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.
Plainly and simply put, your average cityiot thinks they know what's best.
Your average rural bumpkin thinks they know what's best.
Difference?
Cityiots go where the bumpkins are and stir up the pot.
Bumpkins stay away from the city and live and let live. They stick to themselves and are self sufficient.
One goes to the grocery store/butcher shop/fish market.
One goes hunting fishing and grows their own food. But that's looked down upon as barbaric and a disturbance of peace and tranquility they so self righteously seek.
One relies on tech based careers 8-10 behind a desk and social services like city sewer and water.
One relies on their two hands a truck and work boots to keep a roof over their head, has their own well and septic system.
One pays a million dollars for an apartment.
One pays a million dollars for sprawling acres of land that yields freedom to do what they want when they want how they want. Probably food too.
One relies on the police to patrol their neighborhoods and streets.
One relies on their constitutional right to keep and bear.
One wants things 5 minutes ago regardless the quality. Snap snap chop chop.
One is patient and can wait for quality over quantity and takes pride in quality.
One needs to be catered to for if society stopped, the sewer stopped the subway stopped chaos would erupt.
One needs a basic tool set and a local parts store a 6 pack and that old pickup is running like new on Saturday afternoon, a snake for a clog, and can get by just fine without power.
Two different people. Two different ways of life.
One wants to push their will and holds their snobby nose up looking down on others.
One wants to keep things the way they are and become offended when they're labeled as lazy inept troglodytes.
How do you stop it? You stay in your city. We stay in our fields, mountains, and hills.
You keep your policy and way of life. We keep our policy and way of life.
What works in the country won't in the city. What works in the city won't ever work in the country.
NOLA is a fantastic illustration of why Hillary lost even in states like PA and MI. As the attitude he displays becomes more prominent in the Democratic party, it's losing its claim on being the party of the working class or the disenfranchised. "We're rich and have Ivy league degrees, you're poor and drug-addicted, therefore we're better than you" is not exactly an effective campaign slogan. And then folks like him act surprised and dismayed when his supposed inferiors vote for a candidate who comes along and tells the "superiors" to go fk themselves.
Of course, the irony is that some posters on the left that hate Trump with a passion and throw all kinds of accusations about bigotry towards him, prove themselves to be some of the biggest bigots and haters this country has seen in a very long time.
Isn't that the truth. One can hate Trump all they want, it is their choice but to spew hatred and lies towards those that have a different opinion then yours makes you just plan ignorant.
Rural Americans gave us Trump. They're the poorest, least educated, most drug addicted, least employed, cohort in America.
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?
If rural areas are truly self sufficient, they should be able to compete globally without farm subsidies. While they are waiting for the world to collapse, let's let blue states keep their money and red states keep theirs, each state required to be self-sufficient. Blue states can shop for their resources globally and red states can keep growing food without farm subsidies and sell globally. Blue states may buy from them or they may buy elsewhere but if rural areas grow a good product, they should do fine. They should just do it without tax handouts in the form of direct payments from the government paid by tax payers.
I don't think you understand the intricacies of an economy. Nor do you really understand the mindset of those who work in agriculture.
You need to first understand how and why people moved from the countryside into the cities in the first place. Focus your history on things related to government policies(a good place to start is the English enclosure acts). Later, look at the emancipation of the serfs, and then the role of finance, property taxes, subsidies, and tariffs.
Another thing you should research, is the role of "capital" for investment in land and machinery, and how advantageous access to capital(IE at low interests rates), produces a huge competitive-advantage in a market economy.
Only after you understand the "real history", can you begin to see how things actually are today.
You must be one of the many poor and uneducated people from New Orleans that voted for Obama and Hillary.
There is not enough rural voters to put a president into power. States like Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota are only worth 3 electoral votes each.
Educated people know this.
I am assuming the poster means that rural states have disproportional representation in the EC to more urban ones. So a voter in Montana or Wyoming will get more representation for their vote (3 EC votes being a minimum) than someone in CA or NY where they the Congressional districts have more people in them and the 2 senate seats are spread over many more people. Maybe?
Truth is Obama did better in rural areas than Hillary. That's why he won Iowa twice and was able to hold Wisconsin/Michigan/Pa. Not by winning the rural areas outright but by keeping it respecatable. The inverse is true of Trump- he partly won because Clinton underperformed in some urban areas.
"The largest fissures between Americans living in large cities and those in less-dense areas are rooted in misgivings about the country’s changing demographics and resentment about perceived biases in federal assistance, according to the poll."
What is the practical relevance of these vignettes of apocalypse-pornography, where we debate whether the resourceful and resilient countryside will prosper while the hapless cities will suffer?
How many rural people actually engage in farming? My neighbors spend their days watching satellite TV inside their living rooms, in houses on 10-acre tracts. Our urban counterparts spend their days watching broadcast-TV inside their living rooms, in their apartments, or in houses on 0.25-acre lots. What is the substantive difference? My neighbors drive their hulking pickups and SUVs back and forth into town all day, 15 miles or whatnot, to reach Walmart. Our urban counterparts drive their hulking pickups and SUVs back and forth the 1.5 miles across town all day, to reach Walmart. What’s the difference?
Across the road from my house, is maybe a 100-acre soybean farm. In a catastrophic scenario, what, am I going to forage for soybean? Better off is the urban apartment-dweller, growing cucumbers and radishes in pots on their 9th-floor balcony.
Those amongst my neighbors who are not retired (most are), work in the city… 25+ miles to our small-ish community anchor city, 60 miles to the regional major city. If the city insurance-companies and law-firms and corporate HQs such down, these rural folk will be just has hampered and desperate as the city-folk… except that given the long distances, we’re more stranded from distribution centers or places where people can band together and form impromptu tribes.
Most of my neighbors – this is definitely a rural place – get their sustenance from Social Security checks. Or pension-checks from GM or Chrysler or the US military. They wouldn’t know how to hunt for food, any more than they’d know how to operate a nuclear reactor.
The point is that no one place or lifestyle is inherently more robust, inherently superior or inherently more aligned with the human spirit. Yes, most of the people in the countryside “just want to be left alone”… so long as the pension-checks keep coming, Walmart stays open, the roads are plowed of snow, and the satellite TV signal stays on.
If rural areas are truly self sufficient, they should be able to compete globally without farm subsidies. While they are waiting for the world to collapse, let's let blue states keep their money and red states keep theirs, each state required to be self-sufficient. Blue states can shop for their resources globally and red states can keep growing food without farm subsidies and sell globally. Blue states may buy from them or they may buy elsewhere but if rural areas grow a good product, they should do fine. They should just do it without tax handouts in the form of direct payments from the government paid by tax payers.
So you're ok with billionaire Elon Musk getting corporate welfare to fatten his wallet even more, but have some sort of issue with farm subsidies? You make no sense.
Farm subsidies are one of the only actual smart things the govt spends money on. Without them the price of food would eventually skyrocket so the person you're replying to is correct you don't understand economics.
The ability to control your own food supply, is like, the most important part of any civilization.
The second the U.S. would start growing less oranges, other countries are going to raise the prices on what they export to the U.S. the trickle down effect would be that it would actually end up hurting the economy.
"The Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation survey of nearly 1,700 Americans — including more than 1,000 adults living in rural areas and small towns — finds deep-seated kinship in rural America, coupled with a stark sense of estrangement from people who live in urban areas. Nearly 7 in 10 rural residents say their values differ from people who live in big cities, including about 4 in 10 who say their values are “very different.”
Yes, I know it's the WaPo..and the article is long---but well worth reading..IMO
Did you read the actual poll?
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.
