what way?

Because while ownership of property (mostly) remains private, central planners attempt to control the economy in order to produce a set of social results. It's unlike either a socialist or a free market system.

texan
03-28-2014, 02:50 PM
Obama was great at being cool and making speeches.........The young people loved that never mind that he is a BS artist. Never mind he screwed them on most of his promises. Never mind Never mind Never mind.................... we took over a tough job! It's somebody else's fault.

Dr. Strangelove
03-29-2014, 10:42 AM
Let us not forget the majority masses of Republican/Conservative Evangelicals that will be
coming out it droves for this year's mid term election and for all elections that follow. Lets
face it, with close to 75% of the American people claiming to be Christian, and with the
democrap disregard for religion, human life and GOD himself, chances will hover around
100% that Republicans will carry most of the Evangelical vote along with the hearts of the
majority of Americans.

Did you see where the POPE has a favorability and or job approval rating around 85%
whereas that clown obama has a rating somewhere around 40%?

That's because the Pope is a true liberal humanitarian,
And Maobama is just a liberal POSER, and is more like Bush.

He works for the Globalist New World Order, like every POTUS since JFK

Dr. Strangelove
03-29-2014, 10:50 AM
This would cause one to assume that Romney was a conservative! It would be better to say the Republicans advocated for it first!

Then the Republicans rejected it, because Obama put the Dem stamp on it. Complete hypocrisy!

We really need to get away from these labels of liberal & conservative, as the true meaning has become lost, and it only serves to frame our arguments into the false dichotomy of the two party farce, which only serves the Globalists main agenda to divide, conquer and destroy us!