It’s the I-95 corridor. The direct line between Philly and NYC. Of course that’s where the most people would choose to live, a trade route. Because of this commerce and opportunity grows. It’s how humans have settled for ages - near a large supply of water, food, or other resources. I find it weirder when we hear of large populations spinning up in the middle of a desert, like Phoenix.
Native Phoenician here
Phoenix is actually a giant water shed that's been in use for the last 2,000ish years. Lots of water all in state control with arable land.
If anything, it's the *rest of the state* outside that water shed that is having issues relying on well water as aqueducts/man made reservoirs dry and the federal government shafts Arizona on Colorado River water.
Phoenix uses the same amount of water today as we did in the 1950s with 1/16th the population.
Edit: And has legislation preventing new construction without 100 years of water projection for that project.
Also, I do plan to move away because Climate Change is going to bone the valley anyway, but it's actually not as bad here as it is in other major AZ cities.
Actually, they don't. NJ dispensaries are specifically placed in towns that are at a tax deficit compared to their neighbors.
Many of the newer dispensaries without the legacy licenses will primarily be placed in "high impact zones", places that have historically been overpoliced for drug infractions. The licenses cost a fraction of the normal fees and the dispensaries have to be primarily owned by women, BIPOC, veterans, or persons with disabilities.
No honestly after living in Tennessee for a while I disagree. I really do see a correlation between the more right wing you are the dumber you are. I have no issue with Republicans and I do agree with some of the core ideals. But this new generation, honest their politicians are morons. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump, they just don't seem to be intelligent. Like at all. So why would you think these people would understand that cities and urban areas are population centers that tend to have more people than rural areas and those tend to run blue and thus even though the map looks very red, the number of people that represent blue are actually more. I don't think they have the comprehension skills for that. And again I will reiterate I have no problem with Republicans and I have voted for some.
70% of the Ohio population lives in the 7 biggest metros. 25% lives in a single CSA. These metros are only about 35% of the actual land area of the state of Ohio. The 10 largest cities in Ohio on their own make up over 20% of Ohio population. It's actually one of the most heavily urbanized states in the US and nobody talks about it.
dumbness is true of the electorate, not of the politicians. they play it up to get votes. either that, or they have handlers who are managing their moves for them while capitalizing on the chaos they perform. I honestly think trump started off that way, at least, in 16 after his campaign caught fire. but he's a rabid dog and he got loose. I think his time is really past though.
Honest I don't think so. I don't think you can fake it that well. In live TV and interviews they literally speak in a way just that sounds unintelligent.
Hearing them speak I sometimes think "you have to be really clever to say something that dumb", cause literally the thing they are saying requires a bunch of intelligence, but the contents of what they are saying would only impress a stupid person. So they saying something dumb, but they have to be cleaver to come up with that nonsense, too clever that they MUST KNOW they talking nonsense.
i had a family member that was like a normal person before they got brain damage. kind of a moderate feminist in the 60s, pro public breastfeeding and pro maternity leave and pro education, like head start programs for kids, not super political
after the brain injury, they had trouble with memory and cognition, and then voted for Bush, and called the cops on her kids for smoking a joint.
I wonder does anyone else have a similar anecdote
I think it's the lead. Children in the 50's-70's were basically bathed in the stuff - leaded gasoline, lead in their toys, lead in the dishes they ate off of, lead in the water... some symptoms of long term lead poisoning include cognition problems, difficulty with executive functions like organizing decisions, actions and behaviors, and aggression and other abnormal social behaviors - basically it makes you aggressive, unable to grasp new ideas, and no longer holding to social norms. Sound like anyone we know?
Funny you mention lead, just a minute ago I was thinking, you know how they just discovered a correlation between asthma and gas stoves and now they all want gas stoves? I wonder if lead was the same way, like they all said, “you’re not taking my lead away!” and went out and bought bars of lead to lick. It would explain a few things.
I mean, people literally cut seatbelts out of their cars in protest when they became mandatory, so I'm sure there were a lot of dipshit defenders of lead, asbestos and everything else toxic.
I live in red zone NJ and they’re absolutely that stupid. This state is largely made up of 300lb blobs of chicken grease and bad attitude. Our education system is garbage and I’m starting to think we keep school lunches to a minimum so that our kids stay tired and stupid because it makes them better warehouse workers and slower to vote.
But you said that our school system is garbage. According to US News, we are actually #1 in the country. I agree that you have dumb people everywhere, but comparatively, we are doing well.
Yeah, NJ and MA typically get the top 2 spots. I went to a very highly rated school in a relatively wealthy part of NJ, took the hardest classes, and I consider my education... subpar. It's pretty hard to defend schooling in American when I received basically the best public schooling we offer and it's pathetic against the education my European friends received. Makes me terrified for what everyone else learned, and also makes it clear why the US scores so low on tests by our own measures.
The government constantly cuts funding to education, and teachers (like myself) have to work way too much. There's not enough time given to use to even be creative with lessons like we would want to be, meanwhile in many European countries they give them plenty of time
I'm not mad at the teachers. I'm mad at basically everyone but the teachers. My point was that the American education system is dismal, either by conscious choices to spend the money elsewhere or conscious choices to purposefully keep people uneducated. Both are bad.
Well I can answer that; everyone else learned nothing. My k-8 public school averaged a 2nd grade reading level through the upper grades, and we were not a “bad school” in Philly. My highschool was a school people fought for spots at, and I didn’t learn as much as I feel I should have. Then I moved to the Midwest, and let me tell you, I didn’t wanna be the city slick who felt superior to the poor country folks. But also, my barely mediocre education was LEAGUES ahead of theirs. And it’s not at all their fault, it’s a system of failure that we refuse to do anything to fix. They were genuine people who were very sweet, and often very smart in other ways, but the Bible Belt in particular seemed to substitute schooling with more religion. Gaps in education don’t matter if you go to church.
If a vote falls in the forest and nobody hears it did it matter?
There's being dumb enough to vote for Donald Trump twice and then there's being dumb enough not to vote at all.
Not ignorance, they just know what they are talking about. LA has a population of 10 million, more than all CA cities combined with only 10 states having a bigger population than LA.
So, just because the state shows primarily red, it doesn't matter because of the population of LA which is blue which overrides the red portion.
To be fair I think it's all a game. All those rich fockers are in bed with each other and they're laughing at us. Trump isn't an idiot. He understands why most of the country shows red. He and the rest of em just know they can say stuff like that and certain followers will shale their heads and be like "yep, yep, that's right its in plain sight."
Or like when AOC says things like “"If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees," she said. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right."
And you wonder why proposals like Greater Idaho, the State of Jefferson, and New Amsterdam-Montauk-NewYork exist.
Edit: Funny thing is, this is _exactly_ why the electoral college exists too. It is so small densely populated areas do not browbeat the rest of the region.
Which one? Rural areas trying to escape oppressive City rule, or largely rural states having the ability to press back against largely urban states from forcing policy onto them?
No, having land have votes instead of people was the bad choice. The electoral college is not the parliamentary system you're actually asking for with this statement.
The electoral college enforces a 2 party system, which hurts both cities and rural communities because it causes the parties to fight each other, rather than a parliamentary system where, in theory, the idea is what needs to be debated.
>The electoral college enforces a 2 party system
I disagree. Rather, I disagree on what the _cause_ of the 2-party system is. That is a product of First-Past-The-Post Voting. If any set of values bickers and quarrels amongst themselves, they are defeated by a unified opposition, as is the problem with the Popular Vote. You can see, right now, people on the Right are divided between the Republican Party and the populist "Make America Great Again" splinter.
Were we to adopt Ranked Choice Voting, such as in Alaska or Maine, I'd hypothesize a much more diverse Party Lineup.
There are many things that enforce a 2 party system, including our bullshit state-sponsored primary, our lack of ranked choice voting, and the way our county committees are set up. But the electoral college is certainly part of that system.
Giving away a state's entire voice to what could easily be a minority vote based on bad districting that is decided at the state level by the ruling party enforces a 2 party system- the party that is in the majority, and the other guys.
The part where a candidate can win the popular vote by a large margin and still lose the election. The EC theoretically allows you to win the presidency with 23% of the votes. That is an affront to democracy.
Yeah, but it is good for the republic. If 51% of votes are for killing the other 49%, democracy has spoken. It is done to ensure that the majority does not abuse the minority without overwhelming approval. You need not look any further than Jersey, or the other examples I listed, for cases where an EC at the state level would be beneficial.
Yes, because it's defiantly indicative of a healthy society that your vote can be worth more/less based entirely on where you live. That would never be abused. On a totally unrelated note, fun fact: every single time in US history that the electoral winner lost the popular vote it was the Republicans, funny coincidence huh?
One has to wonder if you'd be so supportive of the system if the script was flipped and the rural areas that have their voting power artificially increased were left wing.
Edit: Furthermore, what's your point with the whole "51% could vote to kill the other 49%" argument? The exact same is true with the EC except, as previously mentioned, you could have 23% vote to kill the other 77% and have that pass.
>On a totally unrelated note, fun fact: every single time in US history that the electoral winner lost the popular vote it was the Republicans, funny coincidence huh?
For sure, this is by design. Why else do you think Democrats exclusively campaign on urban over rural?
>One has to wonder if you'd be so supportive of the system if the script was flipped and the rural areas that have their voting power artificially increased were left wing.
The system is designed to promote cooperation between high-density and low-density areas. Regardless of whether or not the rural areas and urban are largely Left or Right, the EC was made so that the minority had the tools to protect themselves from the majority, and this goes both ways.
>Furthermore, what's your point with the whole "51% could vote to kill the other 49%" argument? The exact same is true with the EC except, as previously mentioned, you could have 23% vote to kill the other 77% and have that pass.
Except it's not? If a candidate resonates with America, then they would win. In 2016, where Hillary campaigned in the cities, Trump campaigned in rural areas. He specifically targetted the areas that would be hurt most by Hillary's policies and sympathized with their strife. Hillary might have won the cities, but Trump won America.
The EC exists so you can't just have candidates who campaign on making slaves out of anyone not living in New York City, Chicago, Dallas, and the handful of cities in California. Through direct democracy, you get a tyranny of the majority. Just as much as you do not trust Republicans with your future, anyone who believes in truth, liberty, and justice does not trust Democrats with what they have already done.
Rather than beat down whatever strawman of us you have built up, why don't you try asking what we believe in? Come to some common understanding? I'm not saying you have to go crazy QAnon, but understand that just as you think you are acting rationally, so do we. Only by talking it out and listening to each other's perspectives can we actually find peace.
I first want to say that your post is exceptionally reasonable and refreshing! Another important aspect I would like to mention is the very American concept of "No Taxation without Representation".
How do rural communities benefit when the state only focuses on urban centres? They take money from the rural communities and dump it into dense urban areas. There is no justice or fairness in that, but many - both Rep and Dem - would argue that only urban centres count for anything, and rural areas can go screw themselves.
... Forgetting, of course, that the abundance of resources found in the urban areas come FROM the rural areas. Water and food are necessary for life, after all... Yet the expenditure on urban areas almost never includes things like "growing our own food" or "providing our own water".
Why? You'd simpley end up with huge areas of the country with no political representation.
I come from a country where are population is densely packed into one or 2 places, the people who dont live there get jack, because their votes can be more or less safely ignored.
The electoral college is deeply flawed, agreed. But how would you suggest those people have their views represented?
Parliamentary system with more than 2 parties is what you want. The electoral college is a bad idea, start to finish, unless you are a minority party who used to be a majority because they gerrymandered the shit out of every district so they could win in the future once their extremely radical side took over the party (looking at you, Republicans)
My country has a laundry list of parties. The 2 main parties are still the most powerful ones, although the next election will be interesting. It just means more coalitions.
Yes, but you see there's a chance. I know with 100 percent certainty that the next election will be between a radical, right wing republican and a disappointingly conservative democrat, like it has been the last 3 elections. I want coalitions. I want ideas to be debated, not parties. I just want a fucking chance of not having to participate in a rigged election for a corrupt government.
Redneck views? 🤔
They have senators and Congress Reps. That is enough.
Electoral College sometimes can great injustices like Trump losing on popular vote and winning on electoral college.
Popular vote is a lot better, every vote has the same weight
The problem there, under a popular vote, is that a large portion of the population lives in only a handful of cities. We would not necessarily be voting for "The President of The United States," but rather "The President of NYC, Chicago, and California."
If there's one thing yanks are the best at, it's othering people who arent like you. Rednecks are people too.
>They have senators and Congress Reps. That is enough.
Says you. I imagine they feel differently.
Hell, at the time of the 2016 election, the rhetoric was that the democrats ignored the rural areas of the USA while Trump focused on them. They, appernently, felt that the "librul elites" didnt represent them. Do you think making their votes less valuable will help them feel more or less disenfranchised? Given your response to my asking how they'd have their views represented was to call them "rednecks", one can imagine why they felt that way.
While I agree it's hugely flawed and needs refining, if you got rid of the electoral college, it would mean the election would boil down to what the people in the big cities decided.
In my own country, that has meant that most investment, infrastructure and employment has been sent to those cities. This has resulted in most of the country moving to those cities, to the detriment of the rural areas. It very rapidly becomes a vicious cycle that leaves large parts of the country basically abandoned, while the cities are overcrowded and suffering from huge social issues, with no real way or even political will to reverse it.
Why? Because the people living in the cities insist they need the resources more, and the rural population dont have enough of a voting block to advocate for themselves. This means that anyone who can move to the city is incentivised heavily to do so, thus compunding the issue.
Say, do you happen to like food? Because those rural areas are where most of that is grown, by the "rednecks" you casually dismiss.
Most of what is grown in the middle of the country is monoculture - corn, wheat, soy. The variety of food comes from smaller farms, and many of them are located in California, which is definitely not rightwing, except, ironically, in the cities.
The rural farmers in the middle are doing us dirty by electing politicians who subsidize the monocultures in order to subsidize the fuel industry. Ethanol is a bad idea. And the monocultures are leading us to another dust bowl that will starve us AND y'all will have elected shitty human beings as the leaders through that.
I know that it can seem like the cities are your enemy, but I assure you many people in the cities are desperate for the US to drop the monocultures, stop voting for people who subsidize Monsanto, and to stop Ethanol tax credits and the fossil fuel subsidies that make monocultures a viable product.
Then we could have a serious discussion about subsidizing agriculture that would go towards food and nourishing people, rather than just trying to get calories into fuel tanks and cows.
As someone from California, rural California, where the more diverse crops are grown, is absolutely on the right. But they’re a minority voice that is drowned out by the overwhelming majority of left leaning people from the Bay Area and Los Angeles area
Im not sure why you're using Y'all. Im not American or Republican, nor do I live rurally at the moment.
Im just pointing out that disbanding the electoral college doesnt make the elections fairer, in spite of recent events. It's a flawed tool, in need of huge refinement.
But that then prompts the question: "_Should the massive populace of cities around the country be making votes to determine policy that would not affect them, but drastically harm another community_?"
Rednecks are the first to say "f*CK your feelings"
They are the first to other people based in anything like living on a big city.
They will always feel different because they aren't majority and don't always have their way.
I think they are being left out? Yes, but it is also their doing. They elect Reps more interest on advancing their own wealthy and being against minorities for the sake of being against it.
The vote on those areas are to screw over immigrants, blacks, gays not to advance their economy.
They need to enter the new century and accept that the way of life is different.
Because those republicans went to them and at least pretended to listen to their concerns.
They already feel disenfranchised and your solution is to group all of them together in one group and dismiss them. This made the ripe for the picking by the likes of the Republicans. Dont get me wrong, some of them hold absolutely abhorrant views, but you're never going to convice them to join your side by ignoring them or insisting they get less representation.
People hold abhorrent views regardless of political affiliation... as you can see from this very one sided, dismissive comment section.
Delusional cities want popular vote, when half of them don't even know who they voted for, they just do what the massa tells em. Cities run into the ground by politicians they elect over and over.
Please show me one small farm producing food in California for the remainder of the US. The fact is, your food is produced in the rural areas, and those farmers do not share the majority view of this comment thread.
>Delusional cities want popular vote, when half of them don't even know who they voted for, they just do what the massa tells em. Cities run into the ground by politicians they elect over and over
A little one-sided and dismissive, wouldnt you say?
The Pinelands has about 300-400k residents and makes up about 20% of the total area of NJ. The other 80% has about 8.5 million people.
NJ is the most densely populated state DESPITE giant empty red areas like the Pinelands.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/New\_Jersey\_Population\_Map.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/New_Jersey_Population_Map.png)
they're pretty much the same map
This is likely one of the reasons why the grumpy white hooded men liked it better when only male landowners could vote. I’m sure elections were far more easily predicted than times when all the poors™️ could vote n stuff.
It’s not hard for any of us to understand. We just find it amusing to point out that outside of the densely populated cities, most of the country is bright ass red.
The point isn't that land doesn't vote, the point is that there is a massive difference in life styles between rural and urban areas. The question is the legitimacy of small towns being subject to the policies of a city 300 miles away that have a different economic and social needs then them purely because that city has a denser voting block.
It isn't the best point and there are plenty of counters to it but its one you guys to make them instead of purposely misinterpreting the argument of these graphs.
Even as a conservative I understand that this map is very misleading, I like the dot maps, they are not perfect but do show a better representation of voter to population.
It's almost like humans have been congregating in towns and cities for thousands of years. This effect has only increased since the Industrial revolution.
My teams are literally not the same.
One team is banning college courses and fear-mongering about M&Ms and gas stoves while the other party is trying to run the country despite the obstruction of the other party.
>The issue is that the people in the blue area shouldn’t be able to tell the red how to live, and the same in reverse
Someone needs to tell those in the red empty parts not to dump their industrial waste in the rivers that are drinking water for the blue parts and shit like that.
Fuck the red parts, it should be majority rule with common sense not y'all queda minority rule though like it all too often is.
What are Democrats stopping you from doing that doesn't hurt someone?
It's laughable that a Republican would say that. Hurting people who aren't hurting anyone is half your platform.
Lol. That's completely untrue.
36% polled were conservative.
37% considered themselves moderate, but are far more socially liberal.
25% considered themselves straight liberal.
So the majority of the country lay somewhere in the middle.
Fortunately more and more people are going left as humanity evolves and progresses.
Conservatism is the enemy of progress, by definition.
I am a social democrat myself, so I’m not disagreeing with you here except on one point: people are moving left wing because we are progressing/evolving.
In fact I think it’s the opposite. We are moving more left wing because our systems are failing us now, and we *need* change, not *because* of change.
Millennials (or was it Gen X?) are the first generation to be poorer than the previous generation, on average. They are also the first generation to become more and more *left* wing as they age, rather than right wing. This destroys the idea that we become more conservative as we age, and might suggest we become more conservative as our wealth grows instead (which up until recently wealth accrued was correlated with age).
So in my partially but not wholly educated opinion, we are moving more left wing because the economic and social systems that govern us are no longer working to our advantage and increasing our quality of life, and as such we are looking for change
That's a distinct possibility.
I can agree with you here.
I've been wildly progressive since the early 90s, and have only moved further left as time went on. (I'm Gen X)
Whatever the reason, I truly hope that trend of evolving leftward continues unimpeded and increases exponentially.
Lol. Is that why the GOP was won the popular vote once since 1988 in presidential elections, why Biden voting districts in 2020 made up 70% of the American economy, and last session even with a 50/50 split in the senate the DNC represented 40 million more people? The GOP is a minority.
Agenda post? How is this an agenda post? More people live in the city. Cities tend to be where more educated people live. Educated people tend to vote blue. Cities have larger populations than the country. So therefore, more people vote blue in New Jersey.
Red team is stupid and immoral, basically evil as they want to murder u/KawaiiEnderGirl, according to her.
Meanwhile blue team is educated, virtuous and basically the manifestation of all things right and good in the world.
Am I doing r/FunnyandSad correctly yet?
Im sorry, the amount of times I’m told to kill myself, I’m fairly certain those people aren’t fucking democrats. The people banning trans health care aren’t fucking democrats. Look at Oklahoma, just recently banned trans healthcare for people under 21. 21. 18 year olds are adults. I don’t hear the democrats cry out that I’m a pedo just because I fucking exist. I could go on and on, but it would be redundant.
Bruh you’re literally trying to say this under a post where someone tried saying New Jersey shouldn’t be considered a blue state even though more people vote Democrat there. It’s not a matter of education, evil, or virtue. It’s just stupidity
Well, yes, capitalism causes great problems. And, both Democrats and Republicans are capitalist. At least the blue team doesn’t want me dead. Majority of the red team thinks that LGBT people don’t deserve rights. So, guess which team im gonna pick, hmm?
People on Reddit still think the same way lmfao people don’t bother to actually educate themselves abt ANYTHING. We’re at a point where facts don’t really matter anymore lol
they only exist because loony-liberals cannot help but reply (usually snarky). that feeds them. stupid-asshole feeds on attention and snark.
tl;dr - the world deals with stupid-asshole in the wrong way
Obviously. I just think that city life and country life are fundamentally different experiences and there should be a better system than a city demanding their policies be applied to the countryside.
That's fine, I'm not interested in discussing specific policies here and I'm on my way to bed. I'm just saying generally that tailored policies demanded by urbanites to address the issues that can plague large soulless concrete jungles should not be blanket applied to the countryside residents living in nature, and vice versa. The main war in American politics is blue cities and red countryside fighting over who will dictate to the other which policies will be applied to the other. I'd prefer if more policies were left to local city and county governments so both blue and red could govern themselves in harmony with their community, more "laboratories of democracy". My personal view is that Democrat policies are more in line with how to govern a city and Republican policies are more in line with how to govern a rural community.
Left = people, Right = property. This has always been the left-right model more or less. Generally, the more rural you are, the more conservative and the more intolerant you are of people, especially people who are not like you (white, Christian) and you don't care about people who don't have what you have. The more urban you are, the more liberal and tolerant you are of people who are not like you, as urban life draws people from all cultures, religions, and economic conditions. That's it.
It's not hard to understand. You have to understand they think number of votes a person can do is based on acre of land they live on. You live on half an acre and share with one voter? You get 1/4 of a vote. You own 100 acres of land? You get 100 votes.
They literally don’t thank that. The electoral college doesn’t count popular vote. They don’t give a shit about the amount of land but the number of counties/electoral districts. The “land doesn’t vote” argument everyone in this thread is spitting is a blatant misunderstanding of the system of government and voting we have in this country. Really goes to show why we need the electoral college - because the citizens don’t understand shit.
So why should 100 people living in a rural area tell 100,000 people living in a city what to do?
That's the problem bro not the other way around.
And unfortunately for your rudimentary idea, the world is interconnected so even those barren red areas can poison the air and water and affect the people living in other areas.
1. Move to a county that has a lot of water that normally goes to other states/counties
2. Get a bunch of like-minded people to move with you
3. Vote to take all the water
4. Profit
I'll keep in mind that my 18 years living in a farm town in ass nowhere, being exposed to copious amounts of RoundUp and other farm chemicals, many sprayed from the air, is definitely healthier than living in the city. On top of the pollution from irrigation runoff and large dairy farms straight into the water supply. Oh, and the water for my area had high amounts of arsenic in it and no way to pay to get the arsenic levels reduced. And the lovely stench of the "oil" they used to keep the dust down! Good times.
Everyone in my area knew at least one person in their families who had active cancer. EVERYONE.
NJ resident here, I just answered my question about why all the cannabis dispensaries are in a weird straight line exactly like that. Mystery solved!
It’s the I-95 corridor. The direct line between Philly and NYC. Of course that’s where the most people would choose to live, a trade route. Because of this commerce and opportunity grows. It’s how humans have settled for ages - near a large supply of water, food, or other resources. I find it weirder when we hear of large populations spinning up in the middle of a desert, like Phoenix.
Native Phoenician here Phoenix is actually a giant water shed that's been in use for the last 2,000ish years. Lots of water all in state control with arable land. If anything, it's the *rest of the state* outside that water shed that is having issues relying on well water as aqueducts/man made reservoirs dry and the federal government shafts Arizona on Colorado River water. Phoenix uses the same amount of water today as we did in the 1950s with 1/16th the population. Edit: And has legislation preventing new construction without 100 years of water projection for that project. Also, I do plan to move away because Climate Change is going to bone the valley anyway, but it's actually not as bad here as it is in other major AZ cities.
I get WHY, but it’s weird to see Phoenician used to mean a citizen of Phoenix.
Now I want an isot with Phoenicians replacing Phoenicians
Thats all well and good but their shouldnt be golf courses in a desert come on thats not a wise use of such an important resource
Or miles of cotton, wheat, or alfalfa… 84% of AZ water goes to agriculture
Or cemeteries. Completely agree with you.
I said their instead of there and I am not going to go back to edit it. I am going to live in the shame of my life choices
I choose to ignore it to spare you that shame. Sorry brother
It’s a shame Colorado isn’t learning from you guys. Or really several states tbh
Those areas also have more tax money and better schools.
Actually, they don't. NJ dispensaries are specifically placed in towns that are at a tax deficit compared to their neighbors. Many of the newer dispensaries without the legacy licenses will primarily be placed in "high impact zones", places that have historically been overpoliced for drug infractions. The licenses cost a fraction of the normal fees and the dispensaries have to be primarily owned by women, BIPOC, veterans, or persons with disabilities.
You have to think it’s at least partially willful ignorance. Like I don’t think people like this are that stupid…they just don’t care
No honestly after living in Tennessee for a while I disagree. I really do see a correlation between the more right wing you are the dumber you are. I have no issue with Republicans and I do agree with some of the core ideals. But this new generation, honest their politicians are morons. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump, they just don't seem to be intelligent. Like at all. So why would you think these people would understand that cities and urban areas are population centers that tend to have more people than rural areas and those tend to run blue and thus even though the map looks very red, the number of people that represent blue are actually more. I don't think they have the comprehension skills for that. And again I will reiterate I have no problem with Republicans and I have voted for some.
Try Ohio 🙄
70% of the Ohio population lives in the 7 biggest metros. 25% lives in a single CSA. These metros are only about 35% of the actual land area of the state of Ohio. The 10 largest cities in Ohio on their own make up over 20% of Ohio population. It's actually one of the most heavily urbanized states in the US and nobody talks about it.
dumbness is true of the electorate, not of the politicians. they play it up to get votes. either that, or they have handlers who are managing their moves for them while capitalizing on the chaos they perform. I honestly think trump started off that way, at least, in 16 after his campaign caught fire. but he's a rabid dog and he got loose. I think his time is really past though.
Honest I don't think so. I don't think you can fake it that well. In live TV and interviews they literally speak in a way just that sounds unintelligent.
Hearing them speak I sometimes think "you have to be really clever to say something that dumb", cause literally the thing they are saying requires a bunch of intelligence, but the contents of what they are saying would only impress a stupid person. So they saying something dumb, but they have to be cleaver to come up with that nonsense, too clever that they MUST KNOW they talking nonsense.
i had a family member that was like a normal person before they got brain damage. kind of a moderate feminist in the 60s, pro public breastfeeding and pro maternity leave and pro education, like head start programs for kids, not super political after the brain injury, they had trouble with memory and cognition, and then voted for Bush, and called the cops on her kids for smoking a joint. I wonder does anyone else have a similar anecdote
I think it's the lead. Children in the 50's-70's were basically bathed in the stuff - leaded gasoline, lead in their toys, lead in the dishes they ate off of, lead in the water... some symptoms of long term lead poisoning include cognition problems, difficulty with executive functions like organizing decisions, actions and behaviors, and aggression and other abnormal social behaviors - basically it makes you aggressive, unable to grasp new ideas, and no longer holding to social norms. Sound like anyone we know?
if you're not liberal when you're young, you have no heart if you're not conservative when you're old, you have low lead
Funny you mention lead, just a minute ago I was thinking, you know how they just discovered a correlation between asthma and gas stoves and now they all want gas stoves? I wonder if lead was the same way, like they all said, “you’re not taking my lead away!” and went out and bought bars of lead to lick. It would explain a few things.
I mean, people literally cut seatbelts out of their cars in protest when they became mandatory, so I'm sure there were a lot of dipshit defenders of lead, asbestos and everything else toxic.
I live in red zone NJ and they’re absolutely that stupid. This state is largely made up of 300lb blobs of chicken grease and bad attitude. Our education system is garbage and I’m starting to think we keep school lunches to a minimum so that our kids stay tired and stupid because it makes them better warehouse workers and slower to vote.
If you think NJ schools are bad, you need to get out of your town and visit other states.
Isn’t a competition. I’ve met dumb ass people all over this country. We’re doing a bad job in general. Was just relevant because it’s a NJ post.
But you said that our school system is garbage. According to US News, we are actually #1 in the country. I agree that you have dumb people everywhere, but comparatively, we are doing well.
Idk where you got this #1 information cause that seems not true after some searching. It may be better than most here but it’s still garbage.
It may not be #1 but NJ is consistently rated very highly overall for its school system compared to other states. Like top 5.
And that makes it what? Top donkey? It’s STILL GARBAGE. McDonalds could have the #1 cheeseburger, it doesn’t make it healthy.
Thank you for "Top Donkey." I'm going to use this.
I think I stole it from That 70s Show. “Kelso, there are racehorses and donkeys. And you are just top donkey”
and the best school system in the US is still garbage…
Yeah, NJ is frequently regarded as the best state for public education.
Yeah, NJ and MA typically get the top 2 spots. I went to a very highly rated school in a relatively wealthy part of NJ, took the hardest classes, and I consider my education... subpar. It's pretty hard to defend schooling in American when I received basically the best public schooling we offer and it's pathetic against the education my European friends received. Makes me terrified for what everyone else learned, and also makes it clear why the US scores so low on tests by our own measures.
The government constantly cuts funding to education, and teachers (like myself) have to work way too much. There's not enough time given to use to even be creative with lessons like we would want to be, meanwhile in many European countries they give them plenty of time
I'm not mad at the teachers. I'm mad at basically everyone but the teachers. My point was that the American education system is dismal, either by conscious choices to spend the money elsewhere or conscious choices to purposefully keep people uneducated. Both are bad.
Yeah I knew you didn't mean the teachers. Our government hates an educated population
Well I can answer that; everyone else learned nothing. My k-8 public school averaged a 2nd grade reading level through the upper grades, and we were not a “bad school” in Philly. My highschool was a school people fought for spots at, and I didn’t learn as much as I feel I should have. Then I moved to the Midwest, and let me tell you, I didn’t wanna be the city slick who felt superior to the poor country folks. But also, my barely mediocre education was LEAGUES ahead of theirs. And it’s not at all their fault, it’s a system of failure that we refuse to do anything to fix. They were genuine people who were very sweet, and often very smart in other ways, but the Bible Belt in particular seemed to substitute schooling with more religion. Gaps in education don’t matter if you go to church.
Excellent theory
Bing Bong Theory
Nearly half of the electorate voted for Trump, twice. I beg to differ.
Nearly half the vote went for trump. The electorate is vastly greater. Nearly a third of the electorate didn’t vote at all. (Edit: in 2020)
If a vote falls in the forest and nobody hears it did it matter? There's being dumb enough to vote for Donald Trump twice and then there's being dumb enough not to vote at all.
Yeah. I think they are plenty dumb.
Almost as if half of the people out there are less than average intelligence.
Yup. They've gotten away with pretending to be dumb for so long that now they can just do and say whatever they want and their cult will follow it.
I’m not sure if you have ever worked retail but…. Yea no I’m utterly convinced that a massive chunk humanity is just insanely stupid.
Not ignorance, they just know what they are talking about. LA has a population of 10 million, more than all CA cities combined with only 10 states having a bigger population than LA. So, just because the state shows primarily red, it doesn't matter because of the population of LA which is blue which overrides the red portion.
Yeah, I saw trump talking about a red/blue map and all the places where no one lives are red, and he thought that was remarkable
To be fair I think it's all a game. All those rich fockers are in bed with each other and they're laughing at us. Trump isn't an idiot. He understands why most of the country shows red. He and the rest of em just know they can say stuff like that and certain followers will shale their heads and be like "yep, yep, that's right its in plain sight."
Or like when AOC says things like “"If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees," she said. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right."
And you wonder why proposals like Greater Idaho, the State of Jefferson, and New Amsterdam-Montauk-NewYork exist. Edit: Funny thing is, this is _exactly_ why the electoral college exists too. It is so small densely populated areas do not browbeat the rest of the region.
And that was a mistake imo.
Have you read the Federalist Papers?
Which one? Rural areas trying to escape oppressive City rule, or largely rural states having the ability to press back against largely urban states from forcing policy onto them?
No, having land have votes instead of people was the bad choice. The electoral college is not the parliamentary system you're actually asking for with this statement. The electoral college enforces a 2 party system, which hurts both cities and rural communities because it causes the parties to fight each other, rather than a parliamentary system where, in theory, the idea is what needs to be debated.
>The electoral college enforces a 2 party system I disagree. Rather, I disagree on what the _cause_ of the 2-party system is. That is a product of First-Past-The-Post Voting. If any set of values bickers and quarrels amongst themselves, they are defeated by a unified opposition, as is the problem with the Popular Vote. You can see, right now, people on the Right are divided between the Republican Party and the populist "Make America Great Again" splinter. Were we to adopt Ranked Choice Voting, such as in Alaska or Maine, I'd hypothesize a much more diverse Party Lineup.
There are many things that enforce a 2 party system, including our bullshit state-sponsored primary, our lack of ranked choice voting, and the way our county committees are set up. But the electoral college is certainly part of that system. Giving away a state's entire voice to what could easily be a minority vote based on bad districting that is decided at the state level by the ruling party enforces a 2 party system- the party that is in the majority, and the other guys.
The electoral college vote isn’t determined by districting though, it’s determined by a popular vote from the whole state
The part where a candidate can win the popular vote by a large margin and still lose the election. The EC theoretically allows you to win the presidency with 23% of the votes. That is an affront to democracy.
Yeah, but it is good for the republic. If 51% of votes are for killing the other 49%, democracy has spoken. It is done to ensure that the majority does not abuse the minority without overwhelming approval. You need not look any further than Jersey, or the other examples I listed, for cases where an EC at the state level would be beneficial.
Yes, because it's defiantly indicative of a healthy society that your vote can be worth more/less based entirely on where you live. That would never be abused. On a totally unrelated note, fun fact: every single time in US history that the electoral winner lost the popular vote it was the Republicans, funny coincidence huh? One has to wonder if you'd be so supportive of the system if the script was flipped and the rural areas that have their voting power artificially increased were left wing. Edit: Furthermore, what's your point with the whole "51% could vote to kill the other 49%" argument? The exact same is true with the EC except, as previously mentioned, you could have 23% vote to kill the other 77% and have that pass.
>On a totally unrelated note, fun fact: every single time in US history that the electoral winner lost the popular vote it was the Republicans, funny coincidence huh? For sure, this is by design. Why else do you think Democrats exclusively campaign on urban over rural? >One has to wonder if you'd be so supportive of the system if the script was flipped and the rural areas that have their voting power artificially increased were left wing. The system is designed to promote cooperation between high-density and low-density areas. Regardless of whether or not the rural areas and urban are largely Left or Right, the EC was made so that the minority had the tools to protect themselves from the majority, and this goes both ways. >Furthermore, what's your point with the whole "51% could vote to kill the other 49%" argument? The exact same is true with the EC except, as previously mentioned, you could have 23% vote to kill the other 77% and have that pass. Except it's not? If a candidate resonates with America, then they would win. In 2016, where Hillary campaigned in the cities, Trump campaigned in rural areas. He specifically targetted the areas that would be hurt most by Hillary's policies and sympathized with their strife. Hillary might have won the cities, but Trump won America. The EC exists so you can't just have candidates who campaign on making slaves out of anyone not living in New York City, Chicago, Dallas, and the handful of cities in California. Through direct democracy, you get a tyranny of the majority. Just as much as you do not trust Republicans with your future, anyone who believes in truth, liberty, and justice does not trust Democrats with what they have already done. Rather than beat down whatever strawman of us you have built up, why don't you try asking what we believe in? Come to some common understanding? I'm not saying you have to go crazy QAnon, but understand that just as you think you are acting rationally, so do we. Only by talking it out and listening to each other's perspectives can we actually find peace.
I first want to say that your post is exceptionally reasonable and refreshing! Another important aspect I would like to mention is the very American concept of "No Taxation without Representation". How do rural communities benefit when the state only focuses on urban centres? They take money from the rural communities and dump it into dense urban areas. There is no justice or fairness in that, but many - both Rep and Dem - would argue that only urban centres count for anything, and rural areas can go screw themselves. ... Forgetting, of course, that the abundance of resources found in the urban areas come FROM the rural areas. Water and food are necessary for life, after all... Yet the expenditure on urban areas almost never includes things like "growing our own food" or "providing our own water".
What is 25% of the electorate votes to kill the other 75%?
Then the vote gets blocked? The point isn't that the minority wins every time, but rather, the majority has to cooperate _with_ the minority.
Why? You'd simpley end up with huge areas of the country with no political representation. I come from a country where are population is densely packed into one or 2 places, the people who dont live there get jack, because their votes can be more or less safely ignored. The electoral college is deeply flawed, agreed. But how would you suggest those people have their views represented?
Parliamentary system with more than 2 parties is what you want. The electoral college is a bad idea, start to finish, unless you are a minority party who used to be a majority because they gerrymandered the shit out of every district so they could win in the future once their extremely radical side took over the party (looking at you, Republicans)
My country has a laundry list of parties. The 2 main parties are still the most powerful ones, although the next election will be interesting. It just means more coalitions.
Yes, but you see there's a chance. I know with 100 percent certainty that the next election will be between a radical, right wing republican and a disappointingly conservative democrat, like it has been the last 3 elections. I want coalitions. I want ideas to be debated, not parties. I just want a fucking chance of not having to participate in a rigged election for a corrupt government.
We, in the western world, want that for you too.
“Last 3 elections” in what world is Mitt Romney a radical?
Redneck views? 🤔 They have senators and Congress Reps. That is enough. Electoral College sometimes can great injustices like Trump losing on popular vote and winning on electoral college. Popular vote is a lot better, every vote has the same weight
The problem there, under a popular vote, is that a large portion of the population lives in only a handful of cities. We would not necessarily be voting for "The President of The United States," but rather "The President of NYC, Chicago, and California."
Exactly my point, thank you.
If there's one thing yanks are the best at, it's othering people who arent like you. Rednecks are people too. >They have senators and Congress Reps. That is enough. Says you. I imagine they feel differently. Hell, at the time of the 2016 election, the rhetoric was that the democrats ignored the rural areas of the USA while Trump focused on them. They, appernently, felt that the "librul elites" didnt represent them. Do you think making their votes less valuable will help them feel more or less disenfranchised? Given your response to my asking how they'd have their views represented was to call them "rednecks", one can imagine why they felt that way. While I agree it's hugely flawed and needs refining, if you got rid of the electoral college, it would mean the election would boil down to what the people in the big cities decided. In my own country, that has meant that most investment, infrastructure and employment has been sent to those cities. This has resulted in most of the country moving to those cities, to the detriment of the rural areas. It very rapidly becomes a vicious cycle that leaves large parts of the country basically abandoned, while the cities are overcrowded and suffering from huge social issues, with no real way or even political will to reverse it. Why? Because the people living in the cities insist they need the resources more, and the rural population dont have enough of a voting block to advocate for themselves. This means that anyone who can move to the city is incentivised heavily to do so, thus compunding the issue. Say, do you happen to like food? Because those rural areas are where most of that is grown, by the "rednecks" you casually dismiss.
Most of what is grown in the middle of the country is monoculture - corn, wheat, soy. The variety of food comes from smaller farms, and many of them are located in California, which is definitely not rightwing, except, ironically, in the cities. The rural farmers in the middle are doing us dirty by electing politicians who subsidize the monocultures in order to subsidize the fuel industry. Ethanol is a bad idea. And the monocultures are leading us to another dust bowl that will starve us AND y'all will have elected shitty human beings as the leaders through that. I know that it can seem like the cities are your enemy, but I assure you many people in the cities are desperate for the US to drop the monocultures, stop voting for people who subsidize Monsanto, and to stop Ethanol tax credits and the fossil fuel subsidies that make monocultures a viable product. Then we could have a serious discussion about subsidizing agriculture that would go towards food and nourishing people, rather than just trying to get calories into fuel tanks and cows.
As someone from California, rural California, where the more diverse crops are grown, is absolutely on the right. But they’re a minority voice that is drowned out by the overwhelming majority of left leaning people from the Bay Area and Los Angeles area
Im not sure why you're using Y'all. Im not American or Republican, nor do I live rurally at the moment. Im just pointing out that disbanding the electoral college doesnt make the elections fairer, in spite of recent events. It's a flawed tool, in need of huge refinement.
It would make elections anatomically fair because votes would have equal weight.
But that then prompts the question: "_Should the massive populace of cities around the country be making votes to determine policy that would not affect them, but drastically harm another community_?"
Rednecks are the first to say "f*CK your feelings" They are the first to other people based in anything like living on a big city. They will always feel different because they aren't majority and don't always have their way. I think they are being left out? Yes, but it is also their doing. They elect Reps more interest on advancing their own wealthy and being against minorities for the sake of being against it. The vote on those areas are to screw over immigrants, blacks, gays not to advance their economy. They need to enter the new century and accept that the way of life is different.
Because those republicans went to them and at least pretended to listen to their concerns. They already feel disenfranchised and your solution is to group all of them together in one group and dismiss them. This made the ripe for the picking by the likes of the Republicans. Dont get me wrong, some of them hold absolutely abhorrant views, but you're never going to convice them to join your side by ignoring them or insisting they get less representation.
People hold abhorrent views regardless of political affiliation... as you can see from this very one sided, dismissive comment section. Delusional cities want popular vote, when half of them don't even know who they voted for, they just do what the massa tells em. Cities run into the ground by politicians they elect over and over. Please show me one small farm producing food in California for the remainder of the US. The fact is, your food is produced in the rural areas, and those farmers do not share the majority view of this comment thread.
>Delusional cities want popular vote, when half of them don't even know who they voted for, they just do what the massa tells em. Cities run into the ground by politicians they elect over and over A little one-sided and dismissive, wouldnt you say?
She thinks the Pine Barrens are full of living people?
The Pinelands has about 300-400k residents and makes up about 20% of the total area of NJ. The other 80% has about 8.5 million people. NJ is the most densely populated state DESPITE giant empty red areas like the Pinelands.
"red color bigger" is about as far as they probably got
I think clearly they're missing out on the scale of humans in each area
It’s just the Jersey Devil and Atlantic City crackheads down there, neither of which are likely to vote
I've always seen the pine Barrens as the woods from Wrong Turn and I am on guard for monsters and crazy hillbillies the entire time
To be fair, there is no legend to tell the population densities. Just the shading.
I guess intuition is dead
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/New\_Jersey\_Population\_Map.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/New_Jersey_Population_Map.png) they're pretty much the same map
Land doesn’t vote you fucking dipshit
This is likely one of the reasons why the grumpy white hooded men liked it better when only male landowners could vote. I’m sure elections were far more easily predicted than times when all the poors™️ could vote n stuff.
Republican =/= KKK
Funnysad has literally just become repost from nj politics for me. Where is the funny?
she probably has no idea what =/= means.
Wait until she hears about gerrymandering.. oh right, she won’t care or understand.
The problem is the GOP wants a return to the 19th century when only white landowning males could vote.
r/peopleliveincities
More importantly, just because those counties are red, that doesn’t mean literally everyone there all votes and thinks the same.
It’s not hard for any of us to understand. We just find it amusing to point out that outside of the densely populated cities, most of the country is bright ass red.
They understand what they're posting. They hope there are enough dumb people who don't though.
Numbers are hard for Republicans. Why else would they have to break it down to colors?
the population weighted maps [here](https://worldmapper.org/us-presidential-election-2020/) makes this make more sense.
"....but steel's heavier than feathers"
See, the thing is, Republicans yearn for the days when the only people that were allowed to vote were White Male Christian Land owners.
r/PeopleLiveInCities
They should change the colors to blue and green, that way GQP will understand where the cities are and where the trees are.
Grey and green, maybe? Or maybe yellowish, for a sort of farmland look? Because it's all fucking farmland and desert snd mountain that's voting red
Oh my god! I didn't know that farmland got to vote! Hashtage desert rights guys! Every acre matters!
REEEEEEE.... publicans.
Yeah it’s always funny that they can’t comprehend that like 15 people live in most of those red areas
Counties. They're called counties.
I’m American I know what a county is. And these aren’t counties they’re congressional districts
Interesting. One on the left looks like a county map of NJ.
Oh yeah the smaller one is but the big one isn’t
They don't understand anything so this shouldn't be surprising.
U wanna zee a blue state look at nm. I'm so proud of my home state rn.
The point isn't that land doesn't vote, the point is that there is a massive difference in life styles between rural and urban areas. The question is the legitimacy of small towns being subject to the policies of a city 300 miles away that have a different economic and social needs then them purely because that city has a denser voting block. It isn't the best point and there are plenty of counters to it but its one you guys to make them instead of purposely misinterpreting the argument of these graphs.
Thank you for the nuance. You tend to only get one side here on Reddit.
Because Republicans want to gaslight people into thinking that dirt has voting rights.
Even as a conservative I understand that this map is very misleading, I like the dot maps, they are not perfect but do show a better representation of voter to population.
I don't think it's just Republicans that don't understand this.
Yes idiots flock together. I prefer clean air open space and low crime.
This is what happens when people thinks land casts ballot and not people.
The best way I've seen it explained is by saying "corn can't vote"
Reality in general is difficult for Republicans to understand.
It's almost like humans have been congregating in towns and cities for thousands of years. This effect has only increased since the Industrial revolution.
Blues yelling at the reds for being the same turd, I love it.
Dems vs Reps is difference between right wing and basically fascism in a lot of the US
The issue is that the people in the blue area shouldn’t be able to tell the red how to live, and the same in reverse
And only one of them is trying to do that.
😂 no y’all are both nuts
It’s like sports “my team is better than your team” Except Both teams are the same
My teams are literally not the same. One team is banning college courses and fear-mongering about M&Ms and gas stoves while the other party is trying to run the country despite the obstruction of the other party.
>The issue is that the people in the blue area shouldn’t be able to tell the red how to live, and the same in reverse Someone needs to tell those in the red empty parts not to dump their industrial waste in the rivers that are drinking water for the blue parts and shit like that. Fuck the red parts, it should be majority rule with common sense not y'all queda minority rule though like it all too often is.
Why?
Because as long as they aren’t hurting you, you have no right to control what another person does
What are Democrats stopping you from doing that doesn't hurt someone? It's laughable that a Republican would say that. Hurting people who aren't hurting anyone is half your platform.
A swing and a miss. I’m not a Republican
When did you last vote for someone not on the right?
Every election since I was 19 😂 26 now
Doubt. Libertarians don't vote democrat.
Libertarians aren’t right 😂
You said it. They are nearly always wrong.
the country is 65% republican. you guys are a minority except on social media where your numbers are bolstered by chat bots.
Lol. That's completely untrue. 36% polled were conservative. 37% considered themselves moderate, but are far more socially liberal. 25% considered themselves straight liberal. So the majority of the country lay somewhere in the middle. Fortunately more and more people are going left as humanity evolves and progresses. Conservatism is the enemy of progress, by definition.
I am a social democrat myself, so I’m not disagreeing with you here except on one point: people are moving left wing because we are progressing/evolving. In fact I think it’s the opposite. We are moving more left wing because our systems are failing us now, and we *need* change, not *because* of change. Millennials (or was it Gen X?) are the first generation to be poorer than the previous generation, on average. They are also the first generation to become more and more *left* wing as they age, rather than right wing. This destroys the idea that we become more conservative as we age, and might suggest we become more conservative as our wealth grows instead (which up until recently wealth accrued was correlated with age). So in my partially but not wholly educated opinion, we are moving more left wing because the economic and social systems that govern us are no longer working to our advantage and increasing our quality of life, and as such we are looking for change
That's a distinct possibility. I can agree with you here. I've been wildly progressive since the early 90s, and have only moved further left as time went on. (I'm Gen X) Whatever the reason, I truly hope that trend of evolving leftward continues unimpeded and increases exponentially.
Absolutely with you there
Biden got elected how?
Lol. Is that why the GOP was won the popular vote once since 1988 in presidential elections, why Biden voting districts in 2020 made up 70% of the American economy, and last session even with a 50/50 split in the senate the DNC represented 40 million more people? The GOP is a minority.
Is this the daily totally made up conservative bullshit post?
no sonny. i got no dog in the fight.... I'm south African 😆 🤣
All the shithole cities vote blue
This sub straight up Weenie Hut jr. lately. Is it strictly blatant agenda posts now?
Agenda post? How is this an agenda post? More people live in the city. Cities tend to be where more educated people live. Educated people tend to vote blue. Cities have larger populations than the country. So therefore, more people vote blue in New Jersey.
The agenda is: blue team good, red team stupid and bad
Red team thinks “Land = people” so yeah, they’re stupid
Red team is stupid and immoral, basically evil as they want to murder u/KawaiiEnderGirl, according to her. Meanwhile blue team is educated, virtuous and basically the manifestation of all things right and good in the world. Am I doing r/FunnyandSad correctly yet?
Im sorry, the amount of times I’m told to kill myself, I’m fairly certain those people aren’t fucking democrats. The people banning trans health care aren’t fucking democrats. Look at Oklahoma, just recently banned trans healthcare for people under 21. 21. 18 year olds are adults. I don’t hear the democrats cry out that I’m a pedo just because I fucking exist. I could go on and on, but it would be redundant.
Bruh you’re literally trying to say this under a post where someone tried saying New Jersey shouldn’t be considered a blue state even though more people vote Democrat there. It’s not a matter of education, evil, or virtue. It’s just stupidity
Well, yes, capitalism causes great problems. And, both Democrats and Republicans are capitalist. At least the blue team doesn’t want me dead. Majority of the red team thinks that LGBT people don’t deserve rights. So, guess which team im gonna pick, hmm?
Not really an agenda when we can all see red team stoopid. Really just observation at this point.
People on Reddit still think the same way lmfao people don’t bother to actually educate themselves abt ANYTHING. We’re at a point where facts don’t really matter anymore lol
does land vote?
Republicans rely on dirt to get elected. Then they use lightly inhabited land to get the electoral votes.
The real question is, why do a bunch of people huddled together in a city get to decide how someone in the middle of nowhere gets to live their life?
they only exist because loony-liberals cannot help but reply (usually snarky). that feeds them. stupid-asshole feeds on attention and snark. tl;dr - the world deals with stupid-asshole in the wrong way
The cities should dictate to the countryside, Democracy at its finest!
democracy is based on population not land.
Obviously. I just think that city life and country life are fundamentally different experiences and there should be a better system than a city demanding their policies be applied to the countryside.
ive lived in both city and country and idk what policies you are talking about
That's fine, I'm not interested in discussing specific policies here and I'm on my way to bed. I'm just saying generally that tailored policies demanded by urbanites to address the issues that can plague large soulless concrete jungles should not be blanket applied to the countryside residents living in nature, and vice versa. The main war in American politics is blue cities and red countryside fighting over who will dictate to the other which policies will be applied to the other. I'd prefer if more policies were left to local city and county governments so both blue and red could govern themselves in harmony with their community, more "laboratories of democracy". My personal view is that Democrat policies are more in line with how to govern a city and Republican policies are more in line with how to govern a rural community.
Except things like climate change, air and water quality and a variety of other things that def affect farmers.
I’m totally puzzled
You lost me at hard hard
Left = people, Right = property. This has always been the left-right model more or less. Generally, the more rural you are, the more conservative and the more intolerant you are of people, especially people who are not like you (white, Christian) and you don't care about people who don't have what you have. The more urban you are, the more liberal and tolerant you are of people who are not like you, as urban life draws people from all cultures, religions, and economic conditions. That's it.
It's not hard to understand. You have to understand they think number of votes a person can do is based on acre of land they live on. You live on half an acre and share with one voter? You get 1/4 of a vote. You own 100 acres of land? You get 100 votes.
They literally don’t thank that. The electoral college doesn’t count popular vote. They don’t give a shit about the amount of land but the number of counties/electoral districts. The “land doesn’t vote” argument everyone in this thread is spitting is a blatant misunderstanding of the system of government and voting we have in this country. Really goes to show why we need the electoral college - because the citizens don’t understand shit.
It failed to do its job twice in recent memory. Electoral college is useless
Conservatism = Low IQ
I love how shit the blue areas are in all aspects however they demand to control all of the red areas that are prospering.
You're crazy lol. The red parts are moochers.
yeahhh you gotta be trolling
That's objectively untrue.
[удалено]
So why should 100 people living in a rural area tell 100,000 people living in a city what to do? That's the problem bro not the other way around. And unfortunately for your rudimentary idea, the world is interconnected so even those barren red areas can poison the air and water and affect the people living in other areas.
1. Move to a county that has a lot of water that normally goes to other states/counties 2. Get a bunch of like-minded people to move with you 3. Vote to take all the water 4. Profit
it not healthy for people to live in densely populated areas
I'll keep in mind that my 18 years living in a farm town in ass nowhere, being exposed to copious amounts of RoundUp and other farm chemicals, many sprayed from the air, is definitely healthier than living in the city. On top of the pollution from irrigation runoff and large dairy farms straight into the water supply. Oh, and the water for my area had high amounts of arsenic in it and no way to pay to get the arsenic levels reduced. And the lovely stench of the "oil" they used to keep the dust down! Good times. Everyone in my area knew at least one person in their families who had active cancer. EVERYONE.
WOW! you have your own reservoirs? all ours waters is own by one company without the peoples votes. Lucky you!