Separating urban and rural America.

[Pope Joan]

Urban districts should not be entitled to rural water.

Urban energy users should not locate their polluting plants in rural areas either.

Ever heard of the word "cooperation"?

Cities have the serivces, countryside has the land.

What cooperation? I get nothing from NYC of any value. They steal my Adirondack water and air. Their "water quality police" protect THEIR water in OUR local reservoirs by giving us speeding tickets because supposedly our speeding degrades "their" water. And I pay their salaries through my taxes.

All I get from NYC is tv and the Yankees. I do not need their hospitals or shows or museums, and my own college suits me just fine.

[Trotskylvania]

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?

>continuously strip the rural territories of capital
>Why are they screwing us over?!

Also, daily reminder that the urban territories are reliant on the rural.

And without manufacturing, services, credit and markets for their products, rural America would perish too.

It's not a matter of one group being dependent on the other, it's mutual dependence. The era of the subsistence smallholder ended a long time ago. Most farmers are either wage earning proletarians, or de facto tenant farmers mortgaged to the hilt to keep pace with the demands of market competition even with generous subsidies and protections favoring them. Agribusiness is big business too, heavily specialized. Absent the industrial infrastructure, most ag areas were starve the first winter, because industrial monoculture can't support life without it. Their crops would rot in the fields without electrical power for the irrigation, fuel for the tractors, fertilizer to make the overtaxed soil grow anything, and pesticides to keep it from being devoured by insects.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You want your candidate to win the next election? Pick a better candidate.

Question; how did rural vs. urban districts vote in the primaries?

>continuously strip the rural territories of capital
>Why are they screwing us over?!

Also, daily reminder that the urban territories are reliant on the rural.

And without manufacturing, services, credit and markets for their products, rural America would perish too.

It's not a matter of one group being dependent on the other, it's mutual dependence. The era of the subsistence smallholder ended a long time ago. Most farmers are either wage earning proletarians, or de facto tenant farmers mortgaged to the hilt to keep pace with the demands of market competition even with generous subsidies and protections favoring them. Agribusiness is big business too, heavily specialized. Absent the industrial infrastructure, most ag areas were starve the first winter, because industrial monoculture can't support life without it. Their crops would rot in the fields without electrical power for the irrigation, fuel for the tractors, fertilizer to make the overtaxed soil grow anything, and pesticides to keep it from being devoured by insects.

Also of note is that most rural Americans aren't farmers, and indoor farming means it can be done in cities too.

How exactly did rural America screw over urban America?

Some of them voted for the wrong guy so OP wants to punish everyone despite the fact he's stated he's opposed to guilt by asssociation in other posts. So yah.

It's not guilt by association to punish a group. It's just the best alternative to violating "secret ballot." That is, assuming it's even possible the NSA somehow figured out who voted which way. And would answer honestly if asked.

Urban districts should not be entitled to rural water.

Urban energy users should not locate their polluting plants in rural areas either.

So big cities are bad for the environment now? What about the fact that big cities have public transit, while people in small towns drive everywhere? What about how vegans are often associated with big cities, reducing demand for the environmentally-devastating meat industry?

[Ohioan Territory]

[...] 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?

Trump has done relatively well so far. No glaring mistakes and a couple victories. Your suggestion is wack.

[Proctopeo]

This is like a more fragmented version of the original US, under the Articles of Confederation.

And that was a disaster.

[Sovaal]

You want your candidate to win the next election? Pick a better candidate.

Question; how did rural vs. urban districts vote in the primaries?

And without manufacturing, services, credit and markets for their products, rural America would perish too.

It's not a matter of one group being dependent on the other, it's mutual dependence. The era of the subsistence smallholder ended a long time ago. Most farmers are either wage earning proletarians, or de facto tenant farmers mortgaged to the hilt to keep pace with the demands of market competition even with generous subsidies and protections favoring them. Agribusiness is big business too, heavily specialized. Absent the industrial infrastructure, most ag areas were starve the first winter, because industrial monoculture can't support life without it. Their crops would rot in the fields without electrical power for the irrigation, fuel for the tractors, fertilizer to make the overtaxed soil grow anything, and pesticides to keep it from being devoured by insects.

Also of note is that most rural Americans aren't farmers, and indoor farming means it can be done in cities too.

Some of them voted for the wrong guy so OP wants to punish everyone despite the fact he's stated he's opposed to guilt by asssociation in other posts. So yah.

It's not guilt by association to punish a group. It's just the best alternative to violating "secret ballot." That is, assuming it's even possible the NSA somehow figured out who voted which way. And would answer honestly if asked.

Urban districts should not be entitled to rural water.

Urban energy users should not locate their polluting plants in rural areas either.

So big cities are bad for the environment now? What about the fact that big cities have public transit, while people in small towns drive everywhere? What about how vegans are often associated with big cities, reducing demand for the environmentally-devastating meat industry?

Nope, what you're advocating for is literally guilt by association. Doesn't matter how you try to pretty it up, that's what this disaster of a idea is.

[Zanera]

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?

Why is it that everyone's always looking for a half to blame for something?

[Kramania]

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?

You do realize that urban areas depend on rural regions for things like food, power, water, lumber, etc?

And why are they being blamed for being forgotten after the 2008 recession?

[Pope Joan]

Hey vegans, got any farms in your urbs?

If you go localvore (which is a healthful idea) your idea of "local" will have to be 60 miles out of town.

[Auze]

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

Actually, it's the English accents that are weird, now go away, troll.

[Chuukango]

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?

So basically what I’m getting out of this is that you want rural areas seperated from the rest of the US because they majority voted for a candidate that you seemingly don’t like and said candidate won. That about sums this up no?

a.) Good luck with farming and lumber in an Urban area.
b.) “screwing over urban america,” is relative, for people who like Trump, we could have very well saved America. You also forget that not 100% of people living in Rural areas voted for Trump, there are undoubtedly people who live in Urban areas who voted Trump. In which case you might as well segregate anyone who voted Trump from anyone who didn’t. Unless you’re referring to another way rural america screwed over urban US. I’d be glad to hear if you are.
c.) I’d also like to bring into question the integrity of the source provided. The title alone is very clickbaity, the page is absolutely littered with sketchy adds and I was redirected to one of those “you won an amazon giftcard” pages. Now if you don’t mind, I have a $1000 walmart card to spend.

[Krampusland]

How exactly did rural America screw over urban America?

They voted a complete and utter lunatic into public office when urban America did not, yet the latter is going to have to deal with the consequences.

Rural voters have valid points to be upset. The financial crisis was a primarily created by city dwellers. In many states the majority of marketable land is closed to development by the federal govnerment.

No one seeks to impose federal control on New York city or San Francisco.

Because they're already developed? Because trying to reverse decades of infrastructure development takes more time and resources than not developing it in the first place?

Some of the land the federal government is protecting is probably being protected for environmental reasons. Probably not all of it, but probably at least some. Humans don't have a right to unlimited encroachment into nature.

Complete and utter lunatic? Now, I ain't a fan of of a lot of things Trump does, but what makes him a lunatic?
And "urban" Americans are suddenly just those voting for Democrats? Oklahoma city voted for Trump I believe, not to forget that in most, if not all, cities there were double digit percentages voting for Trump.

[Petrolheadia]

Ever heard of the word "cooperation"?

Cities have the serivces, countryside has the land.

What cooperation? I get nothing from NYC of any value. They steal my Adirondack water and air. Their "water quality police" protect THEIR water in OUR local reservoirs by giving us speeding tickets because supposedly our speeding degrades "their" water. And I pay their salaries through my taxes.

All I get from NYC is tv and the Yankees. I do not need their hospitals or shows or museums, and my own college suits me just fine.

Yes, because NY is going to run out of air and water because of the city.

[Krampusland]

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...

You could buy your food from other countries.

Also, food doesn't do you much good if you need medication manufactured by city-dwellers to survive. And given the abuse rampant in the Amish community, I'd say it's more than a mere "inconvenience" to go Amish.

Also, many city-states would be militarily weak, with no space for proper bases.

If the part of America responsible for the lion's share of the bad foreign policy decisions were removed, would people even WANT to attack the city-states?

Let me make this painfully clear to you. Given that it is apparent that you would love to see the cities in the US separate, do consider that you would end up having enclaves with borders. Given that urban areas, especially places like NYC are rather small, but highly populated, with a high number of transport vehicles, I can't stress enough what kind of nightmare that would be for the infrastructure. Think trafic jams in working hours are bad now? Think that times ten.

Such cities lack most materials. It would not just be food you'd end up buying from other countries, but energy, raw materials, processed materials, most likely water too (not to forget the lack of those cities to provide enough market goods for their own markets based on their own production).

Now of course, you can deal with those border issues just as Monaco, San Marino, and other such states did, but then again, those agreements would have to be made with "rural" America, and given that your own attitude is rather hostile, I'd doubt you'd get a good deal out of it. Not to forget, all those countries have populations the size of minor US towns, so are far easier to maintain, feed etc. than any US city, especially the big ones.
It is so awfully funny how you think that you can just buy goods like that from all around the world. Nations without any resources what-so-ever do not tend to be independent, at least not de-facto. Even controlling a "minor" thing like gas can have one nation exert massive hegemony on the dependent party.

So yes, given that you utterly lack any notion of diplomacy and global trade, you are really in no possition to slander Trump's foreign policies or so (not that they are perfect, as nothing in politics is perfect), let alone blame most of your country for it.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Question; how did rural vs. urban districts vote in the primaries?



Also of note is that most rural Americans aren't farmers, and indoor farming means it can be done in cities too.



It's not guilt by association to punish a group. It's just the best alternative to violating "secret ballot." That is, assuming it's even possible the NSA somehow figured out who voted which way. And would answer honestly if asked.



So big cities are bad for the environment now? What about the fact that big cities have public transit, while people in small towns drive everywhere? What about how vegans are often associated with big cities, reducing demand for the environmentally-devastating meat industry?

Nope, what you're advocating for is literally guilt by association. Doesn't matter how you try to pretty it up, that's what this disaster of a idea is.

Repeating something doesn't make it true.

Here's the actual definition of guilt by association.

The association fallacy, also known as guilt by association, is a logical fallacy that occurs when a person/belief is supported or attacked because of its relation to some other person/belief. It is, to an extent, a version of a non sequitur.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

The point of this separation is both punitive and pragmatic; punitive, in that rural America should have to face the consequences of their decisions instead of being bailed out by everyone else at everyone else's expense, and pragmatic, in that urban Americans shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of rural America's bad decisions.

Yes, rural Americans who didn't vote Trump will be affected more by this than urban Americans who did. That's life. But the alternative is for millions more people to be affected by a decision that wasn't theirs. Even so, it wasn't guilt by association any more than bombing Hiroshima was; even if you disagree with it, intellectual honesty requires that you acknowledge it was about pragmatism, not guilt by association.

For comparison, the point of renaming something like "Swastika trail," on the other hand, is to cater to an irrational fear of swastikas among people with no regard for the contexts in which they're used.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Hey vegans, got any farms in your urbs?

If you go localvore (which is a healthful idea) your idea of "local" will have to be 60 miles out of town.

Meat is known to be worse for the environment than automobiles, even taking into account all the suburban drivers who commute dozens of miles in gas-guzzlers; I wouldn't be surprised if it were worse than veggies transported 60 miles, depending on how efficiently it was transported.

Besides, one could grow veggies in one's backyard. Or indoors.

[Krampusland]

Nope, what you're advocating for is literally guilt by association. Doesn't matter how you try to pretty it up, that's what this disaster of a idea is.

Repeating something doesn't make it true.

Here's the actual definition of guilt by association.

The association fallacy, also known as guilt by association, is a logical fallacy that occurs when a person/belief is supported or attacked because of its relation to some other person/belief. It is, to an extent, a version of a non sequitur.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

The point of this separation is both punitive and pragmatic; punitive, in that rural America should have to face the consequences of their decisions instead of being bailed out by everyone else at everyone else's expense, and pragmatic, in that urban Americans shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of rural America's bad decisions.

Yes, rural Americans who didn't vote Trump will be affected more by this than urban Americans who did. That's life. But the alternative is for millions more people to be affected by a decision that wasn't theirs. Even so, it wasn't guilt by association any more than bombing Hiroshima was; even if you disagree with it, intellectual honesty requires that you acknowledge it was about pragmatism, not guilt by association.

For comparison, the point of renaming something like "Swastika trail," on the other hand, is to cater to an irrational fear of swastikas among people with no regard for the contexts in which they're used.

By that logic you could blame people at a whim for anything bad in a democratic country. People will always be affected by a decision that wasn't theirs, yet I rarely see such rants as on here.

Yes, the majority of the rural, and township votes went to Trump, so what? I still haven't see how him being elected ruined the lives of urban dwellers?

[San Lumen]

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?

Well Republicans just screwed over urban areas royally with their new tax bill. It was basically punishment for not supporting their Dear Leader.

[Sovaal]

Nope, what you're advocating for is literally guilt by association. Doesn't matter how you try to pretty it up, that's what this disaster of a idea is.

Repeating something doesn't make it true.

Here's the actual definition of guilt by association.

The association fallacy, also known as guilt by association, is a logical fallacy that occurs when a person/belief is supported or attacked because of its relation to some other person/belief. It is, to an extent, a version of a non sequitur.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

The point of this separation is both punitive and pragmatic; punitive, in that rural America should have to face the consequences of their decisions instead of being bailed out by everyone else at everyone else's expense, and pragmatic, in that urban Americans shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of rural America's bad decisions.

Yes, rural Americans who didn't vote Trump will be affected more by this than urban Americans who did. That's life. But the alternative is for millions more people to be affected by a decision that wasn't theirs. Even so, it wasn't guilt by association any more than bombing Hiroshima was; even if you disagree with it, intellectual honesty requires that you acknowledge it was about pragmatism, not guilt by association.

For comparison, the point of renaming something like "Swastika trail," on the other hand, is to cater to an irrational fear of swastikas among people with no regard for the contexts in which they're used.

So again, you want to punish every rural American for something you see as a wrong, and in the process punish city dwellers as well. Sounds like guilt by association to me.


Anyway, such a position is undoable anyway, so eh.

[Tekeristan]

Farm incomes are down 50% since 2013.

[Krampusland]

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?

Well Republicans just screwed over urban areas royally with their new tax bill. It was basically punishment for not supporting their Dear Leader.

How were urban areas royally "screwed" by the tax bill?

[Sovaal]

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?

Well Republicans just screwed over urban areas royally with their new tax bill. It was basically punishment for not supporting their Dear Leader.

So obviously the only solution is to destroy the US, huh?

[San Lumen]

Well Republicans just screwed over urban areas royally with their new tax bill. It was basically punishment for not supporting their Dear Leader.

How were urban areas royally "screwed" by the tax bill?

They got rid of the tax incentives for home ownership and other tax incentives that many urban areas benefit from.

[Krampusland]

How were urban areas royally "screwed" by the tax bill?

They got rid of the tax incentives for home ownership and other tax incentives that many urban areas benefit from.

As much as I was aware, those incentives only boosted people who could already buy a house to buy an even bigger one instead. Do correct me if I am wrong?

The bill double deductions and child-credit, as well as lowered rates. Also, I did read that it will cause house prices to drop for a few percent (depending on the area). Please, seriously, correct me if I am wrong.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So again, you want to punish every rural American for something you see as a wrong, and in the process punish city dwellers as well. Sounds like guilt by association to me.

Not under any valid definition of the phrase. Nice try, though.