So Texas is considering withdrawl from Medicaid.

If they are considering that, I also hope they are considering withdrawal from the Union. fuck that state.

Though before they do, someone please rescue Strell and bring him over to the Union.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']If they are considering that, I also hope they are considering withdrawal from the Union. fuck that state.
[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I've said before I think the world would be a better place if North America had ended up more like Western Europe and stayed as several smaller nations rather than 3 big ones.

Too big a country=too much diversity and makes government a clusterfuck of opposing views where nothing gets done as you can never get consensus on anything very far away from the center in either direction.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Indeed. I've said before I think the world would be a better place if North America had ended up more like Western Europe and stayed as several smaller nations rather than 3 big ones.

Too big a country=too much diversity and makes government a clusterfuck of opposing views where nothing gets done as you can never get consensus on anything very far away from the center in either direction.[/QUOTE]

A fractured America would've never won World War II. The Germans would've probably unified Europe and had the same problems we have now. The Japanese would also dominate the Pacific Rim but also be dealing with a humongous bureaucracy that stretched from Tokyo to Sydney to Los Angeles.

History favors larger and larger countries/empires until the size makes it impossible to administrate. America will eventually decline. Do we degenerate into several different nations or do we just replace one inept government structure with another?
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']If they are considering that, I also hope they are considering withdrawal from the Union. fuck that state.[/QUOTE]

It's an apt comparison, because this is just like the secession rhetoric -- loud, empty threats intended to mollify the conservative base, with no intention of ever actually following through with them.

The appropriate response to this would be to cross our arms and say, "Go ahead. Do it. I dare you. Well? We're waiting."
 
[quote name='trq']It's an apt comparison, because this is just like the secession rhetoric -- loud, empty threats intended to mollify the conservative base, with no intention of ever actually following through with them.

The appropriate response to this would be to cross our arms and say, "Go ahead. Do it. I dare you. Well? We're waiting."[/QUOTE]

I'm with you on this one. Let Rick Perry choke on all his empty promises.
 
[quote name='depascal22']A fractured America would've never won World War II. The Germans would've probably unified Europe and had the same problems we have now.[/quote]
Russia could have and practically did win WW2 by themselves.

History favors larger and larger countries/empires until the size makes it impossible to administrate.
Click to expand...
China seems to be on the up and up.
 
All true. I'm just envious of some European friends. Especially since the advent of the EU it's much easier to move around to different countries and move to a place that fits your beliefs etc. Language barrier the only real issue.

Not much options here. US, go to Canada and freeze and that's about it since Mexico is a 3rd world crap hole.
 
OPERATION SAVE STRELL NOW IN PLANNING PHASES. CURRENTLY TRYING TO LOCATE DIG-DUG TO TUNNEL STRELL OUT OF OCCUPIED TERRITORY.[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Russia could have and practically did win WW2 by themselves.[/QUOTE]
In terms of the fighting, yes, but did they really have the materials to do it alone?
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Not much options here. US, go to Canada and freeze and that's about it since Mexico is a 3rd world crap hole.[/QUOTE]
Go to BC if you don't want to freeze. It's wet, but warm. Remember how little snow the last winter olympics had?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Better practice clak, a soda can is pretty wide.[/QUOTE]
I should be able to fit one in each pocket.





What?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Russia could have and practically did win WW2 by themselves.


China seems to be on the up and up.[/QUOTE]

Russia would've had their hands full on their Eastern front with a Japan that didn't have to worry about American naval presence in the Pacific. We are talking about an alternate history here.
 
Can you guys give me a few months to move to Austin, and then just drag Austin out in one fell swoop? You might as well not even write the TX next to it.

Also, I love you guys.
 
[quote name='Strell']Can you guys give me a few months to move to Austin, and then just drag Austin out in one fell swoop? You might as well not even write the TX next to it.

Also, I love you guys.[/QUOTE]

It'll be like West Berlin all over again. I wonder if our graffiti will be nearly as good as the Germans.
 
The thing about this divided America concept that dmaul is talking about is what Strell was alluding to - the liberal parts and the conservative parts are all mixed together. Like in TX would there be a state that's basically around Austin and a state around Houston or something and here in PA a state around Philly and a state around Pittsburgh?

It's not a regional thing.
 
I was going to suggest we keep Austin and dig a tunnel under the rest of texas straight to it.

But that just seemed ridiculous.
 
Could do the tunnel and just build a wall around Austin.

That should keep people out, right?
 
[quote name='Clak']Could do the tunnel and just build a wall around Austin.

That should keep people out, right?[/QUOTE]

Only if it's 20 feet high, concrete, and electrified.

And I don't mean some pansy concrete wall with an electric fence around it, I mean electrified concrete.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Indeed. I've said before I think the world would be a better place if North America had ended up more like Western Europe and stayed as several smaller nations rather than 3 big ones.

Too big a country=too much diversity and makes government a clusterfuck of opposing views where nothing gets done as you can never get consensus on anything very far away from the center in either direction.[/QUOTE]

Which is the main reason I favor giving more power to Local and State governments.
 
[quote name='SpazX']The thing about this divided America concept that dmaul is talking about is what Strell was alluding to - the liberal parts and the conservative parts are all mixed together. Like in TX would there be a state that's basically around Austin and a state around Houston or something and here in PA a state around Philly and a state around Pittsburgh?

It's not a regional thing.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. But it is still regional in a broader sense. There's a big difference in say living in Austin or Atlanta than living in Boston in terms of how big the gap is between the metro area politics and the rest of the state politics.

In a place like Texas or Georgia, there's a huge gap and the metro area populations of Atlanta and Austin for instance have little sway in state politics or in the national elections.

Vs. a place like Massachussets or Maryland where the liberal cities dominate state politics most of the time and liberals almost always win national elections.

In any case, the truth of the matter is I should just quit winning and take the cost of living hit and work on finding a job back in the north east again. I love Atlanta as a city, but living in the south sucks.
 
Same with Oregon. Just look at the last governor's race. Republican (barely conserative) canidate wins 90% of the state's counties. Loses the election because he fails to win the county with Portland (organic, vegan, green) in it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']The thing about this divided America concept that dmaul is talking about is what Strell was alluding to - the liberal parts and the conservative parts are all mixed together. Like in TX would there be a state that's basically around Austin and a state around Houston or something and here in PA a state around Philly and a state around Pittsburgh?

It's not a regional thing.[/QUOTE]
It's the same everywhere. Islands of liberal metros and seas of conservative towns. It just depends on how big the state is as to how they vote. Washington and Oregon are shockingly conservative relative to their reputations. If you cut a chunk off Idaho and split it between Oregon and Washington, they'd both probably be conservative states. The only truly conservative metro I've ever seen is Dallas (and seriously, fuck those guys).

I consider myself a Good Librul. We're supposed to love Seattle, Portland, San Fran, Austin, Boston, and New York. I've tried to love Austin, but I hate college towns and I hate state capitals. Austin has the biggest college in America (by attendance) and that god awful state capital with all the sycophant shitbags that come along with it. Being from L.A., I just didn't think their music scene was all that but I guess compared to everyone else in the south..
 
I wonder why urban areas tend to skew Democrat while rural areas tend to skew conservative...
http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2010/illinois/governor
ilgov2010.jpg

Chicago is unofficially blue - I have no doubt it'll go that way...

Look at some of these results in the southern border counties... 69/27 - 80/17 - 67/29 - 80/17 - 71/23, 76/18. Not even close...
 
Metro areas skew liberal due to demographics. African-Americans, younger people, higher educated people etc. tend to skew liberal.

And those demographics are more concentrated in cities than in rural counties which are whiter, older, less educated (fewer white collar jobs) etc.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I wonder why urban areas tend to skew Democrat while rural areas tend to skew conservative...
http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2010/illinois/governor
ilgov2010.jpg

Chicago is unofficially blue - I have no doubt it'll go that way...

Look at some of these results in the southern border counties... 69/27 - 80/17 - 67/29 - 80/17 - 71/23, 76/18. Not even close...[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...land doesn't vote, people do. You know, there are maps that are made to graphically show population density.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...land doesn't vote, people do. You know, there are maps that are made to graphically show population density.[/QUOTE]

Ummm... I think the map was there to emphasize the point that people concentrated in urban areas tend to vote differently than those in rural areas. Nothing more.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Ummm... I think the map was there to emphasize the point that people concentrated in urban areas tend to vote differently than those in rural areas. Nothing more.[/QUOTE]
That's why I mentioned population density. I'm reiterating that point, but it goes beyond people in urban areas voting more liberally because they're near urban areas and people voting conservatively in rural areas. Context means something and just saying that A=1 and B=1 is almost meaningless without explaining what A and B is.
 
[quote name='dohdough']That's why I mentioned population density. I'm reiterating that point, but it goes beyond people in urban areas voting more liberally because they're near urban areas and people voting conservatively in rural areas. Context means something and just saying that A=1 and B=1 is almost meaningless without explaining what A and B is.[/QUOTE]

So, what you're saying is that I should be taking population density into account when determining that people concentrated in urban areas tend to vote differently than people spread out in urban areas.

Makes perfect sense.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, what you're saying is that I should be taking population density into account when determining that people concentrated in urban areas tend to vote differently than people spread out in urban areas.

Makes perfect sense.[/QUOTE]
You posed the question of "why" and I gave you a general, yet more specific, answer than your own. If you can't grasp that simple concept first, how are you going to understand the nitty gritty of it. It's like explaining trigonometry to someone that doesn't understand geometry. There's something called context. Use it.

Your map doesn't mean squat when you purposely use it to support your willfully ignorant argument of "why do cities vote blue when the rest of the state is red?" Well hell, that question has been answered so many times that IDKWTF. So instead of using old fallacious disproven conservative arguments, how about you find some new ones. You're not "just asking a question."
 
[quote name='dohdough']You posed the question of "why" and I gave you a general, yet more specific, answer than your own.[/QUOTE]

A.) How was your answer "more specific" than my own when I posted no answer to the question?
B.) Your "answer" was that the Illinois map didn't take population density into account. This is, of course, in spite of the fact that more densely populated areas tend to be more urban....
 
Interesting...
http://www.examiner.com/elections-2010-in-st-louis/elections-2010-cook-county-puts-quinn-back-in
Now let's look at Cook County's returns, which can be tricky (especially when CNN omits information) because you have Chicago and Suburban Cook County to add together:

Pat Quinn (D) 883,450

Bill Brady (R) 395,071

Scott Lee Cohen (I) 51,527

Rich Whitney (G) 34,421

Lex Green (L) 10,332

Over half of Quinn's vote total comes from Cook County alone. Quinn only managed to win two other counties (St. Clair County by 1,368 votes; Alexander County by 122 votes). If we remove Cook County from the results this is the result:

Bill Brady (R) 1,306,149

Pat Quinn (D) 836,872

Scott Lee Cohen (I) 82,612

Rich Whitney (G) 65,071

Lex Green (L) 23,938

Without Cook County, the race is a Brady rout. Even adding 100% of the Cohen, Whitney, and Green votes (171,567) to Quinn's total (836,872) results in a solid Brady win of Brady (R) 1,306,149 to Quinn (D) 1,008,439.

Quinn's win is a combination of City of Chicago-Cook County Democrats coming out too strong. Suburban Cook, the collar counties and downstate Republicans just could not make up the massive vote difference
Click to expand...

So, basically, 1,635 square miles decided the future of the other 51,279 square miles. (land doesn't vote.... yadda yadda...).

Did you know that the heating and air conditioning for virtually every single Walmart store is 100% controlled by computers in Bentonville, AR. It leads to some interesting situations. For example, in one store, after they remodeled, someone had installed a temperature sensor in the break room right above where the coffee maker was placed. So, the coffee maker would warm up the temperature sensor, Bentonville would think that the room was too hot, so the AC would be cranked up all the way. The Coffee Maker couldn't be moved (short cord, had to be plugged in to a specific outlet) far enough away from the sensor and the sensor couldn't be moved by the store - store had to call in the request to Bentonville, Bentonville had to hire a local contractor, they had to come out and look at the situation, inspect it, make an estimate, send it back to Bentonville for approval, get approval, come back in and make the change, etc., etc. Meanwhile, there was still no way to get anyone in Bentonville to adjust the A/C to account for the coffee maker. So, for lack of any kind of local control, the store was either forced to do without or freeze.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Interesting...
http://www.examiner.com/elections-2010-in-st-louis/elections-2010-cook-county-puts-quinn-back-in


So, basically, 1,635 square miles decided the future of the other 51,279 square miles. (land doesn't vote.... yadda yadda...).

Did you know that the heating and air conditioning for virtually every single Walmart store is 100% controlled by computers in Bentonville, AR. It leads to some interesting situations. For example, in one store, after they remodeled, someone had installed a temperature sensor in the break room right above where the coffee maker was placed. So, the coffee maker would warm up the temperature sensor, Bentonville would think that the room was too hot, so the AC would be cranked up all the way. The Coffee Maker couldn't be moved (short cord, had to be plugged in to a specific outlet) far enough away from the sensor and the sensor couldn't be moved by the store - store had to call in the request to Bentonville, Bentonville had to hire a local contractor, they had to come out and look at the situation, inspect it, make an estimate, send it back to Bentonville for approval, get approval, come back in and make the change, etc., etc. Meanwhile, there was still no way to get anyone in Bentonville to adjust the A/C to account for the coffee maker. So, for lack of any kind of local control, the store was either forced to do without or freeze.[/QUOTE]

Are fucking forrealz?

LAND.DOESN'T.VOTE.


We already went over this. And that town DOES have local control. It has it's own LOCAL elections for LOCAL offices. But thanks for trying to flat out lie about what's going on.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Are fucking forrealz?

LAND.DOESN'T.VOTE.


We already went over this. And that town DOES have local control. It has it's own LOCAL elections for LOCAL offices. But thanks for trying to flat out lie about what's going on.[/QUOTE]

Yup... my local town has so much control. That's why 5 of my 6.25% sales tax goes to Springfield. That's why something like 5% of my property tax can actually be adjusted by my township. We won't even discuss my income taxes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yup... my local town has so much control. That's why 5 of my 6.25% sales tax goes to Springfield. That's why something like 5% of my property tax can actually be adjusted by my township. We won't even discuss my income taxes.[/QUOTE]
I don't like paying for wars and reinforcing institutional racism by proxy either. You're not some ubermench that built the world that you live in from roads to buildings. Honestly, I don't give a fuck what you pay for anything because shit costs money. What's your point.

And I'm not going to pussy foot around with you either because you intentionally tried to obfuscate your intentions by acting dumb AFTER I called you out on it.
 
If you don't like paying for wars, you should try to vote in Presidential candidates who will end them.

Regardless, my intentions were simple - commenting on the fact that people who live in urban areas (i.e.: high population density areas) tend to vote differently than people who live in rural areas (i.e.: low population density areas).

The Illinois map, while just one example, showed this, as the three of the highest populated counties voted one way while the other 100 or so counties voted differently (and in some cases, far differently).

I never said land votes or anything like that - and you're being intentionally putzy in your entire posting style.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If you don't like paying for wars, you should try to vote in Presidential candidates who will end them.

Regardless, my intentions were simple - commenting on the fact that people who live in urban areas (i.e.: high population density areas) tend to vote differently than people who live in rural areas (i.e.: low population density areas).

The Illinois map, while just one example, showed this, as the three of the highest populated counties voted one way while the other 100 or so counties voted differently (and in some cases, far differently).

I never said land votes or anything like that - and you're being intentionally putzy in your entire posting style.[/QUOTE]
No, now you're backpeddling. You're operating on the assumption that greater than 90% of the red area should not have policy "dictated" to them because they occupy more than 90% of the entire state despite being less than 50% of the population. LAND.DOESN'T.fuckING.VOTE.

If the above was your "true intention," what the hell does this mean:

[quote name='UncleBob']So, basically, 1,635 square miles decided the future of the other 51,279 square miles. (land doesn't vote.... yadda yadda...).[/quote]
Don't play dumb with me.
 
Land itself doesn't vote, but the people who pay taxes on it sometimes do.

I'm not having a hard time understanding that Bob is stating that the dense population areas swing statewide elections. The facts present themselves in this one. Maybe I skipped a post, but I don't see anywhere where anyone said anything about policy dictation? In post 36 there was a humorous tale about management from afar and how it can often times not be beneficial to anyone, is that where you're getting this dictation bit?
 
I think Bob was asking why densely populated areas tend to vote for democrats. Not pointing out that they drive elections which is just common sense.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think Bob was asking why densely populated areas tend to vote for democrats. Not pointing out that they drive elections which is just common sense.[/QUOTE]

Because dense population areas tend to have more minorities and disadvantaged. Why do they vote Democrat? Because the Republican Party has never and will never will give two shits about anybody but rich white Christians. If they stopped making abortion and tax cuts on the top 1% their main talking points, they might get the rest of America to jump on board.

Also, rural areas have and always will be 95+% white.
 
My theory on the matter is that in high density areas, its more apparent that
1) you cant just do whatever the fuck you want
2) you are in fact dependent on others
3) you are exposed to more ideas, which destroys conservatism

In the low density areas, its not apparent that their entire way of life is subsidized by the government through artificially low gas prices and federal dollars for infrastructure grossly in excess of what those communities pay.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Because dense population areas tend to have more minorities and disadvantaged. Why do they vote Democrat? Because the Republican Party has never and will never will give two shits about anybody but rich white Christians. If they stopped making abortion and tax cuts on the top 1% their main talking points, they might get the rest of America to jump on board.

Also, rural areas have and always will be 95+% white.[/QUOTE]

I know, I already answered that for him earlier in the thread. :D
 
[quote name='dohdough']No, now you're backpeddling. You're operating on the assumption that greater than 90% of the red area should not have policy "dictated" to them because they occupy more than 90% of the entire state despite being less than 50% of the population. LAND.DOESN'T.fuckING.VOTE.[/QUOTE]

Quick: What percentage of Congress does California control?
What percentage of Congress does Alaska control?
What percentage of the US population are citizens of California?
What percentage of the US population are citizens of Alaska?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top