Americans not only divided but baffled by their opponents

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 102
#31
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Danielle
@Greyparrot
@3RU7AL
@Dr.Franklin
Good morning America.


So we've ended up with an agricultural discussion and Greyparrot is being moderately rational for a change.

What's going on?


Doc is still doing his paranoid android thing though, so all is not lost.

Perhaps a holiday in the Donbas would do him good.


And opponents usually are divided,

And quite often dramatically feign bafflement.


As long as the moderate core remains intact,

The extremes won't tip the applecart.

Is what I say.

Yin and Yang for sure.
#32
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
Your exact quote was “America needs stop overfunding this less sustainable lifestyle.  I'm not saying that we need to drag anybody in from the countryside, but certainly rural residents need to pay more of their proportional share of the greater expense it takes to deliver water, electricity, internet, etc to those homes…When  rural counties are required to pay their fair share for infrastructure, rural lifestyles will become a luxury most can't afford and American prosperity will be all the more improved by that change.”

Statement: rural areas cost more to provide utilities and infrastructure to 
Conclusion: force them to pay their “fair share” 

I pointed out how I didn’t think that was really possible and tried to dig into it a little bit more by pointing out that good roads, electricity access and running water in non urban areas benefit everyone. Now you’re saying you never made the complaint at all. This is a disappointing trend I’ve noticed every time I talk to you: whenever you feel like you’ve said something you’re no longer able to defend you’ll just deny you ever said it, even though it’s right there in black and white. My statement: ”your compliant [is] that urban areas have to subsidize rural areas getting roads, electricity, and running water.”

Is saying a lifestyle is unsustainable and needs to be made unaffordable because people aren’t paying their “fair share” and ending the subsidy of infrastructure to those areas is necessary to improve “prosperity” not a complaint about subsidizing infrastructure to other people? 
Topic's author
#33
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
What do you think of the philosophy that ying and yang need to be embraced and not derided in a functioning society?
I wouldn't be able to embrace anyone who threatened or belittled my family and bodily autonomy. 
Topic's author
#34
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
Most of the people I’ve known who are most like that aren’t rural people themselves but the type of people who drive an off road truck that never goes off road and live in the suburbs. . . They want to imagine themselves as salt of the earth farmers or oil field roughnecks because maybe their grandparents or something were even though they work in finance for a Fortune 500 company.
I know exactly the kind of people you're talking about, especially in suburbs. Staten Island is the one Republican borough of NYC which I call  "Statenbama" because it's riddled with people who drive their empty pick-up trucks 15 mph since that's all city traffic affords them. Going over potholes is their version of off-roading. I'm like what are you guys hauling in that gas guzzling monstrosity... meatballs? (Staten Island is very Italian.) 

Rather than look down on rural America there are many here who sort of idealize it like you said. For instance when Yellowstone became popular (great show btw) so many of my guy friends said they fantasized about being cowboys and romanticized the lifestyle portrayed in the show. The show itself does a great job showing the disconnect between city-folk and ranchers insofar as how they view each other, and how city folk vacation in "the country" because they sort of long for that beauty and simplicity which they are in turn mocked for.

It seems very clear to me that "anti elites" are just as elitist as those they criticize. I mean we are literally at the point where they look down upon educated people. The more prestigious your college, the more of an "idiot" they think you are. Amy Coney Barrett was appealing to conservatives because she went to Rhodes College and graduated from Notre Dame law school as opposed to an ivy league. 

Everyone knows that people living in cities or suburbs lack certain skills. When it comes to hunting, farming, navigating nature, guns, etc.  there is a huge divide between what someone from Montana knows vs. someone from Queens. The jabs about rural people being stupid and uneducated (even though statistically they are less educated) are often about them being close-minded, and at the same time a defense mechanism  to attacks about us being useless, ungodly heathens. If you look up "why do rural people hate cities" or something there are all these answers on Quora about how cities are disgusting, that we don't have "real food," etc (and I use Quora as an example because those answers come directly from the people as opposed to polished journalists).

So in my observation, ridicule of middle America tends to be more of a defensive response to the criticism that middle America throws upon us. They are very open about how much they resent or look down on our jobs (not "real jobs"), our lifestyle and our values but then rage about being victims of elitism whenever they're mocked for theirs. There's no difference, just mutual misunderstanding.


Topic's author
#35
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4

There is a sense in conversations that people in rural America are not getting their fair share of attention, resources, and respect. They think they deserve more, and that cities and the people within them are getting more than they deserve. They mainly blame racial and ethnic minorities, but also white urban elites.

People living in rural communities across the US face difficult odds. American economic growth and recovery is concentrated in a small number of highly populated urban counties, such as LA County in California and Miami-Dade in Florida. The rural population is declining, from more than half of the US population in 1910 to just 20% in 2010. The abandoned main streets show the wear and tear of an economy that has shifted away from rural people, and of public policy that has forgotten to pay attention.

You could say that low-income neighborhoods in our cities show similar scars. But there is no sense of common cause here. It is the cities that are home to the decision-makers who have brought on this mess, according to rural Wisconsin. This includes corporate CEOs, but more importantly, in their view, it includes government, and  Democrats who say more government is the answer.


So this seems like some cognitive dissonance IMO. Their argument is that policy and resources have been focused on helping those in cities instead of rural areas, while at the same time they say policy and resources are not the answer. What do they expect government to do or not do in order to help them then? It's not like they pay a lot of taxes.   

#36
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,172
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Danielle
You are the epitome of everything you claim to hate about people and politics. Bwhahahahaha
Topic's author
#37
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4

The signs of desperation are everywhere in communities like mine. A landscape of collapsed barns and crumbling roads. Main Streets with empty storefronts. The distant stare of depression in your neighbor’s eyes. If you live here, it is impossible to ignore the depletion.


Okay, so they want the government to step in and help? Because that is  antithetical to their rhetoric on government and what their party supports.

It seems clear that middle America is resentful of being duped by the GOP all these years who never gave a shit about helping rural communities. Admittedly it's been fun watching Mitch McConnell and the rest of them have their comeuppance in the wake of Donald Trump. For decades they have focused on cultural wedge issues and claimed to be the party of the "working class" despite being backed by the richest and most powerful people for obvious reasons. Conservatives have even been tricked even into believing stuff like Big Oil are the good guys which is insane (oh sure, no dishonest filthy rich tycoons in that industry!) especially given how much they rely on the land.

Republicans seem to blame all of their struggle on liberals because liberals are doing better than them (in their view), much like Germans were okay with blaming the Jews for their hardship because they resented that Jews were better off financially. It's wild to watch people who have been exploited for decades foist all of their anger on the group that has tried to secure healthcare, welfare, social security and other benefits to poor people falling on hard times (which they accept). And it's hard to take people seriously who lament that Obamacare will not let them see their own doctors [RAGE!] while in the next breath say they haven't seen a doctor in 20 years because they can't afford it. "In Canada you'd have to wait 5 years to see a doctor!" Yeah well that's 15 years less than you have waited so far, right Bob? (I'm not saying I support Medicare for all btw, just that there seems to be some pretty deep rooted cognitive dissonance among this group.)
Topic's author
#38
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@sadolite
Lol all of my sarcasm probably flew right over your head, to the surprise of no one. 
Topic's author
#39
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I find it absolutely weird that central-planning fans act concerned about monocropping when the same central planners made that possible through endless corn subsidies 
There's only one solution: TRUMP 2024! Red Wave! 


#40
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
<3<3<3
Topic's author
#41
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Make America Subsidized Again <3 
#42
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Doesn't matter what team you root for, the central planning game must go on.


Amirite?
Topic's author
#43
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Right! I'm rooting for the team that supports my right to make decisions about my own body... go figure. I'm rooting for the team that doesn't chide me for working outside the home so I can provide for myself instead of relying on a man to support me; the team that fought for my right to reap the social and financial benefits of marriage to a person I actually love (which for me have been pretty significant - it's not peanuts in that tax return). 

I mean who knows what the future holds  but for now I'm siding with the team that doesn't go out of their way to ridicule my trans friends, doesn't pretend there are no issues with law enforcement, doesn't look down on brown people as inferior and doesn't consider it a moral armageddon if their children know that gay people exist and are worthy of respect. Call me crazy. 

If my taxes or cost of living escalated exponentially as a direct result of this team, or if this team significantly hindered my ability to profit in any way, or if I could no longer own a gun legally because of this team, then my preferences might change as I see no shame in being a fair-weathered fan. I don't wear anybody's jersey. I'm generally not into diehard allegiance to a particular group let alone one leader, especially a group of power hungry central planners. I look at  how these teams directly impact  my life and my prioritized values at a given time.

What about you? What factors go into your clear preference as the central planners of choice? Do you own a corn field? Did your wife leave you for a black guy?

#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 I'm rooting for the team that doesn't chide me for working outside the home so I can provide for myself instead of relying on a man to support me;

Lol, like those Covid lockdowns that never happened???

What about you? What factors go into your clear preference as the central planners of choice? Do you own a corn field? Did your wife leave you for a black guy
The best worst choice as usual.
#45
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Bill Gates doesn't care if you're a Republican or Democrat, rural  or urban. He just wants most of the "animals" that consume his natural resources die. He starts starving the country out it won't matter. A pig, is a pig, is a pig. They all slaughter the same.
#46
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,172
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Danielle
Is it really sarcasm.

#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Did your wife leave you for a black guy?
I would never wish that misery on anyone, especially a black guy.
#48
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@thett3
Is saying a lifestyle is unsustainable and needs to be made unaffordable because people aren’t paying their “fair share” and ending the subsidy of infrastructure to those areas is necessary to improve “prosperity” not a complaint about subsidizing infrastructure to other people? 
  • Not anymore than saying that the price we pay for beef and pork in no way reflects the cost of those luxuries to future Americans implies some some complaint about ranchers or hamburger stands or beef eaters.  I eat that beef and pork.   I understand how we got here.  That doesn't mean it doesn't need to change.
  • Nor saying that the present price of gas in no way reflects the the cost of of that fuel to American taxpayers implies some criticism of oil companies (which is not to say I don't have many criticisms of oil companies) or people who drive cars.  I drive a car I know how we got here.  That doesn't mean it doesn't need to change.
  • I come from ten generations of Appalachian hill people.  My granduncle ran a crew electrifying rural Pennsylvania his whole life because of Roosevelt's WPA.  But then their kids went to Penn State and those kids  and grandkids spread out to cities across America.  I know how we got here.  I'm not complaining about them.  That doesn't mean it doesn't need to change.
This is a disappointing trend I’ve noticed every time I talk to you: whenever you feel like you’ve said something you’re no longer able to defend you’ll just deny you ever said it, even though it’s right there in black and white.
  • I think you'll find that if you stick to what I am writing and try less hard to shift my intent to what you suppose I must be secretly "very obviously implying" that little problem of yours will clear right up.

Topic's author
#49
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@sadolite
Is it really sarcasm.
Well I genuinely think Trump supporters are awful if that's what you mean :) 

I never said I was above the cognitive biases behind tribalism and partisanship. I showed polling highlighting there is misunderstanding on all sides. Then I said the so-called "anti elites" are condescending snobs themselves who have no business reiterating that they are the true Americans and city dwellers aren't, especially since the majority of Americans live, work and visit those cities plus they rely on those cities to subsidize them financially.

If your point in commenting in this thread is that I too attack and criticize the people who actively try and take away my rights, you are correct. I do. 

Topic's author
#50
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, like those Covid lockdowns that never happened???
A group that said I could work from the comfort of my own home for 2 months vs. a group who says I shouldn't work at all because it's been bad for men... hmm. Good point, I do have a lot to think about! 


The best worst choice as usual.

Is it possible for you to pay less taxes than you already do? Don't tell me it's because of gas prices. 


I would never wish that misery on anyone, especially a black guy.
Lol. I'm sure she is lovely. 
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Lol. I'm sure she is lovely. 
So are wild lions :)
#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Good point, I do have a lot to think about! 
Sorry lol.. I just saw you write about the freedom of working outside the home and I had to do a doubletake.
#53
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,172
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Danielle
My statement stands.
#54
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
I think you'll find that if you stick to what I am writing and try less hard to shift my intent to what you suppose I must be secretly "very obviously implying" that little problem of yours will clear right up
I am sticking with what you’re writing. You said: 

“America needs stop overfunding this less sustainable lifestyle.  I'm not saying that we need to drag anybody in from the countryside, but certainly rural residents need to pay more of their proportional share of the greater expense it takes to deliver water, electricity, internet, etc to those homes…When  rural counties are required to pay their fair share for infrastructure, rural lifestyles will become a luxury most can't afford and American prosperity will be all the more improved by that change.”

I said “I don’t really think it’s possible, electricity running water and paved roads throughout the country is good for everyone and worth the cost, and do you really want 95% of the landmass of your country in third world conditions?” Instead of saying “here’s how you’re wrong” you said “The complaint was not about about subsidizing roads, electricity, and running water to rural areas.” even though that’s literally EXACTLY what you said! There could not possibly be a more honest and true summary of what you said that I responded to than saying that you were complaining about the cost of infrastructure in rural areas! 
#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
And that is the whole uncomfortable discussion when you ask hardcore tribalists where to put the undesirables. We are talking about people that a few years before, you would have considered fellow Americans. 

Balkanization has an extremely ugly side to it, and people should be forced to see that side and not be allowed to dismiss it casually.
Topic's author
#56
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Thett said “I don’t really think it’s possible, electricity running water and paved roads throughout the country is good for everyone and worth the cost, and do you really want 95% of the landmass of your country in third world conditions?”

Do you agree with this? I HIGHLY doubt it since you want to abolish the Commerce Clause and said you consider Wickard v Filburn to be among the greatest tarnishes in United States history right up there with the Trail of Tears lol. I presume you do think rural areas should go without basic utilities and left to fend for themselves in response to natural disasters that disproportionately target where they live. I mean you're not a socialist, right? 
#57
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I HIGHLY doubt it since you want to abolish the Commerce Clause

How is providing relief anything remotely the same as restricting commerce?

Do you normally jam round pegs into square holes in your spare time for the funsies?
Topic's author
#58
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
Bill Gates
Oh no 
#59
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Oh! let me play the Danielle game, I'm new so don't be too harsh...

Do you think we should not provide relief to Rural areas or are you (obviously) hard core FOR it because you are also all FOR restricting commerce as a diehard supporter of the Commerce clause?

I mean, only an idiot would think those 2 things are anything but the EXACT same thing... amirite?
Topic's author
#60
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I thought in our discussion about the Commerce Clause you said we should abolish federal agencies, though in retrospect you said regulatory agencies. My point was that FEMA wouldn't exist if we eliminated federal agencies but I guess you are okay with them after all. 

In that convo you said "There should never be a system where central planners have the right and the authority to take with brutal force from the minority and give to the majority under Democratic Socialism." Why is it not socialism for Congress to use tax and spending powers to help provide utilities and paved roads to red states that can't afford it then?! Is it only socialism when the money goes to healthcare? Explain. 


Do you think we should not provide relief to Rural areas or are you (obviously) hard core FOR it
I think we should do things Trump style and hold the money hostage until they concede on their dumb ass social policy. You wanna pass a "Don't Say Gay" bill? That's fine then you don't get any tax money to rebuild after your next hurricane, sorry. Godspeed. 


because you are also all for restricting commerce as a supporter of the Commerce clause?
I explained to you (multiple times with multiple examples) how the commerce clause not only restricts commerce but protects commerce. You ignored every single one of those examples because duh, what could you possibly say in response? That you didn't know about those things? Oh god no. Heavens forbid. 

And of course you had no response whatsoever as to how interstate issues would be resolved without the commerce clause.  Nor did you have a response to how we would prosecute interstate crime without the commerce clause. We both know your quip about the Patriot Act was a useless reply that didn't answer the question lol. It's weird that you would come at me from a tone of condescension when you constantly have to dodge my points because you don't know how to respond to them. Very ballsy.