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.
In little over a year, the Resistance™ has moved from dehumanizing Trump to dehumanizing anyone that won't dehumanize Trump to their satisfaction... something wicked this way comes indeed.
and how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skins_fan82
Anyone who still supports Trump at this point is SCUM and should be banished to an island for a Battle Royale type of scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist
trump and his followers are racists, pretty much everyone agrees on that, including most of his followers. They are old fat white men for the most part; poorly educated, afraid of change. This is their last hurrah. They are intent on destroying this country rather than let is go 'brown.' Luckily these old racists are a dying breed and we will be rid of them soon enough.
The people that post things like I have seen in this thread are disgusting. They cling to the one form of bigotry that is still considered to be socially acceptable with absolutely no self-awareness. They say the vile things that they say & then wonder why the interior of the country voted the way that they did. My own ancestry was called out in a post earlier in this thread. I hope the poster thought it was a constructive thing to say.
Rural America didn't vote for Trump, they voted against Clinton. Urban America didn't vote for Clinton, they voted against Trump. Run better candidates next time & get a clue. Those of you talking about how someone voted for Trump or Clinton, what are they supposed to do? Vote for someone that is completely contrary to their political views?
"The candidate that is more like me politically is a POS, so I'm going to vote for someone who I completely disagree with because they aren't quite as much of a POS" Newsflash, nobody is going to do that. Every election moves the needle in a certain direction, and nobody is willing to take a step backwards to punish a candidate.
Speaking as a rural American, there wouldn't be any bad blood from me towards urban Americans if they would respect Federalism & allow both areas more flexibility to govern themselves as they see fit. Also, I'm sure the urban Americans are tired of the rural Americans trying to impose their values through government edict. The more powerful the Federal Government gets, the worse this issue is going to get moving forward.
Again it is not a rural issue. It is low population states. NY for instance has far more rurals than many of the low population states. California is similar. There is a distinct and significant edge given to the right by the EC. Should be modified. Eventually the high population states are going to go after changing the Constitution. The issue though will likely be the Senate not the EC.
Again it is not a rural issue. It is low population states. NY for instance has far more rurals than many of the low population states. California is similar. There is a distinct and significant edge given to the right by the EC. Should be modified. Eventually the high population states are going to go after changing the Constitution. The issue though will likely be the Senate not the EC.
NY, and CA consistently go for Democrat candidates, they are the bluest of the blue. Their population centers rule the entire states. Leaving people outside of Metro areas unrepresented, and looking to move to a state where their vote can matter.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
They can't work, get welfare or a drivers license either can they.
They can only get a driver's license in certain states that have allowed it
They can work if either they have forged papers, or an employer hires them "under the table"; I've worked with illegals when I worked in construction. Quite a few were "dreamers" (i.e. parents brought them here when they were babies)
As far as benefits, I don't know if that's true or not, but every illegal I knew WORKED (see the previous point)
As far as voting, forged papers don't actually get you on the voters rolls, as they aren't verifiable, and if you aren't on the election rolls, you can't vote!
NY, and CA consistently go for Democrat candidates, they are the bluest of the blue. Their population centers rule the entire states. Leaving people outside of Metro areas unrepresented, and looking to move to a state where their vote can matter.
Same thing happens in Minnesota. Got darn close last time though!
Lots of forms of acceptable bigotry remain. Two in particular come to mind: bigotry against atheists, and bigotry against the child-free. Both groups tend to congregate in cities.
I rarely see the types you mention, but I'm also not sure that they are considered acceptable. I only attend church semi-regularly & am child free despite being married, and I haven't experienced bigotry from either here in Tennessee or where I grew up in Missouri. Not that this matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
I’m an “establishment Republican” – and a rural middle-aged white male – who voted for Clinton. I disagree with her on taxes, regulations, foreign military involvement, and so many aspects of domestic and foreign policy. Her signature issues, to the extent that she has any, either don’t impress me, or outright annoy me. I find many of the core assumptions of the Democratic party to be misguided and fatuous. And yet, I voted for Clinton. I’d love to have voted for Kasich, Rubio or Jeb Bush – but wasn’t given that option.
Most importantly, I believe in the post-war consensus. I am content with the global system – and I intentionally use the term “global” – that’s emerged over the past 72 years. The obsession with curtailing immigration and closing borders, “renegotiating” treaties and eschewing diplomatic decorum, strike me as being more grievous ills, than anything about abortion, guns, gays, or religion.
In sum, I'm exactly the sort of voter whose existence you find to be so improbable.
I suppose I should have said most people, not nobody. Guns & Same Sex Marriage are high ranking issues for me, Far Right on guns and Left on SSM. SSM has been dealt with & isn't going to be repealed. Guns are a different story. I didn't like Trump, Clinton or Sanders. I was ok with Johnson even though he wasn't as prepared as he should have been. He received my vote. Now granted, I don't live in a swing state so this choice wasn't as difficult for me as it was for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Speaking as another rural American, I'm baffled as to why so many conservatives, and in particular rural conservatives, are less interested in reducing the total amount of government, than in just reducing the federal government. If we have intrusive regulations, predatory law-enforcement and high taxes - how is it any consolation, if these things stem from our Statehouse, instead of DC? On the contrary, I would prefer a government that's further away... over there, on the coast, instead of within an hour or two drive, in the state capitol.
I'm a libertarian not a conservative, but here's the thing. I am interested in small government at every level, but there are two issues here. The first issue is the size government, but the second issue is that attitudes are different in different regions of the country. Certain parts of this nation would prefer to pay higher taxes to receive additional public services, while other would prefer to pay lower taxes & receive fewer public services. If the government of California wanted to go through the trouble of providing a Universal Basic Income, Universal Healthcare & various other programs & wanted to levy a tax of 70% to do so, then I think they should have the ability to do that. However, I want no part of that here in Tennessee. My personal political views skew towards small government everywhere, but I also believe in Federalism, which is the only way a nation as diverse as the United States has a hope of surviving as a unified entity. I think most laws should come from the states, not the federal government. The states can debate how large or small of a government they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Again it is not a rural issue. It is low population states. NY for instance has far more rurals than many of the low population states. California is similar. There is a distinct and significant edge given to the right by the EC. Should be modified. Eventually the high population states are going to go after changing the Constitution. The issue though will likely be the Senate not the EC.
I understand what you area saying here, but my main point is why is there such an urban/rural divide in the first place? If people didn't have a reason to believe (Justified or Unjustified) that the next election would seal the fate of their way of life forever, then they wouldn't be as firmly entrenched in their ways as they are. Quit trying to direct everything from Washington D.C. and let the states do their jobs instead & I believe the divide will shrink drastically. There is a reason that basically 4 or 5 states control every election: They already know how the laws that come out of D.C. will affect them depending on who wins. Everyone feels like they have been backed into a corner.
Last edited by GunnerTHB; 11-29-2017 at 10:32 AM..
Here in AZ, the small towns all have massive poverty and drug use issues, with the exceptions of Flagstaff and Sedona, and those are thanks to California retirees. Phoenix has a much more healthy economy than the rest of the state, despite a higher COL
Yet for the most part people still don't have to lock their doors and live in fear for their lives like they do in ghettos and barrios.
This thread is a microcosm of how Leftists and Liberals really feel about their fellow Americans. They feel they are inferior to their superior selves. Just ask any urban leftist how special they are, they'll tell you.
I understand what you area saying here, but my main point is why is there such an urban/rural divide in the first place? If people didn't have a reason to believe (Justified or Unjustified) that the next election would seal the fate of their way of life forever, then they wouldn't be as firmly entrenched in their ways as they are. Quit trying to direct everything from Washington D.C. and let the states do their jobs instead & I believe the divide will shrink drastically. There is a reason that basically 4 or 5 states control every election: They already know how the laws that come out of D.C. will affect them depending on who wins. I'm a libertarian not a conservative, but here's the thing. I am interested in small government at every level, but there are two issues here. The first issue is the size government, but the second issue is that attitudes are different in different regions of the country. Certain parts of this nation would prefer to pay higher taxes to receive additional public services, while other would prefer to pay lower taxes & receive fewer public services. If the government of California wanted to go through the trouble of providing a Universal Basic Income, Universal Healthcare & various other programs & wanted to levy a tax of 70% to do so, then I think they should have the ability to do that. However, I want no part of that here in Tennessee. My personal political views skew towards small government everywhere, but I also believe in Federalism, which is the only way a nation as diverse as the United States has a hope of surviving as a unified entity. I think most laws should come from the states, not the federal government. The states can debate how large or small of a government they want.
Everyone feels like they have been backed into a corner.
The point I am making is that it is not a rural versus urban issue. It is urban versus urban mostly. The pure of heart rural is not the issue. Even in Wyoming the majority of the population is urban.
So it is simple. The right wing happens to have a majority in a number of small states giving it an advantage in the electoral college and an unfair edge in the Senate.
Simple as that. And needs to be fixed.
In actual fact a majority of the states were never independent and were formed and structured at the behest and with the permission of the Federal government. The states as potentially independent governing authorities is all illusion. They are simply the lower tier of the US government. But the view that the are or even were independent entities is pretty much myth for most.
Have to agree to a point. Funny thing is, for some reason they want to think it's all Christians who voted for Trump. I'm a country loving, horseback riding, dog loving, moonshine drinking kind of girl who is actually an atheist. I have been a long time democrat, but when I see that they were trying to push legislation to push the rural and farm home owners off their lands to make wave for huge gated communities, plus take away my guns so I can't defend myself out here in the middle of nowhere, I had to tell the dems to F off, and I voted for Trump.
Regarding the above statements in red...... Be Still My Heart.
& Warhorse.....if you drive a Camaro or a Charger, (or Silverado) & if you listen to Waylon, the Black Crowes & (or) Skydog and the Allmans....you'd be first in line if I ever was having to look for another Ms. Hound.
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.
