The Red Wide-Open Spaces of the USA

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables

People are the way they act. Maybe not based on a single event (such as an out-of-character heat-of-the-moment slur), but if a person exhibits racist behavior for years, they are racist. No need to sugar coat it. We are not talking about children for whom we are trying to develop into good adults. These people ARE the way they act.

Some "racist behaviour" is clearly just that. Other "racist behaviour" is simply not conforming to other's agenda driven, and often intolerant, ideas on how they should act, sometimes to the point of absurdity and social bullying. I suspect that more Trump voters were rejecting the latter, than supporting the former. Maybe I'm just naive.

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe I'm just naive.

Maybe, maybe not, but you do seem to be ignoring the lived experience of those who experience that racism every. single. day of their lives and who have for decades put up with it, even the unintentional stuff. 

[zapatos]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Other "racist behaviour" is simply not conforming to other's agenda driven, and often intolerant, ideas on how they should act, sometimes to the point of absurdity and social bullying.

You have an interesting view of racist behavior. Other than that I don't think I'll take the bait.

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

I still stand by the rest of my opinion expressed in my last post.

I agree with the rest of your post. My opinion has always been that Democrats were as much at fault as Republicans for Trump's victory. Whatever it was that prompted so many people to vote for Trump was something that the Democratic party  missed or ignored. 

One of the reasons I'm not as disillusioned with the electoral college as many people are is because it forces politicians to address the needs of more voters than just their core constituency. This was one of the reasons the electoral college was created in the first place. In 2016 Democrats focused on the needs of urban voters more than rural voters and it bit them in the ass. As I recall Bill expressed his concerns to Hillary about that risk and she didn't take his advice. They can only blame themselves for that one.

[J.C.MacSwell]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe, maybe not, but you do seem to be ignoring the lived experience of those who experience that racism every. single. day of their lives and who have for decades put up with it, even the unintentional stuff. 

What makes you say that? This seems like a personal attack based on something I haven't addressed to your satisfaction.

Are we discussing me...or how "the deplorables" might think and act?

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Some "racist behaviour" is clearly just that. Other "racist behaviour" is simply not conforming to other's agenda driven, and often intolerant, ideas on how they should act, sometimes to the point of absurdity and social bullying. I suspect that more Trump voters were rejecting the latter, than supporting the former. Maybe I'm just naive.

I had hoped that would be sufficient to this point in the discussion.

Edited December 16, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What makes you say that? 

 

I didn't say it, but the reason I think it with you is because it seems every time someone brings up an issue with racism, sexism, etc., your knee-jerk reaction seems to be to minimize it.

It reminds me of Trump saying 'there are good people on both sides'.

It doesn't seem possible with you to ever just condemn the racism and move on. You have to condemn the other side first, which has the effect of minimizing the racism. It's 'whataboutism'. 

The issue of 'agenda driven intolerance' is a nice stand-alone issue and deserves its own thread.

But if you open a thread on that topic I'm betting that you won't like it if every time a comment is made regarding the effect on society of intolerant, thin-skinned people, that someone else responds with 'yeah, that's bad, but there really ARE racists out there!'. Because OF COURSE there are real racists out there;  it's just not germane.

 

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What makes you say that?

The focus in your responses is on the whites angry at being told they’re acting in racist ways. I’m sure that’s true, but it ignores the people on the receiving end of that racism. I know you well enough to understand you’re a good man and definitely not my enemy. I’m just responding to the words in your post, not to you as a man. 
 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I didn't say it, but the reason I think it with you is because it seems every time someone brings up an issue with racism, sexism, etc., your knee-jerk reaction seems to be to minimize it.

It reminds me of Trump saying 'there are good people on both sides'.

It doesn't seem possible with you to ever just condemn the racism and move on. You have to condemn the other side first, which has the effect of minimizing the racism. It's 'whataboutism'. 

The issue of 'agenda driven intolerance' is a nice stand-alone issue and deserves its own thread.

But if you open a thread on that topic I'm betting that you won't like it if every time a comment is made regarding the effect on society of intolerant, thin-skinned people, that someone else responds with 'yeah, that's bad, but there really ARE racists out there!'. Because OF COURSE there are real racists out there;  it's just not germane.

 

Why have you not simply condemned the bigotry against a group of rural Americans and moved on? 

Maybe to participate in the thread?

How about attacking my ideas rather than me personally? (If Clinton had simply done that, she most likely would have been POTUS. It was that close in 2016.)

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

This seems like a personal attack

While I could reply, “what makes you say that?!” I will instead simply clarify that was most definitely not my intent 

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

How about attacking my ideas rather than me personally? (If Clinton had simply done that, she most likely would have been POTUS. It was that close in 2016.)

I thought she lost bc they kept attacking her personally, but I reckon that’s off topic 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How about attacking my ideas rather than me personally?

What you highlighted was an observation I made of your approach to the topic of racism which I believe to be factual. It certainly was not a personal attack. 

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why have you not simply condemned the bigotry against a group of rural Americans and moved on? 

Because I was commenting on a post from MigL about Clinton's use of the word "deplorable". It had nothing to do with bigotry against rural Americans.

46 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What makes you say that?

If you don't want to know, don't ask.

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

If you don't want to know, don't ask.

When I want to know what you think makes INow say something...I'll be sure to ask.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

When I want to know what you think makes INow say something...I'll be sure to ask.

???

Just because the world is turning against each other doesn’t mean we need to

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

When I want to know what you think makes INow say something...I'll be sure to ask.

No need to get in a twist about it. The way it works here is anyone can comment on any post they want. I'm sure you've done it yourself. In fact, earlier in this thread you jumped in on a conversation I was having with Phi. 

Take a look at the comment I made that you are so unhappy about. If it's true, take it to heart. If not, you can assume I am a dope and don't know what I'm talking about. No hard feelings. I've been mistaken before.

[J.C.MacSwell]

48 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

I thought she lost bc they kept attacking her personally, but I reckon that’s off topic 

When it's that close, many factors can be the difference, even on their own.

Edited December 16, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[Airbrush]

21 hours ago, iNow said:

Minor point of order: Hillary had TONS of policies that would have meaningfully improved the lives of most of those struggling with the status quo, and had already completed plans with massively experienced people with the relevant expertise. 

She was extremely well read on the issues affecting their lives and focused on fixing them, but since it was being shared at the intellectual / policy level instead of at the gut / reptile brain level, and since she was attacked with lies nonstop by the “vast right wing conspiracy” ... and since trumps message was easier to digest... nobody ever heard her message. They just knew they hated her for various reasons unknown... something about emails and corruption or something.

I return you now to your regularly scheduled program. 

Trump correctly intuited that by calling Hillary "Crooked Hillary" that would take his own "crookedness" off the table by projection.   He is the "Great Projector."  He projected his own "fakeness" onto the fake news media.  His slogan "make America great again" rang clear for the simple-minded who reside everywhere, rural, urban, or suburban.  He was clever and devious as the traveling salesmen jokes.  Hillary Clinton was not a very clever con like Trump is.  A VERY clever con can become the first real dictator for life in the USA.

Could we answer the question, why are the sparsely-populated counties RED by how people get their news?  Do people live in information deserts?  I have cable TV and I prefer to get my news from MSNBC and then CNN.  When they are having commercials, I look at Fox News and Fox Business News to spy on the other camp.  When I compare the left camp with the right camp, the right seems more phony.  Maybe folks living in the rural areas cannot compare their news source with the "blue view."  They call CNN "fake news" because Trump told them that.  But they don't witness the fakery he keeps talking about BECAUSE THEY DON'T WATCH CNN.

My brother likes Trump.  He doesn't have cable TV, so he gets his news from Rush Limbaugh on radio, and local TV news.  Maybe his local news is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting Group which favors Trump.  My brother, along with Trump voters, had 8 years listening to right-wing media constantly complaining about Obama, so my brother constantly complained about Obama.  I did not understand his concern. 

Maybe many people living out in rural areas don't have cable TV and they get their news from media ONLY friendly to Trump?

Edited December 16, 2020 by Airbrush

[iNow]

Has anyone pointed out how people often self-select rural or metro areas to live, that these choices rather often overlap with their vocation, and the types of people choosing to live in the middle of nowhere versus those living in heavily populated areas might be the type of people with certain isolationist streaks versus preference for community, and likewise certain religious and/or political predilections?

Once they're rural, the information desert and lack of diversity of people and opinions often reinforces these challenges, but the fact that they choose to live rurally and avoid high traffic regions at all is itself informative. 

[MigL]

So here you ( and others ) are.
Your typical news ( available to all )is polarized, either 'left' or 'right'.
You have Trump supporting, people on the right complaining that MSNBC and CNN just hate Trump, and have since his inauguration.
And you have Trump hating, people on the left claiming FOX news is just a lying mouthpiece of the Republican party.
You have a country where 45% of eligible voters will vote Republican, no matter what idiot they run, and another 45% of eligible voters will vote Democrat no matter what the issues. They have always voted that way and will continue to do so; only a small percentage of the electorate, in 'swing' states actually decide who will be President.
You have people on either left or right, hating the other side more and more, as politicians ratchet up the rhetoric, and blame everything on the supporting electorate; never themselves. So much so, that political rallies and protests have become dangerous to attend, and people, afraid for their lives, run over others ( or at least, that is the excuse they use ) for the second time now.
You guys are neck deep in this sh*t, live it every day, and it colors the way you see, and live, life.
Yet two outsiders who have no 'skin in the game', JC and I, often get accused of not being equitable, and being partial to one side.

By no means are we trying to compare/equate the two sides, Republican and Democrat, but simply pointing out that neither side are 'angels'.  And, I can easily decide which is 'better' for the people, while also recognizing the 'faults' of the 'better' side.
While you guys, being so deep in it, either can't see the problems of your side, or choose to ignore it.

Not judging, simply presenting my observations.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

While you guys, being so deep in it, either can't see the problems of your side, or choose to ignore it.

I assume I'm included in this group. Can you point out why you believe I'm included here? Types of things I've said? I'm genuinely curious.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

You guys are neck deep in this sh*t, live it every day, and it colors the way you see, and live, life.
Yet two outsiders who have no 'skin in the game', JC and I, often get accused of not being equitable, and being partial to one side.

Do you seriously think your political opinions regarding the US isn't pre-neocon Republican? You're a Reagan/Thatcher admirer, I have a brother just like you. If you lived in the US, from your arguments you'd be old school conservative, ala John McCain. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not as impartial as you paint it.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Yet two outsiders who have no 'skin in the game', JC and I, often get accused of not being equitable, and being partial to one side.

There are more folks on this forum who do not live in the US (or do not live there anymore) besides you two and I think their perspective matters, too. I myself have lived in various systems and still see a lack of symmetry in many claims here (and I think it is because I have experienced very different overton windows throughout my life).

As such I would say it is not only the Rep vs Dem issue here, but also personal experiences. 

[MigL]

Don't confuse the arguments I choose to make with what I would like to see for a just society, Phi.

Of course I admired Reagan/Thatcher and McCain.
I also admired Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton.

They all had their bad, and all had some good.
( even D Trump had maybe 1 % good with that whole lot of bad )

And do you see what you are doing ?
Your impression of my political beliefs paints me in typical American terminology,  "pre neo-con".
Try to separate yourself from American political thinking.
People are people; they just want what is best for them and the people they care about; if it also happens to benefit others, so much the better.
By pigeon holing them as Libs/Cons, or Reps/Dems, or even elites/deplorables, you are assigning your imagined traits to them.

America can be 'great again', they simply have to get past this 'us' vs 'them' attitude between two political parties.
 

[iNow]

I chuckle because it’s usually Phi discussing the problems with one-dimensional labels. If it weren’t for the avatar and username showing MigL, I’d have thought Phi made that post himself

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Do you seriously think your political opinions regarding the US isn't pre-neocon Republican? You're a Reagan/Thatcher admirer, I have a brother just like you. If you lived in the US, from your arguments you'd be old school conservative, ala John McCain. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not as impartial as you paint it.

Obviously no one is unbiased, we all have our personal experiences. But this would make MigL a somewhat rare Canadian. As a Canadian I just don't see it in his posts. I see him stating his opinions in reply to mostly Democrat posters and being read by same. I expect he has many views right across the political spectrum, mostly within the Canadian political spectrum. If I had to bet I would say he's voted Liberal more often than not, though I'm far from certain, but that would put him Left of the "old school Democrats" for whatever that's worth.

Just my $0.02 (probably overpriced as I don't think I have a brother just like him...😀 )

[Airbrush]

On 12/14/2020 at 11:21 AM, swansont said:

Such [RED/BLUE] maps can be used in a misleading fashion, as land does not vote in elections, people do.....

Does the map NOT tell you that the majority of people living in sparsely-populated counties almost ALWAYS vote Republican, and in population-dense areas the majority vote Democrat?  Even blue states, except California, almost ALWAYS have Republican control of low population counties.

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Airbrush

[iNow]

The point is that these two maps represent the exact same election yet tell vastly different stories about it. One of those stories is much more accurate than the other. 
 

An electoral map rendered in a traditional style shows county-by-county data from the 2016 presidential election. (Jetpack.AI)

 

An electoral map by Karim Douieb shows voting by population rather than strictly by geography. In place of vast swaths of red or blue, the map reveals the mixed nature of voting patterns. (Jetpack.AI)

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Does the map NOT tell you that the majority of people living in sparsely-populated counties almost ALWAYS vote Republican, and in population-dense areas the majority vote Democrat?  Even blue states, except California, almost ALWAYS have Republican control of low population counties.

Does such a map tell you the population density? If no, then the maps don’t actually tell you that the majority of people living in sparsely-populated counties almost always vote Republican. 

The amount of red >> the amount of blue, which can be misleading. As I said.

Now, tell me why the majority of people living in sparsely-populated counties almost always voting Republican matters, in terms of who gets more votes.