Split City Vs Country Politics

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This whole conversation is incredibly ironic. It is also demonstrative of how I am regarded.

AFTER I made a post answering Toni's question, post #194 of this thread, there is a repeated barrage of people saying I never answer questions.

Oh, since "scroll up" is considered not answering a question, would it be the case that saying "post #194" is also considered not answering a question? Probably. You don't want to see me answering a question because doing so means you can no longer say I don't.

Stopped clock.

Every time you falsely accuse me of not answering questions, you are a stopped clock.

 

[ZiprHead]

This whole conversation is incredibly ironic. It is also demonstrative of how I am regarded.

AFTER I made a post answering Toni's question, post #194 of this thread, there is a repeated barrage of people saying I never answer questions.

Oh, since "scroll up" is considered not answering a question, would it be the case that saying "post #194" is also considered not answering a question? Probably. You don't want to see me answering a question because doing so means you can no longer say I don't.

Stopped clock.

Every time you falsely accuse me of not answering questions, you are a stopped clock.

 

[Swammerdami]

Fox News doesn't call out Joe Biden as a racist. People like me are "the help" to him.

What makes you say that?

He said that Latinx Americans are afraid to get the vaccine because they will get deported. I guess Biden thinks all Latins are illegals, plus he is colonizing our language.
Of course he shows some respect for my people by saying we are so diverse with incredibly different attitudes about different thing, unlike African Americans.
Speaking of African Americans, he has delegated to himself the authority to decide who is black and who isn't based on how they vote.
In the eulogy for Sen Byrd (D-KKK) he said that Byrd was a mentor to him and the senate is a lesser place without him.
He doesn't look down on all African Americans though, he said that Obama was the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean. Even Jessie Jackson called that one out, and he seldom calls out Democrats.
Talking to a black audience he said that black parents welcome government social workers into their homes because they want to properly raise their kids but don't know how.
Those kids can get ahead given the right opportunity, because poor kids can have as much success as white kids. The problem is black business owners don't know how to hire lawyers the way white business owners do and that is why their businesses fail.
I guess that's why Biden thinks African Americans are more likely to be Super Predators as he said in support of the 1994 crime bill.
He has opinions on other races as well. Apparently you need an Indian accent to go into a 7-11.

I've been traveling and did not see this post until you referred to it later, which is why I did not respond.

I didn't see Jason's post until Toni quoted it a few hours ago.

@ Jason — Is it possible that you've exaggerated some of Biden's words? Did he really say "Obama was the first mainstream African-American who is [] clean"? Is it better to condemn his actual words, or to condemn a caricature of them? In this vein, what's your stand on FoxNews photoshopping, or slurring Pelosi's words?

I'll challenge just two of your points, not because the other points are correct but because I only have so many hours in my day.

Robert Byrd. Byrd was the longest-serving Senator in history. He served multiple terms as Minority or Majority Leader of the Senate, a position earned by the votes of fellow Senators, not automatic from seniority. Biden was not the only one who spoke at his memorial: Below I've appended excerpts from the eulogy given by a black man to show how inept your stereotypes are. Ten terms after Byrd was first elected to the Senate, Joe Manchin was elected to the same seat from the same highly conservative state. Whatever we think of "red-neck West Virginia" each of these two frequently played pivotal roles in passing "liberal" legislation. As examples, Byrd cast the deciding votes for Obamacare and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. He also cast two decisive votes to restrict sales at gun shows as part of the School Safety Act of 1999. (To be clear, by "decisive vote," I mean the bill would have failed had Byrd stayed home or voted with the GOP.)

Robert Byrd was among the few Senators smart enough to realize that the Cheney-Rove plan to invade Iraq was a huge mistake; he tried to organize a filibuster of the Authorization bill but failed. (I'll post excerpts from Byrd's famous speech on that War if Jason needs them.)

Yes, Byrd was once active in the KKK — he called this the biggest mistake of his life — but he left the KKK sixty years before Biden gave his eulogy. SIXTY years. I've lived long enough that I can regret some of my own actions sixty years ago. When you must reach sixty years into the past to say something bad about a politician, that says something rather good about that politician, no? Donald Trump pled the 5th Amendment just yesterday. Who can guess how many felonies Trump committed just in this July?

Was he a personal mentor to Biden specifically? That's not quite how the quote reads to me:

... for a lot of us, he was a friend, and he was a mentor and he was a guide.

"I guess Biden thinks all Latins are illegals" I've heard that many Hispanics who reside in the U.S. legally are still afraid of Immigration police. No? Given right-wing rhetoric it's no surprise that they should be afraid.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On July 2, 2010, the late Senator Robert C. Byrd was eulogized by the 45th President of the United States. I've quoted much more than necessary to refute Jason's simplistic meme — I just like to read the eloquent words of one of the greatest orators to serve as U.S. President.

He was a Senate icon. He was a Party leader. He was an elder statesman. And he was my friend. That's how I'll remember him.
. . .
Transplanted to Washington, his heart remained here, in West Virginia, in the place that shaped him, with the people he loved. His heart belonged to you. Making life better here was his only agenda. Giving you hope, he said, was his greatest achievement. Hope in the form of new jobs and industries. Hope in the form of black lung benefits and union protections. Hope through roads and research centers, schools and scholarships, health clinics and industrial parks that bear his name.

His early rival and late friend, Ted Kennedy, used to joke about campaigning in West Virginia. When his bus broke down, Ted got hold of the highway patrol, who asked where he was. And he said, "I'm on Robert Byrd highway." And the dispatcher said, "Which one?" (Laughter.)

It's a life that immeasurably improved the lives of West Virginians. Of course, Robert Byrd was a deeply religious man, a Christian. And so he understood that our lives are marked by sins as well as virtues, failures as well as success, weakness as well as strength. We know there are things he said -- and things he did -- that he came to regret. I remember talking about that the first time I visited with him. He said, "There are things I regretted in my youth. You may know that." And I said, "None of us are absent some regrets, Senator. That's why we enjoy and seek the grace of God."

And as I reflect on the full sweep of his 92 years, it seems to me that his life bent towards justice. Like the Constitution he tucked in his pocket, like our nation itself, Robert Byrd possessed that quintessential American quality, and that is a capacity to change, a capacity to learn, a capacity to listen, a capacity to be made more perfect.

Over his nearly six decades in our Capitol, he came to be seen as the very embodiment of the Senate, chronicling its history in four volumes that he gave to me just as he gave to President Clinton. I, too, read it. I was scared he was going to quiz me. (Laughter.)

But as I soon discovered, his passion for the Senate's past, his mastery of even its most arcane procedures, it wasn't an obsession with the trivial or the obscure. It reflected a profoundly noble impulse, a recognition of a basic truth about this country that we are not a nation of men, we are a nation of laws. Our way of life rests on our democratic institutions. Precisely because we are fallible, it falls to each of us to safeguard these institutions, even when it's inconvenient, and pass on our republic more perfect than before.

Considering the vast learning of this self-taught Senator -- his speeches sprinkled with the likes of Cicero and Shakespeare and Jefferson -- it seems fitting to close with one of his favorite passages in literature, a passage from Moby Dick:

"And there is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive down into the blackest gorges, and soar out of them again and become invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he forever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains; so that even in his lowest swoop the mountain eagle is still higher than any other bird upon the plain, even though they soar."

Robert Byrd was a mountain eagle, and his lowest swoop was still higher than the other birds upon the plain. (Applause.)

May God bless Robert C. Byrd. May he be welcomed kindly by the righteous Judge. And may his spirit soar forever like a Catskill eagle, high above the Heavens. Thank you very much.

 

[prideandfall]

look at Colorado - it's a magnificent example of this principle at work, and also a brilliant contrast in city vs rural politics.
Every single rural county in the state votes Republican, and every single county and district in the state is republican...

Wut?
Nope. My county (pop 12-18k) went for Obama twice, Hillary and Sleepy Joe. County Commissioner is a Dem, though the board is split. Anyhow, Colorado hasn’t been the example you claim for decades.

Um, nope - it is literally how I said it is.
Seems a bit of a wobble has come into some of the Southern districts around Pueblo, I'll grant you that, but it's factually accurate to say that:
A. the districts in the Denver/Boulder/Ft Collins triangle are the regions that are Democrat.
B. The rest of the state is (almost) exclusively Republican.
C. The area in the map above in dark blue has more residents than the entire rest of the state combined.

There's of course room for leftists in every area, and rightists in every area, and I'm certain if you pick your demographic by mayor or commissioner or what not you'll get different results - that map I posted is of congressional representatives, by district (not by county, though you can see the county outlines in the map above)

So which fact exactly are you disputing?
That the Denver metro region has more residents than the rest of the state put together?
That the Denver metro region is Democrat while the rest of the state is Republican?
That the Denver metro region being Democrat while the rest of the state is Republican is an example of my assertion that large population centers tend to vote in Democrats while rural population areas tend to vote in Republicans?

Unfortunately your post basically just says "nuh uh!" and then has nothing else, I'd love to know precisely which facts are in contention here.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Don't bother. It'll be like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Yeah, how many days and pages did it take last time I got you to actually answer a question. Since you did it, therefore it is how I operate.

Aha! So the reason you NEVER answer questions, especially when sincere, and why you make OUTRAGEOUS claims without ever posting the slightest citation, explanation or corroboration . . . is becuase . . .
. . . of some slight you experienced some years ago that most of us never noticed or have long forgotten.

Got it. This was very helpful. I've been wondering why your posts all seem like vacuous prattle.

I answer questions then get accused of never answering questions. The accusation comes from someone people who don't answer questions. Swammerdami thinks that is proof that I never answer questions. I'm not sure what kind of "logic" that is.

 

[Toni]

I’m I’m

I'm sure you know best.

Legit question: then why won't you shut up?
(And before your delicate little heart goes into palpitations, that is equally sarcastic as the comment to which it is replying)

You keep popping into this thread once a week or so in order to throw shade at "the people in this thread" or snipe at "the disdain" you claim is rampant, but you have yet after 5 pages of replies to specify one single thing that could be categorized as disdainful, or offer one single argument (either statistical or rhetorical) to back up your characterizations that "city people" are all hate filled Nazis plotting the downfall of the poor misbegotten rural dweller.

I'd absolutely love it if you or somebody or anybody could show me where my assessments have been incorrect, I care far more about accurate than I do about being right and love nothing more than having my facts corrected when I'm in error, but you just keep showing up smearing your shit on the walls.

So, why bother? You seem to have nothing to contribute, what are you getting out of this?

I'm keeping my thoughts regarding your reading comprehension to myself.

Well I'm sure that they were vague and contradicted by your own previous posts, since that seems to be the trend with your "contributions" to the topic.

Really? Nothing disdainful? Not your most recent but of course, only sarcastic legit question about why I don't just shut up?

I do apologize if I do not post in this thread that began with my post with sufficient frequency to satisfy you. I have a life, actually.

I've never challenged the fact that generally speaking, rural areas are more conservative compared with urban areas. I've discussed some of the reasons that is true. I've pointed out, repeatedly, that given most of almost all state's population is concentrated in urban areas, mathematically speaking, it is impossible for every national election won by conservatives to be the fault of the rural/small towns.


I've pointed out that if more liberal/urban dwellers would like to see more rural voters become less conservative or even, gasp! more liberal, the strategy cannot be insults and disdain which drip from every single post you address to me. You don't believe it? Go back and re-read your posts. Upthread, another poster wrote that rural residents are much more disdainful of urban dwellers than the other way around. I'm certain they were accurately reporting their experiences. Mine is the opposite and is based on my experiences living in major urban areas and some fairly rural areas--one of which is no longer exactly rural as the big city has creeped and the demand for less expensive housing in non-minority neighborhoods has grown. Yes: white urbanites seek to leave the big cities where things are more expensive and there are more black and brown people to places that are less expensive and the schools are 'better' (that is, whiter)--have you never heard of white flight? It's a thing.


Oh, certainly over the last 6 or 7 years, there's been a lot more vocal anger coming out of rural areas. There's also been a great deal more disinformation directed at all the disaffected throughout the country---out of work urban dwellers, rural areas, flyover country. People who feel they have been left behind during the last 60 or 70 years of American prosperity. With decisions being handed down from on high that negatively affect them and their families.

What I have suggested is that if the oh, so intelligent and sophisticated urbanites want the rural people to vote the way that most benefits the urban voters, they need to actually try a different strategy that is not based on insults, bigotry, disdain. Of course, they don't really need to do that: the numbers are on the side of the urbanites.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I've pointed out that if more liberal/urban dwellers would like to see more rural voters become less conservative or even, gasp! more liberal, the strategy cannot be insults and disdain which drip from every single post you address to me. You don't believe it? Go back and re-read your posts. Upthread, another poster wrote that rural residents are much more disdainful of urban dwellers than the other way around. I'm certain they were accurately reporting their experiences. Mine is the opposite and is based on my experiences living in major urban areas and some fairly rural areas--one of which is no longer exactly rural as the big city has creeped and the demand for less expensive housing in non-minority neighborhoods has grown. Yes: white urbanites seek to leave the big cities where things are more expensive and there are more black and brown people to places that are less expensive and the schools are 'better' (that is, whiter)--have you never heard of white flight? It's a thing.

We live in an era where the other party is no longer a rival or a competitor, but is instead now a group to be considered without merit. They are completely wrong at best, and actively evil at worst. Addressing them like human beings is not an option under that mindset. Side A sees Side B as ignorant racist rubes. Side B sees Side A as decadent groomer perverts.

I see families splitting along political lines, creating even more distance as a result. It used to be that there were friends in the other party. Then, as that fell away, you still have family members. Recently I saw a video where someone said if she finds out a coworker is a Trump supporter she will actively try to find ways to get them fired, and if she sees one in a bar she will make sure to spit in their drink.

What I have suggested is that if the oh, so intelligent and sophisticated urbanites want the rural people to vote the way that most benefits the urban voters, they need to actually try a different strategy that is not based on insults, bigotry, disdain. Of course, they don't really need to do that: the numbers are on the side of the urbanites.

They could try to explain why their own position may benefit rural voters, but why bother when they are irredeemably evil.

 

[Elixir]

Every single rural county in the state votes Republican, and every single county and district in the state is republican...

Not true, sorry.

large population centers tend to vote in Democrats while rural population areas tend to vote Republican.

That is true.
I’ve lived in Colorado - both metro and rural areas - for over 50 years, and know whereof I speak.
I only take issue with your inaccurate absolutes.

 

[Rhea]

Upthread, another poster wrote that rural residents are much more disdainful of urban dwellers than the other way around.

To be fair, what I did was point out that the article posted to support the idea that urban people show disdain, and the quotes from the rural people complaining about it, included in their quotes how they didn’t want murderers and rapists telling them what to do.


And moreover, my point included that

What I have suggested is that if the oh, so intelligent and sophisticated urbanites want the rural people to vote the way that most benefits the urban voters, they need to actually try a different strategy that is not based on insults, bigotry, disdain. Of course, they don't really need to do that: the numbers are on the side of the urbanites.

It feels disingenuous (if deliberate), or perhaps biased (if unconscious) to make this statement without acknowledging that the “oh, so, caring and warm ruralites” do exactly the same fucking thing.

They could try to explain why their own position may benefit rural voters, but why bother when they are irredeemably evil.

Jason, I can tell you that I have tried. Sincerely, repeatedly, genuinely. In public and officially. I have stood in front of a room and explained in great, friendly, respectful detail how a town policy will benefit the towns people. What I get back is “Don’t you try to confuse me with your fancy numbers. I know you’re lying and trying to steal my money!”

I have done this. I spent TWELVE YEARS as a public official in my town. They are SO FUCKING DISDAINFUL of outsiders that they will send letters around town calling me Hitler. They will come to town hall with guns. They will spray paint signs that say, “Rhea is raising your taxes to steal your money!” Even when the tax rate is going down, but they can’t be bothered to understand that if they put an addition on their house, the value goes up, and they have increased their own taxes. They get themselves in the paper, all proud of their improvements and tell the public they’ve sunk $100,000 into their house, in print, and then, even though I reduced the tax rate that year their taxes go up and they call me names in public and have their fucking militia meetings and send threatening letters. They consider me “irredeemably evil.”


And what makes me an outsider? I’ve only lived here 30 years, and raised my kids here from birth. I wasn’t born here, even though my husband was, but he was born in the “Big Town” next door, and his parents were immigrants anyway. I don’t have a road named after me, and I don’t have 20 cousins in town. That makes me subject to dripping disdain.


Again, I will say this is not the whole town, just as I’m sure you don’t mean the whole urban population.

But this thesis that Urbanites have to mollycoddle the Ruralites, and speak more nicely, and the reverse is not required is rural-elitist bullshit.

 

[Swammerdami]

@ Jason --
I do sympathize. You make so many questionable statements, you must feel like you have to play Whack-a-Mole to keep up with the questions! For example, you addressed none of my comments in #223, especially this question:

He doesn't look down on all African Americans though, he said that Obama was the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean

@ Jason — Is it possible that you've exaggerated some of Biden's words? Did he really say "Obama was the first mainstream African-American who is [] clean"? Is it better to condemn his actual words, or to condemn a caricature of them? In this vein, what's your stand on FoxNews photoshopping, or slurring Pelosi's words?

I'll challenge just two of your points, not because the other points are correct but because I only have so many hours in my day. . . .

Well? Did Brandon say Obama was "clean"?

 

[ZiprHead]

@ Jason --
I do sympathize. You make so many questionable statements, you must feel like you have to play Whack-a-Mole to keep up with the questions! For example, you addressed none of my comments in #223, especially this question:

He doesn't look down on all African Americans though, he said that Obama was the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean

@ Jason — Is it possible that you've exaggerated some of Biden's words? Did he really say "Obama was the first mainstream African-American who is [] clean"? Is it better to condemn his actual words, or to condemn a caricature of them? In this vein, what's your stand on FoxNews photoshopping, or slurring Pelosi's words?

I'll challenge just two of your points, not because the other points are correct but because I only have so many hours in my day. . . .

Well? Did Brandon say Obama was "clean"?

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I didn't see Jason's post until Toni quoted it a few hours ago.

Are you saying that I ... that I answered a question? Are you actually saying that? Seriously?

@ Jason — Is it possible that you've exaggerated some of Biden's words? Did he really say "Obama was the first mainstream African-American who is [] clean"? Is it better to condemn his actual words, or to condemn a caricature of them? In this vein, what's your stand on FoxNews photoshopping, or slurring Pelosi's words?

Here is the exact quote:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton were both quite upset by that Biden statement.

I'll challenge just two of your points, not because the other points are correct but because I only have so many hours in my day.

Robert Byrd. Byrd was the longest-serving Senator in history. He served multiple terms as Minority or Majority Leader of the Senate, a position earned by the votes of fellow Senators, not automatic from seniority. Biden was not the only one who spoke at his memorial: Below I've appended excerpts from the eulogy given by a black man to show how inept your stereotypes are. Ten terms after Byrd was first elected to the Senate, Joe Manchin was elected to the same seat from the same highly conservative state. Whatever we think of "red-neck West Virginia" each of these two frequently played pivotal roles in passing "liberal" legislation. As examples, Byrd cast the deciding votes for Obamacare and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993.

For someone who was involved quite a bit of his life instead of it being a teenage flirtation, he claimed that it was a mistake when it became a political liability. Perhaps his involvement in the KKK is overstated - he was merely an "Exalted Cyclops", whatever that is.
Perhaps Biden calling Byrd his mentor is overstated, although Biden has made comments that it seems a racist would agree with. Perhaps the same standard wasn't applied when Trent Lott spoke at Strom Thurmond's retirement speech. It isn't easy to read the archives from the old IIDB, and I don't know if you were even a member then, so I cannot comment about you in particular. I do know the uproar that existed back when that incident happened.

 

[Swammerdami]

Here is the exact quote:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Wow! You got me! That is a rather ridiculous and horrendous "gaffe." I've often said Biden is not the brightest bulb on the tree.

With statements like that, I can see why you want to call Biden a racist. Out of curiosity: What do you think about Trump? Is he also a racist?

It isn't easy to read the archives from the old IIDB, and I don't know if you were even a member then, so I cannot comment about you in particular. I do know the uproar that existed back when that incident happened.

What do I have to do with it? We were talking about Biden, Byrd or you. Do we need to sink to useless "You said I said she said they said ..." digressions?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here is the exact quote:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Wow! You got me! That is a rather ridiculous and horrendous "gaffe." I've often said Biden is not the brightest bulb on the tree.

With statements like that, I can see why you want to call Biden a racist. Out of curiosity: What do you think about Trump? Is he also a racist?

Probably, but less so that Biden.

It isn't easy to read the archives from the old IIDB, and I don't know if you were even a member then, so I cannot comment about you in particular. I do know the uproar that existed back when that incident happened.

What do I have to do with it? We were talking about Biden, Byrd or you. Do we need to sink to useless "You said I said she said they said ..." digressions?

I did write I don't know your position was. As for what I'm doing, instead of trying to diminish one by comparison to the other, I'm trying to expand the one by comparison to the other. I'm not saying "what Lott did is okay because Biden", I'm saying "what Biden did is not okay because Lott". That way I'm not letting either of them off the hook.

 

[prideandfall]

Every single rural county in the state votes Republican, and every single* county and district in the state is republican...

Not true, sorry.

OK, which part of the election map I posted that shows precisely that is not true?

*I noticed a typo in my original quote, I omitted the word 'rural' and didn't catch it. That should have read "every single rural county and district in the state is Republican"

large population centers tend to vote in Democrats while rural population areas tend to vote Republican.

That is true.
I’ve lived in Colorado - both metro and rural areas - for over 50 years, and know whereof I speak.
I only take issue with your inaccurate absolutes.

OK, which part of the vote results that I was using as the basis for my "inaccurate absolutes" is not true?

 

[prideandfall]

Really? Nothing disdainful?

So we're back to this again.

I've posted nothing but factually accurate statements about observable reality.
Presented in my signature caustic style, sure, but nothing I've said about either the material conditions of rural dwellers nor the political realities about their situation are things you have called into question.

So, neither you nor *anybody* else in this thread have made an intelligible argument against any of the things I've said, you've only cried and clawed at your eyes over the fact that the way I said it wasn't very nice, but the facts have not once been disputed.

Which logically means you're resting your entire recurring thread tourism on the fact that you don't like the way in which I presented facts which you cannot dispute, and then hand-waving the entire discussion away as "disdainful."

We get it, you don't like me - join the fucking club - but if "you're a meanie poopie head" is the only contribution you're capable of, then by your own statements below you are part of the problem.

I do apologize if I do not post in this thread that began with my post with sufficient frequency to satisfy you. I have a life, actually.

I don't care how often you post in this thread or how much better you think you are than me because of it, I only care that when you *do* post in this thread what you post is a load of complete bullshit.
If you could manage to have a single post wherein you explain in a cogent way how I'm wrong about anything I've said, I would love you forever for correcting my inaccurate set of data.
If all you can do is up your post count to virtue-signal over how upset you are that you think I'm mean, then you're a waste of everyone's time.

I've pointed out, repeatedly, that given most of almost all state's population is concentrated in urban areas, mathematically speaking, it is impossible for every national election won by conservatives to be the fault of the rural/small towns.

And I pointed out that is incorrect, because mathematically speaking the voting process in this country disproportionately favors rural voters to an exponential factor.
You'd be correct if national voting was by 'popular' vote, and in fact if we discuss just the popular vote than that point is well proven because Democrats have won every popular vote since Bush Sr, but that's not how national elections work.

You can't pass the buck on this one, the electoral college means that Republican presidents and Republican federal representatives are squarely the fault of rural voters.
If you don't like Republican presidents, the voting blame can be put squarely on the rural population.

I've pointed out that if more liberal/urban dwellers would like to see more rural voters become less conservative or even, gasp! more liberal, the strategy cannot be insults and disdain which drip from every single post you address to me.

So, since you've spent all this time lamenting what an evil cur I am, I guess that just means you agree with every logistical point I've made but you just don't like the way I made it.
Which means that your logic here is either that... what, the collective "we" need to hand-hold rural conservatives and placate them so their fees-fees don't get hurt so they'll stop actively trying to destroy human civilization as we know it?
That's your tactic here? Unmitigated supplication to small town residents to pretty please with sugar on top and only if they deign to do so, kindly stop voting for the party that wants to dismantle the structures of human progress and return 98% of the world population to chattel?

I suppose that's one way to go about it, sure. I prefer a different way.

Oh, certainly over the last 6 or 7 years, there's been a lot more vocal anger coming out of rural areas. There's also been a great deal more disinformation directed at all the disaffected throughout the country---out of work urban dwellers, rural areas, flyover country. People who feel they have been left behind during the last 60 or 70 years of American prosperity. With decisions being handed down from on high that negatively affect them and their families.

You keep saying that like it's an explanation, but I'm not seeing how you think it is one.
There's no disputing the plight of... well most humans... and any metric or angle you want to mention or explore as to why the lives of so many people are so awful, I probably fully agree with - but where this stops making any sense is when the conclusion becomes "and that's why they vote for Republicans and you have to ever-so-gently chortle their balls if you want them to stop doing so" because I'm not saying how A leads to B leads to C in that logic chain.

What I have suggested is that if the oh, so intelligent and sophisticated urbanites want the rural people to vote the way that most benefits the urban voters, they need to actually try a different strategy that is not based on insults, bigotry, disdain. Of course, they don't really need to do that: the numbers are on the side of the urbanites.

Well that starts out with a completely unfounded claim: that urbanites want rural people to vote in a way that benefits urbanites.

I should think anyone who bothers to have an opinion on this subject wants rural voters to vote in a way that benefits rural voters.
Hell, take me for example - I'm a tall, not-grotesque-looking white male in his early 40s with money and a house and a vasectomy.
I literally could not be more privileged, or more insulated from the woes of women or minorities or poor people - nothing that impacts any of those groups has even the capability of effecting me in any way.

And yet, I care out a general sense of decency towards the concept of human civilization.
It would have no bearing on me or the industry that is my livelihood whether every rural voter in this country shrivels up and dies, and even making the argument that their voting habits result in Republican presidents really doesn't impact me - Trump was a clown show sure, but nothing he ever did actually changed my life at all. Same with Biden.

Trust me when I say that I don't need rural people for anything except farming, and I don't need to care about their lives in the slightest.
But I do care, because otherwise what's the point of human civilization. I want them to vote for people who will help them, and to stop voting for people who continue to make their lives worse and make their problems worse.

Everyone I know is the same way, a bunch of comfortably lower-middle-class city dwellers sitting around in our bubble of untouchable white privilege never thinking about rural people.
If I hadn't brought the subject up to so many of them because of this thread, none of the folks I know would have even had a single thought enter their head regarding country people... probably ever.
I can't imagine anyone who lives in a city ever thinking about anyone who lives in the country, because those people just aren't relevant to the life of someone in a city. Sure, they have an opinion about rural folks if you ask them, but nobody in a city ever comes up with thoughts about them on their own apropos of nothing.
Contrast that to the fact every single small town I've ever been in has a weekly (if not daily) near mandatory town ritual of "gather at the bar and everyone bitch about city people"

So the end result here is that your entire premise seems tremendously flawed, and born of what I can only imagine is your intense desire to play out a fantasy where you and your kind (rural dwellers) are actually super duper important and the center of the universe and everyone is thinking about you all the time, and so how we treat you is super duper important because how you feel is super duper important.

But that just isn't the case, and I don't mean that in a cruel way - rural dwellers are about as meaningful to my life as Prilosec OTC is: I'm aware it exists, but I don't use it so what do I care about it, excepting that it's useful to those who need it?

 

[jonatha]

the electoral college means that Republican presidents and Republican federal representatives are squarely the fault of rural voters

What role in the election of Representatives does the Electoral College play?

 

[prideandfall]

the electoral college means that Republican presidents and Republican federal representatives are squarely the fault of rural voters

What role in the election of Representatives does the Electoral College play?

OK good point there, that was a poorly worded sentence in terms of erroneously bridging together two adjacent but unrelated concepts.

 

[Toni]

When we first mov

Upthread, another poster wrote that rural residents are much more disdainful of urban dwellers than the other way around.

To be fair, what I did was point out that the article posted to support the idea that urban people show disdain, and the quotes from the rural people complaining about it, included in their quotes how they didn’t want murderers and rapists telling them what to do.


And moreover, my point included that

What I have suggested is that if the oh, so intelligent and sophisticated urbanites want the rural people to vote the way that most benefits the urban voters, they need to actually try a different strategy that is not based on insults, bigotry, disdain. Of course, they don't really need to do that: the numbers are on the side of the urbanites.

It feels disingenuous (if deliberate), or perhaps biased (if unconscious) to make this statement without acknowledging that the “oh, so, caring and warm ruralites” do exactly the same fucking thing.

They could try to explain why their own position may benefit rural voters, but why bother when they are irredeemably evil.

Jason, I can tell you that I have tried. Sincerely, repeatedly, genuinely. In public and officially. I have stood in front of a room and explained in great, friendly, respectful detail how a town policy will benefit the towns people. What I get back is “Don’t you try to confuse me with your fancy numbers. I know you’re lying and trying to steal my money!”

I have done this. I spent TWELVE YEARS as a public official in my town. They are SO FUCKING DISDAINFUL of outsiders that they will send letters around town calling me Hitler. They will come to town hall with guns. They will spray paint signs that say, “Rhea is raising your taxes to steal your money!” Even when the tax rate is going down, but they can’t be bothered to understand that if they put an addition on their house, the value goes up, and they have increased their own taxes. They get themselves in the paper, all proud of their improvements and tell the public they’ve sunk $100,000 into their house, in print, and then, even though I reduced the tax rate that year their taxes go up and they call me names in public and have their fucking militia meetings and send threatening letters. They consider me “irredeemably evil.”


And what makes me an outsider? I’ve only lived here 30 years, and raised my kids here from birth. I wasn’t born here, even though my husband was, but he was born in the “Big Town” next door, and his parents were immigrants anyway. I don’t have a road named after me, and I don’t have 20 cousins in town. That makes me subject to dripping distain.


Again, I will say this is not the whole town, just as I’m sure you don’t mean the whole urban population.

But this thesis that Urbanites have to mollycoddle the Ruralites, and speak more nicely, and the reverse is not required is rural-elitist bullshit.

When I first moved to this town, there was actually a club that you couldn’t belong to unless you lived here 30 years or more. Having grown up in a small town surrounded by farmland, I got it. Didn’t/don’t like it but I get it. I’ve been on the side where new people moved in and started telling the long time residents what they needed to do. Some of it was reasonable (and in the works or already existing) and some of it was along the lines of “I moved to this small town and why isn’t there a major mall, fine dining and at least 3 entertainment venues and two yoga studios and 3 Starbucks? And why do my neighbors cows stink? I want it and I want it NOW.” Writing this as someone who was extremely frustrated by the lack of retail resources within an hours drive in the days before internet, much less online shopping. And extremely frustrated by the poorly funded school system. In my town, it’s the school board that gets hate mail and death threats and complaints that taxes went up a buckle. City and county just make sure taxes don’t go up….. we moved here with 4 children, including an infant, who I figured had the best chance of fitting in.

The town has changed. There’s more acceptance of newcomers, even non-white newcomers.

I’ve never ever suggested that rural areas are not more conservative as a whole. I’ve only ever says that if you want to win someone over to your side, you don’t call them names or otherwise insult them, you don’t go in with the attitude that you know best and what’s best for them. You listen, You ask questions. You listen to the answers, ask more questions. Ask what they tgink the priblens are and how

Really? Nothing disdainful?

So we're back to this again.

I've posted nothing but factually accurate statements about observable reality.
Presented in my signature caustic style, sure, but nothing I've said about either the material conditions of rural dwellers nor the political realities about their situation are things you have called into question.

So, neither you nor *anybody* else in this thread have made an intelligible argument against any of the things I've said, you've only cried and clawed at your eyes over the fact that the way I said it wasn't very nice, but the facts have not once been disputed.

Which logically means you're resting your entire recurring thread tourism on the fact that you don't like the way in which I presented facts which you cannot dispute, and then hand-waving the entire discussion away as "disdainful."

We get it, you don't like me - join the fucking club - but if "you're a meanie poopie head" is the only contribution you're capable of, then by your own statements below you are part of the problem.

I do apologize if I do not post in this thread that began with my post with sufficient frequency to satisfy you. I have a life, actually.

I don't care how often you post in this thread or how much better you think you are than me because of it, I only care that when you *do* post in this thread what you post is a load of complete bullshit.
If you could manage to have a single post wherein you explain in a cogent way how I'm wrong about anything I've said, I would love you forever for correcting my inaccurate set of data.
If all you can do is up your post count to virtue-signal over how upset you are that you think I'm mean, then you're a waste of everyone's time.

I've pointed out, repeatedly, that given most of almost all state's population is concentrated in urban areas, mathematically speaking, it is impossible for every national election won by conservatives to be the fault of the rural/small towns.

And I pointed out that is incorrect, because mathematically speaking the voting process in this country disproportionately favors rural voters to an exponential factor.
You'd be correct if national voting was by 'popular' vote, and in fact if we discuss just the popular vote than that point is well proven because Democrats have won every popular vote since Bush Sr, but that's not how national elections work.

You can't pass the buck on this one, the electoral college means that Republican presidents and Republican federal representatives are squarely the fault of rural voters.
If you don't like Republican presidents, the voting blame can be put squarely on the rural population.

I've pointed out that if more liberal/urban dwellers would like to see more rural voters become less conservative or even, gasp! more liberal, the strategy cannot be insults and disdain which drip from every single post you address to me.

So, since you've spent all this time lamenting what an evil cur I am, I guess that just means you agree with every logistical point I've made but you just don't like the way I made it.
Which means that your logic here is either that... what, the collective "we" need to hand-hold rural conservatives and placate them so their fees-fees don't get hurt so they'll stop actively trying to destroy human civilization as we know it?
That's your tactic here? Unmitigated supplication to small town residents to pretty please with sugar on top and only if they deign to do so, kindly stop voting for the party that wants to dismantle the structures of human progress and return 98% of the world population to chattel?

I suppose that's one way to go about it, sure. I prefer a different way.

Oh, certainly over the last 6 or 7 years, there's been a lot more vocal anger coming out of rural areas. There's also been a great deal more disinformation directed at all the disaffected throughout the country---out of work urban dwellers, rural areas, flyover country. People who feel they have been left behind during the last 60 or 70 years of American prosperity. With decisions being handed down from on high that negatively affect them and their families.

You keep saying that like it's an explanation, but I'm not seeing how you think it is one.
There's no disputing the plight of... well most humans... and any metric or angle you want to mention or explore as to why the lives of so many people are so awful, I probably fully agree with - but where this stops making any sense is when the conclusion becomes "and that's why they vote for Republicans and you have to ever-so-gently chortle their balls if you want them to stop doing so" because I'm not saying how A leads to B leads to C in that logic chain.

What I have suggested is that if the oh, so intelligent and sophisticated urbanites want the rural people to vote the way that most benefits the urban voters, they need to actually try a different strategy that is not based on insults, bigotry, disdain. Of course, they don't really need to do that: the numbers are on the side of the urbanites.

Well that starts out with a completely unfounded claim: that urbanites want rural people to vote in a way that benefits urbanites.

I should think anyone who bothers to have an opinion on this subject wants rural voters to vote in a way that benefits rural voters.
Hell, take me for example - I'm a tall, not-grotesque-looking white male in his early 40s with money and a house and a vasectomy.
I literally could not be more privileged, or more insulated from the woes of women or minorities or poor people - nothing that impacts any of those groups has even the capability of effecting me in any way.

And yet, I care out a general sense of decency towards the concept of human civilization.
It would have no bearing on me or the industry that is my livelihood whether every rural voter in this country shrivels up and dies, and even making the argument that their voting habits result in Republican presidents really doesn't impact me - Trump was a clown show sure, but nothing he ever did actually changed my life at all. Same with Biden.

Trust me when I say that I don't need rural people for anything except farming, and I don't need to care about their lives in the slightest.
But I do care, because otherwise what's the point of human civilization. I want them to vote for people who will help them, and to stop voting for people who continue to make their lives worse and make their problems worse.

Everyone I know is the same way, a bunch of comfortably lower-middle-class city dwellers sitting around in our bubble of untouchable white privilege never thinking about rural people.
If I hadn't brought the subject up to so many of them because of this thread, none of the folks I know would have even had a single thought enter their head regarding country people... probably ever.
I can't imagine anyone who lives in a city ever thinking about anyone who lives in the country, because those people just aren't relevant to the life of someone in a city. Sure, they have an opinion about rural folks if you ask them, but nobody in a city ever comes up with thoughts about them on their own apropos of nothing.
Contrast that to the fact every single small town I've ever been in has a weekly (if not daily) near mandatory town ritual of "gather at the bar and everyone bitch about city people"

So the end result here is that your entire premise seems tremendously flawed, and born of what I can only imagine is your intense desire to play out a fantasy where you and your kind (rural dwellers) are actually super duper important and the center of the universe and everyone is thinking about you all the time, and so how we treat you is super duper important because how you feel is super duper important.

But that just isn't the case, and I don't mean that in a cruel way - rural dwellers are about as meaningful to my life as Prilosec OTC is: I'm aware it exists, but I don't use it so what do I care about it, excepting that it's useful to those who need it?

You've personally insulted me several times. I don’t give a rat's ass about that our your personal ‘caustic’ style. I suppose you think you are being plain spoken and telling the truth.

Whatever. I don’t give a shit.

My point was and remains: one does not ever convince anyone of anything by insulting them or belittling them.

So keep right on doing what you’re doing. You’ve demonstrated that you see no reason to do anything differently—you seem to think it means you’re cool and edgy. Or honest.

I mean, that sort of thing won Trump the presidency. Maybe you get something out of it, too.

 

[prideandfall]

youve personally insulted me several times.

I mean, not to get too childish about it but you *literally* started attacking me personally and failed to engage with anything I said from your very first reply to me so I don't know what you're complaining about since that's the tone you set for this exchange.
You started this thread with an unfounded sweeping accusation against other people, which has been repeatedly debunked by multiple posters, and all you've done for 5 pages and dozens of replies is continue blithely asserting the same crap you opened this thread with, and also crying like a little bitch about how mean I am.

If you feel like I've insulted you, it's because your contributions to this thread are a horrendous dumpster fire of hot garbage.
I know nothing about you personally and I don't have any negative feelings about you, but sweet zombie jesus your posts here are a steaming bag of shit.
I haven't ever insulted you, I've insulted your posts which are an unmitigated disaster.

I don’t give a rats ass about that our your personal ‘caustic’ style. I suppose you think you are being plain spoken and telling the truth.

I think it's just me being caustic. That you can't get over that fact is your problem, not mine.
If you were capable of pointing out a flaw in any of my data, you surely would have done so by now - I have given you so many open invitations to do so.
But you either can't or you won't, so you just keep on posting over and over again "you big meanie" or some such other idiocy.
What do you think anyone can take away from that?

Whatever. I don’t give a shit.

Then stop posting.

My point was and remains: one does not ever convince anyone of anything by insulting them or belittling them.

I agree with you, and never disagreed with you, so what are you getting at?

From the very start I've said, and I maintain, that rural people have proven through their actions and words, and you have reinforced this dozens of times this thread, that they are intellectually incapable of taking care of themselves and should probably have the option taken away from them.

If you've been a good representation of a rural thinker thus far in this thread, you've shown that those people can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves.
Like a 4 year old, you're acting angry and petulant at not being the boss. and having a snitty fit over being told you can't jam your hand into the stove burner.
There comes a point where placating that mentality is no longer efficient or worth anyone's time.

So keep right on doing what you’re doing. You’ve demonstrated that you see no reason to do anything different try—you think it means you’re cool and edgy.

And I've demonstrated that by repeatedly *begging* you (or anyone) to show me where I'm wrong, and you still can't do it.
Jesus fuck, you keep claiming that you rural types need to be catered to, and here I am on hands and needs pleading with you to give me what you claim to want to give me, and you still can't do it - and you think you deserve to be trusted to be responsible for your own political future, much less mine?

The only thing I've demonstrated is that in the complete absence of *any* counter-point or argument against anything I've said, my data holds up to scrutiny.
Do you honestly believe that your complete and utter lack of positing a single coherent sentence in a human language that offers an alternative to my posts means that I'M the one being belligerent and refusing to change?

... Wow, that explains an awful lot about your posts.

I mean, that sort of thing won Trump the presidency. Maybe you get something out of it, too.

I get nothing out of it either way, I've already explained that I'm immune to all of this stupidity - I only care for your benefit on the general level of human compassion.

And you're now blaming fictional big city elites who were mean to you for the fact Trump won?
I thought you people had some kind of hard on for the concept of personal responsibility? Guess that's just another lie you peddle to try to blame other people for your problems?