Split Conservatives Feel Attacked (was Special Counsel 2)

[bilby]

In this thread or another I wrote about a family member’s farm that was taken by imminent domain to put in a necessary stretch of interstate, for which they were compensated but it destroyed a multigenerational farmstead—and forced a retirement of someone who wasn’t ready.
Now, if this were an urban black neighborhood, there would be a plot of sympathy for the loss of homes, and more importantly, neighborhood.

If it were an urban neighbourhood, it would affect hundreds or even thousands of families, and not just one.

Land doesn't vote; The reason that there is an outcry when an urban area is bulldozed is because of the number of people impacted, not their colour.

 

[Toni]

In this thread or another I wrote about a family member’s farm that was taken by imminent domain to put in a necessary stretch of interstate, for which they were compensated but it destroyed a multigenerational farmstead—and forced a retirement of someone who wasn’t ready.
Now, if this were an urban black neighborhood, there would be a plot of sympathy for the loss of homes, and more importantly, neighborhood.

If it were an urban neighbourhood, it would affect hundreds or even thousands of families, and not just one.

Land doesn't vote; The reason that there is an outcry when an urban area is bulldozed is because of the number of people impacted, not their colour.

It DID affect more than one family! I’m just related to that one particular family. It changed the nature of that part of our county completely. And every other area over the hundred of miles that comprise its route.

 

[Shadowy Man]

There’s respect and there is courtesy. I can be courteous to someone I don’t respect. Respect is a reflection of their character while courtesy is a reflection of mine.

 

[TomC]

In this thread or another I wrote about a family member’s farm that was taken by imminent domain to put in a necessary stretch of interstate, for which they were compensated but it destroyed a multigenerational farmstead—and forced a retirement of someone who wasn’t ready.
Now, if this were an urban black neighborhood, there would be a plot of sympathy for the loss of homes, and more importantly, neighborhood.

If it were an urban neighbourhood, it would affect hundreds or even thousands of families, and not just one.

Land doesn't vote; The reason that there is an outcry when an urban area is bulldozed is because of the number of people impacted, not their colour.

It DID affect more than one family! I’m just related to that one particular family. It changed the nature of that part of our county completely. And every other area over the hundred of miles that comprise its route.

Sounds like a rather rural attitude.
The people I know affected are friends and relatives.
The zillions of people who use the road I do not know. Who cares about them?
Tom

 

[Toni]

In this thread or another I wrote about a family member’s farm that was taken by imminent domain to put in a necessary stretch of interstate, for which they were compensated but it destroyed a multigenerational farmstead—and forced a retirement of someone who wasn’t ready.
Now, if this were an urban black neighborhood, there would be a plot of sympathy for the loss of homes, and more importantly, neighborhood.

If it were an urban neighbourhood, it would affect hundreds or even thousands of families, and not just one.

Land doesn't vote; The reason that there is an outcry when an urban area is bulldozed is because of the number of people impacted, not their colour.

It DID affect more than one family! I’m just related to that one particular family. It changed the nature of that part of our county completely. And every other area over the hundred of miles that comprise its route.

Sounds like a rather rural attitude.
The people I know affected are friends and relatives.
The zillions of people who use the road I do not know. Who cares about them?
Tom

My point is exactly that: if it’s farms and small towns who are being disrupted, the ‘liberal’ attitude is: who cares? Bunch of rural folks—probably ignorant republicans so who cares? And zillions use the interstate.

BUT when imminent domain is used to force people out of their homes/neighborhoods in order to out in a new urban highway exchange then it’s OhNo! Look at all the poor (black) people who are getting displaced!

It’s the same damn thing, just a different setting. One route change in an urban area can destroy an entire neighborhood —and does. And it’s frequently poorer people because, for one thing, their land is cheaper to acquire and they are less likely to be able to afford a long drawn out legal battle. This may be ‘for the greater good’ but it does not change the loss for the people whose homes are taken and who lose their neighborhood.

The interstate is over 800 miles long, going through multiple states and counties, mostly farm land, but also changing small towns and displacing people whose families have farmed there or lived there for generations. Small towns live or die, depending on where a highway is built.

How are these different?

I don’t think they are different. I think that most liberals care about urban neighborhoods being disrupted or destroyed and don’t care about the rural areas being altered, and homes, businesses lost forever.

This is just another way that rural people feel as though they are disregarded. Because they ARE being disregarded.

 

[TomC]

My point is exactly that: if it’s farms and small towns who are being disrupted, the ‘liberal’ attitude is: who cares? Bunch of rural folks—probably ignorant republicans so who cares? And zillions use the interstate.

We could start at the beginning.
I despise the socialist transportation system known as the "interstate freeways". If they weren't funded at gunpoint, with tax money, because they're "good for business", we could get along the way Japanese people do. Reliance on efficient and available light rail for long distance travel.

However, to get to your point about ruralites getting paid for land, then complaining about it. How about this?

When an urban dweller has their neighborhood destroyed by pushing through a socialist freeway, do they get a big check from the government, like your family did? Nope.

Their landlords probably did, but the people who had their lives disrupted by yet an another highway got nothing. You know that as well as I do. Who got the big checks when I-65 and I-70 got pushed through Indianapolis? The little people?

Nah, you know better than that. Your family got a bunch of money when they lost their home, urban folks who lost their homes got squat.

Don't give me this "rural people are victims of the system" bullshit because I know better.
Tom

 

[bilby]

It’s the same damn thing, just a different setting.

It's not just a different setting though; The difference in setting is one of population density, so that difference implies that in one case far more people are impacted.

Democracies by definition care more about the many than about the few.

Unless you share Joe Stalin's view that (to paraphrase) one person losing his home is a tragedy; A million people losing their homes is a statistic.

The difference between rural and urban folks is, first and foremost, by definition, one of population density.

 

[laughing dog]

My point is exactly that: if it’s farms and small towns who are being disrupted, the ‘liberal’ attitude is: who cares? Bunch of rural folks—probably ignorant republicans so who cares? And zillions use the interstate.

We could start at the beginning.
I despise the socialist transportation system known as the "interstate freeways". If they weren't funded at gunpoint, with tax money, because they're "good for business", we could get along the way Japanese people do. Reliance on efficient and available light rail for long distance travel.

However, to get to your point about ruralites getting paid for land, then complaining about it. How about this?

When an urban dweller has their neighborhood destroyed by pushing through a socialist freeway, do they get a big check from the government, like your family did? Nope.

Their landlords probably did, but the people who had their lives disrupted by yet an another highway got nothing. You know that as well as I do. Who got the big checks when I-65 and I-70 got pushed through Indianapolis? The little people?

Nah, you know better than that. Your family got a bunch of money when they lost their home, urban folks who lost their homes got squat.

Don't give me this "rural people are victims of the system" bullshit because I know better.
Tom

You don’t know better. You don’t the size of the checks any received or who recieved.

So stop making stuff up.

 

[TomC]

You don’t know better. You don’t the size of the checks any received or who recieved.

So stop making stuff up.

I know that Toni claimed her relatives got enough money to retire on.
A bunch of urbanites in Indianapolis got squat.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

It’s the same damn thing, just a different setting.

It's not just a different setting though; The difference in setting is one of population density, so that difference implies that in one case far more people are impacted.

Democracies by definition care more about the many than about the few.

Unless you share Joe Stalin's view that (to paraphrase) one person losing his home is a tragedy; A million people losing their homes is a statistic.

The difference between rural and urban folks is, first and foremost, by definition, one of population density.

The extent to which population density matters in moral judgments is open to debate,

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So: rural and small town people are stupid.

Got it.

How is it working out for you when you ridicule and look down on people with whom you disagree? Changed any hearts and minds yet?

This, btw, is how we all lose.

The reality is the smart ones tend to leave for greater opportunity in the cities. It's nothing like 100% but it's enough to make a marked difference in the societies even though it doesn't apply to everyone. All populations that have suffered heavy emigration show this pattern.

 

[Toni]

My point is exactly that: if it’s farms and small towns who are being disrupted, the ‘liberal’ attitude is: who cares? Bunch of rural folks—probably ignorant republicans so who cares? And zillions use the interstate.

We could start at the beginning.
I despise the socialist transportation system known as the "interstate freeways". If they weren't funded at gunpoint, with tax money, because they're "good for business", we could get along the way Japanese people do. Reliance on efficient and available light rail for long distance travel.

However, to get to your point about ruralites getting paid for land, then complaining about it. How about this?

When an urban dweller has their neighborhood destroyed by pushing through a socialist freeway, do they get a big check from the government, like your family did? Nope.

Their landlords probably did, but the people who had their lives disrupted by yet an another highway got nothing. You know that as well as I do. Who got the big checks when I-65 and I-70 got pushed through Indianapolis? The little people?

Nah, you know better than that. Your family got a bunch of money when they lost their home, urban folks who lost their homes got squat.

Don't give me this "rural people are victims of the system" bullshit because I know better.
Tom

Yes, they DO get checks. They just aren’t enough. And btw, why don’t you know and understand that there are urban people, including black people in urban areas who OWN their own homes???? WTF!

Why do you understand that it is difficult fir urban people to loose their homes and neighborhoods but not that it’s hard for farmers and just plain renters and small town home owners and business people to lose their homes and neighborhoods , proximity to family and friends and relationships decades old and sometimes much longer.

It’s the SAME issue!!!!

But liberals often only care about one of those groups.

My family member losing their farm came close to destroying him the very same as it could for any other business owner whose entire life, maybe for generations, was wrapped up in their business. It isn’t so easy to shift gears in your 60’s and have the business/farm you still wanted to run and leave to your kid, as you got it from your dad. People’s dreams are taken when they lose their home, their land/business/neighborhood.

My family member was fortunate that they got a decent payout and could keep their actual home—with a lovely view of a roaring interstate. They still lost lots that was very important to them. If they had a choice, they would never have sold. Lots of other people were not so fortunate as that family member was.

My point was not about imminent domaine per se so much as it was that some people seem worth caring about and others don’t.

If you want people to be on your side, to vote the way you want/need them to vote, you need to really look at things from their side.

I am not talking about the repugnant racism and phobias about other people’s sex lives. For most people, those ‘issues’ really only get inflamed when their basic needs are being ignored. When people are scared, they latch on to some boogie man or another. Race, LGBTQIA+, whatever.

Honestly, if you want a complacent, content enough population, make sure they have access to good jobs, affordable housing abd health care and day care and good educational opportunities for their families. And roads in decent shape, clean air and water. In other words, security, with hope for the future.

 

[Toni]

So: rural and small town people are stupid.

Got it.

How is it working out for you when you ridicule and look down on people with whom you disagree? Changed any hearts and minds yet?

This, btw, is how we all lose.

The reality is the smart ones tend to leave for greater opportunity in the cities. It's nothing like 100% but it's enough to make a marked difference in the societies even though it doesn't apply to everyone. All populations that have suffered heavy emigration show this pattern.

I can’t decide whether that’s a more ignorant or more elitist attitude so I’ll just go with clueless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or perhaps you are unable to consider that there exists a possibility of finding some common ground.

Y’all seem to want civil war because somehow you cannot understand that understanding someone has a different perspective than yours is not the same thing as agreeing with them. Real mature.

We are not the ones that want the civil war. Rather, we recognize that a lot of people on the right do want a war and when you have a belligerent neighbor you should be thinking about your defenses.

 

[Toni]

Or perhaps you are unable to consider that there exists a possibility of finding some common ground.

Y’all seem to want civil war because somehow you cannot understand that understanding someone has a different perspective than yours is not the same thing as agreeing with them. Real mature.

We are not the ones that want the civil war. Rather, we recognize that a lot of people on the right do want a war and when you have a belligerent neighbor you should be thinking about your defenses.

It takes two, Loren.

What I am seeing is people perfectly willing to go to war—or rather, to send my sons into war while they sit nice and safe in their homes, secure in their superiority because that sense of righteous superiority is more important to them than what is actually right.

The only reason for war is if one cannot avoid it because the other side starts it.

Here, people seem happy to say the other dude started it without considering whether:
1. It is entirely true that the other side started it, apparently by saying mean things
2. Can it be avoided by actually attempting to see the other person’s side ( and no, I am NOT taking about accepting racism or christofascism or bigotry based on sexual orientation or misogyny—those are non-negotiable and besides, they really ARE side issues which are also hot button issues (Ma—they stole my Pokémon cards!!—20 years ago but still). We need to look for common ground. Basically, people want the same exact things
3. Who benefits from all this drummed up hostility and conflict? Not you. Not me. Not the US or the world at large. Maybe political parties and operatives within those parties. Maybe a handful of billionaires. And maybe our enemies. It ain’t you and me.

 

[TomC]

It takes two, Loren.

No.
Actually it doesn't Toni.

One side can start a war all by themselves.
Tom

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

If you want people to be on your side, to vote the way you want/need them to vote, you need to really look at things from their side.
I am not talking about the repugnant racism and phobias about other people’s sex lives. For most people, those ‘issues’ really only get inflamed when their basic needs are being ignored. When people are scared, they latch on to some boogie man or another. Race, LGBTQIA+, whatever.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The main reason we have such obscene wealth inequality in this country is because right-wing bigots keep voting for right-wing politicians who enact right-wing economic policies.

Honestly, if you want a complacent, content enough population, make sure they have access to good jobs, affordable housing abd health care and day care and good educational opportunities for their families. And roads in decent shape, clean air and water. In other words, security, with hope for the future.

And who is standing in the way of that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it were an urban neighbourhood, it would affect hundreds or even thousands of families, and not just one.

Land doesn't vote; The reason that there is an outcry when an urban area is bulldozed is because of the number of people impacted, not their colour.

And, in practice they're going to go for the cheapest land that's suitable for the purpose. This ends up "targeting" the poor which are disproportionately black. It's simple economics, not actually racism or classism. If it costs $1B to put the freeway through the poor area or $2B to put it through the middle class area do you think the voters would stand for putting it through the middle class area?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My point is exactly that: if it’s farms and small towns who are being disrupted, the ‘liberal’ attitude is: who cares? Bunch of rural folks—probably ignorant republicans so who cares? And zillions use the interstate.

We could start at the beginning.
I despise the socialist transportation system known as the "interstate freeways". If they weren't funded at gunpoint, with tax money, because they're "good for business", we could get along the way Japanese people do. Reliance on efficient and available light rail for long distance travel.

Japan can use mostly light rail because it's so dense. The dominant form of transit heavily depends on population density, what works well at one density can work very badly at another. (Imagine bush planes in Tokyo or subways in the Alaska bush for some extremes.)

 

[Toni]

If it were an urban neighbourhood, it would affect hundreds or even thousands of families, and not just one.

Land doesn't vote; The reason that there is an outcry when an urban area is bulldozed is because of the number of people impacted, not their colour.

And, in practice they're going to go for the cheapest land that's suitable for the purpose. This ends up "targeting" the poor which are disproportionately black. It's simple economics, not actually racism or classism. If it costs $1B to put the freeway through the poor area or $2B to put it through the middle class area do you think the voters would stand for putting it through the middle class area?!

It’s also racism. Racism is the reason black people are disproportionately poor. They are also less likely to be well educated or to have the resources to obtain legal counsel for prolonged battles. White peoples make a bigger fuss. Plus, they are more likely to look like the people making decisions—which unfortunately, does matter, even when the influence is not conscious.