Support NeoGAF

[Atrus]

Rural people are not minorities, they represent half the country. And their needs Will be determined by state laws, not coastal cities. Tell me how rural people are minorities and why they should have their voices heard over the needs of city people?

I had to check but rural folks are about 1/5th the population in the US. In 1st world countries the vast majority of people live in urbanized environments and that would mean they are a population minority, one that is shrinking.

Rural declines based on their older age, fewer job opportunities, concentration of skilled jobs in urban environments and technology creating larger but fewer farms and so on, have created an irrevocable decline of rural lifestyle and opportunities.

 

[pramod]

I think Trump's only hope in bringing the country together will rest squarely on his policies' ability to improve the quality of life across the country. The tax bill alone won't be able achieve that, obviously, though if he pushes hard enough on immigration, foreign trade and infrastructure so that it delivers beneficial results some of the hostility thrown his way may be taken down a level or three by the end of his term. That's no easy task, though, and as others have said, right now it doesn't look like the Dems are interested in uniting the country either, doing so before the mid-term and 2020 general election would work against them considering all the time and energy they've spent working the public into a frenzy.

Unemployment is at an all time low. Black unemployment is at an all time low. The GDP is growing at it's fastest in over a decade. The stock market is at all time highs. More people than ever before say the country is moving in a positive direction. If all that is still not enough to prove to the Left that the country is "improving", then nothing else Trump does is going to change their minds.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Rural people are not minorities, they represent half the country.

How do you know this is true? And how do you know they "represent half the country"? Be specific, because I think we're getting to the heart of the issue.

You don't believe rural voters can be a minority. What is a minority? A small portion of a populace, right? Well, did Hillary win the popular vote or not? Because by definition it means the minority voters elected Trump. Okay, that's too mushy of an example.

Let's look at it this way: larger cities have a much higher population compared to rural areas. That's...kind of their thing. They're cities. So at a certain point in every civilization's lifespan the society will have to find a way to balance the desires of the city-dwellers against the rural producers. The way they go about it might decide the fate of the country's future, actually, because if the city-dwellers piss off the peasants too much, they tend to revolt.

America thought of an interesting way of handling it: allow certain things to be handled by popular vote and other things to be handled by representative vote. This will help protect against corruption in politics and will help protect our country from mob rule. The electoral college is a simple and effective way of handling that: bigger states still get more "points", but if the smaller states vote along the same lines, the big states cannot force a presidential election. This prevents the bigger states from bullying the smaller ones into bigger and bigger government, another problem that the American system was trying to deal with. "Big states bullying small states" has its modern equivalent: the Federal Government. This is why smaller states tend to vote Conservative/Republican because they don't want big Government.

America has the strange ability to surge forward in progress or dig in its heels. This has worked for us and against us, but it's definitely "the American way". Not making excuses, just saying that's how a lot of Americans are. You are rallying against things that actually helped women get the vote, helped destroy Jim Crow, helped gays earn equal marriage rights. The minority -- whether it is a racial minority, a geographical minority, a population minority, whatever -- needs the ability to engage with the political system, even when outnumbered by the "popular vote". They need the freedom to advocate for their own interests and needs. It is a fundamental American right.

That's part of why there's so much talk about the "attack on free speech". Americans need the ability to speak their minds -- even if it is offensive to others -- or you are taking away their ability as citizens to engage with the political system.

And their needs Will be determined by state laws, not coastal cities.

Federal laws often impose unfavorable things upon the states. Presidents can also make choices that benefit or hinder certain states, wouldn't you agree?

That's what I'm referring to. If the "popular vote" from the densely-populated regions gets to call all the shots, the rural areas suffer. This isn't speculation. This has been played out in human history since ancient times. It's not an American thing. It's not even a 'Western' thing. The cultures who figured out how to balance city vs rural end up surviving much longer.

In America, the rural states get a say in politics, too.

Tell me how rural people are minorities and why they should have their voices heard over the needs of city people?

Simply take a moment to re-read what you wrote. Why should they have their voices heard over the needs of city people? Because this is a democracy. Everyone gets heard.

The way you phrased it also reflects a paradigm that it's city vs rural. It shouldn't be. It doesn't have to be. If you're willing to acknowledge the unique struggles of minorities and how they aren't fairly represented in politics or government, how does that same empathy not apply to rural folk who also aren't fairly represented in some politics and government?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Oops

 

[ilfait]

Oops

I seen what you say about Trumph!

 

[HaveButOneLife]

This was spawned from Obama's era, not Trump's. Otherwise, what do you call what happened pre-2016? I'm not saying Obama deserves the blame, but the social and media aspects are. Now people on the left are starting to show their true colors.

 

[Coffe Time]

I had to check but rural folks are about 1/5th the population in the US. In 1st world countries the vast majority of people live in urbanized environments and that would mean they are a population minority, one that is shrinking.

Rural declines based on their older age, fewer job opportunities, concentration of skilled jobs in urban environments and technology creating larger but fewer farms and so on, have created an irrevocable decline of rural lifestyle and opportunities.

Thanks for correcting me.
I understand the way of rural living is on the decline and I support any policies that invigorate those economies. I don't like the cost of city living, I'd love to live in the country too, but the jobs aren't there.

How do you know this is true? And how do you know they "represent half the country"? Be specific, because I think we're getting to the heart of the issue.

You don't believe rural voters can be a minority. What is a minority? A small portion of a populace, right? Well, did Hillary win the popular vote or not? Because by definition it means the minority voters elected Trump. Okay, that's too mushy of an example.

Let's look at it this way: larger cities have a much higher population compared to rural areas. That's...kind of their thing. They're cities. So at a certain point in every civilization's lifespan the society will have to find a way to balance the desires of the city-dwellers against the rural producers. The way they go about it might decide the fate of the country's future, actually, because if the city-dwellers piss off the peasants too much, they tend to revolt.

America thought of an interesting way of handling it: allow certain things to be handled by popular vote and other things to be handled by representative vote. This will help protect against corruption in politics and will help protect our country from mob rule. The electoral college is a simple and effective way of handling that: bigger states still get more "points", but if the smaller states vote along the same lines, the big states cannot force a presidential election. This prevents the bigger states from bullying the smaller ones into bigger and bigger government, another problem that the American system was trying to deal with. "Big states bullying small states" has its modern equivalent: the Federal Government. This is why smaller states tend to vote Conservative/Republican because they don't want big Government.

America has the strange ability to surge forward in progress or dig in its heels. This has worked for us and against us, but it's definitely "the American way". Not making excuses, just saying that's how a lot of Americans are. You are rallying against things that actually helped women get the vote, helped destroy Jim Crow, helped gays earn equal marriage rights. The minority -- whether it is a racial minority, a geographical minority, a population minority, whatever -- needs the ability to engage with the political system, even when outnumbered by the "popular vote". They need the freedom to advocate for their own interests and needs. It is a fundamental American right.

That's part of why there's so much talk about the "attack on free speech". Americans need the ability to speak their minds -- even if it is offensive to others -- or you are taking away their ability as citizens to engage with the political system.


Federal laws often impose unfavorable things upon the states. Presidents can also make choices that benefit or hinder certain states, wouldn't you agree?

That's what I'm referring to. If the "popular vote" from the densely-populated regions gets to call all the shots, the rural areas suffer. This isn't speculation. This has been played out in human history since ancient times. It's not an American thing. It's not even a 'Western' thing. The cultures who figured out how to balance city vs rural end up surviving much longer.

In America, the rural states get a say in politics, too.


Simply take a moment to re-read what you wrote. Why should they have their voices heard over the needs of city people? Because this is a democracy. Everyone gets heard.

The way you phrased it also reflects a paradigm that it's city vs rural. It shouldn't be. It doesn't have to be. If you're willing to acknowledge the unique struggles of minorities and how they aren't fairly represented in politics or government, how does that same empathy not apply to rural folk who also aren't fairly represented in some politics and government?

I understand what your saying, but I am left with some questions that may help me understand what you're trying to express and where your beliefs lie.

What has trump done that has helped the rural population? The Republican Party doesn't actually represent their best interests. There was big talk about bringing jobs back to the coal counties, but what has actually happened?
What kind of urban policies are you afraid will get imposed on rural America?
Do you think it's fair to hold back cities from progressing for their own needs?
What do you suppose is the best way to go about making sure everyones needs are being met?
Is it fair to refuse service to people, because you don't like their religion, sexual orientation, or race as a form of free speech?

Also, my apologies for the city vs. rural thing, I did not intend for it to come out that way. I think I was trying to say, why should the needs of the few overpower the needs of the many? I don't think their voice is any less important, just as equal, but they have a significantly stronger voice than is actually representative of the population creating a sort of misrepresentation going on.

 

[Gander]

The left are lazy and shy people if left alone. All they really want to do is smoke their weed, play their videogames or read their books.

However they can't ignore politics anymore, not after Bush. So that really started the 24 hour news cycle where people are nit picking everything.

Now couple a left wing saying we won't be caught off guard again with a President who is literally throwing everything they believe in back in their faces and laughing.

After Vegas we should have Gun Control but Nope, Climate Change is real look at Puerto Rico but Nope and Immigration is a serious but Shithole countries and all.

 

[It's Jeff]

Trump is the symptom, not the disease.

You have to have a unique set of societal circumstances in play before people would even turn to somebody like Trump. People are desperate for change and are so dissatisfied with the establishment that they've elected a documented lothario with no political background or experience.

Trump didn't do this, we did.

 

[SaviourMK2]

No, he's not responsible. He's not even the primary perpetrator.

Corporate/ideological interests have been driving the divide between citizens for a few decades now.

Would you consider that to be the same tactic -- or a different one -- from how certain people attached labels to those who supported the "Idiot in Chief" W. Bush or from how certain people attached labels to those "basket of deplorables" who supported Trump or how certain people attached labels to anyone who didn't automatically worship the actions of Pres. Obama? Same tactics or different? Explain.

I think politicians in general -- both sides of the aisle -- have spent a lot of effort to divide the country.

Anyone with half a brain should be asking "why are they both dividing us?" instead of drooling and muttering "b..but whose fault is it? Who was worse?"

I can't say what the political division was during the Bush era because I was only 12 when Bush ran in 2000 and 16 when he ran for re-election, I don't know what the political climate was like other than the quick hatred for the war during the 2004 elections.
What I CAN say is I don't recall Bush labeling liberals/press as enemies of the people or traitors (I suspect Cheney does but that's because I know Cheney is a miserable rotten piece of shit who eats babies and endangered animals to sustain his sad life a couple extra days through a spiritual pact he made with the ghost of Adolf Hitler, and the devil). A lot of people like to pretend it's a both sides issue in a vein attempt to make it seem like we're all the same deep down, when conservatism has been a fucking thorn in society and democracy. Between wanting to ban gay marriage/adoptions, "religious freedom", and constantly giving themselves a raise, the top 1% of Americans who continue to ship jobs overseas and down into Mexico, and pork spending on military while Flint Water is still not fixed, global warming is bringing bugs that my state has only seen in nature documentaries and science books to our front doors (because god fucking forbid this piece of shit administration or congress believes in global warming).
Politicians have not spent time trying to divide a country and that's fucking stupid to believe. Division is the job of news outlets, Fox News in particular who likes to peddle fake stories and lie while CNN focuses only on Fox's hypocrisy and lies like a little tattle tale.
No, a Politician's job is to secure power and get re-elected, using media is just one tool they use (they could use news papers, social media, opponent's personal history or voting history) Politicians, just point and let their fan bases in the direction of their tribalism news and let that speak for them. And, I say this with extreme bias, no type of politician does this more than Conservative/Republican politicians. And it's easy to simply put the blame for these divisions on politicians because you know their face and names. Republicans, especially the hardcore voter kind, have always been a stupid and irrational bunch, and Trump has given them reason to ignore that voice in their head that says "Maybe you shouldn't" and instead has Trump screaming in their ear "FAKE NEWS" "WITCHHUNT" "TRAITORS" "ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE" "RAPISTS" "MS-13".
Are Liberals better than Conservatives? Not entirely, power corrupts. But liberals don't separate families and imprison them in separate jailhouses like a Jewish death camp while putting 3 year olds on trial like they where 23. Liberals wouldn't have thrown paper towels at Puerto Rico and then tweet about what a shit hole the place is and how horrible their governor is.

Needless to say, I blame both sides for the division, but Republicans are the most at fault, there is no equal blame.

 

[JordanN]

Are Liberals better than Conservatives? Not entirely, power corrupts. But liberals don't separate families and imprison them in separate jailhouses like a Jewish death camp while putting 3 year olds on trial like they where 23. Liberals wouldn't have thrown paper towels at Puerto Rico and then tweet about what a shit hole the place is and how horrible their governor is.

Needless to say, I blame both sides for the division, but Republicans are the most at fault, there is no equal blame.

Quoting this so you don't edit it.
Once again, more "Trump is Hitler" rhetoric. Now he's running death camps.

What has trump done that has helped the rural population? The Republican Party doesn't actually represent their best interests. There was big talk about bringing jobs back to the coal counties, but what has actually happened?

He's fighting for the American people. He's been tougher on illegal immigration than anyone else.

 

[Derekloffin]

Trump is the symptom, not the disease.

You have to have a unique set of societal circumstances in play before people would even turn to somebody like Trump. People are desperate for change and are so dissatisfied with the establishment that they've elected a documented lothario with no political background or experience.

Trump didn't do this, we did.

I tend to agree. Trump was a situation waiting to happen, not the cause of it. The cause can't be really narrowed down to any one thing, but a host of things coming together. Ongoing wars, the rise of social media, the fall of big media, and probably numerous other things.

 

[Joe T.]

Unemployment is at an all time low. Black unemployment is at an all time low. The GDP is growing at it's fastest in over a decade. The stock market is at all time highs. More people than ever before say the country is moving in a positive direction. If all that is still not enough to prove to the Left that the country is "improving", then nothing else Trump does is going to change their minds.

While true, the media isn't doing him or the rest of the country any favors by harping on the negative while glossing over the positives, so he's got an uphill battle regardless. That's undoubtedly why most of those that voted for him continue to support him while those that oppose him think the world is coming to an end. I hate to say it because news organizations are - or at least should be - a very important part of any well-functioning society, but the mighty dollar seems to have them working against our best interests and it's begging for some form of intervention. It's a bit of a touchy subject given Trumps's war of words with the press and some on the left having pegged him as a fascist right out of the gate.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I understand what your saying, but I am left with some questions that may help me understand what you're trying to express and where your beliefs lie.

Sure, I'll do my best to answer.

What has trump done that has helped the rural population? The Republican Party doesn't actually represent their best interests. There was big talk about bringing jobs back to the coal counties, but what has actually happened?

I was going to think of an answer and then do some fact-checking online to make sure I was accurate. But then I realized "wait, it doesn't matter what Trump has done".

This is perhaps something you don't understand about Conservatives, and I'm not poking fun or mocking you. I just think it might be something you don't understand. Conservatives often don't care what a politician has done for them. They are usually more concerned on what a politician hasn't done to them. This is another one of the big divides between Dems and Republicans. Democrats point to their elected official and say "this person did such-and-such for me" and they will vote for that person again next time. Lots of conservatives, outside of election day, aren't focused on their politician. They don't care what they "did" as long as they didn't do anything bad. They're getting about their lives, trying to keep the government out of it and occasionally vote to get government action to repair failing infrastructure or something like that. They're more often going to vote someone out if they're feeling threatened. This is why you see some Trump voters say "it was more against her than for him, to be honest". This is a genuine Conservative standpoint, as bizarre as some people find it.

What kind of urban policies are you afraid will get imposed on rural America?

I don't know if I can name some really terrible ones. I do know that -- historically -- good governments find a way to reduce the total influence urban areas can have over surrounding rural areas. It keeps everyone happy. When the urban areas get too much influence, they tend to oppress the minorities. Then the minorities get fed up and overthrow the city dwellers. Rinse and repeat.

I can name two urban policy impositions that I am affected by. They're not life and death. They're not "oppression". But they're real examples, so here goes:

I am super into homesteading. I am lucky to live on a 1/2 acre lot in an urban area. How urban? Not bad, but you'll walk by three liquor stores and two marijuana dispensaries before you hit a grocery store, let me put it that way. I grow a ton of my family's food right here and we cook a lot of things from scratch. I am living the dream! I'd like to keep chickens on my half-acre plot someday. The city says I can keep up to 5 hens maximum. Ridiculous, because any farmer knows you can fit way more than 5 hens -- comfortably! -- on a half acre. But the restriction is a Local City statute. And it's not unfair: too many penned animals creates noise, feces, disease, and is generally a bad idea. The law makes sense, but it is an urban policy preventing me from doing something that a rural person could do without even a permit.

Another example: my parents live in a nearby town going through the awkward transformation between a rural town and a proper "city". Their local governance -- in a town that is 1,000 times more rural than where I live -- won't let them keep hens. It's because it's "too much noise" or something. Their town has less than 15% of my city's population. Almost every house in their neighborhood is on an acre lot or bigger. You drive past crop fields to get from my city to their town. And yet I can keep hens and they cannot? It's the hoity-toity wannabe fancy city planners who made the restriction, directly imposing upon the rural sensibilities of that town.

Do you think it's fair to hold back cities from progressing for their own needs?

I don't know how to answer that because I'd need a real-life example to make sure I'm understanding what you're asking. I mean, ideologically do I think it's fair to hold back cities from progressing for their own needs? I guess not, as long as it doesn't unfairly impose upon the needs of others...I guess? I mean, I need an example. It seems like you're implying that rural votes are holding back the cities. In what way? In what specific ways?

What do you suppose is the best way to go about making sure everyones needs are being met?

Someday I hope we can become a post-scarcity society. That would be the only genuine answer to your question.

Until then, people will naturally fight for their needs and for whatever they want beyond it. Competition is our nature. A social structure that gives everyone an equal chance at engaging in that fight -- not artificially held back due to their race or religion or social class -- is the closest we can get to make sure as much of "everyone" getting their needs met. America is about the closest any civilization has gotten to that, and we've even inspired other countries to give it a try, too.

Is it fair to refuse service to people, because you don't like their religion, sexual orientation, or race as a form of free speech?

Would it be fair for an LGBT parade organizer to refuse to allow a Neo-Nazi float in their parade? I mean, the real question is should the government have a say in who gets to serve who and I think the answer there is easy: no, the government should not have a say on how people conduct their business except in the most extreme of circumstances. I really don't have a strong stance on the nuances of this issue. I guess I'd just ask what the government should do about it if you believe it is unfair and should therefore be illegal. If a carpenter refuses to carve something for a person because of their race, he tends to go out of business. The government doesn't need to step in there, because on the flip side if you grant them this power and the government becomes too conservative them you've granted them the power to say "sorry, cake-bakers, none of you are allowed to bake cakes for gays".

Also, my apologies for the city vs. rural thing, I did not intend for it to come out that way. I think I was trying to say, why should the needs of the few overpower the needs of the many? I don't think their voice is any less important, just as equal, but they have a significantly stronger voice than is actually representative of the population creating a sort of misrepresentation going on.

No apology needed.

Why should the needs of the few overpower the needs of the many? I think you already know the answer to that if you know your history. Now of course, the goal isn't for the needs of the few to always overpower the needs of the many. If we admit that is wrong then we must admit that the needs of the many always overpowering the needs of the few is also inherently bad. I'm describing what is commonly termed " minority oppression".

Once again, America was pretty smart here: because we have the freedom of speech, even a minority can speak up and rally their fellow citizens to a cause without fear of the government shutting them down. Some of our country's most tragic periods of history are when we actively suppressed our citizens' right to do this. Even if you believe Trump is awful and "idiots" voted him in and all that, he was elected using the same political system that granted all the civil rights victories in our country's history. Let's not throw it all out.

 

[SaviourMK2]

Quoting this so you don't edit it.
Once again, more "Trump is Hitler" rhetoric. Now he's running death camps.



He's fighting for the American people. He's been tougher on illegal immigration than anyone else.

Why would I edit it? I'm sorry, would you rather I go with summer camps? Summer camps, where mothers are ripped from their children and placed in cages? Where they're being judged like adults? Where they're given insufficient supplies and staff can't even be bothered to change diapers? Drugging kids? All while looking at the big disgusting picture of a wannabe-President? No, it's not a Jewish death camp, but it's like one. The difference is instead of executing them after a while they just ship them back to Mexico with no parents or leave them with American Sponsor families where they have a good chance of getting lost in human trafficking.

 

[JordanN]

Why would I edit it? I'm sorry, would you rather I go with summer camps? Summer camps, where mothers are ripped from their children and placed in cages? Where they're being judged like adults? Where they're given insufficient supplies and staff can't even be bothered to change diapers? Drugging kids? All while looking at the big disgusting picture of a wannabe-President? No, it's not a Jewish death camp, but it's like one. The difference is instead of executing them after a while they just ship them back to Mexico with no parents or leave them with American Sponsor families where they have a good chance of getting lost in human trafficking.

Stop falling for the MSM. America has no death camps.

Even images of childs put in cages have been faked or come from Obama's tenure.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4238798/us-children-immigration-photo-2014-trump/

 

[highrider]

The division has always been there, Trump just exploits it. Liberals aren’t doing themselves any favors by remaining hyper focused on him, as opposed to focusing on their own strategies and plan. I’ve always considered myself very liberal, but I feel less so since Trump.

 

[Zog]

The people who hate Trump create divisions.

 

[Arkage]

When the GOP takes the anti-science side of nearly every debate possible there is bound to be disagreement.

Also electing an orange reality TV star that grabs women by the pussy as President of the free world is very dumb. Or that Dennis Rodman thinks he saved us from nuclear war with NK. Or that a washed up comedian Tom Arnold goes out to dinner with Trump's ex lawyer Cohen to (probably successfully) dig up dirt on said orange dorito. God bless America.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

When the GOP takes the literally anti-science side of nearly every debate possible there is bound to be disagreement.

This viewpoint is ignorant and shouldn't be spewed in civilized circles.

Have you met Texas? It's going through an energy boom, not just in terms of money and talent pouring into the state, but also in terms of technologies being developed to make good use of the boom. Something interesting to note: the USA is fairly energy independent now, something that wasn't true 20 years ago. We'll be seeing a lot of scientific development in those areas over the next 15 hears.

Oh, and Texas voted for Trump.

Would you consider those engineers, those scientists, those theorists, those scholars to be "anti-science" simply because they're also Republicans? How do you rationalize that? They're clearly "pro-science" in every measurably sense, so how are they anti-science?

 

[appaws]

don't think there is a reasonable way to separate without massive forceful relocations of people

I don't see who are all these people are who would have to be forced to relocate? Anyway, I am telling you this breakup is going to happen one way or the other. I just think we should try to head it off peacefully before shit gets too bad.

Paint a a different picture where its hard to say exactly what party is more representative of the needs or wants of the country.

Neither party is, nor can they be. This country is just too big and diverse. How can the left ever meet the "needs and wants" of a bitter clinger like me...? How can the right ever meet the "needs and wants" of a dyed-in-the-wool skinny soy latte drinker on the east side of Manhattan...?

 

[Arkage]

This viewpoint is ignorant and shouldn't be spewed in civilized circles.

Have you met Texas? It's going through an energy boom, not just in terms of money and talent pouring into the state, but also in terms of technologies being developed to make good use of the boom. Something interesting to note: the USA is fairly energy independent now, something that wasn't true 20 years ago. We'll be seeing a lot of scientific development in those areas over the next 15 hears.

Oh, and Texas voted for Trump.

Would you consider those engineers, those scientists, those theorists, those scholars to be "anti-science" simply because they're also Republicans? How do you rationalize that? They're clearly "pro-science" in every measurably sense, so how are they anti-science?

As a party they clearly take an anti-Green energy, neutral-global warming stance overall due to needing to pander to swing states that have rural coal workers/frackers and the like. If Texas can lead the GOP to change it's actual policy positions on a federal level (you know, the stuff that actually matters for global scaling) I'll start giving a shit about Texas.

Also let's do a tally of the number of Republican congress members who deny global warming or deny evolution or deny the age of the earth/universe or spout charming sexual scientific theories like "women-have-a-vaginal-mechanism-that-defends-against-rape-so-if-she-gets-pregnant-it-was-because-she-wanted-it" or "gay sex is unnatural" or "gays are basically the same as pedophiles" or ok I'll stop there. Vs the number of Democratic members that say shit like this. Hint: Republicans lose (or should I say win?) by wide margins.

 

[Coffe Time]

Sure, I'll do my best to answer.

Much appreciated.

I was going to think of an answer and then do some fact-checking online to make sure I was accurate. But then I realized "wait, it doesn't matter what Trump has done".

This is perhaps something you don't understand about Conservatives, and I'm not poking fun or mocking you. I just think it might be something you don't understand. Conservatives often don't care what a politician has done for them. They are usually more concerned on what a politician hasn't done to them. This is another one of the big divides between Dems and Republicans. Democrats point to their elected official and say "this person did such-and-such for me" and they will vote for that person again next time. Lots of conservatives, outside of election day, aren't focused on their politician. They don't care what they "did" as long as they didn't do anything bad. They're getting about their lives, trying to keep the government out of it and occasionally vote to get government action to repair failing infrastructure or something like that. They're more often going to vote someone out if they're feeling threatened. This is why you see some Trump voters say "it was more against her than for him, to be honest". This is a genuine Conservative standpoint, as bizarre as some people find it.

I see what you’re saying, but it’s probably why they are having economical issues in the first place. They are in a functioning country with a robust economy- If rural America wants to see improvements in their area, there needs to be government regulation, more taxes to support the poor, provide health care for people so there is one less thing to worry about, and create more jobs and a stronger infrastructure. Create stricter regulations against corporations, help smaller businesses to flourish in their communities. There is a lot the government can do if we allowed them to regulate the economy a bit more and not just let corporations run the country, which effectively means they are running Americans.
One of the areas that could have have been beneficial to small towns and rural country is if Trump actually took action and lead a movement for green energy- there is a massive untapped market for that, and to be a leading country in green energy could have stimulated rural communities significantly. But he promised jobs in coal energy, which could work for some communities, it overall the industry is trying to move away from.

I don't know if I can name some really terrible ones. I do know that -- historically -- good governments find a way to reduce the total influence urban areas can have over surrounding rural areas. It keeps everyone happy. When the urban areas get too much influence, they tend to oppress the minorities. Then the minorities get fed up and overthrow the city dwellers. Rinse and repeat.

I can name two urban policy impositions that I am affected by. They're not life and death. They're not "oppression". But they're real examples, so here goes:

I am super into homesteading. I am lucky to live on a 1/2 acre lot in an urban area. How urban? Not bad, but you'll walk by three liquor stores and two marijuana dispensaries before you hit a grocery store, let me put it that way. I grow a ton of my family's food right here and we cook a lot of things from scratch. I am living the dream! I'd like to keep chickens on my half-acre plot someday. The city says I can keep up to 5 hens maximum. Ridiculous, because any farmer knows you can fit way more than 5 hens -- comfortably! -- on a half acre. But the restriction is a Local City statute. And it's not unfair: too many penned animals creates noise, feces, disease, and is generally a bad idea. The law makes sense, but it is an urban policy preventing me from doing something that a rural person could do without even a permit.

Another example: my parents live in a nearby town going through the awkward transformation between a rural town and a proper "city". Their local governance -- in a town that is 1,000 times more rural than where I live -- won't let them keep hens. It's because it's "too much noise" or something. Their town has less than 15% of my city's population. Almost every house in their neighborhood is on an acre lot or bigger. You drive past crop fields to get from my city to their town. And yet I can keep hens and they cannot? It's the hoity-toity wannabe fancy city planners who made the restriction, directly imposing upon the rural sensibilities of that town.

Wouldn’t this be a state law or city ordinance determined by county lines? I understand and sympathize with what your saying, but couldn’t you bring this up with your local government? I’m not informed on these kinds of laws, but I can’t imagine it’s something decided by the president.
If rural population is roughly 1/5th of the entire US, they should represent 1/5th of the vote. The electoral college skews it too much in their favor. It’s more of a critique than a criticism.

I don't know how to answer that because I'd need a real-life example to make sure I'm understanding what you're asking. I mean, ideologically do I think it's fair to hold back cities from progressing for their own needs? I guess not, as long as it doesn't unfairly impose upon the needs of others...I guess? I mean, I need an example. It seems like you're implying that rural votes are holding back the cities. In what way? In what specific ways?

I guess I’m not necessarily concerned about city vs. rural laws, it just ended up being a discussion topic, since Jordan pointed out that democrats are just concentrated around cities, suggesting their voice is minority in the country.
In realizing that, I understand where my thought process may have been confusing. My biggest concern is how we can stabilize or prevent climate change, and how equality for everyone is ensured and protected.

Someday I hope we can become a post-scarcity society. That would be the only genuine answer to your question.

Until then, people will naturally fight for their needs and for whatever they want beyond it. Competition is our nature. A social structure that gives everyone an equal chance at engaging in that fight -- not artificially held back due to their race or religion or social class -- is the closest we can get to make sure as much of "everyone" getting their needs met. America is about the closest any civilization has gotten to that, and we've even inspired other countries to give it a try, too.

I agree with you on the idea, I disagree with the notion that America is leading a free country.

Would it be fair for an LGBT parade organizer to refuse to allow a Neo-Nazi float in their parade? I mean, the real question is should the government have a say in who gets to serve who and I think the answer there is easy: no, the government should not have a say on how people conduct their business except in the most extreme of circumstances. I really don't have a strong stance on the nuances of this issue. I guess I'd just ask what the government should do about it if you believe it is unfair and should therefore be illegal. If a carpenter refuses to carve something for a person because of their race, he tends to go out of business. The government doesn't need to step in there, because on the flip side if you grant them this power and the government becomes too conservative them you've granted them the power to say "sorry, cake-bakers, none of you are allowed to bake cakes for gays".

Is this country not equal if can can’t ensure there is are baseline No Discrimination Laws? I’m talking purely about race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.
Neo-Nazis disrupt equality by suggesting others are inferior to them. Allowing the idea that it’s ok to discriminate and think less of others just for having traits they can’t control. It’s fine to refuse service for a belief they hold, but being gay isn’t a belief, it’s who they are.
Someone can stop being a trump supporter, or stop being Christian, or choose to be a nazi. You can’t choose to be black, or gay, or a woman. Currently we are headed to a system where it’s ok to discriminate based on these things, and that’s not ok. It will divide the country further, not just on ideologies, but demographically. If certain people are refused service, they will have to go somewhere they can get service, that may mean relocating.
Businesses aren’t naturally going to go out of business, because they’re racist- some people may stop supporting them. Some don’t care and that’s fine, I guess. The problem is this country is in a place where they will actively support others for their bigotry.

But change is so scary, you know? I had a hard time adapting to certain concepts like preferred pronouns, privilege, and understanding racism. I listened to Sargon, Armored Skeptic, and Milo Yonopoulous. I thought my ideology was threatened, but I stopped. I got to know people of various backgrounds. My brother is gay, I had non-binary coworkers, I hung out with minorities. I’m not trying to sound preachy, or that you should adopt my views on acceptance. I just think there has to be baseline laws that prevent discrimination. There are a few other countries that have non-discrimination or hate speech laws, they work- they’re not perfect, but they are there. And that’s what we need.

No apology needed.

Why should the needs of the few overpower the needs of the many? I think you already know the answer to that if you know your history. Now of course, the goal isn't for the needs of the few to always overpower the needs of the many. If we admit that is wrong then we must admit that the needs of the many always overpowering the needs of the few is also inherently bad. I'm describing what is commonly termed " minority oppression".

Once again, America was pretty smart here: because we have the freedom of speech, even a minority can speak up and rally their fellow citizens to a cause without fear of the government shutting them down. Some of our country's most tragic periods of history are when we actively suppressed our citizens' right to do this. Even if you believe Trump is awful and "idiots" voted him in and all that, he was elected using the same political system that granted all the civil rights victories in our country's history. Let's not throw it all out.

The government shuts down rallies and silences people all the time. Police kill innocent people all the time without consequence to their actions.
There is no slippery slope to losing the freedom of speech if non-discriminatory laws are placed, and nazis, white Supremecists aren’t allowed to publicly gather. These are just really base line things I’m suggesting. Technically you could still call a Mexican a beaner, or a black person a nigger if you really felt like it, but just as a private matter between two people or whatever, not as a representative for some sort of entity. We can’t say anything we want anyway- there are a ton of things we can’t say, but why would we want or care to say them anyway?

 

[Panda1]

I respect your opinion but am confused at your argument. Is it every time he "farts," or every time he attacks someone, name calls, bans countries except the ones with his businesses, defends white nationalists, etc? Liberals do not write his tweets. Liberals don't dress the First Lady. Liberals aren't making him do or say what he's done and said?

That's because most of us are educated and know not believe tales about two scoops and gorilla channel unlike you and look at policy and facts

 

[Platinumstorm]

I do think Trump has been a dividing wedge for our country. The most egregious example would be his recent parading of MS13 victims' families, with their permission, of course, onto a stage to essentially say "Either you're with us, or you're with them". While that was the argument he made, people can both be wanting to stop gang violence, and they can want to make sure families aren't separated. The two aren't mutually exclusive, however President Trump forced a false choice which was the mots disgusting wedge I have ever seen a president create. That's not leading a country, that's leading a preferred policy and group. of voters, and that's not presidential.

His tax policy even favored Republican voters while simultaneously hurting more Democratic states; whether that was done to soil discontent, I don't know, although it's certainly reasonable for states to have measured taxes.

The US certainly isn't at its most divided, however it is very uncomfortable, and I don't like it. A brief review of historical events in many decades during the 1900s, never mind the Civil War, shows a country far more divided than today. As in previous posts, I argue that we don't really compromise, we don't focus on issues of import. I do not pretend to be immune to this division. I find myself in disbelief at people who deny climate change, or any attempts to stop pollution, but then turn around and talk about being a good steward of the land. That is hard for me to process.

I agree with an earlier poster that special interests and corporations benefit from the mass chaos, and likely instigate it. Sans Citizen United, I don't think we would have this issue as drastically. I also think the urban/rural divide is an awful thing that we cannot afford to have. Neither group understands each other well; I would maybe argue the people who understand it the best are the people who have lived in both types of places, and in two different political spectrum communities. Count me as one of the rare Democrats who cares about the coal miners in Craig, CO, and I've taken my choice for governor, Jared Polis, to task and encouraging him to not leave them behind.

As an aside I'd also like to comment to a poster earlier in the thread who talked about people in rural areas being poor. That's a pretty sweeping generalization, and on many levels it's wrong. That's that sort of frank misunderstanding that people have.

Need to sleep, so I'm out.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Much appreciated.

I see what you’re saying, but it’s probably why they are having economical issues in the first place. They are in a functioning country with a robust economy-

Hold up, you're not giving me the "pick themselves up by their bootstraps" dogma, are ya? Because when Conservatives have used that in the past, they've gotten shouted down for being insensitive to the impoverished and down-on-their-luck. Whether you realize it or not, you've doing exactly that to the rural poor in America.

If rural America wants to see improvements in their area, there needs to be government regulation, more taxes to support the poor, provide health care for people so there is one less thing to worry about, and create more jobs and a stronger infrastructure. Create stricter regulations against corporations, help smaller businesses to flourish in their communities. There is a lot the government can do if we allowed them to regulate the economy a bit more and not just let corporations run the country, which effectively means they are running Americans.

Government regulation? Taxes to support the poor when they are poor, health care when the nearest hospital is in the next town over? Stronger infrastructure? You mean like the plumbing, paved roads, sewer systems, high-speed internet, and other public services? You realize that many rural people don't get those, right? Remember, city-folk get the... (ironic that I get to use this word in its true sense) privilege of living near the hub of technological development. They get the best roads, the fastest internet, the best access to news, the best schools, the best recreational centers, the best libraries, the best restaurants, the best lawyers, the best everything, just on the merit of living in the city. Regardless of ethnicity or gender, the city-dwellers have these distinct privileges due to no hard work or merit of their own. They should really check their privilege when it comes to the plight of rural Americans...

(I'm being tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I think it highlights a glaring contradiction in our current politically-correct landscape)

I don't think you are aware of how little these things you've recommended actually help rural folk. In what specific way is Gov't regulation going to help them? Sure, sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't. I think you're rattling off the bullet-points that might apply to a mid-sized or larger-sized urban area, but you aren't making any valid points when it comes to typical rural American life. And besides, the city-folk regularly vote against allocating disproportionate resources to distant rural areas. After all, that wouldn't be fair to help the out in the boonies when we have inner-city kids in need of schooling. Wouldn't you say that's unfair? It's what occurs. It creates disparity in education and access to information. Those are the very same issues brought up to raise funds for inner-city schools, but strangely the argument doesn't earn nearly as much sympathy-dollars for the rural schools suffering from the same thing.

One of the areas that could have have been beneficial to small towns and rural country is if Trump actually took action and lead a movement for green energy- there is a massive untapped market for that, and to be a leading country in green energy could have stimulated rural communities significantly. But he promised jobs in coal energy, which could work for some communities, it overall the industry is trying to move away from.

I honestly don't know if this is the case. Government-backed development can sometimes be good for an area and sometimes not. I don't think that it's a given that this would've been a guaranteed win.

Wouldn’t this be a state law or city ordinance determined by county lines? I understand and sympathize with what your saying, but couldn’t you bring this up with your local government? I’m not informed on these kinds of laws, but I can’t imagine it’s something decided by the president.

I used it as an example of urban laws encroaching on rural freedoms, that's all. I doubt the president would've had any effect on it.

If rural population is roughly 1/5th of the entire US, they should represent 1/5th of the vote.

In many respects, they do only get 1/5th of the vote.

The electoral college skews it too much in their favor.

Imagine this: 30 years from now, when cities will most certainly be even denser than they are now, a popular uprising occurs and somehow the Conservatives take over the cities. "The earth is so polluted and we're so overpopulated. We need to go back to our old American values". And what if these handful of concentrated cities want to vote in Trump Jr. to be our 49th president, so they rally together and push him as the Conservative candidate? Meanwhile, the majority of other states, other population groups, other ethnicities, other economies, other belief systems, other ecological disasters and concerns of their own... they're going to be thinking "No way are we going through another Trump". So they all vote against the Conservative-run cities. Even though they are out-populated, the electoral college weight allows the majority-vote of the smaller states to overturn the ideologically-concentrated Mega cities.

Electoral College saves the day. Democracy is saved. Steven Colbert Jr. does a funny dance on Late Night mocking Trump Jr's loss.

That's why it works the way it does.

It’s more of a critique than a criticism.

I don't know the difference.

I guess I’m not necessarily concerned about city vs. rural laws, it just ended up being a discussion topic, since Jordan pointed out that democrats are just concentrated around cities, suggesting their voice is minority in the country.
In realizing that, I understand where my thought process may have been confusing. My biggest concern is how we can stabilize or prevent climate change, and how equality for everyone is ensured and protected.

I don't think those things will be achieved as long as Democratic-majority cities continue looking down on rural folk and ignoring their concerns, which may seem foreign to their own issues but are no less important.

I agree with you on the idea, I disagree with the notion that America is leading a free country.

Sure, we've got a ways to go. No one said this was a utopia. But I'm waiting for a compelling argument to scrap everything we've built so far to start from scratch. We're doing pretty well so far. Progress can't always be overnight, sadly.

Is this country not equal if can can’t ensure there is are baseline No Discrimination Laws? I’m talking purely about race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

I'm not certain. America seems to be making a lot of this up as it goes. My opinion? The government shouldn't have a say in how a business operates until it behaves in a way that supercedes or overpowers the local government's ability to restrict it or contain it. That's a complicated way of saying let the business do what it wants as long as there's no reasonable cause to believe it is harming people in the short-term (local poisoning, killing wildlife) or long-term (damage to environment, damage to waterways).

Neo-Nazis disrupt equality by suggesting others are inferior to them. Allowing the idea that it’s ok to discriminate and think less of others just for having traits they can’t control.

This is incorrect. Neo-Nazis do not affect your legal rights, your opportunity for employment, your access to the market, your access to fair credit and housing assessments, or any of the other rights you're afforded. Or were you talking about some other "equality"? There is no evidence -- scientific or philosophical -- that being told you are inferior or being confronted with the idea that it's "okay to discriminate" somehow interferes with a person's actual rights. I'm sorry, but this is just fairy-tale mumbo-jumbo. We did just get over an era where people hung for expressing their thoughts on civil rights. People were murdered. People rioted and marched, not just outside their favorite Starbucks, but from one town to another. Those folks were oppressed. Those folks had their equality disrupted. Please help me understand how your equality is being disrupted by Neo-Nazis existing, as detestable as their philosophy may be to every enlightened person.

You cannot suppress speech. It is the very core of tyranny.

It’s fine to refuse service for a belief they hold, but being gay isn’t a belief, it’s who they are.

Someone can stop being a trump supporter, or stop being Christian, or choose to be a nazi. You can’t choose to be black, or gay, or a woman. Currently we are headed to a system where it’s ok to discriminate based on these things, and that’s not ok.

How are we "headed to a system" where it's okay to discriminate? What laws are changing? What rules are expiring? This is something that needs more explanation. I can't just accept it at face value.

It will divide the country further, not just on ideologies, but demographically. If certain people are refused service, they will have to go somewhere they can get service, that may mean relocating.
Businesses aren’t naturally going to go out of business, because they’re racist- some people may stop supporting them. Some don’t care and that’s fine, I guess. The problem is this country is in a place where they will actively support others for their bigotry.

Untrue. We already went through this less than a century ago. We literally had segregated schools, segregated public fountains, segregated sports. Guess what? America found a way to get through that.

But now you're telling me that a few random cake shops and restaurants in the entire country acting like bigots is somehow comparable to how things were leading up to the civil rights movement? Hmm.

But change is so scary, you know? I had a hard time adapting to certain concepts like preferred pronouns, privilege, and understanding racism. I listened to Sargon, Armored Skeptic, and Milo Yonopoulous. I thought my ideology was threatened, but I stopped. I got to know people of various backgrounds. My brother is gay, I had non-binary coworkers, I hung out with minorities. I’m not trying to sound preachy, or that you should adopt my views on acceptance. I just think there has to be baseline laws that prevent discrimination. There are a few other countries that have non-discrimination or hate speech laws, they work- they’re not perfect, but they are there. And that’s what we need.

We have non-discrimination laws already, many of them at the Federal level. Are you unaware of them? Do you admit they've had a positive impact or have they been duds? I'm curious to hear your thoughts before I delve into this one further.

The government shuts down rallies and silences people all the time. Police kill innocent people all the time without consequence to their actions.
There is no slippery slope to losing the freedom of speech if non-discriminatory laws are placed, and nazis, white Supremecists aren’t allowed to publicly gather. These are just really base line things I’m suggesting.

Can you guarantee that the government will never abuse these powers to -- for instance -- assist Nazis and white Supremacists? Is there a way you could guarantee that once you grant the government this new power it will only be used for good and not evil? Can you outline a way this power will only be used for good even as political power changes back and forth between political parties?

You can't. No one on the Left can. That's the fatal flaw of so many of these arguments: they sound like really nice solutions until you imagine what horrible things your political opponents could do with that same power. Democrats keep forgetting that lesson: don't grant the government any power you wouldn't want your political opponents to have.

The government should have no say over who can or cannot peaceably gather. Yes, people can (and do) abuse it by using the freedom to spew hate. Freedom comes with responsibility. But you can't suppress people's speech or their right to express their viewpoints, no matter how controversial. Humans are pretty much never, ever on "the right side of history". That's the hilarious irony of it all. As a rule, we are constantly on the wrong side of history, miscalculating things, consuming things too quickly, killing one another, disagreeing over meaningless things, letting our hubris and greed get in the way. Governments have been the most efficient and effective perpetrators of these vices, and we want to give them more control? Nah.

Technically you could still call a Mexican a beaner, or a black person a nigger if you really felt like it, but just as a private matter between two people or whatever, not as a representative for some sort of entity. We can’t say anything we want anyway- there are a ton of things we can’t say, but why would we want or care to say them anyway?

Freedom of speech has almost nothing to do with "freedom to insult people". The real issue is if the government should be allowed to define what its citizens can or cannot say.

What is your principle? Obviously, a government suppressing the speech of its subjects can be used for good things (like reducing hate speech between citizens), but it can also be used for very bad things (like suppressing discontent among minority populations), right? I think you and I would agree on this point.

So, quite simply, that's why we don't mess with free speech in the USA. It's just not a good idea. If it wasn't a good idea during the march for women's suffrage to suppress free speech, why is it now? If it wasn't a good idea to suppress free speech during the civil rights marches, why would it be a good idea now? If the government wasn't responsible with that power then, why would they be responsible now? Tell me how you can guarantee this!

Again, you cannot. That is why Conservatives tend to oppose these sort of schemes. They just don't pass a basic logical examination.

 

[LegendOfKage]

The quick version: The media is responsible for dividing the country, because it's the most optimal and financially beneficial thing for them to do. Trump is responsible for making that such an easy thing to do, and the media is also responsible for getting trump elected. Social media is responsible for everybody hating each other, nobody ever seeing opposing thought, and many people never hearing both sides of an issue.

 

[Cunth]

It’s definitely the media to blame for whipping everyone up into a frenzy, which is then magnified by shitty social media

 

[Papa]

Rural people are not minorities, they represent half the country. And their needs Will be determined by state laws, not coastal cities. Tell me how rural people are minorities and why they should have their voices heard over the needs of city people?

How do you figure that rural people are half the country? Are you equating rural people with republicans?

 

[Papa]

Unemployment is at an all time low. Black unemployment is at an all time low. The GDP is growing at it's fastest in over a decade. The stock market is at all time highs. More people than ever before say the country is moving in a positive direction. If all that is still not enough to prove to the Left that the country is "improving", then nothing else Trump does is going to change their minds.

In the religion of social justice, he’s the equivalent of Satan. He could cure cancer and would still be the devil.

 

[Spheyr]

After Vegas we should have Gun Control but Nope

We need our rights trampled because of what one man did once?

We already have tons of "gun control." Too much, even.

 

[Ke0]

Hold up, you're not giving me the "pick themselves up by their bootstraps" dogma, are ya? Because when Conservatives have used that in the past, they've gotten shouted down for being insensitive to the impoverished and down-on-their-luck. Whether you realize it or not, you've doing exactly that to the rural poor in America.


Government regulation? Taxes to support the poor when they are poor, health care when the nearest hospital is in the next town over? Stronger infrastructure? You mean like the plumbing, paved roads, sewer systems, high-speed internet, and other public services? You realize that many rural people don't get those, right? Remember, city-folk get the... (ironic that I get to use this word in its true sense) privilege of living near the hub of technological development. They get the best roads, the fastest internet, the best access to news, the best schools, the best recreational centers, the best libraries, the best restaurants, the best lawyers, the best everything, just on the merit of living in the city. Regardless of ethnicity or gender, the city-dwellers have these distinct privileges due to no hard work or merit of their own. They should really check their privilege when it comes to the plight of rural Americans...

(I'm being tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I think it highlights a glaring contradiction in our current politically-correct landscape)

I don't think you are aware of how little these things you've recommended actually help rural folk. In what specific way is Gov't regulation going to help them? Sure, sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't. I think you're rattling off the bullet-points that might apply to a mid-sized or larger-sized urban area, but you aren't making any valid points when it comes to typical rural American life. And besides, the city-folk regularly vote against allocating disproportionate resources to distant rural areas. After all, that wouldn't be fair to help the out in the boonies when we have inner-city kids in need of schooling. Wouldn't you say that's unfair? It's what occurs. It creates disparity in education and access to information. Those are the very same issues brought up to raise funds for inner-city schools, but strangely the argument doesn't earn nearly as much sympathy-dollars for the rural schools suffering from the same thing.


I honestly don't know if this is the case. Government-backed development can sometimes be good for an area and sometimes not. I don't think that it's a given that this would've been a guaranteed win.


I used it as an example of urban laws encroaching on rural freedoms, that's all. I doubt the president would've had any effect on it.


In many respects, they do only get 1/5th of the vote.


Imagine this: 30 years from now, when cities will most certainly be even denser than they are now, a popular uprising occurs and somehow the Conservatives take over the cities. "The earth is so polluted and we're so overpopulated. We need to go back to our old American values". And what if these handful of concentrated cities want to vote in Trump Jr. to be our 49th president, so they rally together and push him as the Conservative candidate? Meanwhile, the majority of other states, other population groups, other ethnicities, other economies, other belief systems, other ecological disasters and concerns of their own... they're going to be thinking "No way are we going through another Trump". So they all vote against the Conservative-run cities. Even though they are out-populated, the electoral college weight allows the majority-vote of the smaller states to overturn the ideologically-concentrated Mega cities.

Electoral College saves the day. Democracy is saved. Steven Colbert Jr. does a funny dance on Late Night mocking Trump Jr's loss.

That's why it works the way it does.


I don't know the difference.


I don't think those things will be achieved as long as Democratic-majority cities continue looking down on rural folk and ignoring their concerns, which may seem foreign to their own issues but are no less important.


Sure, we've got a ways to go. No one said this was a utopia. But I'm waiting for a compelling argument to scrap everything we've built so far to start from scratch. We're doing pretty well so far. Progress can't always be overnight, sadly.


I'm not certain. America seems to be making a lot of this up as it goes. My opinion? The government shouldn't have a say in how a business operates until it behaves in a way that supercedes or overpowers the local government's ability to restrict it or contain it. That's a complicated way of saying let the business do what it wants as long as there's no reasonable cause to believe it is harming people in the short-term (local poisoning, killing wildlife) or long-term (damage to environment, damage to waterways).


This is incorrect. Neo-Nazis do not affect your legal rights, your opportunity for employment, your access to the market, your access to fair credit and housing assessments, or any of the other rights you're afforded. Or were you talking about some other "equality"? There is no evidence -- scientific or philosophical -- that being told you are inferior or being confronted with the idea that it's "okay to discriminate" somehow interferes with a person's actual rights. I'm sorry, but this is just fairy-tale mumbo-jumbo. We did just get over an era where people hung for expressing their thoughts on civil rights. People were murdered. People rioted and marched, not just outside their favorite Starbucks, but from one town to another. Those folks were oppressed. Those folks had their equality disrupted. Please help me understand how your equality is being disrupted by Neo-Nazis existing, as detestable as their philosophy may be to every enlightened person.

You cannot suppress speech. It is the very core of tyranny.


How are we "headed to a system" where it's okay to discriminate? What laws are changing? What rules are expiring? This is something that needs more explanation. I can't just accept it at face value.


Untrue. We already went through this less than a century ago. We literally had segregated schools, segregated public fountains, segregated sports. Guess what? America found a way to get through that.

But now you're telling me that a few random cake shops and restaurants in the entire country acting like bigots is somehow comparable to how things were leading up to the civil rights movement? Hmm.


We have non-discrimination laws already, many of them at the Federal level. Are you unaware of them? Do you admit they've had a positive impact or have they been duds? I'm curious to hear your thoughts before I delve into this one further.


Can you guarantee that the government will never abuse these powers to -- for instance -- assist Nazis and white Supremacists? Is there a way you could guarantee that once you grant the government this new power it will only be used for good and not evil? Can you outline a way this power will only be used for good even as political power changes back and forth between political parties?

You can't. No one on the Left can. That's the fatal flaw of so many of these arguments: they sound like really nice solutions until you imagine what horrible things your political opponents could do with that same power. Democrats keep forgetting that lesson: don't grant the government any power you wouldn't want your political opponents to have.

The government should have no say over who can or cannot peaceably gather. Yes, people can (and do) abuse it by using the freedom to spew hate. Freedom comes with responsibility. But you can't suppress people's speech or their right to express their viewpoints, no matter how controversial. Humans are pretty much never, ever on "the right side of history". That's the hilarious irony of it all. As a rule, we are constantly on the wrong side of history, miscalculating things, consuming things too quickly, killing one another, disagreeing over meaningless things, letting our hubris and greed get in the way. Governments have been the most efficient and effective perpetrators of these vices, and we want to give them more control? Nah.


Freedom of speech has almost nothing to do with "freedom to insult people". The real issue is if the government should be allowed to define what its citizens can or cannot say.

What is your principle? Obviously, a government suppressing the speech of its subjects can be used for good things (like reducing hate speech between citizens), but it can also be used for very bad things (like suppressing discontent among minority populations), right? I think you and I would agree on this point.

So, quite simply, that's why we don't mess with free speech in the USA. It's just not a good idea. If it wasn't a good idea during the march for women's suffrage to suppress free speech, why is it now? If it wasn't a good idea to suppress free speech during the civil rights marches, why would it be a good idea now? If the government wasn't responsible with that power then, why would they be responsible now? Tell me how you can guarantee this!

Again, you cannot. That is why Conservatives tend to oppose these sort of schemes. They just don't pass a basic logical examination.

I don't see how less Government helps rural America. Without your government, corporations have no reason to be in rural America unless they absolutely have to. As an example from what I understand about your mail service, postal service is the only place who have an obligation to deliver mail out there even if it's at a financial loss.
Get rid of that and you kinda further the decline of these areas.

And while it's pretty bad to make generalisations about places, there is truth to the wealth or lack of it in rural areas for the general populous, sure you have a few who are rich but because of the lack of jobs this isn't majority of people and I imagine there are many below the poverty line. Who are on social welfare programs because there aren't opportunities available. You get rid of those programs and even more rural citizens suffer.

Also because cities are more dense and it's where all the jobs are located, aren't they subsidising your rural areas ultimately?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I don't see how less Government helps rural America. Without your government, corporations have no reason to be in rural America unless they absolutely have to. As an example from what I understand about your mail service, postal service is the only place who have an obligation to deliver mail out there even if it's at a financial loss.
Get rid of that and you kinda further the decline of these areas.

And while it's pretty bad to make generalisations about places, there is truth to the wealth or lack of it in rural areas for the general populous, sure you have a few who are rich but because of the lack of jobs this isn't majority of people and I imagine there are many below the poverty line. Who are on social welfare programs because there aren't opportunities available. You get rid of those programs and even more rural citizens suffer.

Also because cities are more dense and it's where all the jobs are located, aren't they subsidising your rural areas ultimately?

Are cities subsidizing the rural areas?

Not at all. Where do you think your food comes from? What about your hardwood furniture? Where do you think large quantities of concrete are mixed? Where do you think mid-sized machine shops are located? Where do you think wind and solar farms are built? Where is the grain grown, sifted, and ground into flour? Where are the distribution centers built for all the trillions of packages put onto store shelves, in the city or out in the boonies? Where do our semi-truck drivers tend to live and travel? Alongside whose fields and whose farm-roads are the cross-continental railroads built?

Most of this country's natural resources, resource production, transportation, and refinement is done in rural areas.

You also said something very interesting "without your government, corporations have no reason to be in rural America". This is false. I'm surprised you would say it, considering how corporations often exploit rural areas for profit. Many rural areas are on the decline because large farm corporations have moved in, bought up the land, and hired the farmers as employees. You want to talk about one area subsidizing another? The rural farmers get pushed out of business in order to make more inexpensive food for the densely-populated cities. How's that for subsidizing?

Rural areas still benefit from the government, just in very different ways than someone who lives in the city might expect (like dairy subsidies if you are a dairy farmer, or home-heating energy credits if you are using firewood to heat your home instead of propane).

I never mentioned anything about getting rid of social welfare programs. I do think that rural folk benefit from the "safety net" of some welfare programs.

 

[AaronB]

Trump played the game effectively (maneuvering his way into the presidency), and a lot of what he did was divisive. However, I don't think he's primarily responsible for the division.

Here's my view on how it's playing out:

News media is divided. Mainstream media primarily leans to the left - that is, most of the key people who work for those news organizations vote Democratic, are in circles where most of them have the same perspective. Even when they try to be unbiased, the news they choose to cover and how they cover it comes out slanted. As a result, people with different perspectives gravitated towards other news sources - talk radio, then Fox News, and a wide range of websites.

People understand reality differently. People on the left, right, and other have different approaches to issues, get their news from different sources and are practically not living in the same reality. Someone on the left might say "Look at this thing, how could anyone not be as outraged as I am about it?" While someone on the right doesn't view it in anything like the same way.

The modern world turns up the temperature. Most people are on social media, and see many more takes on things than they would without it. A little before that there was the birth of the 24/7 news cycle. Divisions get cranked up.

Demonization gets ratcheted up. News sites seeking views and clicks get more and more outrageous. This is like the problem Dan Carlin points to - the media has a vested interest in turning up the heat, but no one seems to have a vested interest in turning things down. In the last election, a lot of people began to push the narrative that Trump is unbelievably racist, literally Hitler, and so on. Some of those people may have been seeking views and clicks; some wanted to increase votes for the Democrats; some may have actually believed it. They assumed Hillary would win, and things would go back to normal. They underestimated how much the other side hates their media and hated Hillary - Trump wins - and now we're in a position where someone a lot of people thought was Hitler is the President.

The left attempts to practice what they believe. If you really believe there are Nazis everywhere, you might think it's a good idea to start a virtual war on them. Ban their speech. Shout down or burn down their attempts to hold campus events. Kick them out of your businesses. Boycott anyone who does business with them. If this passion isn't balanced by civility and wisdom (Start a civil war against the people who love guns? Really?), we could have a serious civil conflict.

I'd rather live in a country with a lowered temperature. People should be able to have civil discussions. Allow speech that you disagree with. Don't start conflicts or boycotts because of the politics of a person or company. At worst, try to exclude the few actual white supremacists, Nazis, and violent communists rather than lumping them together with everyone else you disagree with. Those roads all could lead to misery. However, I think it's mainly the left that have talked themselves into a position where they think those actions are justified, and the right is mobilizing in response (i.e. the rise of outrage culture on the right).

 

[GAFDooMsDaY]

Trump played the game effectively (maneuvering his way into the presidency), and a lot of what he did was divisive. However, I don't think he's primarily responsible for the division.

Here's my view on how it's playing out:

News media is divided. Mainstream media primarily leans to the left - that is, most of the key people who work for those news organizations vote Democratic, are in circles where most of them have the same perspective. Even when they try to be unbiased, the news they choose to cover and how they cover it comes out slanted. As a result, people with different perspectives gravitated towards other news sources - talk radio, then Fox News, and a wide range of websites.

People understand reality differently. People on the left, right, and other have different approaches to issues, get their news from different sources and are practically not living in the same reality. Someone on the left might say "Look at this thing, how could anyone not be as outraged as I am about it?" While someone on the right doesn't view it in anything like the same way.

The modern world turns up the temperature. Most people are on social media, and see many more takes on things than they would without it. A little before that there was the birth of the 24/7 news cycle. Divisions get cranked up.

Demonization gets ratcheted up. News sites seeking views and clicks get more and more outrageous. This is like the problem Dan Carlin points to - the media has a vested interest in turning up the heat, but no one seems to have a vested interest in turning things down. In the last election, a lot of people began to push the narrative that Trump is unbelievably racist, literally Hitler, and so on. Some of those people may have been seeking views and clicks; some wanted to increase votes for the Democrats; some may have actually believed it. They assumed Hillary would win, and things would go back to normal. They underestimated how much the other side hates their media and hated Hillary - Trump wins - and now we're in a position where someone a lot of people thought was Hitler is the President.

The left attempts to practice what they believe. If you really believe there are Nazis everywhere, you might think it's a good idea to start a virtual war on them. Ban their speech. Shout down or burn down their attempts to hold campus events. Kick them out of your businesses. Boycott anyone who does business with them. If this passion isn't balanced by civility and wisdom (Start a civil war against the people who love guns? Really?), we could have a serious civil conflict.

I'd rather live in a country with a lowered temperature. People should be able to have civil discussions. Allow speech that you disagree with. Don't start conflicts or boycotts because of the politics of a person or company. At worst, try to exclude the few actual white supremacists, Nazis, and violent communists rather than lumping them together with everyone else you disagree with. Those roads all could lead to misery. However, I think it's mainly the left that have talked themselves into a position where they think those actions are justified, and the right is mobilizing in response (i.e. the rise of outrage culture on the right).

Best thing I read in the whole thread . Agree 100% on the different realities part. Extreme right wingers view leftists as the enemy to their conservative world and extreme leftists view the right as the enemy to their progressive world. Both tend to live in an echo chamber. Media does a piss poor job of showing the middle ground . I've said it plenty of times before, unless we can really get out of this mindset of a left/right paradigm and dichotomy we don't have a lot of hope .

 

[danielberg]

Its not because of trump or the right, its 100% because of far left democrats.
They warned about what trump supporters would do after they lose the election... and then after the dems lost they immediately behaved in the way they warned about and are still doing it actively to this f***** day.

 

[Death Dealer]

It's the most divided in my lifetime. I wouldn't say it's the most divided ever though, considering we had a civil war.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Please help me understand how your equality is being disrupted by Neo-Nazis existing, as detestable as their philosophy may be to every enlightened person.

If you come across a racist police officer or judge your equality can be distrusted. Nazi represents the extreme end, but there's basic racism that disrupts equality from a wider statistical perspective (such as judge sentencing on blacks between political affiliation and race), rather than at isolated levels despite being equal under the law. But again that's not nazism. We combat nazi's to not let their appeal grow. Words -> assumptions -> actions

 

[rokkerkory]

One of the most corrupt campaign and administration in our lifetime. So yes since the civil war.

 

[eclipze]

Its not because of trump or the right, its 100% because of far left democrats.
They warned about what trump supporters would do after they lose the election... and then after the dems lost they immediately behaved in the way they warned about and are still doing it actively to this f***** day.

Yea no. Nice try though.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

If you come across a racist police officer or judge your equality can be distrusted. Nazi represents the extreme end, but there's basic racism that disrupts equality from a wider statistical perspective (such as judge sentencing on blacks between political affiliation and race), rather than at isolated levels despite being equal under the law. But again that's not nazism. We combat nazi's to not let their appeal grow. Words -> assumptions -> actions

Sure, but there are laws (and loopholes, admittedly) in place to help protect against biased officials. You realize that's not a new thing, right? Biased and corrupt officials have been a thing since the beginning of civilization. I'm not really seeing how America is special or how this somehow represents a "basic racism". There's an old phrase about when you search for a devil under every rock, you're bound to find him. This is like searching for a racist under every rock, beheath every glance of the eyes, behind every sentencing against any person of any minority group.

When you fight against a person's individual right to join organizations and express their political opinions, you are a fascist by definition. Ironic. Fascists fighting against fascists.

Let me know when the burning of racists books begins.

 

[Ancient Gray]

He certainly doesn't help but I also fall in the social media lot. Social media may very well be the worst invention in modern history.

 

[rokkerkory]

Happy july 4th from our GOP lawmakers:

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Happy july 4th from our GOP lawmakers:

Don't most meetings between politicians occur behind closed doors without press there?

What's the issue? Oh, Russians meeting with Republicans in any way, shape, or form. Got it.

 

[rokkerkory]

Don't most meetings between politicians occur behind closed doors without press there?

What's the issue? Oh, Russians meeting with Republicans in any way, shape, or form. Got it.

On the 4th with an enemy state? Must be nice, since they are public servants, let's get a list of who and have them come clean.

 

[Deleted member 713885]

I was Liberal till the last year or so of Obama's term.

The lefts 'outrage' drove me away.
The fact that I realize their idea censorship is a slippery slope.
Constant attacks on Whites, especially White Males Straight Males.
Like we are a monolith, a word they will use if you lump their identity into one.
The fact that I'm not PC, but I'm also not a racist or bigot.
The idea that masculinity in all forms is toxic and the cure is feminization.
The lie of the wage gap.
Guilty till proven innocent (but still suspect) public opinion for white men or men in general.
The hate for the greatest nation on Earth.
Purity test.
Virtue signaling.
Everyone I disagree with is a Nazi.
The idea of giving a second thought to immigrants when we have real American, like AA in the inner city, living in war zones


I'd like to see Blacks, Whites, Gays etc.. go to the right. Be proud and nationalist. Drop the victimhood. Buy a gun . Drive out the racist from the party or help change their minds. Follow our nation loving, armed to the teeth, fuck outrage and PC shit, bootstrapping and less whining...

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

help change their minds

Anyone you have to convince to not be racist probably isn't worth the effort.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

On the 4th with an enemy state? Must be nice, since they are public servants, let's get a list of who and have them come clean.

This is W. Bush-era Alex Jones Flat Earth Prepper circa 2006 kind of paranoia.

 

[Deleted member 713885]

Anyone you have to convince not to be racist probably isn't worth the effort.

Nah, that's just a cop out. Lots of kids have that shit ingrained in them.
Lots of people can have an event happen.

I'm sure loads of black people think all white people are shot due to bad interactions. Trust me, I read The Coli lil

I've been jumped and stomped out twice in my life, by black guys.
I didnt get my dream job with Comcast cause I wasnt 'urban' enough to work in Trenton when I was like 24.
I walked home from school and had got chased plenty of times cause "Yo, what the fuck! This ain't cow town white boy."

I dont carry a grudge, cause I interact with amazing black folks regularly.
If I didnt...I'd prob be racist.
If my only influence was rap music, new reports, and WSHH I'd think all they did was buy jewelry, shake their asses, have sex all day and fight in the streets.
Some people have little to no interaction

 

[GAFDooMsDaY]

Nah, that's just a cop out. Lots of kids have that shit ingrained in them.
Lots of people can have an event happen.

I'm sure loads of black people think all white people are shot due to bad interactions. Trust me, I read The Coli lil

I've been jumped and stomped out twice in my life, by black guys.
I didnt get my dream job with Comcast cause I wasnt 'urban' enough to work in Trenton when I was like 24.
I walked home from school and had got chased plenty of times cause "Yo, what the fuck! This ain't cow town white boy."

I dont carry a grudge, cause I interact with amazing black folks regularly.
If I didnt...I'd prob be racist.
If my only influence was rap music, new reports, and WSHH I'd think all they did was buy jewelry, shake their asses, have sex all day and fight in the streets.
Some people have little to no interaction

I don't believe Comcast refused to give you an offer because you weren't urban enough..