U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-21-2017, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,580 posts, read 3,992,169 times
Reputation: 2906

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
Exactly.

Like I mentioned earlier, I live in small town Tennessee. We're far, far more like Rust Belt Ohio than we are like Nashville or Knoxville.

A lot of these problems aren't necessarily political in nature. We're a heavy manufacturing area, and largely failed to diversify. Heavy industry has taken it on the chin all throughout the country over the past years and decades. Adjacent southwest Virginia was also dependent on mining. That's all but gone too. The only city in the area that is doing decently is Johnson City - it was never as dependent on heavy industry, and is the HQ of a major health system and a fairly large university.

Unless you're associated with the medical systems, government (including education), or the one F500 HQ, there is almost no decent employment here. Native born kids growing up basically have to move off to find work after college. What are you left with? A lower performing, lower achieving "underclass" that isn't equipped (and perhaps not even trainable) for the jobs of the future. Companies aren't going to locate in an area with a poorly skilled labor force. A poorly skilled labor force isn't going to generate businesses organically. This is a chicken-and-egg kind of deal where areas get caught in a tailspin.

A lot of people seem to turn to drugs when there isn't much hope that tomorrow will be better than today.

Not all red areas are like this. I lived in the most affluent city in Indiana for about three years. Jobs are plentiful. Wages are high. Schools are good. Everything this area isn't, but both are Republican.
Not every voter in rural areas of Tenn are Republican voters, and good chance drug addicts don't even show up to vote. It doesn't sound like you have any evidence that drug addicts are voting heavily for Republican. Drug addicts are a small percentage of the population.

You haven't explained why drugs addicts would be attracted to Trump and/or GOP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2017, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,580 posts, read 3,992,169 times
Reputation: 2906
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
We're not talking presidential elections, but more state and local politics; as some presidents can be unifiers, but it's rare
People vote on the issues, not in reaction to what other people do in another region of the country, and there are Democrats in the south living in the south, and Republicans living in the north
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
18,910 posts, read 6,844,411 times
Reputation: 5837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
People vote on the issues, not in reaction to what other people do in another region of the country, and there are Democrats in the south living in the south, and Republicans living in the north
I don't buy it, otherwise, why did the Solid South go from being solid Democrat to solid Republican right after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act both passed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,580 posts, read 3,992,169 times
Reputation: 2906
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
I don't buy it, otherwise, why did the Solid South go from being solid Democrat to solid Republican right after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act both passed?
Why would white racists vote for Nixon, a politician who supported civil rights? Nixon won the north and western states as well.

Your premise seems to that for people in the south, life revolves around what people do in the north.

Transplants moving into the south from the north is why it started to shift to GOP, plus issues like abortion and gun control became big issues and they weren't big issues back in the day.

As the south became more educated and middle class as transplants moved in, and less racist, it shifted to the GOP.

The Civil RIghts Act of 1964 was filibustered by two Democrats, Al Gore's father, and Robert Byrd, who was a top guy in the KKK at one point. Neither of them switched parties.

Last edited by ClemVegas; 11-21-2017 at 01:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
18,910 posts, read 6,844,411 times
Reputation: 5837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
Why would white racists vote for Nixon, a politician who supported civil rights? Nixon won the north and western states as well.

Your premise seems to that for people in the south, life revolves around what people do in the north.

Transplants moving into the south from the north is why it started to shift to GOP, plus issues like abortion and gun control became big issues and they weren't big issues back in the day.

As the south became more educated and middle class as transplants moved in, and less racist, it shifted to the GOP.

The Civil RIghts Act of 1964 was filibustered by two Democrats, Al Gore's father, and Robert Byrd, who was a top guy in the KKK at one point. Neither of them switched parties.
You guys keep bringing up Robert Byrd; while ignoring the fact that he apologized for his past and did become more socially liberal in his voting record in later years.

And btw, the final vote tally for the Civil Rights Act was 335-85 in the house with 152 yes votes from the Democrats against 96 no votes, or 61% of the house Democratic vote. So nice try there

And for the 96 Democratic no votes: 92 of them came from Southern states.👍

AND, of the 152 yes votes from Democrats, 141 of them were from northern democrats👍

In the Senate, the vote was 73-27, with 46 of the yes votes coming from Democrats, of the 21 Democrat no votes, all of the southern Democrats senators voted no👍👍

Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,580 posts, read 3,992,169 times
Reputation: 2906
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
You guys keep bringing up Robert Byrd; while ignoring the fact that he apologized for his past and did become more socially liberal in his voting record in later years.

And btw, the final vote tally for the Civil Rights Act was 335-85 in the house with 152 yes votes from the Democrats against 96 no votes, or 61% of the house Democratic vote. So nice try there

And for the 96 Democratic no votes: 92 of them came from Southern states.��

In the Senate, the vote was 73-27, with 46 of the yes votes coming from Democrats, of the 21 Democrat no votes, all of the southern Democrats senators voted no����

Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining!
I've never denied most of the segregationists were from the south. BUt they were all Democrats. And only one of them switched to the GOP, which contradicts your theory about a 'Big Switch'.

I'm not sure what Byrd's social liberalism has to do with anything. You define liberalism as not racist, and conservativism as racist, because you are a liberal partisan who wants to sweep away your party's horrible racist history. Those aren't the real definitions. No conservative agrees with your definition of social conservatism as including racism. Both liberals and conservatives can be racist.

Racism in our country has been associated with fiscally liberal blue collar voters who supported FDR New Deal type of politics. The issues associated with modern social conservatism like gun rights and pro-life were not even issues back in those racist days.

You can't make people in the south who voted for FDR out to be conservatives. FDR was one of the most liberal presidents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Jackson, Mississippi
204 posts, read 162,616 times
Reputation: 255
Default Blueamerica Redamerica

Blueamerica:

Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Vermont
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
Ohio
Michigan
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Florida
Colorado
New Mexico
Nevada
California
Oregon
Washington
Hawaii


Redamerica:

Virginia
West Virginia
Kentucky
Indiana
North Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
Tennessee
Louisiana
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Missouri
Iowa
Nebraska
South Dakota
North Dakota
Kansas
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
Alaska
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
18,910 posts, read 6,844,411 times
Reputation: 5837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
I've never denied most of the segregationists were from the south. BUt they were all Democrats. And only one of them switched to the GOP, which contradicts your theory about a 'Big Switch'.

I'm not sure what Byrd's social liberalism has to do with anything. You define liberalism as not racist, and conservativism as racist, because you are a liberal partisan who wants to sweep away your party's horrible racist history. Those aren't the real definitions. No conservative agrees with your definition of social conservatism as including racism. Both liberals and conservatives can be racist.

Racism in our country has been associated with fiscally liberal blue collar voters who supported FDR New Deal type of politics. The issues associated with modern social conservatism like gun rights and pro-life were not even issues back in those racist days.

You can't make people in the south who voted for FDR out to be conservatives. FDR was one of the most liberal presidents.
Just stop, you're being disingenuous. And you obviously missed that almost every single northern Democrat voted for the Civil Rights Act, 141-4
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,580 posts, read 3,992,169 times
Reputation: 2906
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Just stop, you're being disingenuous. And you obviously missed that almost every single northern Democrat voted for the Civil Rights Act, 141-4
That doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party was the party of slavery and segregation, and the southerner segregationists did not switch except for Strom Thurmond. He switched b/ cof his support of lower taxes and anti-Communist foreign policy.

I never said that every Democrat was a racist. All of the racist policies in this country were pushed by the Democratic party though. That's a fact. The party did start to fragment on the race issues in the 1960s. I understand that.

As the south became more populated, educated and middle class, and less racist, it switched to the GOP. This fact contradicts the attempts by partisans on here to associate GOP voters with racism, poverty, drug addicts etc. Trump won the majority of college educated white voters, yet partisans have asserted on this thread that Democrat voters are more educated, and tried to paint Trump voters as unemployed drug addicts. They can't provide any specific reason why drug addicts would as a group be more inclined to vote for Trump.

What is disengenuous is the implication that white racists switched to GOP in the 1960s after the civil rights acts.

As noted scholar Dinesh D'souza points out, that is like asserting cops and robbers just decided to switch sides. It doesn't make any sense. It would like be like pro-life people all of a sudden switching to Democratic party and pro choice people all of a sudden switching to Republican party.

Last edited by ClemVegas; 11-21-2017 at 03:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
18,910 posts, read 6,844,411 times
Reputation: 5837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
That doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party was the party of slavery and segregation, and the southerner segregationists did not switch except for Strom Thurmond. He switched b/ cof his support of lower taxes and anti-Communist foreign policy.

I never said that every Democrat was a racist. All of the racist policies in this country were pushed by the Democratic party though. That's a fact. The party did start to fragment on the race issues in the 1960s. I understand that.

As the south became more populated, educated and middle class, and less racist, it switched to the GOP. This fact contradicts the attempts by partisans on here to associate GOP voters with racism, poverty, drug addicts etc. Trump won the majority of college educated white voters, yet partisans have asserted on this thread that Democrat voters are more educated, and tried to paint Trump voters as unemployed drug addicts. They can't provide any specific reason why drug addicts would as a group be more inclined to vote for Trump.

What is disengenuous is the implication that white racists switched to GOP in the 1960s after the civil rights acts.

As noted scholar Dinesh D'souza points out, that is like asserting cops and robbers just decided to switch sides. It doesn't make any sense. It would like be like pro-life people all of a sudden switching to Democratic party and pro choice people all of a sudden switching to Republican party.
Noted scholar Dinesh D'Souza...

More like convicted criminal Dinesh D'Souza

D'Souza and you are both full of $#!+

And your analogies are disingenuous. If the Republicans of today are the educated one's, then why are the tech hubs in the Bay Area and Seattle? And why is the biggest group of Fortune 500's and the hub of the financial industry in New York City?

Why aren't Memphis and Jackson and Savannah the educated business hubs of the country?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top