Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 06-19-2017, 10:15 AM
 
5,722 posts, read 5,783,197 times
Reputation: 4381

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
LOL! You're claiming that rural whites would have voted for Hillary, but once they found out that urban voters were "smug and arrogant" they decided to vote for Trump. Yeah, right.

If only urbanites would be "humble" then all the rednecks and conspiracy theorists and white nationalists would have come running to Hillary. Because, obviously people in West Virginia and Alabama are voting based on their impressions of people living in Manhattan. Yeah, sounds plausible...

And, even crazier, they don't like "smug, confrontational, arrogant urbanites" according to you, so decided to vote for Donald Trump, a "smug, confrontational arrogant urbanite" from NYC no less. Makes total sense...
They don't like you I know that much and you're viewed as the stereotypical Hillary supporter. By all means, keep posting and adding to the mounds of evidence.

WV supported Sanders so they're apparently smarter than you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2017, 10:16 AM
 
29,394 posts, read 9,580,575 times
Reputation: 3441
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
We have all heard liberals claim that blue states support the red ones. I also find it strange that a person would brag about thier income by stating what tax bracket they hit. I guess that is very revealing about how you view government, you must enjoy giving away tens of thousands of dollars to wasteful bureaucrats. Don't you want to keep the money you earn?

The high income in liberal cities does not mean what you think it does with respect to how things will play out. Just because people in San Francisco and Boston make big paychecks does not mean they will control the nation, heck those people spend most of that "big paycheck" on taxes and high cost of living. In many cases a guy working in a small factory in Arkansas will live better than some professional people in SF or NYC because of cost of living. Also the cities having more wealth on paper means nothing if our differences come to violence in this nation. Rural red state America is better armed, tougher and more prepared for a conflict. Also it is often true that the winners of a civil war or revolution are the ones who control the countryside. Another fact is that our military is made up of men and women largely from red states and those bases are in red states. Liberal urban money cannot undo these conservative advantages if our differences ever come to violence. The liberal dream of disarming us and taking away our free speech ( enforcement of political correctness by law) will trigger violence, which IMO the left would lose quickly. The best course of action for all Americans is to respect the constitution and avoid a conflict like that.
This is the sort of comment that always reminds me how confused we are about reality, what the other side thinks, who we are and who they are...

First, you don't seem to understand what is meant when the FACT is provided with regard to which states are net tax contributors and which are not. Apparently you are doubtful or find this "strange." Instead, why not look it up?!?

Second, income and the tax paid by wealthier Americans tells a story far beyond the short summary you seem to know. I doubt anyone "enjoys" paying taxes, but the other side of that coin that conservatives never seem to include is the what happens when taxes aren't collected (due to lower incomes, economic downturns, reduced property values). Again there is much more to this story too!

Third, a high or low cost of living often goes hand-in-hand with high or low economic opportunity, more or less desirable area, quality of life, weather, access to better education. "Different strokes for different folks" of course, but most people will generally choose the higher paying job in San Francisco over the lower paying job in an Arkansas factory, if they had that choice and all other factors considered equal.

Fourth, "rural red state America is better armed?" California has over 33,000,000 guns registered in the state. Not sure where you live, but do you really want to go there...?

I could go on, but again I am reminded of the futility trying to infuse facts and reason in the void of what otherwise people adopt as their own personal notions regardless of reality. Please have mercy...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
9,448 posts, read 10,747,303 times
Reputation: 15921
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
I make the point about my income - which is in the upper few percent nationally - precisely to counter your narrative that people in the "liberal" cities are socialist parasites. I work a lot of hours and I earn my way, and so do most others around me. I keep plenty of money, but I also don't oppose a social safety net on principle. I would like to see comprehensive healthcare, and I'm not afraid of that sort of "socialism."

I and other liberals are as much American capitalists as anyone. Only difference compared to you is: (1) we're fine with gay people, different ethnicities around us, etc. (2) we're fine with paying for certain public services if we get a say in how they work and share in the benefits.

When you can't win an argument, resorting to " we'll kill you all when the war starts" usually is how it goes. My point is simply that all the economic generators of the 21st century - Technology (Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, on and on), Finance, Biotech, Pharma, Aerospace - they're ALL in critical mass around the coasts, I.e. the "liberal" areas. You are mistaken in thinking that we're all leeches who are looking forward to the advent of Marxism. And inevitably, those who generate the economic growth WILL have an outsized effect on shaping our future - not necessarily just at the polls. Threatening us with violence is not going to change that dynamic.
I never denied the fact that powerful corporate money is concentrated in the cities. That has been true throughout our history. This conflict between rural people and the city is not new either. Elections of the late 19th century often had a rural western and southern American vs "eastern elitism" component to them. Nothing new again. However the idea that liberal urbanites push that they are all better educated and support us poor saps in red state America is simply not true. For one all your food and goods are largely made in those red states y'all hate so much. That is an undeniable fact. If those goods, especially food ever stopped moving into the cities then your cities would soon understand how they really do depend on us, not just on farmers but truck drivers, oil workers, coal miners, etc. Those "deplorables" make your life possible. Another thing to remember is that not all your people in those cities are as privileged as you claim to be. I have been to every large city in America nearly and have see ALOT of poverty and criminal type folks there. In spite of liberal claims we suck up all the welfare I see a lot of folks collecting something from the government in these cities. Maybe the focus of these urban liberal elites should be thier own neighbors instead of attempting to force thier view on all the nation.

My comments about what would happen if war starts may sound like I can't win an argument to you, however I believe it should be taken as a general statement of what is likely to happen if you push us too far. When you impose socialism on us like Obamacare, when far away courts order we marry gays against our values and religious belief, when you threaten to curb or eliminate our freedom to keep and bear arms or to speak openly you do risk pushing us toward a civil war. I do not believe the left can win a civil war, and I do believe it would destroy the prosperity for all of us for a generation. We would end up separate and weaker as two or more nations, maybe forever. We should all want to avoid such things. All we want is our rights respected, we don't want to interfere with what you do up there. In short leave us be and we will leave you be. Our constitution was set up with the states having the power they do in order to prevent one region using federal power to strongarm another. Our founding fathers knew that sort of thing would wreck the nation, why don't liberals know this? We could remain a big happy union if we just respect each other's rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 10:30 AM
 
17,273 posts, read 9,510,115 times
Reputation: 16468
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
I never denied the fact that powerful corporate money is concentrated in the cities. That has been true throughout our history. This conflict between rural people and the city is not new either. Elections of the late 19th century often had a rural western and southern American vs "eastern elitism" component to them. Nothing new again. However the idea that liberal urbanites push that they are all better educated and support us poor saps in red state America is simply not true. For one all your food and goods are largely made in those red states y'all hate so much. That is an undeniable fact. If those goods, especially food ever stopped moving into the cities then your cities would soon understand how they really do depend on us, not just on farmers but truck drivers, oil workers, coal miners, etc. Those "deplorables" make your life possible. Another thing to remember is that not all your people in those cities are as privileged as you claim to be. I have been to every large city in America nearly and have see ALOT of poverty and criminal type folks there. In spite of liberal claims we suck up all the welfare I see a lot of folks collecting something from the government in these cities. Maybe the focus of these urban liberal elites should be thier own neighbors instead of attempting to force thier view on all the nation.

My comments about what would happen if war starts may sound like I can't win an argument to you, however I believe it should be taken as a general statement of what is likely to happen if you push us too far. When you impose socialism on us like Obamacare, when far away courts order we marry gays against our values and religious belief, when you threaten to curb or eliminate our freedom to keep and bear arms or to speak openly you do risk pushing us toward a civil war. I do not believe the left can win a civil war, and I do believe it would destroy the prosperity for all of us for a generation. We would end up separate and weaker as two or more nations, maybe forever. We should all want to avoid such things. All we want is our rights respected, we don't want to interfere with what you do up there. In short leave us be and we will leave you be. Our constitution was set up with the states having the power they do in order to prevent one region using federal power to strongarm another. Our founding fathers knew that sort of thing would wreck the nation, why don't liberals know this? We could remain a big happy union if we just respect each other's rights.
God, you're just so persecuted. Poor dear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 10:36 AM
 
29,394 posts, read 9,580,575 times
Reputation: 3441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I've been saying for years that the cultural divide in this country, and every other country, is between the cities and the countryside.
And you've been right to note this historical fact that has been a well documented reality for a good long time now...

Urbanization is not merely a modern phenomenon, but a rapid and historic transformation of human social roots on a global scale, whereby predominantly rural culture is being rapidly replaced by predominantly urban culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 10:36 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,942 posts, read 22,438,904 times
Reputation: 25806
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76 View Post
They don't like you I know that much and you're viewed as the stereotypical Hillary supporter. By all means, keep posting and adding to the mounds of evidence.

WV supported Sanders so they're apparently smarter than you.
WV supported Sanders in the primary but went for Trump in a very big way largely because he lied to them about 'bring back coal".

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile View Post
God, you're just so persecuted. Poor dear.
They always see themselves as the perpetual victim which is why they identify so closely with Trump. A man who wakes up to sit on a gold toilet every morning sees himself as a victim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 10:37 AM
 
5,913 posts, read 3,171,988 times
Reputation: 4397
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76 View Post
You're assuming they want to or need to. A truck driver makes as much as someone with a bachelor's degree but they won't show up as educated on govt stats because it's only like a 6 month program to get a CDL.

The colleges are all for profit and they love the kool-ade drinkers like you that helped them infiltrate all of the high schools and brainwash the kids into going into debt for 60k.

The biggest thing the schools ever did was get you to drink the Kool-ade and help them pad their endowments by brainwashing kids to go into debt for them.
Oh, wow. Higher education is not for everyone. That is a given.

I know this is not what you are stating but you bring up an important point. Education is out of reach for many due to high cost. Do we really want to live in a country where only the wealthy are afforded an education? Right now, many do not have a choice.

Earlier this year, New York state started offering free education for their public universities when income is below a certain threshold. That is a start but not enough. For further reading on this: New York becomes first state to offer free four-year college tuition | PBS NewsHour

I do not know what this 'kool-ade' <sic> is exactly. Colleges are not all for profit. Where are you receiving this information? Sounds like propaganda. There certainly are for profit colleges. The education is poor and degrees from such places will not be taken seriously.

In closing, education is not about funding endowments and brainwashing. I'm sorry to read that this is what education means to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 10:40 AM
 
2,295 posts, read 2,360,518 times
Reputation: 2668
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
LOL! You're claiming that rural whites would have voted for Hillary, but once they found out that urban voters were "smug and arrogant" they decided to vote for Trump. Yeah, right.

If only urbanites would be "humble" then all the rednecks and conspiracy theorists and white nationalists would have come running to Hillary. Because, obviously people in West Virginia and Alabama are voting based on their impressions of people living in Manhattan. Yeah, sounds plausible...

And, even crazier, they don't like "smug, confrontational, arrogant urbanites" according to you, so decided to vote for Donald Trump, a "smug, confrontational arrogant urbanite" from NYC no less. Makes total sense...
Wow. That's quite an expansion on what I actually said.

No, rural voters did not change their votes based on what urban voters were doing. In rust belt states, rural voters changed their votes based on the larger movement of the Democrat party away from their values and interests, and more to those shared with the urban voters.

Your use of the terms rednecks, conspiracy theorists, and white nationalists in reference to rural voters is exactly the arrogance that I mentioned. Not all that opposed Obama did so based on racial bias. Not all that opted not to vote for Clinton did so based on inherent misogyny. It is entirely possible to disagree with a person solely based on their political views, and not based on any element of identity politics, which the left uses above anything else. This is precisely why these rural voters, especially in northern rust belt states felt alienated. They hada Democrat party that no longer represented them, but rather represented only the two coasts. They've been marginalized as fly-over country. When Democrats were in power, nothing was done to better their collective condition. When they communicated their concerns, or their disagreement, they were silenced by being marginalized using the small minded language you seem so compelled to use.

Again, they don't have anything against people from larger cities. They do have something against people, and a political party ignoring their plight, ridiculing their concerns, and what they value, and silencing them when they try to voice their concerns.

For clarification, my use of "your ilk" did not refer to those living in large cities, but rather the smug, arrogant, and more outspoken members of the left that are compelled to dismiss and ridicule anyone with views that differ even slightly from their own. In fairness, it's worked well for your ilk in the two previous elections. This election should have been a wake up call that marginalizing half of the electorate was no longer working, but apparently, you've not yet gleaned that from the results. By all means, please continue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 10:43 AM
 
29,394 posts, read 9,580,575 times
Reputation: 3441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The countryside is for small government, the cities are not. Mainly because the cities couldn't exist without big government. They are dependent on their survival from a constant import of food, commodities, and goods produced elsewhere. Many/most of the people who live in the cities would literally starve to death without either a government handout, or a government paycheck. While the countryside is more-or-less sufficient unto itself(or easily could be).
Mostly true, but this in bold mostly nonsense. Doesn't take too long a tour through too many poor rural areas to see that not only is distribution of food (healthy food) an issue, but other important factors like health care, education, clean water, shelter, etc.

"Rural residents are more likely to experience some of the contributing social factors that impact health, such as poverty. The impact of these challenges can be compounded by the barriers already present in rural areas, such as limited public transportation options and fewer choices to acquire healthy food."

https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topi...ants-of-health

"The grass is NOT always altogether greener" on the rural side of the tracks...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 10:45 AM
 
19,462 posts, read 12,098,970 times
Reputation: 26214
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM117 View Post
People with attitudes like yours played a big role in getting a jackass elected president. Since the cities are so successful, why the need to s**t on rural areas and the people that live there 24/7? I spent most of my life living in rural areas and while there's no denying that a lot of rural areas have problems (which often get ignored), you post is the equivalent of kicking someone while they're down.

Instead of stereotyping and bashing rural Americans, how about big city people like you actually set foot in rural areas and understand the problems and why the problems are there in the first place and help come up with some goddamn solutions? The only solution I've ever heard over the years is "move to the urban areas". That doesn't always work because of the astronomical cost of living in the cities.

BTW, I lean slightly left of center. Shocking, isn't it?
I agree, and it has to be simply because rural people skew more conservative. Poor urban people have the same problems but you don't hear the vitriol and over simplified so-called solutions tossed at them. They vote in line with liberals generally so they are ok. It is simply mean to kick your fellow citizens when they are down.
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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top