Separating urban and rural America.

[Esrehet]

a

[Myrensis]

Ah, nothing like some dumb geographically-based otherization to make oneself feel proud.

And this, this sentence here is why your cities fail. Your dismissive of opposing thought, you resort to linguistic criticisms to avoid the point, and you make assumptions that support your narrative.

Man, I'm aware that hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness are core conservative values, but at least make an effort man.

You literally went on a vague meaningless ramble about how idyllic and peaceful and wonderful life in rural America is with just good folks like Old Lady Jenkins or whatever, not like those terrible ruinous awful cities full of stupid violent people making terrible decisions that inflicted all of their own problems on themselves.

And now here you are, whining about people being so dismissive of others and avoiding the point and making assumptions to suit their narrative.

Though really one has to wonder, if the cities are such hollowed out wastelands while the rural areas are bucolic wonderland's of peace and plenty...whence comes all the rural whining about being marginalized and abandoned and all the recovery and focus going to the cities?

[Osnil Returns]

Anyway, perhaps Obama considered that reducing CO2 emissions was more important than keeping energy prices down?

You mean the 1% humanity actually contributes?

[Galima]

And this, this sentence here is why your cities fail. Your dismissive of opposing thought, you resort to linguistic criticisms to avoid the point, and you make assumptions that support your narrative.

Man, I'm aware that hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness are core conservative values, but at least make an effort man.

You literally went on a vague meaningless ramble about how idyllic and peaceful and wonderful life in rural America is with just good folks like Old Lady Jenkins or whatever, not like those terrible ruinous awful cities full of stupid violent people making terrible decisions that inflicted all of their own problems on themselves.

And now here you are, whining about people being so dismissive of others and avoiding the point and making assumptions to suit their narrative.

Though really one has to wonder, if the cities are such hollowed out wastelands while the rural areas are bucolic wonderland's of peace and plenty...whence comes all the rural whining about being marginalized and abandoned and all the recovery and focus going to the cities?

Part of that rural people often don't WANT the help. they wanna figure out how to get by on their own, with their own hands and their own means. it's not true all the time, but the socially accepted norm in rural areas, is if you are of able body, if you can rebuild with your monetary, or physical means, it's often seen as preferable instead of accepting handouts... now... Billy bob living in a trailer of government money doesn't count... however buy and large, people in the rural countryside wish to solve their problems by the sweat of their brow.

because really, and i must ask this question... is a man not entitled... to the sweat, of his brow?

[The Conez Imperium]

That doesn’t contradict the claim — it merely presents opposing arguments alongside those made by Kathleen Clarke. In any case, the problem with these monuments isn’t that they interfere with existing economic activity, but preclude potential economic activity — the studies cited do not address that.

Also, promoting economic growth in America/securing utility for constituents >>> stopping rising CO2 levels that mostly concern countries other than the US

What a selfish attitude. Yes, I look forward to talks about promoting economic growth when the breadbasket of California is in its 5th year of drought

Climate change can be considered an existential threat for Humanity because everyone stands to lose something. No, the US won't be inundated like Fiji but it will suffer from:

U.S. regional effects

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

[Osnil Returns]

That doesn’t contradict the claim — it merely presents opposing arguments alongside those made by Kathleen Clarke. In any case, the problem with these monuments isn’t that they interfere with existing economic activity, but preclude potential economic activity — the studies cited do not address that.

Also, promoting economic growth in America/securing utility for constituents >>> stopping rising CO2 levels that mostly concern countries other than the US

What a selfish attitude. Yes, I look forward to talks about promoting economic growth when the breadbasket of California is in its 5th year of drought

Climate change can be considered an existential threat for Humanity because everyone stands to lose something. No, the US won't be inundated like Fiji but it will suffer from:

U.S. regional effects

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

1. How do you know that?
2. Are you making any assumptions?
3. Can you give me any evidence to support said claims?

[Oil exporting People]

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

The problem with that is the fact technology is making interdependence between urban and rural communities no longer necessary. Developments in Nuclear Fusion and renewables like Solar mean Urban localities no longer need rural areas for oil or coal while vertical farming means they can grow their own food; on the flip side, 3D Printing and automation mean rural areas no longer are dependent on the industrial Urban clusters to provide them with needed goods. Long term, however, trends favor the rural areas overall because living in densely packed and expensive cities doesn't make sense with ubiquitous high speed telecommunication (Cyber commuting, work from home, etc) and new infrastructure like hyperloops (Why live in the city or even near it when you can live hundreds of miles away in a cheap rural area with the same commute time as you have driving today?).

[Liriena]

And this, this sentence here is why your cities fail. Your dismissive of opposing thought, you resort to linguistic criticisms to avoid the point, and you make assumptions that support your narrative.

You managed to say nothing in all of that of relevance either as an attempt to put another down, or because you feel like your sanitized language is somehow superior. It is not. Normal people just do not talk like that. And that is why you lost the election and your cities are terrible places to live. Because instead of offering a legitimate rebuttal, you offered nothing at all. Calling me a Trumptard would have at least said something relevant over this.

Let me try to explain something. If you are unwilling to listen to a differing viewpoint without being dismissive and dodging, you will neveer get anything accomplished. This is why your city protests don't amount to anything. Nobody who has the power to make a change is going to take what witty statement someone wrote on cardboard seriously.

You could have said, "I disagree with your statement, but thanks for offering your perspective". That at least would show you Acually want to understand why others feel differently than you.

This problem, of language and how it is used, is the biggest problem the right has against the left and by implication, Rural America on Urban cities. It is why we do not relate to your perspective, because it is either never offered, never given a chance to be rebutted, or is so vague and confusing people tune out.

And do not be so confident that your side, or your cities have it all figured out for America. Y'all don't. Neither does our side.in my view, what makes this country work is when the Democrats want to take too much, the conservatives reign it back. Somewhere in the middle is the balance. What is that word Liberals love to use to shut down an opposing viewpoint? Oh yeah, it's a straw man argument to blame rural America for the state of American Cities.

You didn't read my initial post on this thread, did you?

Also, I'm not a liberal or a Democrat.

[San Lumen]

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

The problem with that is the fact technology is making interdependence between urban and rural communities no longer necessary. Developments in Nuclear Fusion and renewables like Solar mean Urban localities no longer need rural areas for oil or coal while vertical farming means they can grow their own food; on the flip side, 3D Printing and automation mean rural areas no longer are dependent on the industrial Urban clusters to provide them with needed goods. Long term, however, trends favor the rural areas overall because living in densely packed and expensive cities doesn't make sense with ubiquitous high speed telecommunication (Cyber commuting, work from home, etc) and new infrastructure like hyperloops (Why live in the city or even near it when you can live hundreds of miles away in a cheap rural area with the same commute time as you have driving today?).

I think your anylsis is completely wrong. Trends favor cities not boring little villages and farms. More people live in cities now then at any other time in history and that number will only keep growing. We don;t need people to becoming lazier and never leave their house. I dont want a reality like the film Surrogates and if it ever did I'd break every robot in the street.

[Galima]

The problem with that is the fact technology is making interdependence between urban and rural communities no longer necessary. Developments in Nuclear Fusion and renewables like Solar mean Urban localities no longer need rural areas for oil or coal while vertical farming means they can grow their own food; on the flip side, 3D Printing and automation mean rural areas no longer are dependent on the industrial Urban clusters to provide them with needed goods. Long term, however, trends favor the rural areas overall because living in densely packed and expensive cities doesn't make sense with ubiquitous high speed telecommunication (Cyber commuting, work from home, etc) and new infrastructure like hyperloops (Why live in the city or even near it when you can live hundreds of miles away in a cheap rural area with the same commute time as you have driving today?).

I think your anylsis is completely wrong. Trends favor cities not boring little villages and farms. More people live in cities now then at any other time in history and that number will only keep growing. We don;t need people to becoming lazier and never leave their house. I dont want a reality like the film Surrogates and if it ever did I'd break every robot in the street.

" boring little villages and farms"

jeez i wonder which side you're biased towards...

in all seriousness though, he's not saying anything like that, Hyperloop is a rapid transit system, so a person 100 miles away can travel into an industrial area and work, which would make the concept of cities obsolete. as cities are designed to have people close to the industrial centers so they're close to work... it's a convenience thing. as for why people live in cities more now... it;s because there's just more people now than any other time in history bar none. cities are naturally going to grow as a result of that. trying to say that like it's notable is like stating that there's more smart phones now than any other time in history. it's just the nature of the beast.

[The Lone Alliance]

Does he also know the Urban America would be screwed if it weren't for Rural America and their vast amounts of farm and ranch land? but seriously another poster coped together and idea similar to this and it was stupid very stupid same goes for this idea you have.

Please. Most of the farms in America are owned whole or in part by big corporations, and they're not raking in their profits by selling all that food to 'rural America'.

But sure, I'll make you deal.

Rural farmers can stop selling their food to us elitist city folks, we'll only buy from whatever handful of corporations we can convince to continue selling to the places with all the people and the money and import whatever else we need.

In return, 'urban' America will completely cut off rural America from all economic and infrastructure support.

We'll see who blinks first.

One problem with your plan is a lot of the infrastructure is located in the rural areas, NIMBY means things like power stations, reservoirs, and waste management facilities tend to not to be within city limits.

So if the cities claim they're cutting off all infrastructure support then that clearly means the rural part of the country should seize the infrastructure for their own services... and deny such services to the cities.

Course that''ll lead to war and death and no one wants that... but during that war no one will be an economic power.

[San Lumen]

I think your anylsis is completely wrong. Trends favor cities not boring little villages and farms. More people live in cities now then at any other time in history and that number will only keep growing. We don;t need people to becoming lazier and never leave their house. I dont want a reality like the film Surrogates and if it ever did I'd break every robot in the street.

" boring little villages and farms"

jeez i wonder which side you're biased towards...

in all seriousness though, he's not saying anything like that, Hyperloop is a rapid transit system, so a person 100 miles away can travel into an industrial area and work, which would make the concept of cities obsolete. as cities are designed to have people close to the industrial centers so they're close to work... it's a convenience thing. as for why people live in cities more now... it;s because there's just more people now than any other time in history bar none. cities are naturally going to grow as a result of that. trying to say that like it's notable is like stating that there's more smart phones now than any other time in history. it's just the nature of the beast.

Hyperloop is nothing more than a concept and is likely many decades away if its even feasible to build. And Id rather not have a house in the middle of nowhere where i have to drive to my nearest neighbor and commute 100 miles to work. That's just stupid.

[Galima]

i'm not saying it's feasible NOW. and you make decades sound like a long time, when in the grand scheme of thing, i'm already a couple decades old. and in a couple decades, i'll be approaching the middle of my life. so it's likely going to come around in my lifetime. a couple decades is kinda a pittance as far as amounts of time go. and yeah, because it's gonna take you a couple hours to drive, with hyperloop. it'd take maybe 30 minutes to get in city, then you walk the rest of the way to work.

now the POINT of my post was mostly to question where you came up with the world going the way of "surrogates"... i don't understand that leap in logic. now, i didn't make that clear in my statement, and i admit, that was my fault. however... the question does still stand.

[San Lumen]

i'm not saying it's feasible NOW. and you make decades sound like a long time, when in the grand scheme of thing, i'm already a couple decades old. and in a couple decades, i'll be approaching the middle of my life. so it's likely going to come around in my lifetime. a couple decades is kinda a pittance as far as amounts of time go. and yeah, because it's gonna take you a couple hours to drive, with hyperloop. it'd take maybe 30 minutes to get in city, then you walk the rest of the way to work.

now the POINT of my post was mostly to question where you came up with the world going the way of "surrogates"... i don't understand that leap in logic. now, i didn't make that clear in my statement, and i admit, that was my fault. however... the question does still stand.

My point was I don't want to see people become more isolated and lazy.

[Galima]

i'm not saying it's feasible NOW. and you make decades sound like a long time, when in the grand scheme of thing, i'm already a couple decades old. and in a couple decades, i'll be approaching the middle of my life. so it's likely going to come around in my lifetime. a couple decades is kinda a pittance as far as amounts of time go. and yeah, because it's gonna take you a couple hours to drive, with hyperloop. it'd take maybe 30 minutes to get in city, then you walk the rest of the way to work.

now the POINT of my post was mostly to question where you came up with the world going the way of "surrogates"... i don't understand that leap in logic. now, i didn't make that clear in my statement, and i admit, that was my fault. however... the question does still stand.

My point was I don't want to see people become more isolated and lazy.

A valid, fear, one i share. but in the context of hyperloop i think that it would in some ways solve part of the isolation problem... yes you live far away but you can still, physically GO somewhere... it's not necessarily make cities obsolete, it's just going to widen options, it'll allow those who like living amidst nature, but like the convenience of cities, to have both. they can go to the pub and be home at their log cabin by dinner.

is this me being an idealist... yeahhhh probably... but hey i can hope.

[San Lumen]

My point was I don't want to see people become more isolated and lazy.

A valid, fear, one i share. but in the context of hyperloop i think that it would in some ways solve part of the isolation problem... yes you live far away but you can still, physically GO somewhere... it's not necessarily make cities obsolete, it's just going to widen options, it'll allow those who like living amidst nature, but like the convenience of cities, to have both. they can go to the pub and be home at their log cabin by dinner.

is this me being an idealist... yeahhhh probably... but hey i can hope.

My issue though is I dont like quiet. I like the noise and diversity of the the city and wouldn't want to live in the middle of a forest.

I understand what your saying though and but its probably a bit idealistic

[Galima]

A valid, fear, one i share. but in the context of hyperloop i think that it would in some ways solve part of the isolation problem... yes you live far away but you can still, physically GO somewhere... it's not necessarily make cities obsolete, it's just going to widen options, it'll allow those who like living amidst nature, but like the convenience of cities, to have both. they can go to the pub and be home at their log cabin by dinner.

is this me being an idealist... yeahhhh probably... but hey i can hope.

My issue though is I dont like quiet. I like the noise and diversity of the the city and wouldn't want to live in the middle of a forest.

I understand what your saying though and but its probably a bit idealistic

my counter to the noise and diversity is... choose to live in the city. you wouldn't have to move far away. but it's an option for other people. keep in mind im a bit of an extrovert, but my ideal is a nice log cabin surrounded by trees with a spring on the property, nice garden outside the house, etc etc. so ymmv on the concept.

[Oil exporting People]

I think your anylsis is completely wrong. Trends favor cities not boring little villages and farms. More people live in cities now then at any other time in history and that number will only keep growing.

Given current technological constraints remaining in place this probably would be the case but going forward it simply won't be due to rising costs and the lack of a point to it. Historically, the basis for cities has been providing four essential services:

1. Jobs - mainly a recent invention, with the Industrial Revolution and its urbanization trends.
2. Communications - think railway hubs and such for a clear cut example, while more modern tech centers as another.
3. Trade - Cities historically have allowed for mass trade to occur by acting as central hubs, just as they did for communications.
4. Financial Services - NYC, London, Tokyo, etc are cities that became centers of the finance industry for the above reasons among others, and historically cities have allowed for this accumulated wealth to be stored and then invested elsewhere.

With the advent of 3D Printing and Automation, the first service has been or will be eliminated entirely, as the jobs themselves disappear or rural areas can now do such themselves at a more cost effective manner; the ability to communicate and do work via the internet from home, as is increasingly happening, is another strike against cities as a person can make the same money from rural Kentucky as they can living in Chicago at a fraction of the cost of living.

The second service, Communications, has obviously been removed by the internet and this will further be the case with new technologies such as Hyperloops, as people can now live in the more cheap rural areas and commute from them in a still fast manner if needed. For example, you get into your self-driving car for the 10 minute drive to the nearest hyperloop station and from there it's a 20 minute ride to the city. With this 30 minute commute, the same as it used to be from the suburb to the office on main street, one can now live much further away from the city and save a lot on living expenses.

The third service, Trade, has also been eliminated largely for the same reasons as the first one thanks to 3D Printing and such making it a redundant service. A small town of 500 people in Mississippi can now provide all of its own goods and save on the transportation expenses that the finished goods needed. For those things they can't get, drone delivery is now becoming available and this will only increase as time goes on.

Finally, the rise of online banking services, telecommunications, and things like Bitcoin have rendered the need for fixed markets redundant, and this can also only increase as time goes on. It'll take time for everyone to catch on to this, but it will one day become clear that, say, Corporations could save a lot by cutting down on travel expenses and just doing Skype calls for example. Or, should you have a business pitch, just do a Google Hangout with potential investors and they can then transfer some unit of currency to you in order to carry out your project.

We don;t need people to becoming lazier and never leave their house. I dont want a reality like the film Surrogates and if it ever did I'd break every robot in the street.

Obviously not what I'm suggesting, nor can any of that be inferred from such. Even if that was the case, however, Luddites don't have the best track record of success.

[Republic of the Cristo]

My fucking god. whay next, re-ensnare apartheid in South Africa? Anyway, it was just rural counties that voted for Trump, many industrial areas did as well. Anyway, is this a fucking surprise to anyone that rural areas across the country are fucking goddam more conservative then the cities as has been the case for probably thousands of years?

But anyway, terrible, morally bankrupt and childish idea here.

Actuall the rural in America largely jouined the Republican Party due to the Southern Strategy. Before that they were overwhelmingly Democrat. As for why minorities in rural areas vote Republican, I am guessing that has to do with local identity.

DNC used to be the party of the working class ( it's logo was a donkey for a reason ). After the 1960's and the rampant social justice agenda which infested the party though, it just no longer appealed to the working class American ( outside of labor ).

[San Lumen]

I think your anylsis is completely wrong. Trends favor cities not boring little villages and farms. More people live in cities now then at any other time in history and that number will only keep growing.

Given current technological constraints remaining in place this probably would be the case but going forward it simply won't be due to rising costs and the lack of a point to it. Historically, the basis for cities has been providing four essential services:

1. Jobs - mainly a recent invention, with the Industrial Revolution and its urbanization trends.
2. Communications - think railway hubs and such for a clear cut example, while more modern tech centers as another.
3. Trade - Cities historically have allowed for mass trade to occur by acting as central hubs, just as they did for communications.
4. Financial Services - NYC, London, Tokyo, etc are cities that became centers of the finance industry for the above reasons among others, and historically cities have allowed for this accumulated wealth to be stored and then invested elsewhere.

With the advent of 3D Printing and Automation, the first service has been or will be eliminated entirely, as the jobs themselves disappear or rural areas can now do such themselves at a more cost effective manner; the ability to communicate and do work via the internet from home, as is increasingly happening, is another strike against cities as a person can make the same money from rural Kentucky as they can living in Chicago at a fraction of the cost of living.

The second service, Communications, has obviously been removed by the internet and this will further be the case with new technologies such as Hyperloops, as people can now live in the more cheap rural areas and commute from them in a still fast manner if needed. For example, you get into your self-driving car for the 10 minute drive to the nearest hyperloop station and from there it's a 20 minute ride to the city. With this 30 minute commute, the same as it used to be from the suburb to the office on main street, one can now live much further away from the city and save a lot on living expenses.

The third service, Trade, has also been eliminated largely for the same reasons as the first one thanks to 3D Printing and such making it a redundant service. A small town of 500 people in Mississippi can now provide all of its own goods and save on the transportation expenses that the finished goods needed. For those things they can't get, drone delivery is now becoming available and this will only increase as time goes on.

Finally, the rise of online banking services, telecommunications, and things like Bitcoin have rendered the need for fixed markets redundant, and this can also only increase as time goes on. It'll take time for everyone to catch on to this, but it will one day become clear that, say, Corporations could save a lot by cutting down on travel expenses and just doing Skype calls for example. Or, should you have a business pitch, just do a Google Hangout with potential investors and they can then transfer some unit of currency to you in order to carry out your project.

We don;t need people to becoming lazier and never leave their house. I dont want a reality like the film Surrogates and if it ever did I'd break every robot in the street.

Obviously not what I'm suggesting, nor can any of that be inferred from such. Even if that was the case, however, Luddites don't have the best track record of success.

Your last point if ever becomes true would just make people lazier as they'd never have to leave their house. Maybe we will have no stores or even offices someday everything will be online and we will have an even more obese society. What did i say that makes me a Luddite?

[Oil exporting People]

Your last point if ever becomes true would just make people lazier as they'd never have to leave their house. Maybe we will have no stores or even offices someday everything will be online and we will have an even more obese society.

That ignores people would still get out of their houses for social events, the odd work thing that still requires in person events, school and such; as well, this also presumes that many won't, with the free time now available, turn to things like exercise. This also ignores the fact science already has provided a solution to this issue anyway.

What did i say that makes me a Luddite?

This:

I dont want a reality like the film Surrogates and if it ever did I'd break every robot in the street.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

That ignores people would still get out of their houses for social events, the odd work thing that still requires in person events, school and such; as well, this also presumes that many won't, with the free time now available, turn to things like exercise. This also ignores the fact science already has provided a solution to this issue anyway.

I wouldn't presume one article from the media to be a slam-dunk case. These sorts of "science has already solved this" articles have been wrong before.

[Oil exporting People]

I wouldn't presume one article from the media to be a slam-dunk case. These sorts of "science has already solved this" articles have been wrong before.

You're more than welcome to do your own research then, as this topic got a lot of attention earlier this year because the trials on mice had been completed. Honestly, any basic knowledge of where we are at with regards to gene editing and such makes this an obvious advancement, due to the ability to modify the metabolism to better burn off fat and stimulate muscle growth.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I wouldn't presume one article from the media to be a slam-dunk case. These sorts of "science has already solved this" articles have been wrong before.

You're more than welcome to do your own research then, as this topic got a lot of attention earlier this year because the trials on mice had been completed. Honestly, any basic knowledge of where we are at with regards to gene editing and such makes this an obvious advancement, due to the ability to modify the metabolism to better burn off fat and stimulate muscle growth.

You make the claim, you back it up.

[Myrensis]

Actuall the rural in America largely jouined the Republican Party due to the Southern Strategy. Before that they were overwhelmingly Democrat. As for why minorities in rural areas vote Republican, I am guessing that has to do with local identity.

DNC used to be the party of the working class ( it's logo was a donkey for a reason ). After the 1960's and the rampant social justice agenda which infested the party though, it just no longer appealed to the working class American ( outside of labor ).

Pap. The DNC still is the party of the working class, they no longer appeal to a certain segment of the white working class, because that segment is angry that the DNC works for the interest of working class people of color as well,not just the white "real Americans".

It's why they blubber about being 'abandoned' and struggling...and then go and consistently vote GOP, the party whose economic policy is overwhelming aimed at benefiting the urban rich, but while they're openly fucking those working class whites over they pat them on the head and tell them that they're the real patriots and hard-working Americans, not like those all those shiftless minorities and lazy city folk, and that's all they need to hear.

Whining about "SJW's" is just the fig leaf they use to justify the fact that in spite of insisting that they're motivated by economic concerns, they will take every opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot economically in exchange for the chance to shit on minorities and other 'undesirables'.