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.
Lol...well, the water controls the power too. Can't run power plants without it. But, yes, without juice the liberal leftists would implode in less than a day. No computers, instant communication, video games and such...oh my what a lovely mess the cities would be. Meanwhile, we party like it's 1816. I don't have to have electricity to survive. And we'd have the water. And food, and power plants should we so desire. Just clip off the feeds to the cities. Imagine that. Nothing but stars in the night sky.
No more water allocations for ag, green fields and fat cattle. Sounds like a good life to this "ignorant redneck". No more city dicks pretending to be hunters harassing our game animals birds and fish, horses get the right of way again, hell, I'm in.
Dangit.
It sounded like nonsense until you put it that way. Now I'm on board.
The needs of rural america are very different from urban america. I don't think one is better than the other, just different. SMH. If you were do to away with rural american this country would collapse, if you were to do away with urban american this country would also collapse.
This is true.
Does anybody think city-states could work in America? This would allow urban areas to govern according to their needs and rural areas to do the same. There are a lot of states in this country where urban areas are held back by rural interests (Texas) or where rural areas are tied down with regulations supported by urban voters who don't have rural America's best interest in mind (California, New York). The urban/rural cultural divide is such that I think having more local control would benefit everyone.
Why so much animosity on both side? Naturally, both sides need each other. Also, different environments, create different needs and structures.
The needs of rural america are very different from urban america. I don't think one is better than the other, just different. SMH. If you were do to away with rural american this country would collapse, if you were to do away with urban american this country would also collapse.
Let's not kid ourselves and be so ignroant everyone.
Exactly. Disregard for the points you mention are the reasons why.
It seems to me that most of the current resistance, from rural residents against urbanites, comes from the amount of disagreeable legislation and influence that a city or cities in a state continually push on the entire state.
Policies and regulations enforced at the point of a gun, in rural communities, that are only supported by, or applicable in the, urbanites small, high population area, cause indignation.
Does anybody think city-states could work in America? This would allow urban areas to govern according to their needs and rural areas to do the same. There are a lot of states in this country where urban areas are held back by rural interests (Texas) or where rural areas are tied down with regulations supported by urban voters who don't have rural America's best interest in mind (California, New York). The urban/rural cultural divide is such that I think having more local control would benefit everyone.
The thing is too that demographically speaking, the population is becoming more urbanized. So we have to find a way to balance both. Support growing cities, but also put in place ways to help rural America, or towns that are declining.
When the borders for most of the states were created in the 1700's and 1800s big major cities were far and few. Now you have states where the majority of the populations lives in one urban area (think Chicago and Illinois) and the rest of the state has no voice. Or then there is vice versa. Miami for example is dying to get better public transportation for the city, but because the state's population is so spread out, the state constantly denies them the funding they need. And Miami is a city that desparately needs it.
I really do hate the negative attitudes on BOTH sides. The me vs. them attitude does not help anyone.
Exactly. Disregard for the points you mention are the reasons why.
It seems to me that most of the current resistance, from rural residents against urbanites, comes from the amount of disagreeable legislation and influence that a city or cities in a state continually push on the entire state.
Policies and regulations enforced at the point of a gun, in rural communities, that are only supported by, or applicable in the, urbanites small, high population area, cause indignation.
But it works both ways really. Both sides need each other. I don't Trump will solve how to reconcile both sides, nor do I think Clinton would have. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think Sanders would have been the one that was most aware of this disparity. Heck even Michael Moore is more aware than Trump and Clinton.
City people just do not understand Republicans in rural areas. At all. We are from different planets.
Can't we just separate into two countries and go our separate ways? Why not?
As I posted elsewhere, every Muslim terrorist attack in the US has been done in a Democrat city. And yet, Democrat cities all voted for Clinton by huge margins, and the most devastated-by-terrorists city, New York City, voted 80% for Clinton. In Manhattan, where 9/11 took place specifically, Clinton got 90% of the vote.
We Democrats control the cities in this country. We WANT to invite Muslims in. We WANT the consequences of that. We WANT the illegals, the immigrants and the consequences they bring too.
So why stop us? We can't win you over, no matter what, it seems. I've seen countless posts from Republicans on this forum about the evil threat that Islam presents, the problems of illegals, black crime, etc etc etc. If you don't like it, maybe get out of the cities. Maybe we need our own country of American cities, and you Republicans get the rest of the country.
But it works both ways really. Both sides need each other. I don't Trump will solve how to reconcile both sides, nor do I think Clinton would have. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think Sanders would have been the one that was most aware of this disparity. Heck even Michael Moore is more aware than Trump and Clinton.
Yes, but neither group needs laws designed for the other enforced on them.
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.
