Separating urban and rural America.

[Tekeristan]

I don't know. I've largely just lost all interest and hope in this stuff. I find it tiring to go into much debate off anymore.

I just know this effects me personally. At what point are you supposed to start to care enough to actively start debating? But that's the thing, few change minds when they're angry or whatever. Whomever I'm talking to feel as 'right' as I probably did.

Hell, I've probably been the same way, and have probably been just as wrong as well.

Makes me think.

Still a terrible idea on OPs part.

It's rather unappealing to be called the things rural Americans often are called by city people when your way of life and living chokes out around you. It leaves a bad taste.

[Sovaal]

Uh huh.

Even if it's not "guilt by association" it's still the unjust punishment of people for no giddam good reason beyond the fact that you don't like the guy in fuckingn office. Honestly, it's childish.

The country divided itself into weird sections since day 1. It hasn't changed much.

While rural and urban areas the world over have pretty much always been divided as they are today, rarely if ever has a nation ever had them separated as OP wants them.

[Tekeristan]

The country divided itself into weird sections since day 1. It hasn't changed much.

While rural and urban areas the world over have pretty much always been divided as they are today, rarely if ever has a nation ever had them separated as OP wants them.

I think the divide is an economic one, and a growing one. But all I have is an opinion, not a degree(s).

[Ethel mermania]

Or that both urban and rural America would be screwed over without the other. Farm land doesn't do you any good when you have nobody to sell your product to

Well one's more important than the other really. If the supply of manufactured goods, petrol etc. got cut off farmers would have to turn Amish and that would be pretty fucking annoying. But if food got cut off...

Or buy and sell from china.

[Kennlind]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

So according to this, it's more so rural districts (than "red states") that voted Trump.

It talks about rural America being forgotten and ignored... so was Atlantic Canada, you wouldn't see them vote anyone like Trump.

Why, then, should rural districts be entitled to urban money after screwing over urban America? Is there any way to rearrange the USA so as to treat rural America as a new country and urban America as a collection of city-states?

Dumbest article ever. I haven't even read it all yet but when it starts off saying they're going to use movies to explain why TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER, and can't even use the movies correct. "The good guys are simple folk from the countryside" okay then, how come two of the "good guys" (Luke Skywalker and William Wallace) were both terrorists, and the latter whom I won't even express my disdain for.

However it does make good points, such as city slickers being arrogant and looking down at us decent rural folks.

[Tekeristan]

Well one's more important than the other really. If the supply of manufactured goods, petrol etc. got cut off farmers would have to turn Amish and that would be pretty fucking annoying. But if food got cut off...

Or buy and sell from china.

Pretty much this. Well, at least for cities along the coasts, the lakes, and the Mississippi.

I have a biased 'ideal' crafted out of my own life experiences and opinion, but it doesn't matter.

[Tekeristan]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

So according to this, it's more so rural districts (than "red states") that voted Trump.

It talks about rural America being forgotten and ignored... so was Atlantic Canada, you wouldn't see them vote anyone like Trump.

Why, then, should rural districts be entitled to urban money after screwing over urban America? Is there any way to rearrange the USA so as to treat rural America as a new country and urban America as a collection of city-states?

Dumbest article ever. I haven't even read it all yet but when it starts off saying they're going to use movies to explain why TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER, and can't even use the movies correct. "The good guys are simple folk from the countryside" okay then, how come two of the "good guys" (Luke Skywalker and William Wallace) were both terrorists, and the latter whom I won't even express my disdain for.

However it does make good points, such as city slickers being arrogant and looking down at us decent rural folks.

I usually like to just say "So much for solidarity".

[Arlenton]

Still pretty convinced "rural vs urban" is a way too black and white way of looking at this politics wise.

Indeed. Industrial workers had their part to ally as well, and cities have been known to go for the Republican before.

And even if it was black and white no need to punish people because you don't like who got elected. I don't like Trump, but I don't want hellfire on the people who voted for him (well, most of them anyway).

A bunch of cities voted for Trump. A bunch of cities haven’t voted Democrat at the presidential level since the 30s. Trump did do worse than average in longtime Republican wealthy urban areas, and even lost a few, but he made gains by winning over working class urban areas in the rust belt that haven’t gone Republican since Reagan.

Not to mention the various remote and rural areas that consistently vote Democrat.

[San Lumen]

Yeah what a shame unlike those people in Kansas who have destroyed their education system and pretty much everything else and yet keep voting Republican like sheep. They are so much better off.

So obviously the only solution is to punish them for thinking wrong by making their situation worse, huh?

Goddamit what ever happened to "eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind"?

When did i call for punishment? Its Republicans who believe in punishing those who dont vote for them.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Yeah what a shame unlike those people in Kansas who have destroyed their education system and pretty much everything else and yet keep voting Republican like sheep. They are so much better off.

So obviously the only solution is to punish them for thinking wrong by making their situation worse, huh?

Goddamit what ever happened to "eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind"?

Republicans voted for a guy who smeared people crossing the border to flee poverty as a bunch of rapists. It's FAR too late for de-escalation.

[Ethel mermania]

(Image)

Yes, this looks like a reasonable and sensible national division with perfectly workable international borders.

If you really wanted a political division, my personal recommendation would be based on the Obama map, because it maximises contiguity and minimizes border fragmentation with Canada. Obama would trade Colorado, Florida and New Mexico to the Republicans in exchange for at minimum Indiana, and potentially also West Virginia and Kentucky (they both hated Obama but they make the borders look nice). Missouri would also be nice, but that's a real stretch goal.

Liberal America would then need to promptly annex their newfound ideological forefathers in Canada to connect the two coasts, unless they were guaranteed the Panama Canal. In such a case, Obama's America would also want Alaska.

They would then reannex Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona, once Texas goes blue and defects again again, bringing to bear the considerable might of the Canadian navy to deny the GOP access to the Pacific and therefore decisively winning the war at sea.

It's totally unworkable, but I like that map better than the by-district one.

The alternative is 2012 map, but Dems trade Florida for Nebraska, Indiana, and Arizona, which splits GOP's America in two and leaves the western half without maritime access. That's probably less agreeable for all involved, despite making oodles more sense electorally.

Using the Clinton map, Democrats could trade Minnesota and Illinois for West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and either Colorado and New Mexico go to the Republicans or Utah and Colorado go to the Democrats. That's basically the Obama proposition but without the chunk of states around the Great Lakes.

And every single one of these makes more sense than splitting the country up into rural/urban districts. Giving Utah and West Virginia to the Democrats and Minnesota to the Republicans both make more sense than the clusterfuck that is a by-district /international border/.

This makes my brain hurt. It is going to drive me to drink, and tbh, I needed an excuse this early in the day. So.... thank you.

[Gig em Aggies]

(Image)

Yes, this looks like a reasonable and sensible national division with perfectly workable international borders.

If you really wanted a political division, my personal recommendation would be based on the Obama map, because it maximises contiguity and minimizes border fragmentation with Canada. Obama would trade Colorado, Florida and New Mexico to the Republicans in exchange for at minimum Indiana, and potentially also West Virginia and Kentucky (they both hated Obama but they make the borders look nice). Missouri would also be nice, but that's a real stretch goal.

Liberal America would then need to promptly annex their newfound ideological forefathers in Canada to connect the two coasts, unless they were guaranteed the Panama Canal. In such a case, Obama's America would also want Alaska.

They would then reannex Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona, once Texas goes blue and defects again again, bringing to bear the considerable might of the Canadian navy to deny the GOP access to the Pacific and therefore decisively winning the war at sea.

It's totally unworkable, but I like that map better than the by-district one.

The alternative is 2012 map, but Dems trade Florida for Nebraska, Indiana, and Arizona, which splits GOP's America in two and leaves the western half without maritime access. That's probably less agreeable for all involved, despite making oodles more sense electorally.

Using the Clinton map, Democrats could trade Minnesota and Illinois for West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and either Colorado and New Mexico go to the Republicans or Utah and Colorado go to the Democrats. That's basically the Obama proposition but without the chunk of states around the Great Lakes.

And every single one of these makes more sense than splitting the country up into rural/urban districts. Giving Utah and West Virginia to the Democrats and Minnesota to the Republicans both make more sense than the clusterfuck that is a by-district /international border/.

This makes my brain hurt. It is going to drive me to drink, and tbh, I needed an excuse this early in the day. So.... thank you.

you don't need an excuse your on Christmas break loosen up a bit plus its not like Grim reaper had control over your hands.

[Ethel mermania]

This makes my brain hurt. It is going to drive me to drink, and tbh, I needed an excuse this early in the day. So.... thank you.

you don't need an excuse your on Christmas break loosen up a bit plus its not like Grim reaper had control over your hands.

1. i am a jet and giants fan, any excuse i get to drink before todays football i am going to taqe.
2. and more importantly
i was playing on an old W.C. fields quote

"it twas a woman who drove me to drink, and i never had the courtesy to thank her"'


3. "I dont know who WC fields is", is not an acceptable answer in this xmas season

[Hurdergaryp]

Or that both urban and rural America would be screwed over without the other. Farm land doesn't do you any good when you have nobody to sell your product to

Well one's more important than the other really. If the supply of manufactured goods, petrol etc. got cut off farmers would have to turn Amish and that would be pretty fucking annoying. But if food got cut off...

Vertical farming in urban areas.

[Trotskylvania]

wrong. Those tax deductions were for home ownership. Having deductions rise means your taxes go up. Home values dropping is bad thing,. Many people is blue states will have trouble affording their homes after next year.

Deductions are literally an untaxable part of income, as such, they could only lower the taxes payed.
And, the last time I checked, when something gets cheaper it is usually easier to buy it, so, that is quite good for people who wish to buy a house.

But houses are major assets bought with credit. And those mortgages, in the form of mortgage backed securities, are a major part in the modern credit economy. The danger with falling house prices is that it could leave mortgage holders "underwater", owing more on their mortgage than the asset is physically worth. And the depreciation of those assets could have shocks throughout the economy.

It was the collapse in housing prices that precipitated the Great Recession

[San Lumen]

Deductions are literally an untaxable part of income, as such, they could only lower the taxes payed.
And, the last time I checked, when something gets cheaper it is usually easier to buy it, so, that is quite good for people who wish to buy a house.

But houses are major assets bought with credit. And those mortgages, in the form of mortgage backed securities, are a major part in the modern credit economy. The danger with falling house prices is that it could leave mortgage holders "underwater", owing more on their mortgage than the asset is physically worth. And the depreciation of those assets could have shocks throughout the economy.

It was the collapse in housing prices that precipitated the Great Recession

But the rich will save everything through trickle down economics

[Greed and Death]

Deductions are literally an untaxable part of income, as such, they could only lower the taxes payed.
And, the last time I checked, when something gets cheaper it is usually easier to buy it, so, that is quite good for people who wish to buy a house.

But houses are major assets bought with credit. And those mortgages, in the form of mortgage backed securities, are a major part in the modern credit economy. The danger with falling house prices is that it could leave mortgage holders "underwater", owing more on their mortgage than the asset is physically worth. And the depreciation of those assets could have shocks throughout the economy.

It was the collapse in housing prices that precipitated the Great Recession

Yes and the reason the prices collapsed is our tax code caused housing prices to be inflated.

[New Grestin]

The solution to rural America feeling abandoned isn't to abandon them in the literal sense and quarantine them to their own country, as satisfying as that would be on an extremely petty level.

They got fucked harder than a lot of the country, and many people are still living in extreme poverty. They voted for a right-wing populist because they thought he'd do something about it, and that decision has thus far turned the government into even more of a circus than it usually is.

You can take issue with them voting for Trump, and you can blame them for throwing their lot in with a gimped horse, but you can't ignore that they had legitimate reasons for voting the way they did.

[Wahlid]

Indeed. Industrial workers had their part to ally as well, and cities have been known to go for the Republican before.

And even if it was black and white no need to punish people because you don't like who got elected. I don't like Trump, but I don't want hellfire on the people who voted for him (well, most of them anyway).

A bunch of cities voted for Trump. A bunch of cities haven’t voted Democrat at the presidential level since the 30s. Trump did do worse than average in longtime Republican wealthy urban areas, and even lost a few, but he made gains by winning over working class urban areas in the rust belt that haven’t gone Republican since Reagan.

Not to mention the various remote and rural areas that consistently vote Democrat.

https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dives/t ... ald-trump/

37. Kansas City- Clinton
38. Mesa- Trump
39. Virginia Beach- Trump

Virginia Beach was the largest city that went to the President without having to do a deep check and parse out precincts, and Mesa the largest to quickly check by eliminating the larger city (Phoenix) from the home county (Maricopa). Jacksonville, Fort Worth, and Oklahoma City were all larger candidate cities, but would need to be individually parsed out.

Jacksonville

Duval County voted for President Trump narrowly, and at first glance made Jacksonville look promising as the “biggest Trump city”. However, there are additional municipalities in Duval whose precincts had to be removed to get Jacksonville-proper’s totals. Trump won Baldwin 424 to 191, Jacksonville Beach 8,988 to 4,849, Neptune Beach by 2877 to 1611, and Atlantic Beach by 4,260 to 3,435. With these removed, Trump narrowly lost the City of Jacksonville by a margin of just 495 votes, 195,123 to Hillary Clinton’s 195,618.

Fort Worth

The largest city in Tarrant County, Texas, which broke for the President by 8.6%, looked like a strong candidate for the President’s biggest city once Jacksonville fell. The county had gone for him by a larger margin than Duval. But, after isolating Fort Worth’s precincts, Trump lost this city too, and by a slightly larger margin than Jacksonville: 1,029 votes.

Oklahoma City

Oklahoma City was the next city on the list, ranking 27th in population. Its home county, Oklahoma, went to the President, as did Canadian, Cleveland, and Pottawatomie Counties. Oklahoma City sprawls across all four of them, so precincts needed to be isolated from each and totaled up. Running those tallies, we finally the answer to our question: President Trump carried Oklahoma City by over 40,000 votes, making it the largest city in the United States to vote for him.

This graphic was pretty interesting. The majority of votes for Trump still came from urban areas.

[Trotskylvania]

But houses are major assets bought with credit. And those mortgages, in the form of mortgage backed securities, are a major part in the modern credit economy. The danger with falling house prices is that it could leave mortgage holders "underwater", owing more on their mortgage than the asset is physically worth. And the depreciation of those assets could have shocks throughout the economy.

It was the collapse in housing prices that precipitated the Great Recession

Yes and the reason the prices collapsed is our tax code caused housing prices to be inflated.

No, you're just imposing moralism where it doesn't belong. Speculative pricing can't be avoided, because actors will always make investment based on predictions of future value.

[Krampusland]

So obviously the only solution is to punish them for thinking wrong by making their situation worse, huh?

Goddamit what ever happened to "eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind"?

Republicans voted for a guy who smeared people crossing the border to flee poverty as a bunch of rapists. It's FAR too late for de-escalation.

Which he never did. Trump never said anything against legal immigration. In fact, with his support to reform immigration, he tries to modernize it for a world where menial workers will become obsolete.

Illegal immigration is a crime, in every country of the world. You do not have the right to just pick a place and go, such a thing is deserved, that is why any nation with a notion of sense has an immigration system organized on quality.
The RAISE act for instance would have been just that, as it would focus mainly on foreign STEM workers, which should, at all times, have priority over others, due to the need for them. Instead, the current US system has "lotteries".

Want to flee poverty? Show the world that you don't deserve to starve. Show your talents and your usefulness. But if you can't even speak the language of the country you wish to move into, well, it's not that country's worry that you will starve.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

Republicans voted for a guy who smeared people crossing the border to flee poverty as a bunch of rapists. It's FAR too late for de-escalation.

Which he never did. Trump never said anything against legal immigration. In fact, with his support to reform immigration, he tries to modernize it for a world where menial workers will become obsolete.

Illegal immigration is a crime, in every country of the world. You do not have the right to just pick a place and go, such a thing is deserved, that is why any nation with a notion of sense has an immigration system organized on quality.
The RAISE act for instance would have been just that, as it would focus mainly on foreign STEM workers, which should, at all times, have priority over others, due to the need for them. Instead, the current US system has "lotteries".

Want to flee poverty? Show the world that you don't deserve to starve. Show your talents and your usefulness. But if you can't even speak the language of the country you wish to move into, well, it's not that country's worry that you will starve.

I am what you would consider a depraved multicultural globalist lefty but I agree with everything you just said. It's a bit insulting to assume that immigrants are unwilling to learn English upon arrival, or that they should give up their native language and culture to be "American".

[Arlenton]

A bunch of cities voted for Trump. A bunch of cities haven’t voted Democrat at the presidential level since the 30s. Trump did do worse than average in longtime Republican wealthy urban areas, and even lost a few, but he made gains by winning over working class urban areas in the rust belt that haven’t gone Republican since Reagan.

Not to mention the various remote and rural areas that consistently vote Democrat.

https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dives/t ... ald-trump/

37. Kansas City- Clinton
38. Mesa- Trump
39. Virginia Beach- Trump

Virginia Beach was the largest city that went to the President without having to do a deep check and parse out precincts, and Mesa the largest to quickly check by eliminating the larger city (Phoenix) from the home county (Maricopa). Jacksonville, Fort Worth, and Oklahoma City were all larger candidate cities, but would need to be individually parsed out.

Jacksonville

Duval County voted for President Trump narrowly, and at first glance made Jacksonville look promising as the “biggest Trump city”. However, there are additional municipalities in Duval whose precincts had to be removed to get Jacksonville-proper’s totals. Trump won Baldwin 424 to 191, Jacksonville Beach 8,988 to 4,849, Neptune Beach by 2877 to 1611, and Atlantic Beach by 4,260 to 3,435. With these removed, Trump narrowly lost the City of Jacksonville by a margin of just 495 votes, 195,123 to Hillary Clinton’s 195,618.

Fort Worth

The largest city in Tarrant County, Texas, which broke for the President by 8.6%, looked like a strong candidate for the President’s biggest city once Jacksonville fell. The county had gone for him by a larger margin than Duval. But, after isolating Fort Worth’s precincts, Trump lost this city too, and by a slightly larger margin than Jacksonville: 1,029 votes.

Oklahoma City

Oklahoma City was the next city on the list, ranking 27th in population. Its home county, Oklahoma, went to the President, as did Canadian, Cleveland, and Pottawatomie Counties. Oklahoma City sprawls across all four of them, so precincts needed to be isolated from each and totaled up. Running those tallies, we finally the answer to our question: President Trump carried Oklahoma City by over 40,000 votes, making it the largest city in the United States to vote for him.

This graphic was pretty interesting. The majority of votes for Trump still came from urban areas.

Looks like Trump lost Jacksonville after all, I could never tell and the same for Fort Worth. I thought he won Jacksonville city proper and wasn’t sure about Fort Worth.

And yeah, it really shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that most Trump votes came from urban areas. I think people just overestimate the ritual vote and assume that’s how Trump won.

I really want to find this info for 2004. Maybe I’ll work on making a chart or something like that.

[Old Tyrannia]

America is terrible. Everyone is fat. England is the best

How? Everyone in america just have weird accents and iver half of the people are stupid, since the voted for trump

Spheal World: *** Warned for trolling. ***

[The Conez Imperium]

Well one's more important than the other really. If the supply of manufactured goods, petrol etc. got cut off farmers would have to turn Amish and that would be pretty fucking annoying. But if food got cut off...

Vertical farming in urban areas.

A great idea, but it would have to be heavily subsidised by the government to make it practical considering costs of living in the city.