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.
If it's not high tech, then it's wealth. Conservatives (and I hate to say it, even some liberals) tend to equate self-made money with intelligence - and do so in the spirit that betrays "money-making ability is the most important thing there is". By that very standard, liberal cities are not nearly as stupid the MAGA crowd and right-wing pundits claim them to be (if not actually more intelligent than conservative areas).
If anybody insists that liberal cities are stupider than conservative ones despite their higher per-capita incomes, then you're admitting that you don't think money-making ability is the end-all be-all of intelligence.
I said this to another poster. Most cities are made up of very wealthy people, and very poor people. The wealthiest cities in the country, have some of the poorest neighborhoods in the country. If you were to separate out all of the very poor (less intelligent by your scenario) people, then many of these cities would cease to be "liberal".
The percent of conservatives would approach, top, or even eclipse the percent of liberals, depending on which city we are talking about.
I think you have a much better chance arguing with a brick wall or a chair than that poster, lol.
Her screen name should be "Looper", because she tends to go into loops where everything is repeated to no end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
I said this to another poster. Most cities are made up of very wealthy people, and very poor people. The wealthiest cities in the country, have some of the poorest neighborhoods in the country. If you were to separate out all of the very poor (less intelligent by your scenario) people, then many of these cities would cease to be "liberal".
The percent of conservatives would approach, top, or even eclipse the percent of liberals, depending on which city we are talking about.
Sure Einstein, nice theory about moving people around to shift the balance. Sounds like you are jealous these evil liberal cities are the economic powerhouses of the United States
Did you know poor people also work, and contribute to the economic miracles of the liberal cities? Some work multiple jobs. It seems you did not know. What do you think would happen if you remove all the people who do the heavy lifting?
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 09-29-2020 at 05:10 AM..
And you think Conservatism (the current predominate iteration of it, at least) is based mostly in logic.
* Kneejerk distaste at minorities or other historically disparaged people (of whatever stripe)
* Thinking that Rep "tax cuts" will benefit the middle class (they don't, otherwise MC real incomes would not be declining).
*Can't see that Democrats reduce deficits while Republicans add to them https://datalab.usaspending.gov/amer...eficit/trends/
* Thinking that any kind of government overreach is Communism - when they don't have a clue as to what actual communism is.
* Unwillingness to question traditional national mythos (work hard and you'll get ahead, not nearly as true as it used to be; America is a Christian nation when actually most founding fathers were deists;
* Off-kilter definitions of leadership (it is not a bossy, bull-in-the-porcelain-shop attitude; nor is it cocky cutdowns and "putting people in their place". That's what organized crime bosses and dictators do).
* Crude understandings of free will and personal responsibility. Our wills are not as free as we love to think, and even then, some wills are more free than others due to brain structure and imprinted life experiences.
And that's before we get to his outright bigotries and cruelties, even before he announced his run for the White House. Not to mention all his acts and comments since then. That kind of behavior, if left unchallenged, tends to get out of control and damage the social fabric and trust between society's members.
Yes, I think that conservatism is based more in logic than liberalism.
I had a conversation with two of my liberal friends the other day about intelligent extra-terrestrial life. My point of view was that it may or may nor exist, we simply don't know. Their point of view is that it absolutely exists and that it is far more advanced than we are. No evidence whatsoever, they simply feel it exists. This is among many of my experiences with liberals. Their arguments rarely are backed up by evidence.
I won't address your points because they are lies and there isn't any point in doing so.
Last edited by Mr. Joshua; 09-29-2020 at 06:26 AM..
Its not "if". They DO generate 85% of US economic output.
Your question is irrelevant and uninformed. Why would California contribute to the national HC expenses while also fully funding their own? Why pay twice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger
I think you have a much better chance arguing with a brick wall or a chair than that poster, lol.
So you too, like Finn, think California was going to fund single-payer public health care for the entire nation? Do you two even think before you post? Serious question.
(In reference to California failing to implement single-payer public health care for Californians because California, the 5th largest economy in the world, couldn't afford to fund it:
Her screen name should be "Looper", because she tends to go into loops where everything is repeated to no end.
Sure Einstein, nice theory about moving people around to shift the balance. Sounds like you are jealous these evil liberal cities are the economic powerhouses of the United States
Did you know poor people also work, and contribute to the economic miracles of the liberal cities? Some work multiple jobs. It seems you did not know. What do you think would happen if you remove all the people who do the heavy lifting?
It's not theory, genius. Everybody knows this is the truth. It is like you are trying to convince people the sky is green. Why would I be jealous? I have spent my entire life in, or in close proximity, to these cities. I live 18 miles from Manhattan now. So What exactly am I jealous of? Myself? My friends in my NJ town are mostly Manhattan commuters. I hang out with mostly Manhattan residents all summer, every summer in the Hamptons, where my family lives full time from June through September.
It is clear the wealthy city dwellers are split between conservative and liberal. Most Wall St. guys I know, love Trump. Poor neighborhoods are mostly liberal, which is what this thread is about. After all, the republicans are not promising them free stuff. You would have to either be an idiot or a con artist to use "liberal cities" as an example of "liberal intelligence".
Poor people, by definition, do not make enough to pay federal income taxes, so their contribution to the 85% is limited to what kind of contribution their job makes. But that can be said anywhere, not just in the "liberal cities".
"What do you think would happen if you remove all the people who do the heavy lifting?"
Not to mention some of the wealthiest cities on the planet. San Francisco metro area is #1 in Per Capita income among metro areas of over 1 million total population. Yes, higher even than New York and Washington, DC.
San Francisco, Seattle, Austin, Raleigh-Durham, Boston. (all have well-established reputations for liberalism)
Washington DC, Denver, Orlando, Dallas-Ft Worth, and Houston also do well. (First three are liberal, and even the last two I'd be hard pressed to call conservative these days).
Thread fail - non rational argument. Neither Hitler, Mao, nor Stalin were stupid. Germany had a ton of really smart engineers working on the Nazi machine. Their intelligence did not keep them falling prey to their emotions.
The people who are most affluent in these liberal cities isolate themselves in very homogeneous neighborhoods and send their kids to exclusive private schools.
They are liberals in name only, when it comes to their personal lives.
I have a sister like this. She and her husband's main home is in an expensive Washington DC suburb, plus they own 2 beach houses in different states. They're not super rich, but are definitely upper middle class (household income of at least $500K). Listening to her talk, you'd think she is a hard line Republican, but she claims to be a liberal. When I question her about this, she says she's "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". In reality, the only liberal things she does is attend the occasional women's movement whine-a-thon and talk about how great HRC is. I think rich people like to claim they're liberal to feel good about themselves and their compassion for the unwashed peasants. In the end, it's just a bunch of lip service.
Like I said I agree that they live in a bubble, I just was solely talking about the argument that they see no racial diversity.
I meant that as a rhetorical thing. The other conservatives I argue with say basically large groups of immigrants are terrible, these liberals live in neighborhoods with large groups of immigrants hence Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, San Jose and Milpitas must be terrible places.
Also, maybe in the D.C area whiter areas are more Liberal but that isn't true for 90% of the country. In Houston the whitest places have the most conservatives, that's primarily Montgomery County and the Memorial Villages, the equally wealthy but more diverse suburbs like Sugar Land, Katy and other places have lots of White Republicans but definitely more white liberals than the Memorial Villages or Montgomery county. The exception is Austin, which is roughly 52% White, and extremely liberal, Dallas MSA is 48% White and 50-50 but leaning Liberal, Houston is 36% white (metro), and 50-50 leaning Liberal. San Antonio is 34% white and it extremely liberal but not as much as Austin. But when you look at Austin in isolation the wealthiest parts are actually Red, the Lake Travis suburbs are not liberal strongholds whatsoever, although the diverse suburbs like Williamson County are pretty Red as well, their are very wealthy liberal and white neighborhoods within Austin, but it's not like their aren't diverse liberal neighborhoods too and it's not like Conservatives live in more diverse places than the liberals.
The "wealthy" liberals live in areas that are pretty white but nowhere as white as the wealthy "Republicans", and they often live in the same neighborhoods. Like in the Bay Area, everyone is wealthy but the wealthiest areas are 50-50 liberal conservative, while the upper-middle class areas are very liberal and very diverse, the poor areas are also very liberal and diverse.
Like my county went for Clinton and it's the wealthiest county in Texas, and actually the most diverse county in Texas, and while their are poor areas it's mostly upper middle class to middle class, and only the rural areas and the extreme edges that border some city neighborhoods could be described as poor/lower middle class.
Here are the demographics:
Fort Bend County-
31.9% White, 24.9% Hispanic, 21.3% Black, 20.9% Asian and its (50-50 but is probably going blue).
My neighborhood is
45.0% White, 21.7% Hispanic, 21.0% Asian, 10% Black and (leans Republican).
Also on the elite of their country. I disagree wholeheartedly. While my dad and many other immigrants had the opportunity to go to college which makes them elite in their own right, my dad when he arrived in America couldn't immediately get a job in the oil industry, and so for nearly a decade, was a Prison Guard and a Peanut Boy at Minute Maid park before he could actually use his degree for what it's meant for. Many immigrants in these neighborhoods have very similar come-ups. Calling them elite is a stretch of the word imho. He also lived in the "hood", and many of those immigrants started in the hood. It's why even though the Nigerian and Vietnamese communities are both solidly middle class their cultural center as in Alief which is a poor-lower middle-middle class part of Houston (Westwood area is the poorest part, North Alief is the middle class part and the rest of it is lower middle class except the apartments which are generally poor).
My point is I'm a liberal, I know tons of white liberals and they generally know people form all backgrounds, even though many do live in a bubble its not the majority of them.
I mean they are usually in the upper rungs of society in their home countries. A lot of the people coming here from overseas are coming on specialized work visas for high income, high skilled professions. We don’t typically get the poor of Asia immigrated to the U.S. Their experiences when they get here may be a different story.
It also comes down to self selection. The most ambitious people of a given country are going to be more than likely the ones to immigrate to a new country. These ambitious attitudes are highly correlated with overall success.
I do agree that wealthy white conservatives probably live in more racially homogeneous areas than wealthy white liberals.
I think when people say that liberals ( white liberals) live in a bubble, I think it’s because they are concentrated in the wealthiest areas of the country, and are concentrated in highly skilled professions. This means that if there is some bad economic times or strife within the country, they are largely shielded from it and will likely be one of the last ones to experience the strife firsthand.
Many of these liberals would think that NAFTA was a great thing because they got cheap goods from it. They were shielded from the disastrous impacts of it, while many in the heartland weren’t.
I know plenty of people in this country that have been here for generations that are prison guards. These are good professions for them, and some do have degrees. My wife’s town had a large prison there, once they shut it down it spelled bad news for the area. Working in the prison as a CO was a godsend for a lot of her friends and relatives.
For the record, I think many conservatives live in a bubble of their own kind.
I said this to another poster. Most cities are made up of very wealthy people, and very poor people. The wealthiest cities in the country, have some of the poorest neighborhoods in the country. If you were to separate out all of the very poor (less intelligent by your scenario) people, then many of these cities would cease to be "liberal".
RThe percent of conservatives would approach, top, or even eclipse the percent of liberals, depending on which city we are talking about.
This actually isn't true at all. Conservatives are the wealthier cohort in the smaller cities and in the 50-50 cities. So in Dallas, Houston and Charlotte, Conservatives almost certainly outnumber Liberals in the upper 50% of people.
However in San Francisco and Washington, D.C where only the 1%ers do you see any actual Republican representation. The upper 50% are just as liberal as the bottom 50%.
In NYC- Westchester, Nassau, Manhattan, Queens, Rockland, Passaic, Bergen, Hudson, Union, Somerset, Middlesex, Mercer, Fairfield, New Haven which are all predominantly middle class-to wealthy counties went to Hillary.
Trump- He won Morris, Staten Island, Suffolk, Orange (the rest of the counties he won are either not upper-middle class or very small populations) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-2016-election
I seriously doubt that wealthy people favored Trump at all in the New York area. Greenwich, Connecticut went for Hillary by 17% for example.
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.
