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.
Where are these areas of diversity exactly? Are you talking areas the size of cities? Where people from one neighborhood to the next have almost zero interaction with each other? And only live near each other because they need to be close to where they work? And if they didn't need to earn a living, they would much prefer to live somewhere else? And the moment they don't need to work anymore, they get up and leave?
This utopian fairytale-land of your imagination doesn't actually exist.
Liberals don't live in diverse/poor areas. They live in the rich and safe parts of town. Surrounded by people just like them. With fences and gates, and security guards.
If they live in diverse areas at all, they live there only when young and childless. The moment they have children, they leave. You can't raise children in that kind of environment.
True? I know at least one conservative who lives in a wealthy gated community. No wait, two! Maybe they are the exception...
Or maybe one's political leaning is not necessarily a function of wealth?
Could be, though it does seem conservatives are more inclined to fight progressive ideas about who should pay what tax rates to further preserve that status quo of rich getting richer while everyone else struggles to stay above water, bickering all the while over immigrants and great walls...
I've lived in a lot of places. People like to talk about diversity, and they like to go see diversity, but they don't like to live diversity. Especially if they aren't single with no children.
Diverse areas are always the worst parts of any town. What sane person would want to live there? And who would send their kids to those schools? That is child abuse.
Only delusional people and political activists would do such a thing.
I've lived in what are considered some of the most diverse parts of the country. In Hawaii, where I lived for four years, I was even a minority! A result of being a "Haole" (white person).
Okay, not the same as living in Oakland like my two adult kids do, but also very diverse. Not to get into further specifics, but I have lived and worked in "diverse" areas if predominantly black is what we're referring to. I've walked streets close to home that weren't considered safe (clean or pretty), but I won't try to suggest I've had many relationships that crossed the race divide. Some but not as many as a truly segregated society might better allow.
I am not one of these people you describe in any case, because I very much like and prefer diversity. Maybe because my parents are immigrants and maybe because I have had the chance to travel and see how wonderful different people from different parts of the world can be. I don't know, but also of course I know about the people you are referring to, sadly.
There are many Americans who simply cannot understand or appreciate people who look, sound and smell different than they do, all too often associating those poor crime-ridden areas with immigrants and blacks as if immigrants and blacks are by definition poor and criminal, as if immigrants and blacks are not also among more educated, wealthy and tolerant groups of people (even if still not enough).
In any case, don't lump me in with everyone else you want to rail about as if all people, liberal or not, are the same. Also not true!
Larger cities tend to lean more blue statistically speaking. That's not a matter of opinion. That's fact.
But as I said, blue means democrat, not liberal, or tolerant, or anything else.
What is your point in saying that cities are blue, if blue doesn't actually mean anything? Cities like El Paso and Brownsville are blue for a completely different reason than San Francisco. The democrats from sanctuary cities in inland California, think the democrats from coastal California are a bunch of shallow, materialistic degenerates.
The alliance between these groups is cynical and temporary. They are not friends. They are not a community. And the moment they no longer share a common interest, they would themselves become enemies.
It is true that most liberals vote democrat. And that, pro-tolerance people tend to vote democrat. But from that you cannot claim that democrats are tolerant. Any more than you can claim that Republicans are pro-small government or pro-freedom, simply because people who support those things vote for them, or even if they often espouse that rhetoric.
Each political party is a coalition of all kinds of people. And most of the groups within each political party, actually despise each other. There is no love between a libertarian and a neoconservative. And there is no love between most democratic special-interests either.
Mexicans are not tolerant, nor are they racially inclusive. In fact, the least-racist racial group, is white people.
Minorities vote for democrats for the exact same reason they live in cities. That is where the money is.
And they would turn their backs on the fruitcakes of the democratic party the second there was more money somewhere else.
They do not like you. I do not like you. Most of the people in this country, do not like you. Don't delude yourself into believing otherwise.
But as I said, blue means democrat, not liberal, or tolerant, or anything else.
What is your point in saying that cities are blue, if blue doesn't actually mean anything?
Again I think we are getting tripped up with definitions, semantics...
Blue means largely Democrats. Democrats are more liberal than Republicans as just about all Democrats and Republicans will confirm.
All per the more customary definitions and understanding that is generally assumed when talking politics in America.
If/when you/we choose to "muddy the waters" with all manner of alternative versions of these generalities, or if you/we want to get into all exceptions to these definitions that generally govern common understanding of these terms, blue/red state representations, then we are best to not use these terms in the first place.
My point was and still is that "people are different," and where people live is at least one factor that shapes our perspectives about political issues that shape the "Great American Divide," the subject of this thread. Part of what makes those perspectives so different is how we understand and accept the terms we use to express opinion about them!
Yes of course one man's liberal is another man's conservative. Patriot or "enemy of the state?" Also depends on who you ask. Blue means something to some people. "Doesn't actually mean anything" to you.
Seems YOUR point has been that politics doesn't actually mean anything, so why should we bother with any further exchange I wonder?
Thanks, however, because at this point it seems no one else has much comment about this divide either. Maybe it's time for this thread to come to an end as well, but I had hopes for an intelligent exchange about what truly divides us and why rather than the same old crap...
The alliance between these groups is cynical and temporary. They are not friends. They are not a community. And the moment they no longer share a common interest, they would themselves become enemies.
Politics is a fluid dynamic governed by a great many factors that are either long-lasting or temporary as a result of another host of factors. The two major parties in America have been around for a good while, for example.
With all due respect again with the lessons no one really doesn't know!
Politics is largely if not all about gathering support among people who "share a common interest." Political leaders do their speeches in hopes of gathering more of that support, to pursue that agenda that those listening might join and follow. Also of course, once "the moment" arrives those interests are not shared, people move on. That's no secret. That's how it works! If/when those interests clash, they may even become "enemies."
Politics is many things, including all the above...
I'm not inclined to use terms like "friends" and "community" when it comes to what makes politics in America what it is today, because there are obvious influences, alliances and agendas that have more to do with business, economics, power and money over family affairs. Again no big secret there either. Care or not, understand or not, hopeless or not, these dynamics are forever in play, and we are either simple spectators or participants, to varying degrees depending on who we are and what we choose to do about what we think is going on around us.
For me today, this morning, I don't choose to do much about politics other than sign off and get on with the rest of my day while I suspect others are more politically involved, hopefully for better rather than worse...
In fact, the least-racist racial group, is white people.
Ha. This is a belief I would really be interested to see proven to whatever extent possible, because notions like these are difficult to take seriously at face value...
In particular to this comment (but also with regard to so many other "facts" you assume all should accept as truth), have you got anything substantive to back up such a claim?
No one will argue, certainly not me, that other races, minorities do not discriminate against others. Quite the contrary. Humans have always been inclined that way and only in more modern times has the issue even been addressed anything close to how we see, racism, sexism, bigotry, xenophobes being addressed today, more or less in different parts of America and the world.
One fact that cannot be denied, however, is the power and rule the white man has also exercised for a long time now and most certainly including modern times. We have no argument that people look out for their own self interests, and the white man has been no exception other than from a position far superior to others, and not exactly wanting to share with others. Hello?
Maybe that's not racism or because of racism, but from that obvious truth, the argument that white people are "the least racist racial group" is one I would recommend you keep to yourself unless you want to be laughed at and ridiculed by all too many people who know all too better, not even including the minorities who have been struggling with that racism for a very long time now and still today!
Or are you TRYING to be funny? Maybe just enjoying the role of "devil's advocate" perhaps?
Blue means largely Democrats. Democrats are more liberal than Republicans as just about all Democrats and Republicans will confirm.
If you were to weigh the average, sure. But the poor areas of cities are not liberal. And those areas constitute the vast majority of democrat support.
The reason liberal and democrat have become synonymous, isn't because most democrats are liberal. It is that liberals control the party, since they're the ones with the money.
The neoconservatives and the other big business interests control the republicans the same way.
I think you have attached yourself to the democratic label and so you have ceased to be objective. You will never hear me defend republicans, because they don't deserve defending. The two parties are not ideological. Both parties are chameleons. They pretend to be anything to get votes(and especially donations).
So please, can you remove party politics from intellectual discussions? It is obnoxious, dishonest, and a waste of time.
As for liberal and conservative, the question is, why does someone become one or the other? Is one better than the other? Does one want to do nice things and the other doesn't?
Both think they are the good guy. But both are ultimately driven by self interest.
Those who preach tolerance and acceptance are overwhelmingly people who want to be accepted. Which is why it hurts them so much when people don't. And that is why the people who preach freedom and tolerance, turn into hypocrites who want to silence any speech they don't like.
The only freedom anyone cares about is their own.
Liberals aren't improved versions of human. They are just as human as everyone else. The only thing that differs, is what they want. Liberalism, atheism, progressivism, and science, etc, are just vehicles to get what they want. They are a means to an end. And they will abandon any and all those means to achieve their ends.
Ha. This is a belief I would really be interested to see proven to whatever extent possible, because notions like these are difficult to take seriously at face value.
It should honestly be pretty intuitive. Think of so-called liberals, they are almost-entirely white.
Blacks go to black-lives matters protests because they are looking out for themselves. They don't go to immigrant-rights protests, because they don't care.
Maybe that's not racism or because of racism, but from that obvious truth, the argument that white people are "the least racist racial group" is one I would recommend you keep to yourself unless you want to be laughed at and ridiculed by all too many people who know all too better, not even including the minorities who have been struggling with that racism for a very long time now and still today!
I watched "Good morning Vietnam" last night. I hadn't watched it since I was a kid, and could barely remember it.
It is a good movie. A sad movie.
During the entire movie, a quote kept running through the back of my mind...
"The Whites have carried to these (colonial) people the worst that they could carry: the plagues of the world: materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism, and syphilis. Moreover, since what these people possessed on their own was superior to anything we could give them, they have remained themselves... The sole result of the activity of the colonizers is: they have everywhere aroused hatred."
I'm not going to tell you who said it. You should look it up for yourself.
The role of the United States in Vietnam was to spread Americanism. And what Americanism is, is materialism, consumerism, hedonism, and alcoholism(IE substance-abuse). And if you watch the movie, it is plain to see.
What you seem to be incapable of seeing, is that progressivism and liberalism, is basically just materialism and alcoholism.
When I watch the movie, and see all the prostitutes, and people who are selling their souls for money(which goes on today, all across Asia, and elsewhere); All I see is materialism. All I see is progressivism. All I see is liberalism. All I see is you.
The world you are creating is poison, and in your naivety you call it progress.
In an ideal world the Vietnamese would have built a wall around their country to keep people like you out. But being weak, they were unable to resist. They had to adopt our system, as to get the money, as to have the power, to be able to defend themselves.
And while you know this, and you claim to be opposed to it, you seem to be incapable of understanding that people like yourself are the ones to blame. You can't just leave them alone. You can't just leave anyone alone.
You imagine you are helping the world to make progress, but are you? What is progress? Is this progress?
You want the entire world to be as you want it to be. You want everyone to think as you think. Whether you will admit it or not.
And wherever you believe you have the power, you will use it. And you will justify it with some hypocritical belief in democracy, or society, or progress, or whatever. But you are the very evil that you claim to hate.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve." - Henry David Thoreau
Why do you think the money in this country loves you? The money in this country loves immigration. The money in this country loves fake tolerance. It loves our fake democracy. And it loves the democrats.
You are playing right into their hands. You are to blame for everything. Because you refuse to strike the root.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 01-28-2018 at 08:13 PM..
If you were to weigh the average, sure. But the poor areas of cities are not liberal. And those areas constitute the vast majority of democrat support.
The reason liberal and democrat have become synonymous, isn't because most democrats are liberal. It is that liberals control the party, since they're the ones with the money.
The neoconservatives and the other big business interests control the republicans the same way.
I think you have attached yourself to the democratic label and so you have ceased to be objective. You will never hear me defend republicans, because they don't deserve defending. The two parties are not ideological. Both parties are chameleons. They pretend to be anything to get votes(and especially donations).
So please, can you remove party politics from intellectual discussions? It is obnoxious, dishonest, and a waste of time.
Can we bring down the drama a nacho?
Can you please back up the claims/assumptions you throw about as if all to take for granted? Please! What do you know about the demographics of "poor areas of cities?" Obnoxious and dishonest is forever wasting time with statements that are little more than your unsubstantiated opinion.
Yes, weighing the average. What else? I am only pointing out what everyone should know when it comes to these demographics that are not so hard to find. This C-D website has lots of data about demographics by area as well. All cities are different to some extent, but let's take Detroit as just one example. Pretty well a stronghold for the Democratic Party. What does this tell you?
If we stick to simple logic and agree that Democrats are considered more liberal than Republicans as just about anyone will agree (except you it seems), then any state or city that swings largely for the Democrats rather than Republicans is therefore more liberal leaning than those areas that swing largely for the Republicans. Simply go down the list of what each party represents in terms of all the issues and clearly the Democrats land on the side that most people consider the more liberal stand on those issues.
True as well that "liberals control the party," just like conservatives rule the Republican party. Again yes of course the monied special interests are too much influence in both parties, but that doesn't mean party affiliation has nothing to do with political ideology. People are politically divided and so are the special interests, largely according to this divide of ideology that tends to define Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Politics 101. Please have mercy.
What am I not being objective about? Seems all you want to do is eliminate all labels and commonly understood definitions so you can continue your anything goes notions without check. I can do that too, if you insist on simply using your labels that essentially render any organization of people "chameleons" if/when money and power are involved. I can do both, but to your way of thinking, we might as well cut to the chase going back to the beginning.
Nothing we think, say or do matters. What more have we to waste time about?
Last edited by LearnMe; 01-29-2018 at 10:53 AM..
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.
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.
