d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Official Political Picture Thread
Prev1205120522053205420555001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 33,925
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Jul 6 2018 06:27am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Jul 5 2018 10:41pm)
Considering, on average, liberal areas are vastly more successful than conservative areas, I'd say they're unrelated.

If you exclude black people, who vote Democrat because Republicans will pass implicit support to the KKK, then it's a pretty clear predictor that the more rural white trash and nanny state dependent you are the more likely you are to be conservative.


Name one Democrat city that isnt in debt
Member
Posts: 54,124
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Jul 6 2018 07:22am
Quote (Thor123422 @ 6 Jul 2018 04:41)
Considering, on average, liberal areas are vastly more successful than conservative areas, I'd say they're unrelated.


thats a crappy point, and I think you know it.

the big cities have always been more liberal than rural areas, coastal america has been significantly more liberal than the heartland for at least the last 50 years.

the economic developments of the past 40 or so years, globalization, the rise of china, nafta, the rise of silicon valley and the wall street, have almost nothing to do with liberal vs conservative - and they have all disproportionately benefitted the coastal and urban areas of the country while devastating rural america.

and, as others have pointed out: the suburbs are still much more wealthy and successful than inner cities. and lets not forget that the democratic constituency has been poorer than the republican one for almost a century until things flipped at some point during the obama era.


----


Hillary gets to the core of the issue, without interpreting it right:
Quote (Hilldog)
"If you look at the map of the United States, there is all that red in the middle, places where Trump won," she said. "What that map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that own two thirds of America’s Gross Domestic product. I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian American succeeding more than you are, whatever that problem is, I am going to solve it."


Clinton was the status quo candidate, while Trump stood for disruptive change. The parts of the country that have been on the sunny side of things in recent times voted for her, the status quo candidate, while the areas and people who have been on the losing end voted for disruption and change. Sounds quite logical, doesnt it? Well, I guess not to Ms. Clinton and her fanclub, who construe some sort of "moral victory" out of their embarrassing and soul-crushing election loss, because "she got the votes of the good folks", while her opponent got the votes of "the deplorables".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 6 2018 07:24am
Member
Posts: 53,368
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Jul 6 2018 02:53pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 6 Jul 2018 09:22)
thats a crappy point, and I think you know it.

the big cities have always been more liberal than rural areas, coastal america has been significantly more liberal than the heartland for at least the last 50 years.

the economic developments of the past 40 or so years, globalization, the rise of china, nafta, the rise of silicon valley and the wall street, have almost nothing to do with liberal vs conservative - and they have all disproportionately benefitted the coastal and urban areas of the country while devastating rural america.

and, as others have pointed out: the suburbs are still much more wealthy and successful than inner cities. and lets not forget that the democratic constituency has been poorer than the republican one for almost a century until things flipped at some point during the obama era.


----


Hillary gets to the core of the issue, without interpreting it right:


Clinton was the status quo candidate, while Trump stood for disruptive change. The parts of the country that have been on the sunny side of things in recent times voted for her, the status quo candidate, while the areas and people who have been on the losing end voted for disruption and change. Sounds quite logical, doesnt it? Well, I guess not to Ms. Clinton and her fanclub, who construe some sort of "moral victory" out of their embarrassing and soul-crushing election loss, because "she got the votes of the good folks", while her opponent got the votes of "the deplorables".


what a loathsome creature that person is
Member
Posts: 53,359
Joined: Jan 20 2009
Gold: 4,383.11
Jul 6 2018 06:05pm
Quote (excellence @ 6 Jul 2018 22:53)
what a loathsome creature that person is


that one quote alone is completely retarded, good riddance

Quote (Black XistenZ @ 6 Jul 2018 15:22)
thats a crappy point, and I think you know it.

the big cities have always been more liberal than rural areas, coastal america has been significantly more liberal than the heartland for at least the last 50 years.

the economic developments of the past 40 or so years, globalization, the rise of china, nafta, the rise of silicon valley and the wall street, have almost nothing to do with liberal vs conservative - and they have all disproportionately benefitted the coastal and urban areas of the country while devastating rural america.

and, as others have pointed out: the suburbs are still much more wealthy and successful than inner cities. and lets not forget that the democratic constituency has been poorer than the republican one for almost a century until things flipped at some point during the obama era.


----


Hillary gets to the core of the issue, without interpreting it right:


Clinton was the status quo candidate, while Trump stood for disruptive change. The parts of the country that have been on the sunny side of things in recent times voted for her, the status quo candidate, while the areas and people who have been on the losing end voted for disruption and change. Sounds quite logical, doesnt it? Well, I guess not to Ms. Clinton and her fanclub, who construe some sort of "moral victory" out of their embarrassing and soul-crushing election loss, because "she got the votes of the good folks", while her opponent got the votes of "the deplorables".


we will see how long that lasts, their own policy will turn their cities into swamps some day
Member
Posts: 66,666
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
Jul 6 2018 06:11pm
butt butt globalization and migrants ?? butt butt
Member
Posts: 53,359
Joined: Jan 20 2009
Gold: 4,383.11
Jul 6 2018 06:46pm
Quote (Saucisson6000 @ 7 Jul 2018 02:11)
butt butt globalization and migrants ?? butt butt


meanwhile in france, some more riots, this time in nantes



This post was edited by ampoo on Jul 6 2018 06:48pm
Member
Posts: 54,124
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Jul 6 2018 06:53pm
Quote (ampoo @ 7 Jul 2018 02:05)
that one quote alone is completely retarded, good riddance



we will see how long that lasts, their own policy will turn their cities into swamps some day


what do you mean with "some day", lol? ^_^

large parts of new york, chicago or LA are already warzones. neither manhattan nor hollywood/bel air are representative of those metro areas.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 6 2018 06:53pm
Member
Posts: 53,359
Joined: Jan 20 2009
Gold: 4,383.11
Jul 6 2018 06:57pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 7 Jul 2018 02:53)
what do you mean with "some day", lol? ^_^

large parts of new york, chicago or LA are warzones. neither manhattan nor hollywood/bel air are representative of those metro areas.


fair enough :lol:
Member
Posts: 33,925
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Jul 6 2018 08:32pm
Member
Posts: 24,557
Joined: Mar 2 2008
Gold: 14,346.41
Jul 6 2018 10:23pm


dumb boomers
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1205120522053205420555001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll