Reminder: there are zero blue states, only blue cities.
It is an interesting map. For most states, if you zoom into the major cities, they are blue, and the surrounding less populous /rural areas red. Anecdotally... I just moved from a red suburb, to a blue city. City folk appear more willing to follow the prescribed social rules and complain less about taxes. Suburban/rural folks are more concerned about taxes and their personal rights. The distinction on a top level makes sense. But where's the balance?
Living in a city, one tends to be more cognizant of the rights/prerogatives of others out of necessity because of the density of population and the sharing of common space. There is more of a recognition that it is not a zero-sum game.
Yes, that's more the point. City folk use less resources, per capita, But we also can't ignore taxes/rights
It is an interesting map. For most states, if you zoom into the major cities, they are blue, and the surrounding less populous /rural areas red. Anecdotally... I just moved from a red suburb, to a blue city. City folk appear more willing to follow the prescribed social rules and complain less about taxes. Suburban/rural folks are more concerned about taxes and their personal rights. The distinction on a top level makes sense. But where's the balance?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 11, 2020 - 8:47am
black321 wrote:
KarmaKarma wrote:
Reminder: there are zero blue states, only blue cities.
It is an interesting map. For most states, if you zoom into the major cities, they are blue, and the surrounding less populous /rural areas red. Anecdotally... I just moved from a red suburb, to a blue city. City folk appear more willing to follow the prescribed social rules and complain less about taxes. Suburban/rural folks are more concerned about taxes and their personal rights. The distinction on a top level makes sense. But where's the balance?
Living in a city, one tends to be more cognizant of and acquiescent to the rights/prerogatives of others out of necessity because of the density of population and the sharing of common space. There is more of a recognition that it is not a zero-sum game.
Reminder: there are zero blue states, only blue cities.
What's your point?
The people in the red zones represent a minority of the population. Should the fact that they're spread out over a wider geographic area give them special powers or something?
There are several points that could be made from this image. One point would be ... 'continue to sneer at the red voters and you only serve to divide the conversations even more'.
I'm sure the smart people here could come up with several other ideas of what this map infers.
Reminder: there are zero blue states, only blue cities.
It is an interesting map. For most states, if you zoom into the major cities, they are blue, and the surrounding less populous /rural areas red. Anecdotally... I just moved from a red suburb, to a blue city. City folk appear more willing to follow the prescribed social rules and complain less about taxes. Suburban/rural folks are more concerned about taxes and their personal rights. The distinction on a top level makes sense. But where's the balance?
Reminder: there are zero blue states, only blue cities.
What's your point?
The people in the red zones represent a minority of the population. Should the fact that they're spread out over a wider geographic area give them special powers or something?
Reminder: there are zero blue states, only blue cities.
It is an interesting map. For most states, if you zoom into the major cities, they are blue, and the surrounding less populous /rural areas red. Anecdotally... I just moved from a red suburb, to a blue city. City folk appear more willing to follow the prescribed social rules and complain less about taxes. Suburban/rural folks are more concerned about taxes and their personal rights. The distinction on a top level makes sense. But where's the balance?
The highest court in the land will dispatch this sorry-ass canard and, one hopes, unceremoniously dump into the dustbin of history those who cravenly aided and abetted this besmirchment of our democracy.
The only thing keeping me even-keeled these days is that there is light at the end of the tunnel. No, not an oncoming train light kind of light. But true light.
The highest court in the land will dispatch this sorry-ass canard and, one hopes, unceremoniously dump into the dustbin of history those who cravenly aided and abetted this besmirchment of our democracy.
That's what one would expect from checks and balances, however lawfare coups have been trending...
The highest court in the land will dispatch this sorry-ass canard and, one hopes, unceremoniously dump into the dustbin of history those who cravenly aided and abetted this besmirchment of our democracy.
My theory is that the republicans are setting up to cover their tracks when they steal the next election
The highest court in the land will dispatch this sorry-ass canard and, one hopes, unceremoniously dump into the dustbin of history those who cravenly aided and abetted this besmirchment of our democracy.
That's what one would expect from checks and balances, however lawfare coups have been trending...
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 10, 2020 - 6:18pm
The highest court in the land will dispatch this sorry-ass canard and, one hopes, unceremoniously dump into the dustbin of history those who cravenly aided and abetted this besmirchment of our democracy.
File this under silly political question with no meaningful answer....
If more Republicans die of the COVID-19 virus between now and the Georgia Senate run-off elections in early January, will that favour the Republican or the Democratic Party candidates?
No offense, you qualified it well, but since you posed the question.....this is the worst example of a question that reflects the extreme polarization of this country. It would favor no one & no 'side'. It would be a humanitarian loss to our nation.
That is not quite the way I see it. More deaths could raise awareness, could push reluctant folks to a new perspective. Or it could provoke a beyond-reason, tough love intransigence. You are right buddy to the extent that the range of possible political reactions does reflect the current sharp polarization.
Bad policy choices often end up being a humanitarian loss. I was kind of hoping that by the early January Senate run-off, the difference in the attitudes of the two parties on the pandemic would be much fuzzier than it has been in the past. Besides the pandemic-imposed restrictions are mild compared to the indignities many, many more suffered in the first half of the 20th century. The sacrifice is small. There is no reason to put our old folks on figurative ice floes for reasons of personal convenience.
The suit is the latest in a spectacularly unsuccessful legal effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn the results, one so lacking in evidence that judges at all levels have mocked or condemned the cases as without merit. Legal experts have derided this latest suit as well, which makes the audacious claim, at odds with ordinary principles of federalism, that the Supreme Court should investigate and override the election systems of four states at the behest of a fifth.
Changing the justifications for poor behaviour is nothing new: WMDs, Democracy, Terrorism, Human Rights, etc., etc.
You are not looking at the things that we are. What you think should be important to us is only important to you. That you believe that your POV is the only one that matters will be the undoing. That you all don't want this to play all the way out according to how the Constitution dictates shows fear and weakness in your conviction that everything went according to Hoyle with this election. If it did then there should be no objection to letting the process play out as written in the Constitution.
Let's make it clear, we do not throw out the Constitution because of a public health problem. That is what is being attempted. Look at the crap going on down south of you in L A with all of the restaurants and other small businesses. People have had enough and are fighting back and now winning in the courts. People are really, really angry and for reasons that you fail to understand or disagree with. Nobody on your side is doing anything for these people. They are instead doing to them, harming them unnecessarily. The worst you can say about Trump on this is that he is only pretending to care. Well no one on your side is even trying to pretend they care. And you wonder why Trump still has support ?
Kurt, your loyalty is matched only by your stupidity.
The Constitution...which you throw around as if it was the Republican owner's manual says...
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,
shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
The CONSTITUTION gives the states the authority to run elections as they see fit. Those states (many under Republican leadership) passed rules about the election process, which we followed in determining a winner. Challenges in those states to the counts have been quickly and decisively thrown out.
Sir! Sir! Good sir! I believe you have missed a key detail!
Do you understand WHY you have Texas joined by 18 states headed to SCOTUS — and what they list in their complaint?
You forget that rgio and steeler both got on my case about trying to mention this little problem two weeks ago or so and it resulted in this place blowing up. Neither of them wanted to even hear about it or let me talk about it. rgio evidently has stilled failed to grasp this concept. Not sure about steeler but he sure as hell didn't want to talk about it then, at all.
