Politics is funny.
A Nation Divided?
-
Maharlika
- Posts: 5991
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Wanderlusting with my lampshade, like any decent k
- Contact:
Don't forget...
[QUOTE=fable] Or Russian ones. Or some of the antics the Dutch have been up to, lately. Or the Italians. Or...[/QUOTE]
...pathetic Philippine politics...
Aint proud of that one.
Isn't there any neutral party/non-partisan group in the U.S. that everybody would actually listen to?
[QUOTE=fable] Or Russian ones. Or some of the antics the Dutch have been up to, lately. Or the Italians. Or...[/QUOTE]
...pathetic Philippine politics...
Aint proud of that one.Isn't there any neutral party/non-partisan group in the U.S. that everybody would actually listen to?
"There is no weakness in honest sorrow... only in succumbing to depression over what cannot be changed." --- Alaundo, BG2
Brother Scribe, Keeper of the Holy Scripts of COMM
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/"]Moderator, Speak Your Mind Forum[/url]
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/sym-specific-rules-please-read-before-posting-14427.html"]SYM Specific Forum Rules[/url]
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
[QUOTE=RandomThug]We're fat happy cows. Feed us grease and green paper. Long live America.[/QUOTE]
Have you by any chance been reading an edgy Palahniuk novel?
On topic: Today I read the following NYT article (no registration required) and the first thing I thought of was this thread. Personally, I think it hits the nail on the head: there has been a great polarization, but while it might be attributed to U.S. o' A, it is by no means exclusively concentrated in one country. I'd like to hear your opinions, if possible.
Have you by any chance been reading an edgy Palahniuk novel?
On topic: Today I read the following NYT article (no registration required) and the first thing I thought of was this thread. Personally, I think it hits the nail on the head: there has been a great polarization, but while it might be attributed to U.S. o' A, it is by no means exclusively concentrated in one country. I'd like to hear your opinions, if possible.
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Paranitis]I don't believe there really are any non-partisan groups anywhere in the USA. And if they say they are..they are lying.[/QUOTE]
Depends on what you define as groups, and what you define as non-partisan. There are several groups dedicated to getting the truth out behind the claims of all parties, though most of their focus (understandably) is on the two major ones. Are they partisan? Individually, I'm sure each person who works for these groups has their opinions, but each group is interested only in revealing the facts behind the words, with plenty of supporting documentation. They're not liars, and their coverage has been relatively even-handed (relative, because it has to be said that the neo-cons have had a lot more experience in hate politics over the last 25 years than the complacent and sluggish moderate-to-conservative Democrats, who are only now getting into this).
Don't prejudge, if you don't research.
Depends on what you define as groups, and what you define as non-partisan. There are several groups dedicated to getting the truth out behind the claims of all parties, though most of their focus (understandably) is on the two major ones. Are they partisan? Individually, I'm sure each person who works for these groups has their opinions, but each group is interested only in revealing the facts behind the words, with plenty of supporting documentation. They're not liars, and their coverage has been relatively even-handed (relative, because it has to be said that the neo-cons have had a lot more experience in hate politics over the last 25 years than the complacent and sluggish moderate-to-conservative Democrats, who are only now getting into this).
Don't prejudge, if you don't research.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
ROFL @your spam alert, I really hope it isn't as bad.VonDondu wrote:I attended Texas public schools when I was growing up, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Where I come from, football is a higher priority than reading books that don't tell y'all how it IS. And you should know that Americans want balance in their textbooks. For example, if a textbook says that some heathen scientist believes that man evolved from apes, there'd better be an accompanying paragraph that explains that decent people believe that God created man on the sixth day just like the Bible says. And then He rested on Sunday, and probably watched some football on TV.
SPAM ALERT
And by the way, you're using a lot of big, fancy words there. You aren't French, are ya?
If you don't realize how anti-intellectual Americans tend to be, then you just don't get it.
Regarding the idea that US schools focus more on teaching the pupils how to seek out information, this is something I've heard from people working with educational issues and read in textbooks. Maybe it's utterly incorrect, or it is correct only in theory but not in practise. I think Europeans in general, also education professionals, knows little of what is going on in US schools due to vast variety. Often people know more about what is stated in federal programs rather than specific schools.
This again touch upon the question what people actually vote for. Obviously not for actual political issues, but for other factors - but what factors? I can understand if people vote by the "proximity principle", for what they perceive will lead to a better life situation for themselves regarding taxes, wages, education, etc rather than their country's stance in foreign policy. But I honestly don't understand what the Bush supporters vote for.I guess you could say that Bush's rhetoric is "misleading", and it plays right into the belief system of people who believe that Bush is a "strong leader" and Kerry is "weak". But the larger issue is that Bush supporters really don't care about the facts, so even if you point out the fact that the Bush administration didn't send enough troops into Iraq to secure sensitive sites, it doesn't make any difference to them. Kerry is still "French", and they don't want anyone like that to be President.
Something I really believe harms the American education system and society greatly, is the concept of "balance", ie what is called the "middle road fallacy". The idea that nothing is right, nothing is wrong, nobody can know the truth because everything is just opinion and everybody's opinions have equal value, seems to me like some misdirected application of democracy and equlity. It would be interesting to know where this notion stems from in a historic perspective, and whether it has a connection to the polarisation that Fable and I are discussing.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
[QUOTE=C Elegans]ROFL @your spam alert, I really hope it isn't as bad.
This again touches upon the question what people actually vote for. Obviously not for actual political issues, but for other factors - but what factors? I can understand if people vote by the "proximity principle", for what they perceive will lead to a better life situation for themselves regarding taxes, wages, education, etc rather than their country's stance in foreign policy. But I honestly don't understand what the Bush supporters vote for.[/QUOTE]
I saw your post in the thread about education in which you said that you're acquainted with a select group of Americans who share some of your own values and characteristics. (Well, that's not exactly what you said, but I hope I'm close.) As a result, your perceptions of Americans are bound to be different than mine. I socialize with a lot of rural Texans, many of whom are elderly, and they represent what you might call "heartland values". Look at a map of the "red states" and "blue states". How many of your American friends live in "red states"?
When I visit people in rural Texas, I dress conservatively, and I thicken my Texas accent and use small words and short sentences. Otherwise, people look at me funny. Intellectuals turn them off. It's okay for a preacher to use big, fancy words in an "inspirational" way, but not anybody else. They already think I'm eccentric, and I'm not even French. When they ask me (for the trillionth time) why I don't get married and have kids, I politely change the subject.
I don't know a single person besides myself who likes, much less admires, Teresa Heinz Kerry. She has money, she has a funny accent, and she speaks her mind--all of which make her antithetical to someone like Laura Bush. I think that Teresa's candor to the press is one of the things that hurt Kerry at the polls.
Another thing that hurt Kerry at the polls was his disdain for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Even most of the Democrats I know would support such an amendment. But here's what's funny--when Kerry mentioned in the debate that Dlck Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, that also hurt Kerry in the election. Calling Mary Cheney by the "forbidden" term "lesbian" and pointing a finger at the Cheney family's "shame" angered a lot of people, despite the fact that Kerry was saying something positive about Mary Cheney. In fact, saying something positive about homosexuality also got Kerry into trouble. It's not easy to understand all of the conflicting impulses that lead to such a reaction, but that's what you need to do if you want to understand the conservative mindset.
So, what do Bush supporters actually vote for? Well, first of all, forget the notion that people in the "red states" voted to promote their own economic interests. Actually, they voted against their own economic interests, although in their, uh, "defense", they don't realize that. They voted for Bush because they think he represents their "values".
You and I see Bush a lot differently than his supporters do. But to understand American politics, you need to understand an important double standard. If a Republican candidate dodged the draft, abused drugs, took his girlfriend to get an abortion, or violated SEC regulations, that's okay as long as he's the candidate who will defeat the Democrats and "serve God's will". (Bush is living proof.) Republicans represent "decent, hardworking Americans". Republicans are good people, and good people never do bad things, so no matter what a Republican does, it's never wrong. But Democrats and liberals represent minorities, homosexuals, welfare mothers, and atheists, so it doesn't matter whether they have lived clean lives or served their country with honor; Democrats and liberals are always "lazy and immoral", and they will be criticized for everything they do.
My grandfather used to say, "The damn Democrats are teaching children not to work," since they invented the "welfare state". Since liberals also oppose spanking and other forms of corporal punishment, my grandfather also added, "They're teaching children not to mind their parents." I was amused by that, because in the same conversation, my grandfather also argued that it's okay to cheat the government, so obviously children don't need to respect ALL authority. But it shows that "the family" is the central concern of people like my grandfather.
Bush supporters (including self-proclaimed Democrats) voted for a Republican (not a "damn, liberal Democrat") who didn't act like he went to some northeast university like Yale (cough, cough) but claimed to be "born-again" and said he would sponsor a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, said he would fight to protect school prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, said he would fight against gun control, said he would appoint judges who would ban abortion, said he would never let other countries prevent us from defending ourselves, and said he would kick Saddam Hussein's ass again even though it has been proven that Iraq posed no threat to the United States. THAT's what people in this country voted for.
Now, you probably know as well as I do what Bush and other Republican party leaders really stand for. But if you try to explain that to people like my grandfather, they can't hear you. My grandfather, who used to be a Democrat before John Kennedy was elected, used to say, "I'm not a Democrat because I'm not black, I'm not on welfare, and I'm not gay." Actually, he used different words for "black" and "gay", but I don't want to repeat them here. I asked him why he was a Republican. Was it because he and his friends are millionaires or CEOs who make most of their income from stock options or people who own offshore oil companies or companies that need looser safety and environmental regulations to make more money, or what? His answer: "I'm a Republican because I'm not a Democrat." That's a great piece of evidence to show that Bush supporters voted AGAINST certain things as much as FOR certain things.
This again touches upon the question what people actually vote for. Obviously not for actual political issues, but for other factors - but what factors? I can understand if people vote by the "proximity principle", for what they perceive will lead to a better life situation for themselves regarding taxes, wages, education, etc rather than their country's stance in foreign policy. But I honestly don't understand what the Bush supporters vote for.[/QUOTE]
I saw your post in the thread about education in which you said that you're acquainted with a select group of Americans who share some of your own values and characteristics. (Well, that's not exactly what you said, but I hope I'm close.) As a result, your perceptions of Americans are bound to be different than mine. I socialize with a lot of rural Texans, many of whom are elderly, and they represent what you might call "heartland values". Look at a map of the "red states" and "blue states". How many of your American friends live in "red states"?
When I visit people in rural Texas, I dress conservatively, and I thicken my Texas accent and use small words and short sentences. Otherwise, people look at me funny. Intellectuals turn them off. It's okay for a preacher to use big, fancy words in an "inspirational" way, but not anybody else. They already think I'm eccentric, and I'm not even French. When they ask me (for the trillionth time) why I don't get married and have kids, I politely change the subject.
I don't know a single person besides myself who likes, much less admires, Teresa Heinz Kerry. She has money, she has a funny accent, and she speaks her mind--all of which make her antithetical to someone like Laura Bush. I think that Teresa's candor to the press is one of the things that hurt Kerry at the polls.
Another thing that hurt Kerry at the polls was his disdain for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Even most of the Democrats I know would support such an amendment. But here's what's funny--when Kerry mentioned in the debate that Dlck Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, that also hurt Kerry in the election. Calling Mary Cheney by the "forbidden" term "lesbian" and pointing a finger at the Cheney family's "shame" angered a lot of people, despite the fact that Kerry was saying something positive about Mary Cheney. In fact, saying something positive about homosexuality also got Kerry into trouble. It's not easy to understand all of the conflicting impulses that lead to such a reaction, but that's what you need to do if you want to understand the conservative mindset.
So, what do Bush supporters actually vote for? Well, first of all, forget the notion that people in the "red states" voted to promote their own economic interests. Actually, they voted against their own economic interests, although in their, uh, "defense", they don't realize that. They voted for Bush because they think he represents their "values".
You and I see Bush a lot differently than his supporters do. But to understand American politics, you need to understand an important double standard. If a Republican candidate dodged the draft, abused drugs, took his girlfriend to get an abortion, or violated SEC regulations, that's okay as long as he's the candidate who will defeat the Democrats and "serve God's will". (Bush is living proof.) Republicans represent "decent, hardworking Americans". Republicans are good people, and good people never do bad things, so no matter what a Republican does, it's never wrong. But Democrats and liberals represent minorities, homosexuals, welfare mothers, and atheists, so it doesn't matter whether they have lived clean lives or served their country with honor; Democrats and liberals are always "lazy and immoral", and they will be criticized for everything they do.
My grandfather used to say, "The damn Democrats are teaching children not to work," since they invented the "welfare state". Since liberals also oppose spanking and other forms of corporal punishment, my grandfather also added, "They're teaching children not to mind their parents." I was amused by that, because in the same conversation, my grandfather also argued that it's okay to cheat the government, so obviously children don't need to respect ALL authority. But it shows that "the family" is the central concern of people like my grandfather.
Bush supporters (including self-proclaimed Democrats) voted for a Republican (not a "damn, liberal Democrat") who didn't act like he went to some northeast university like Yale (cough, cough) but claimed to be "born-again" and said he would sponsor a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, said he would fight to protect school prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, said he would fight against gun control, said he would appoint judges who would ban abortion, said he would never let other countries prevent us from defending ourselves, and said he would kick Saddam Hussein's ass again even though it has been proven that Iraq posed no threat to the United States. THAT's what people in this country voted for.
Now, you probably know as well as I do what Bush and other Republican party leaders really stand for. But if you try to explain that to people like my grandfather, they can't hear you. My grandfather, who used to be a Democrat before John Kennedy was elected, used to say, "I'm not a Democrat because I'm not black, I'm not on welfare, and I'm not gay." Actually, he used different words for "black" and "gay", but I don't want to repeat them here. I asked him why he was a Republican. Was it because he and his friends are millionaires or CEOs who make most of their income from stock options or people who own offshore oil companies or companies that need looser safety and environmental regulations to make more money, or what? His answer: "I'm a Republican because I'm not a Democrat." That's a great piece of evidence to show that Bush supporters voted AGAINST certain things as much as FOR certain things.
-
asurademon
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:35 am
- Contact:
Yep the USA is sharply divided. Vondodu's experience is pretty much the exact opposite of mine. I live in California, where pretty much everyone I know strongly dislikes Bush, often to the point of outright hatred, and even most of the few Republicans I know didn't vote for him. Even the one person I know that I'm aware of voting for Bush disagreed with him on a number of things.
The day after the election when I went back to school everyone, professor and student alike were expressing their frustration with and dislike for Bush, absolutely no one was offended by this.
Most people I know whom voice their opinion on gay marriage are either for it, or not for it but still against a constitutional ammendment. It is very common for homosexuals to be very open about how they are (though they are a small minority in CA contrary to what I've heard some people not from here think), and they are met by a mix of ridicule, and support, which to what degree depends partially on where one is within CA. In SF (San Francisco) there is something called the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates alternate sexual life styles. While I think nudity is illegal even in SF, at least when that fair is going on it is not enforced, and anything goes (well in terms of dress or lack there of anyways). Sounds like California and Texas are really two separate countries culturaly. I finally got around to looking it up, and apparently there are movements going on to have CA become an independent country. They aren't very big, or at least I don't get that impression, but I think if it weren't for the fact the USA probably wouldn't tolerate it, California becoming it's own country would be a good idea (ok, I actually can't say that with certainty, but it sure is an appealing idea).
The day after the election when I went back to school everyone, professor and student alike were expressing their frustration with and dislike for Bush, absolutely no one was offended by this.
Most people I know whom voice their opinion on gay marriage are either for it, or not for it but still against a constitutional ammendment. It is very common for homosexuals to be very open about how they are (though they are a small minority in CA contrary to what I've heard some people not from here think), and they are met by a mix of ridicule, and support, which to what degree depends partially on where one is within CA. In SF (San Francisco) there is something called the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates alternate sexual life styles. While I think nudity is illegal even in SF, at least when that fair is going on it is not enforced, and anything goes (well in terms of dress or lack there of anyways). Sounds like California and Texas are really two separate countries culturaly. I finally got around to looking it up, and apparently there are movements going on to have CA become an independent country. They aren't very big, or at least I don't get that impression, but I think if it weren't for the fact the USA probably wouldn't tolerate it, California becoming it's own country would be a good idea (ok, I actually can't say that with certainty, but it sure is an appealing idea).
Well, all of us Californians are insane to some degree or another..so if we seperated from the country we would have to defend ourselves. Good thing we have hollywood..could get some people to fix us up some spaceships and destroy everyone else with lasers! YEAH!
The ONLY person I know of that fully supported Bush was the ONLY legal age person I know that didn't vote this election..it's kinda odd in a way.
The ONLY person I know of that fully supported Bush was the ONLY legal age person I know that didn't vote this election..it's kinda odd in a way.
-
asurademon
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:35 am
- Contact:
LOL! Yeah where's Luke Skywalker when we need him. We might be kinda screwed when it comes to defense if we try to become our own country, though maybe not. However if the rest of the states decided to fight our leaving we'd almost certainly be screwed. Here's a site I found somewhat funny but also true on this subject: http://www.alternet.org/story/14531
And another on having the bay area (part of Northern CA, somehow I see this never successfully happening even if it's ever attempted) become its own country: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 296671.DTL
And another on having the bay area (part of Northern CA, somehow I see this never successfully happening even if it's ever attempted) become its own country: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 296671.DTL
There are nutcases in Texas that want to break off from the U.S. too. Takes all kinds to make a world. If there's one thing the Civil War has taught us it's that nobody leaves the U.S. of A.
Given the overall liberal leanings of this board I'm not surprised that the majority of people here aren't thrilled by the election results. As the Daily Show put it (more or less, since I'm paraphrasing); "Well, that was an ass whupping." If I drew political cartoons I'd probably show an elephant jumping up and down on a donkey, utterly crushing it.
If there's one thing the Civil War has taught us it's that nobody leaves the U.S. of A. Given the overall liberal leanings of this board I'm not surprised that the majority of people here aren't thrilled by the election results. As the Daily Show put it (more or less, since I'm paraphrasing); "Well, that was an ass whupping."
If I drew political cartoons I'd probably show an elephant jumping up and down on a donkey, utterly crushing it. Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Texans are often referred to as "rednecks", and Texans are actually sort of proud of that. Out here, California is often referred to as "the land of fruits and nuts". Does that make a Californian proud?
I honestly don't know how much fuss the rest of the country would make if California tried to secede from the union. Out here, people often joke about California falling into the sea during a big earthquake. But if that happened, California would be gone entirely, while if California seceded, it would still exist and the rest of the country would want your money.
I don't understand why so many Californians say they don't know anybody who voted for Bush. Have you seen the election results? 4.4 million Californians voted for Bush. That's almost the same number of Texans who voted for Bush (4.5 million). Of course, nearly twice as many Californians voted for Kerry (5.4 million compared to 2.8 million), so the proportions are different. But still, that's a lot of Bush supporters.
If you subtract the electoral votes from Texas (34) and California (55), Bush would have beaten Kerry by an even larger margin than he did (257 to 197 instead of 286 to 252, assuming you give Iowa and New Mexico to Bush). This suggests that Texas is more like the rest of the country than California is, at least when it comes to presidential politics.
If California secedes from the union, I hope you don't take Washington and Oregon with you.
Out here, California is often referred to as "the land of fruits and nuts". Does that make a Californian proud? I honestly don't know how much fuss the rest of the country would make if California tried to secede from the union. Out here, people often joke about California falling into the sea during a big earthquake. But if that happened, California would be gone entirely, while if California seceded, it would still exist and the rest of the country would want your money.
I don't understand why so many Californians say they don't know anybody who voted for Bush. Have you seen the election results? 4.4 million Californians voted for Bush. That's almost the same number of Texans who voted for Bush (4.5 million). Of course, nearly twice as many Californians voted for Kerry (5.4 million compared to 2.8 million), so the proportions are different. But still, that's a lot of Bush supporters.
If you subtract the electoral votes from Texas (34) and California (55), Bush would have beaten Kerry by an even larger margin than he did (257 to 197 instead of 286 to 252, assuming you give Iowa and New Mexico to Bush). This suggests that Texas is more like the rest of the country than California is, at least when it comes to presidential politics.
If California secedes from the union, I hope you don't take Washington and Oregon with you.
Looking at the Map of the US election, One thing really strikes you. The major metopolitan and immigrant areas voted democrats. The original 13 states and the west coast voted for Kerry while the rest of the US, (bible belt, deep south and the farm lands) voted for bush. One can automatically assume or does assume, oh its because these states the ones that voted for kerry have alot of immigrants and are major industrial centres and thus more liberal and level headed then one goes on to stereotype the bible belt and deep south about them being redneck hicks.
While if you look at the actual voting process a good many states were very close to the 50, 50 mark. Which honestly shocked me. I knew Bush was going to take a good 30 states, what shocked me was that he had to fight for some of them.
For my next comments i am using this BBC map - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/a ... efault.stm
Nevada was 50 to 48% in favour of Bush.
New Mexico - 50 to 49 in favour of Bush.
Iowa - 50 to 49 in favour of Bush (this wasnt even a swing state)
Wisconson - 49.8 to 49.4 in favour of Kerry (11,000 posts made the difference)
Minnasota - 51 to 49 in favour of kerry.
As you can see this was an up hill battle in roughly 10 states over all. But what is more shocking to me is that it was roughly in every segment of US society and state that you had this split. Penn and New Hamp were won by 2 percent of the vote or less.
What was more shocking is that the west and east coast had alot of people who voted for bush. Much higher than i personally expected. So what is the deal with that? Do the majority of Americans really (Bush won the popular vote as well by a good 5 to 6 million people) consider Bush to be a good leader?
It is very easy to say America is divided and that it is a southern and northern thing. But it isnt. It is a next door neighbour thing. America is divided but in every segment of society. Not by region. That has me shocked. I am not really sure this is relevant but i just had to post this.
While if you look at the actual voting process a good many states were very close to the 50, 50 mark. Which honestly shocked me. I knew Bush was going to take a good 30 states, what shocked me was that he had to fight for some of them.
For my next comments i am using this BBC map - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/a ... efault.stm
Nevada was 50 to 48% in favour of Bush.
New Mexico - 50 to 49 in favour of Bush.
Iowa - 50 to 49 in favour of Bush (this wasnt even a swing state)
Wisconson - 49.8 to 49.4 in favour of Kerry (11,000 posts made the difference)
Minnasota - 51 to 49 in favour of kerry.
As you can see this was an up hill battle in roughly 10 states over all. But what is more shocking to me is that it was roughly in every segment of US society and state that you had this split. Penn and New Hamp were won by 2 percent of the vote or less.
What was more shocking is that the west and east coast had alot of people who voted for bush. Much higher than i personally expected. So what is the deal with that? Do the majority of Americans really (Bush won the popular vote as well by a good 5 to 6 million people) consider Bush to be a good leader?
It is very easy to say America is divided and that it is a southern and northern thing. But it isnt. It is a next door neighbour thing. America is divided but in every segment of society. Not by region. That has me shocked. I am not really sure this is relevant but i just had to post this.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
[QUOTE=CM]America is divided...in every segment of society. Not by region. That has me shocked.[/QUOTE]
In an earlier post, you said, "It can't really be that bad." If I had just learned the truth, I'd be shocked, too.
And by the way, Bush did not win the popular vote by "a good 5 to 6 million"; he won it by a bad 3.6 million.
In an earlier post, you said, "It can't really be that bad." If I had just learned the truth, I'd be shocked, too.
And by the way, Bush did not win the popular vote by "a good 5 to 6 million"; he won it by a bad 3.6 million.
Yes i am shocked. The first question that comes to mind is why? I can't place an answer due to region, education, social strata, background, ethnicity, or anything. It doesnt make any sense.
Btw sorry for the incorrect figures. 3.6 it is.
Btw sorry for the incorrect figures. 3.6 it is.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Looking at the Map of the US election, One thing really strikes you. The major metopolitan and immigrant areas voted democrats. The original 13 states and the west coast voted for Kerry while the rest of the US, (bible belt, deep south and the farm lands) voted for bush. One can automatically assume or does assume, oh its because these states the ones that voted for kerry have alot of immigrants and are major industrial centres and thus more liberal and level headed then one goes on to stereotype the bible belt and deep south about them being redneck hicks.
This is exactly what I posted about Bush' support base, and the base of the neo-cons, in another thread recently in discussion with CE. Bush's base of support is the large agri-culture of the US, ranges, farms, and small industry in the Midwest, the West, and the South. This agri-culture shares less of an identity with the rest of the US than it does with agrarian cultures throughout the rest of the world: it is evangelically religious; it is very suspicious of new ideas; it is extremely conservative; it is angry at secular, metropolitan culture; it votes based on emotional response, rather than intellectual analysis.
The US Norteast and MidAtlantic states, the so-called "Rust Belt" of the Northern Midwest, and the West Coast, are simply large, almost entirely urban, secular, and more highly sophisticated. On a political level they share a certain way of looking at things that is diametrically opposed to the rural culture of the US, which has only been given a united voice since the neo-cons came to power under Reagan's first administration.
Level-headedness and immigration numbers have nothing to do with it. Immigrants can and are absorbed into urban and rural US culture: provided they fit in, no one cares. There are quite a few immigrant communities in the conservative Midwest. And I'm not sure what "level-headedness" is, anyway.
This is exactly what I posted about Bush' support base, and the base of the neo-cons, in another thread recently in discussion with CE. Bush's base of support is the large agri-culture of the US, ranges, farms, and small industry in the Midwest, the West, and the South. This agri-culture shares less of an identity with the rest of the US than it does with agrarian cultures throughout the rest of the world: it is evangelically religious; it is very suspicious of new ideas; it is extremely conservative; it is angry at secular, metropolitan culture; it votes based on emotional response, rather than intellectual analysis.
The US Norteast and MidAtlantic states, the so-called "Rust Belt" of the Northern Midwest, and the West Coast, are simply large, almost entirely urban, secular, and more highly sophisticated. On a political level they share a certain way of looking at things that is diametrically opposed to the rural culture of the US, which has only been given a united voice since the neo-cons came to power under Reagan's first administration.
Level-headedness and immigration numbers have nothing to do with it. Immigrants can and are absorbed into urban and rural US culture: provided they fit in, no one cares. There are quite a few immigrant communities in the conservative Midwest. And I'm not sure what "level-headedness" is, anyway.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
asurademon
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:35 am
- Contact:
hmm, maybe I haven't heard many Bush supporters (close to none) because he is so strongly disliked, that maybe people that support him are mostly not very vocal about it. If that is the case, well I don't like Bush, but at the same time people are entitled to their opinion, and shouldn't be harrassed for it even if they are in the minority (which there may be some fear of happening I really don't know). The other possibility is that I live in Northern California, and from what I've heard there are more Republicans down in Southern California than up in Northern California. So most likely where I live in CA is a big part of the reason I haven't ran into many Bush supporters. Well anyways that's really all just my guess as to the reasons, I really don't know for sure.
As for people joking about CA falling off into the ocean, people in CA sometimes joke about other things happening to other states that aren't exactly very nice either, so I guess in that sense we (and I'm generalizing here) aren't so different from the people in the states that joke about bad things happening to us.
I do see some definate religious tension growing in the US as well, though it's been there to some degree always. I wonder if it will continue to grow however, and what sort of things we'll start seeing as a result. I wonder if we'll start seeing more conflict between people of different religion and people that are religious and aren't. Bush definately wants to pressure the populace into adhering to conservative Christian ideas, and there is at least one religion in the USA he doesn't even think should recognized, if Bush ever gains more power than he has and starts really getting his way I imagine there could be huge conflicts.
As for people joking about CA falling off into the ocean, people in CA sometimes joke about other things happening to other states that aren't exactly very nice either, so I guess in that sense we (and I'm generalizing here) aren't so different from the people in the states that joke about bad things happening to us.
I do see some definate religious tension growing in the US as well, though it's been there to some degree always. I wonder if it will continue to grow however, and what sort of things we'll start seeing as a result. I wonder if we'll start seeing more conflict between people of different religion and people that are religious and aren't. Bush definately wants to pressure the populace into adhering to conservative Christian ideas, and there is at least one religion in the USA he doesn't even think should recognized, if Bush ever gains more power than he has and starts really getting his way I imagine there could be huge conflicts.
I took the time to show people REALLY how our country looks as far as the presidential election went..MOST people look at a map like the first picture..how the red states are FULLY behind Bush, and the blue states are FULLY behind Kerry..but that is not the case.
Like I said, I took the time to go based off of percentages in every state. You only get a limit of 255 points per color when trying to paint a picture, so I went ahead and if something was 43% Bush and 57% Kerry then I would go with (255 / 43% = amount of red to have in the color) and then (255 / 57% = amount of blue to have in the color). I did this with each and every state to show you what our country looks like. More red = leaning Bush, More red = leaning Kerry.
Like I said, I took the time to go based off of percentages in every state. You only get a limit of 255 points per color when trying to paint a picture, so I went ahead and if something was 43% Bush and 57% Kerry then I would go with (255 / 43% = amount of red to have in the color) and then (255 / 57% = amount of blue to have in the color). I did this with each and every state to show you what our country looks like. More red = leaning Bush, More red = leaning Kerry.
- Attachments
-
-