Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have:
With ANTIFA and MS-13 as friends and allies you do not need enemies. The RICO trials of D complicity in the crimes of their para-military arms will become epic if Trump continues to campaign for populist Conservatives.
The illegal butterfly ballot that made the 2000 election so contentious led to legislation that, if enforced, will basically dismember the Democratic party as a national party. Sessions intends to enforce those laws.
Are there other major problems I missed?
Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have....Are there other major problems I missed?
I really don't know. I can see that a lot of what you missed is credible substantiation of your assertion that there are voting rolls "filling up" with non-citizens. Of course, I realize why you missed that: while there is plenty of conjecture about the matter,
not one state that's examined its voter participation has found that ineligible individuals in anything resembling material quantities voted in any presidential election.
Also, it's strange that Trump supporters and other Republicans even advance the notion of rampant fraudulent voting insofar as they have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of the past two or three elections.
If there's rampant voter fraud, it's benefitting Republicans!
Aside from the partisan back and fourth about voter fraud, your graphic brings up a FAR greater political issue: the division of the nation into an ever increasing divide over politics. The image shows an ever decreasing dialogue in politics in general as people become more 'sorted' with those that agree with them.
To the extent you mean "policy" rather than politics, I agree with you. As best as I can tell, there's been no decrease in political dialogue. Indeed, I think there's too much political, political posturing and political strategy chatter and not nearly enough about the policy.
- Politics/political discourse --> statements made to market policy ideas and/or secure political superiority with regard to party representation in government and among the electorate
- Policy discourse --> conversation about the actual (as supported by sound research, rather than speculated) merits and demerits of a policy.
I actually disagree in the political discourse. Policy discourse is severely lacking, yes, but political
discourse is as well. We longer have a discourse - what we have are echo chambers. It has become more of a mud slinging argument rather than an actual meaningful debate.
There is more discussion about how horrible the other side is between their own members than there actually is discussion with the other side. See Hillary for a wonderful example of this.
Policy discourse is severely lacking, yes, but political discourse is as well. We longer have a discourse - what we have are echo chambers.
Okay....I understand what you mean. I agree with you. People do indeed spend too much oral energy "echoing." They also, instead of conversing with one another, talk at one another.
I have my own opinion of what those things be, but the short of them boils down to the emergence of platforms like Facebook and Twitter giving voice to people who never before had one, and having that voice, they construe themselves and their expressed notions as having the merit equal in merit to those of people who have always had a voice. That just isn't so, no matter how much one may think it so.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
The ideas of "the average man on the street" quite simply are not borne from, thus do not have, the assiduousness of, say, those of James Baldwin, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and others, but Twitter, Facebook, and venues like USMB feed the bias confirming popularity, thereby serving for many to reinforce the comforting illusion that their "theories" aren't as "looney tunes" as they may once have humbly surmised. The reality is that their notions are indeed absurd and that many other folks merely share those the same inane notions. David Copperfield, Penn & Teller, and others are great illusionists, but, truth be told, FB, Twitter and public forums are the real and best magicians in modern society.
Aside:
