Split City Vs Country Politics

[Emily Lake]

You don't seem to see the difference between valid criticism and disdain.

Your screed of hate-filled rhetoric based on your own hate-filled stereotype of "those people" doesn't constitute "valid criticism. It constitutes disdain.

 

[Tigers!]

You don’t win hearts or minds by ridicule, contempt or disdain.

But that's exactly the Republican strategy and it's been winning hearts and minds while screaming about critical race theory and the liberal elitists.

that's a very good point - the mindset of the DNC and of liberals in general in the U.S. has been one of appeasement, and basing all of their political decisions on what the people who hate them and will never agree with *anything* that they do think about the issues.
it has not been going well.

Yes H. Clinton's use of the word "deplorables" neatly encapsulated what her and her ilk thought of those who would not vote for her. She dropped her guard for just a moment.

So, putting aside how monumentally fucking stupid that statement of yours is on general grounds, I'm almost curious to find out exactly how you explain two things:

1. In what possible twisted inability to grasp the concept of language could what she said be taken to mean "those who would not vote for her"?

2. In what way is anything she said factually inaccurate?

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

You don’t win hearts or minds by ridicule, contempt or disdain.

But that's exactly the Republican strategy and it's been winning hearts and minds while screaming about critical race theory and the liberal elitists.

that's a very good point - the mindset of the DNC and of liberals in general in the U.S. has been one of appeasement, and basing all of their political decisions on what the people who hate them and will never agree with *anything* that they do think about the issues.
it has not been going well.

Yes H. Clinton's use of the word "deplorables" neatly encapsulated what her and her ilk thought of those who would not vote for her. She dropped her guard for just a moment.

So, putting aside how monumentally fucking stupid that statement of yours is on general grounds, I'm almost curious to find out exactly how you explain two things:

1. In what possible twisted inability to grasp the concept of language could what she said be taken to mean "those who would not vote for her"?

Her words that you quoted below "...Trump’s supporters.." would be taken by anyone with a rudimentary grasp of English to mean those who would not support/vote for her.

2. In what way is anything she said factually inaccurate?

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

From your post earlier "the mindset of the DNC and of liberals in general in the U.S. has been one of appeasement," is not the sort of language that an appeaser would use. It denoted how she really felt and it is not appeasing on her mind.

 

[prideandfall]

You don't seem to see the difference between valid criticism and disdain.

Your screed of hate-filled rhetoric based on your own hate-filled stereotype of "those people" doesn't constitute "valid criticism. It constitutes disdain.

Ah OK, your fee-fees are hurt because the meany-pants head said owie time words and so you just mentally shut down. Gotcha.

 

[Metaphor]

You don't seem to see the difference between valid criticism and disdain.

Your screed of hate-filled rhetoric based on your own hate-filled stereotype of "those people" doesn't constitute "valid criticism. It constitutes disdain.

Ah OK, your fee-fees are hurt because the meany-pants head said owie time words and so you just mentally shut down. Gotcha.

No. Emily correctly observed that your "valid criticism" was expressed in extremely disdainful language. Packed to the rafters with it, actually.

I will edit for you a non-disdainful version of one section of your "valid criticism"

original

the absolute fact is that rural idiots vote republican, and republicans do absolutely NOTHING in any way shape or form to materially improve their living conditions.
democrats verifiably DO improve their living conditions, but by doing so initiate some kind of fucktarded hillbilly vengeance pact against the very people who are trying to help them, because that "hard work" ethic you're so fond of makes these communities incapable of accepting the economic and infrastructure assistance they require in order to live in the modern world without going completely ape shit over the fact that someone handed them something.

Conveying the same "valid criticism" without the disdainful language. Note that I disagree with several of your claims but I will not attempt to argue about them. This is about your disdainful language:

the absolute fact is that rural idiots people are more likely to vote republican, and republicans do absolutely NOTHING in any way shape or form to materially improve their living conditions.
democrats verifiably DO improve their living conditions, but by doing so initiate some kind of fucktarded hillbilly vengeance pact rural voters push back against the very people who are trying to help them, because that "hard work" ethic you're so fond of makes these communities incapable of accepting the economic and infrastructure assistance they require in order to live in the modern world without going completely ape shit over the fact a sense of conflict with their political sensibilities about "handouts". that someone handed them something.

Of course, the very fact that you appear incapable of even conceiving of voting for a party for any other reason than the promise of a government-funded improvement to your material living conditions is quite telling. Except, I guess, the city Republicans who are only voting for government-funded improvement to their material living conditions.

 

[Metaphor]

It's one thing to use disdainful language about a person, group, or policy you have a problem with. I do it all the time. But it's quite another to deny that you are being disdainful when you obviously are.

 

[prideandfall]

It's one thing to use disdainful language about a person, group, or policy you have a problem with. I do it all the time. But it's quite another to deny that you are being disdainful when you obviously are.

Dis·dain noun: the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.

While normally I'd say that argument-by-dictionary is a poor way to go about things, the fact is that words have meaning.
Yes, I'm caustic and yes I express myself in an abrasive manner, congratulations for having solved the mystery that I'm a bit of a cunt.
However, I don't consider the issues rural people face to be beneath consideration and I don't consider rural people to be unworthy of respect, I just find it incredibly stupid that they have spent the last 60 years actively ruining their own lives.

Whining like a mewling kitten because your fee-fees are hurt that I used mean words, without even an attempt to address any of the points I made, isn't making a strong counter-argument. It's just being a baby.

 

[Metaphor]

It's one thing to use disdainful language about a person, group, or policy you have a problem with. I do it all the time. But it's quite another to deny that you are being disdainful when you obviously are.

Dis·dain noun: the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.

While normally I'd say that argument-by-dictionary is a poor way to go about things, the fact is that words have meaning.
Yes, I'm caustic and yes I express myself in an abrasive manner, congratulations for having solved the mystery that I'm a bit of a cunt.
However, I don't consider the issues rural people face to be beneath consideration and I don't consider rural people to be unworthy of respect,

Even if I believed you, then the disdainful language you have used is in conflict with your underlying feelings. You cannot blame others when the words you have used express disdain.

I just find it incredibly stupid that they have spent the last 60 years actively ruining their own lives.

That is your perspective and opinion on the issue. It hasn't seemed to occur to you that they value things differently to you, and that they would not consider that they have 'actively' ruined their lives, or that their lives are, in fact, in ruin.

Whining like a mewling kitten because your fee-fees are hurt that I used mean words, without even an attempt to address any of the points I made, isn't making a strong counter-argument. It's just being a baby.

Who was "whining"? I specifically did not want to engage with your "points", but to amplify Emily's pointing out of your expressed disdain for rural people.

As for your arguments--even if I agreed that electing Democrats would improve the material wellbeing of rural folk (and I do not necessarily agree, I am agnostic on that)--that presumes that the most important value for all voters is that the government improving their perosnal material wellbeing. In fact, I don't think many voters would say that is their central value.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course, the very fact that you appear incapable of even conceiving of voting for a party for any other reason than the promise of a government-funded improvement to your material living conditions is quite telling.

Ah well aren't you the quintessential Sherlock, you've solved the mystery of that being the only possible option.

Since you're such an unbridled genius, why don't you go ahead and explain how the crippling socioeconomic problems facing rural Americans can be solved by anything other than the collective resources of society, AKA the government.

I do not agree they have 'crippling socioeconomic problems', but even if I did, I never claimed, or denied, there was a non-government way to resolve those problems. You have once again simply assumed your own values are the same as everyone else's, and that therefore the rural people who do not vote for government largesse are morons.

Except, I guess, the city Republicans who are only voting for government-funded improvement to their material living conditions.

Yep your 4th dimensional chess brain definitely got it in one, the only option is that if one group of people votes a certain way that means everyone votes that way for the same reason. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Next you'll be telling me your post isn't dripping with sarcastic language.

My point was not about Republican voters. My point was about you.

You despise rural Republican voters because you believe they are idiots who are voting against their own material wellbeing. You--I am certain--also despise city Republican voters because they are voting to advance their own material wellbeing.

Which is it? Is it good to vote to advance your material wellbeing, or is it bad to do so?

My galaxy brain can't figure why it would be good in the country and bad in the city.

 

[prideandfall]

I just find it incredibly stupid that they have spent the last 60 years actively ruining their own lives.

That is your perspective and opinion on the issue.

That is the conclusion based on an observation of objective facts.

It hasn't seemed to occur to you that they value things differently to you, and that they would not consider that they have 'actively' ruined their lives, or that their lives are, in fact, in ruin.

Firstly, it has occurred to me - that is why their behavior is stupid, in fact.

Secondly, the entire premise of this thread is somebody else said their lives are ruined and that they need help, it's not like I just rolled up and started making that claim.

Whining like a mewling kitten because your fee-fees are hurt that I used mean words, without even an attempt to address any of the points I made, isn't making a strong counter-argument. It's just being a baby.

Who was "whining"?

So far, you and Toni and Emily.

I specifically did not want to engage with your "points", but to amplify Emily's pointing out of your expressed disdain for rural people.

So, you are thinking that "I wasn't whining, I was just virtue-signaling to the person who was whining" is a good look for you?

As for your arguments--even if I agreed that electing Democrats would improve the material wellbeing of rural folk (and I do not necessarily agree, I am agnostic on that)--that presumes that the most important value for all voters is that the government improving their perosnal material wellbeing. In fact, I don't think many voters would say that is their central value.

Firstly I wouldn't say voting Democrat would improve their lives necessarily, but it is an undeniable and objective truth that if Democrats were consistently a majority both nationally and in the regions where these people live the decline in their standard of living over the past several decades would have been slowed or prevented.

It's simply not debatable that in the U.S., Republican socioeconomic policy (both stated in their platform and agendas, and the things they just do in general) has a demonstrably negative impact on the quality of life and material conditions of people who aren't rich assholes.
If your life getting worse doesn't matter to you because you hate women and black people so much that you'd rather die of a meth overdose in a hovel than see them have basic rights, then you're a fucking idiot - which is fine, people are allowed to do that, but it's a pathetic travesty that your opinion is allowed to participate in the governance of human civilization.

 

[Metaphor]

I just find it incredibly stupid that they have spent the last 60 years actively ruining their own lives.

That is your perspective and opinion on the issue.

That is the conclusion based on an observation of objective facts.

It's a conclusion. You may have observed a subset of facts that are important to you. It is entirely opinion that somebody has 'ruined their lives' because of the facts you claim to have observed.

It hasn't seemed to occur to you that they value things differently to you, and that they would not consider that they have 'actively' ruined their lives, or that their lives are, in fact, in ruin.

Firstly, it has occurred to me - that is why their behavior is stupid, in fact.

What makes them stupid? That they don't realise their lives are ruined, or that they value things differently to you? Both, presumably.

Secondly, the entire premise of this thread is somebody else said their lives are ruined and that they need help, it's not like I just rolled up and started making that claim.

That I gave an assist to Emily who torpedoed your claim that you were not disdainful does not mean that I agree with any other claim by anyone else.

Whining like a mewling kitten because your fee-fees are hurt that I used mean words, without even an attempt to address any of the points I made, isn't making a strong counter-argument. It's just being a baby.

Who was "whining"?

So far, you and Toni and Emily.

Responding to claims is not whining. You are mistaken.

I specifically did not want to engage with your "points", but to amplify Emily's pointing out of your expressed disdain for rural people.

So, you are thinking that "I wasn't whining, I was just virtue-signaling to the person who was whining" is a good look for you?

The very idea that I would even attempt to virtue signal on this board is quite laughable. What would it gain me? There is no amount of performative supplication I could muster that would soften the feelings of many on this board, nor do I necessarily value the esteem of people whose values are in opposition to mine.

Neither Toni, Emily, nor myself were 'whining'.

As for your arguments--even if I agreed that electing Democrats would improve the material wellbeing of rural folk (and I do not necessarily agree, I am agnostic on that)--that presumes that the most important value for all voters is that the government improving their perosnal material wellbeing. In fact, I don't think many voters would say that is their central value.

Firstly I wouldn't say voting Democrat would improve their lives necessarily, but it is an undeniable and objective truth that if Democrats were consistently a majority both nationally and in the regions where these people live the decline in their standard of living over the past several decades would have been slowed or prevented.

If Democrats were consistently a majority both nationally and in the regions, then America would be an effective one-party State, and nobody's life is made better for living in a one-party State.

It's simply not debatable that in the U.S., Republican socioeconomic policy (both stated in their platform and agendas, and the things they just do in general) has a demonstrably negative impact on the quality of life and material conditions of people who aren't rich assholes.
If your life getting worse

It is indeed debatable, but even if it were not and I accepted your claim, you are once again placing 'material wellbeing enabled by government' as the highest value for a voter, simply because you imagine it should be their highest value.

doesn't matter to you because you hate women and black people so much

I must say, you are starting to convince me. Rural Republican voters are so stupid that even though, year after year after year of putting Republicans in power, there are women and black people everywhere, instead of women and black people getting exterminated!

that you'd rather die of a meth overdose in a hovel than see them have basic rights, then you're a fucking idiot - which is fine, people are allowed to do that, but it's a pathetic travesty that your opinion is allowed to participate in the governance of human civilization.

Oh, that is a travesty that they are allowed to vote. Perhaps you can foment a revolution.

 

[prideandfall]

I just find it incredibly stupid that they have spent the last 60 years actively ruining their own lives.

That is your perspective and opinion on the issue.

That is the conclusion based on an observation of objective facts.

It's a conclusion. You may have observed a subset of facts that are important to you. It is entirely opinion that somebody has 'ruined their lives' because of the facts you claim to have observed.

It hasn't seemed to occur to you that they value things differently to you, and that they would not consider that they have 'actively' ruined their lives, or that their lives are, in fact, in ruin.

Firstly, it has occurred to me - that is why their behavior is stupid, in fact.

What makes them stupid? That they don't realise their lives are ruined, or that they value things differently to you? Both, presumably.

Secondly, the entire premise of this thread is somebody else said their lives are ruined and that they need help, it's not like I just rolled up and started making that claim.

That I gave an assist to Emily who torpedoed your claim that you were not disdainful does not mean that I agree with any other claim by anyone else.

Whining like a mewling kitten because your fee-fees are hurt that I used mean words, without even an attempt to address any of the points I made, isn't making a strong counter-argument. It's just being a baby.

Who was "whining"?

So far, you and Toni and Emily.

Responding to claims is not whining. You are mistaken.

I specifically did not want to engage with your "points", but to amplify Emily's pointing out of your expressed disdain for rural people.

So, you are thinking that "I wasn't whining, I was just virtue-signaling to the person who was whining" is a good look for you?

The very idea that I would even attempt to virtue signal on this board is quite laughable. What would it gain me? There is no amount of performative supplication I could muster that would soften the feelings of many on this board, nor do I necessarily value the esteem of people whose values are in opposition to mine.

Neither Toni, Emily, nor myself were 'whining'.

As for your arguments--even if I agreed that electing Democrats would improve the material wellbeing of rural folk (and I do not necessarily agree, I am agnostic on that)--that presumes that the most important value for all voters is that the government improving their perosnal material wellbeing. In fact, I don't think many voters would say that is their central value.

Firstly I wouldn't say voting Democrat would improve their lives necessarily, but it is an undeniable and objective truth that if Democrats were consistently a majority both nationally and in the regions where these people live the decline in their standard of living over the past several decades would have been slowed or prevented.

If Democrats were consistently a majority both nationally and in the regions, then America would be an effective one-party State, and nobody's life is made better for living in a one-party State.

It's simply not debatable that in the U.S., Republican socioeconomic policy (both stated in their platform and agendas, and the things they just do in general) has a demonstrably negative impact on the quality of life and material conditions of people who aren't rich assholes.
If your life getting worse

It is indeed debatable, but even if it were not and I accepted your claim, you are once again placing 'material wellbeing enabled by government' as the highest value for a voter, simply because you imagine it should be their highest value.

doesn't matter to you because you hate women and black people so much

I must say, you are starting to convince me. Rural Republican voters are so stupid that even though, year after year after year of putting Republicans in power, there are women and black people everywhere, instead of women and black people getting exterminated!

that you'd rather die of a meth overdose in a hovel than see them have basic rights, then you're a fucking idiot - which is fine, people are allowed to do that, but it's a pathetic travesty that your opinion is allowed to participate in the governance of human civilization.

Oh, that is a travesty that they are allowed to vote. Perhaps you can foment a revolution.

I post here because I love intellectual debate, and I love having my ideas about the world challenged by disinterested parties.
My favorite thing in the world is a lively argument where points are hashed out, where I get to chisel my opinions down and figure out way of thinking about things and expressing them that otherwise I wouldn't have the chance to if I was just thinking about it myself or chatting with friends.
Because of this I have a nearly inexhaustible capacity to go back and forth when it comes to ideas, and virtually zero patience with cry-babies who bray like mules because they're too delicate and soft to engage with a notion without getting butt hurt over it.

This wall of gibbering nonsense you posted has really put the screws to me, so congratulations - you managed to brute-force stupid me into submission. There is literally nothing of intellectual substance in a single thing you've posted in this thread, and I'm tapping out.

 

[Metaphor]

I just find it incredibly stupid that they have spent the last 60 years actively ruining their own lives.

That is your perspective and opinion on the issue.

That is the conclusion based on an observation of objective facts.

It's a conclusion. You may have observed a subset of facts that are important to you. It is entirely opinion that somebody has 'ruined their lives' because of the facts you claim to have observed.

It hasn't seemed to occur to you that they value things differently to you, and that they would not consider that they have 'actively' ruined their lives, or that their lives are, in fact, in ruin.

Firstly, it has occurred to me - that is why their behavior is stupid, in fact.

What makes them stupid? That they don't realise their lives are ruined, or that they value things differently to you? Both, presumably.

Secondly, the entire premise of this thread is somebody else said their lives are ruined and that they need help, it's not like I just rolled up and started making that claim.

That I gave an assist to Emily who torpedoed your claim that you were not disdainful does not mean that I agree with any other claim by anyone else.

Whining like a mewling kitten because your fee-fees are hurt that I used mean words, without even an attempt to address any of the points I made, isn't making a strong counter-argument. It's just being a baby.

Who was "whining"?

So far, you and Toni and Emily.

Responding to claims is not whining. You are mistaken.

I specifically did not want to engage with your "points", but to amplify Emily's pointing out of your expressed disdain for rural people.

So, you are thinking that "I wasn't whining, I was just virtue-signaling to the person who was whining" is a good look for you?

The very idea that I would even attempt to virtue signal on this board is quite laughable. What would it gain me? There is no amount of performative supplication I could muster that would soften the feelings of many on this board, nor do I necessarily value the esteem of people whose values are in opposition to mine.

Neither Toni, Emily, nor myself were 'whining'.

As for your arguments--even if I agreed that electing Democrats would improve the material wellbeing of rural folk (and I do not necessarily agree, I am agnostic on that)--that presumes that the most important value for all voters is that the government improving their perosnal material wellbeing. In fact, I don't think many voters would say that is their central value.

Firstly I wouldn't say voting Democrat would improve their lives necessarily, but it is an undeniable and objective truth that if Democrats were consistently a majority both nationally and in the regions where these people live the decline in their standard of living over the past several decades would have been slowed or prevented.

If Democrats were consistently a majority both nationally and in the regions, then America would be an effective one-party State, and nobody's life is made better for living in a one-party State.

It's simply not debatable that in the U.S., Republican socioeconomic policy (both stated in their platform and agendas, and the things they just do in general) has a demonstrably negative impact on the quality of life and material conditions of people who aren't rich assholes.
If your life getting worse

It is indeed debatable, but even if it were not and I accepted your claim, you are once again placing 'material wellbeing enabled by government' as the highest value for a voter, simply because you imagine it should be their highest value.

doesn't matter to you because you hate women and black people so much

I must say, you are starting to convince me. Rural Republican voters are so stupid that even though, year after year after year of putting Republicans in power, there are women and black people everywhere, instead of women and black people getting exterminated!

that you'd rather die of a meth overdose in a hovel than see them have basic rights, then you're a fucking idiot - which is fine, people are allowed to do that, but it's a pathetic travesty that your opinion is allowed to participate in the governance of human civilization.

Oh, that is a travesty that they are allowed to vote. Perhaps you can foment a revolution.

I post here because I love intellectual debate, and I love having my ideas about the world challenged by disinterested parties.
My favorite thing in the world is a lively argument where points are hashed out, where I get to chisel my opinions down and figure out way of thinking about things and expressing them that otherwise I wouldn't have the chance to if I was just thinking about it myself or chatting with friends.
Because of this I have a nearly inexhaustible capacity to go back and forth when it comes to ideas, and virtually zero patience with cry-babies who bray like mules because they're too delicate and soft to engage with a notion without getting butt hurt over it.

This wall of gibbering nonsense you posted has really put the screws to me, so congratulations - you managed to brute-force stupid me into submission. There is literally nothing of intellectual substance in a single thing you've posted in this thread, and I'm tapping out.

Sure luv.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You don’t win hearts or minds by ridicule, contempt or disdain.

But that's exactly the Republican strategy and it's been winning hearts and minds while screaming about critical race theory and the liberal elitists.

that's a very good point - the mindset of the DNC and of liberals in general in the U.S. has been one of appeasement, and basing all of their political decisions on what the people who hate them and will never agree with *anything* that they do think about the issues.
it has not been going well.

Yes H. Clinton's use of the word "deplorables" neatly encapsulated what her and her ilk thought of those who would not vote for her. She dropped her guard for just a moment.

No. That isn't what she was talking about. It was clear that there was a white nationalist (anti-Semitic) bent among some vocal Trump supporters (see Steve Bannon and Alex Jones). We'd see this come out in the early white tiki torch march chanting about the Jews.

The problem with what she said wasn't that it wasn't true, it was that people like you interpreted it like you did.

 

[ZiprHead]

No. Emily correctly observed that your "valid criticism" was expressed in extremely disdainful language. Packed to the rafters with it, actually.

Yup.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So what? It’s no longer socially acceptable to use the n word anymore and you’ve just got to find some place to put all that bigotry and hatred so you’ve decided that everyone who does not live in a city is stupid and ignorant?

What bigotry and what hatred?

It's not my fault that an entire demographic of the population of this country has spent decades proving they can't take care of themselves.
If the only thing you can come up with as a response to me recognizing that reality is: "omg you're such a meany head" because you don't like people stating facts, well then I suppose good for you for being unable to have a conversation.

How very enlightened of you.

Yeah, it is. You might want to give a try to actually facing reality instead of crying about the fact that people on the internet don't instantly kneel before whatever pronouncement you've made.
If you think that people that consciously choose to wreck their own lives for *generations* are not demonstrating their inability to care for themselves politically, feel free to explain that one - I'd love to hear it.

Come to it, you and and Emily have both failed completely to even address anything I said, other than to stamp your feet and cry about it.
I'd love to be wrong about my view on this subject, present a convincing argument and I'll change my mind.
Or hell, if you want to really impress me present *any* argument that isn't you fluffing your post count for the sake of showing off how upset you are that I posted something you don't like.

Who has proven ‘they can’t take care of themselves?’ What proof do you have? What data?

prideandfall isn't completely speaking garbage here.

Rural areas are a microcosm of both self-sustainability and federal government reliance. You know, just like cities. And of course, "rural" is kind of an invalid term. What is rural? Alaska rural, middle of Montana rural, middle of nowhere Ohio middle? Alaska needs a good deal of support from the federal government for infrastructure. Amtrak still exists not because of the NE Corridor, but because of the cross country lines that stop in places most of us would never think of going to.

I think when it comes to the big ticket stuff, water treatment, wastewater treatment, water access, roadways, bridges, FEMA... they don't have the money. And let's be clear on where prideandfall is wrong, neither do the suburbs. So many tiny jobs I've worked on for cities or counties (townships ain't got any money) have federal funds. And it has been that way for a while. Republicans have done a great job at starving the beast.

 

[prideandfall]

I think when it comes to the big ticket stuff, water treatment, wastewater treatment, water access, roadways, bridges, FEMA... they don't have the money. And let's be clear on where prideandfall is wrong, neither do the suburbs.

Er, how exactly am I 'wrong' here? I never said the suburbs have any money or that urban or suburban areas are some mystical fount of money.
Believe me, if you want to have a thread tearing into why cities are a giant pile of shit and how many horrible issues are going on there, I can dig into that quite thoroughly... but that isn't the topic brought up by this thread.

So many tiny jobs I've worked on for cities or counties (townships ain't got any money) have federal funds. And it has been that way for a while. Republicans have done a great job at starving the beast.

And who, by and large, votes in republicans? You're almost there....

 

[Metaphor]

I think when it comes to the big ticket stuff, water treatment, wastewater treatment, water access, roadways, bridges, FEMA... they don't have the money. And let's be clear on where prideandfall is wrong, neither do the suburbs.

Er, how exactly am I 'wrong' here? I never said the suburbs have any money or that urban or suburban areas are some mystical fount of money.
Believe me, if you want to have a thread tearing into why cities are a giant pile of shit and how many horrible issues are going on there, I can dig into that quite thoroughly... but that isn't the topic brought up by this thread.

So many tiny jobs I've worked on for cities or counties (townships ain't got any money) have federal funds. And it has been that way for a while. Republicans have done a great job at starving the beast.

And who, by and large, votes in republicans? You're almost there....

The same as who votes in anyone else. The 86 per cent of the American population that is not rural.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think when it comes to the big ticket stuff, water treatment, wastewater treatment, water access, roadways, bridges, FEMA... they don't have the money. And let's be clear on where prideandfall is wrong, neither do the suburbs.

Er, how exactly am I 'wrong' here? I never said the suburbs have any money or that urban or suburban areas are some mystical fount of money.

Its implied when you say that the rural areas can't fend for themselves. If you aren't saying that is the case, then I got the wrong implication.

So many tiny jobs I've worked on for cities or counties (townships ain't got any money) have federal funds. And it has been that way for a while. Republicans have done a great job at starving the beast.

And who, by and large, votes in republicans? You're almost there....

Suburbs and rural areas.

 

[prideandfall]

Its implied when you say that the rural areas can't fend for themselves. If you aren't saying that is the case, then I got the wrong implication.

Well except for the fact I didn't say that, sure.
I said rural voters demonstrably can't take care of themselves politically, as evidenced by the fact that they have spent the last 60 years failing to take care of themselves politically.
There are many challenges that rural communities face in the modern world, and through no fault of their own. IMO most of those challenges cannot be overcome locally, again through no fault of their own.
But, having a huge problem that you have to confront and then doing so by voting for the party whose express and sole purpose is to make all of your problems worse is... I mean, it's the political equivalent of having to take a shit, your abdomen is crampy and your asshole is burning, and so to deal with it you find a toddler and punch it in the face.

And then I get shit on for saying "Hm, maybe those people are idiots who don't know how to deal with their problems."

So many tiny jobs I've worked on for cities or counties (townships ain't got any money) have federal funds. And it has been that way for a while. Republicans have done a great job at starving the beast.

And who, by and large, votes in republicans? You're almost there....

Suburbs and rural areas.

Right, which kind of circles around to exactly what I've been saying this entire thread.

 

[Toni]

I think when it comes to the big ticket stuff, water treatment, wastewater treatment, water access, roadways, bridges, FEMA... they don't have the money. And let's be clear on where prideandfall is wrong, neither do the suburbs.

Er, how exactly am I 'wrong' here? I never said the suburbs have any money or that urban or suburban areas are some mystical fount of money.

Its implied when you say that the rural areas can't fend for themselves. If you aren't saying that is the case, then I got the wrong implication.

So many tiny jobs I've worked on for cities or counties (townships ain't got any money) have federal funds. And it has been that way for a while. Republicans have done a great job at starving the beast.

And who, by and large, votes in republicans? You're almost there....

Suburbs and rural areas.

Pretty hard to do all by our lonesome given that so many more people live in the cities.