Gun Control

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

Are rural voters dumb? On average, yes. But that's an entirely different discussion. Making poor electoral choices and holding contradictory political opinions doesn't mean I think those people shouldn't vote; they should change how they vote.

Do you believe generationally poor minority voters are dumb then?  The ones that live in urban areas? 
 

[BigRedBuster]

This scumbag needs to be brought to his knees…..and the whole organization destroyed.  

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Do you believe generationally poor minority voters are dumb then?  The ones that live in urban areas? 
 

They tend to vote in favor of expanding the social safety net, increases in early childhood education, funding for public services, etc.

 

Rural voters vote against Big Gubmint while their small communities and states' agricultural  economies completely rely on government subsidies, they vote against anti-poverty programs that benefit would benefit them, and the list goes on. 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

They tend to vote in favor of expanding the social safety net, increases in early childhood education, funding for public services, etc.

 

Rural voters vote against Big Gubmint while their small communities and states' agricultural  economies completely rely on government subsidies, they vote against anti-poverty programs that benefit would benefit them, and the list goes on. 

You didn’t answer the question.   Generationally poor minorities have voted Democrat for generations at a 90% plus clip and have nothing to show for it.  The anti-poverty programs speak of haven’t helped.  The expanded social safety nets haven’t worked for them.   Are they stupid for voting for policies that kept them generationally poor?  

[Dr. Strangelove]

30 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You didn’t answer the question.   Generationally poor minorities have voted Democrat for generations at a 90% plus clip and have nothing to show for it.  The anti-poverty programs speak of haven’t helped.  The expanded social safety nets haven’t worked for them.   Are they stupid for voting for policies that kept them generationally poor?  

I did answer your question, you bizarrely claim I didn't when I clearly did. 

 

Generationally poor minorities in the cities vote in ways that help them the best - and that is expending social programs, funding public schools, in favor of SNAP programs, etc. Fixing systemic poverty goes beyond who you vote for in local, state, or national elections because the problems are hard to fix. It's also disingenuous to claim its a result of their voting behavior considering their reduced voting weight in federal elections compared to their rural counterparts because of the extreme rural bias of the Senate (where 60 votes is impossible) and moderate rural bias of the Electoral College. 

 

Compared to rural voters that vote against anti-poverty programs that benefit the poor - even though rural America itself is poor - or complaining about government spending that disproportionately benefits them, clamoring for their dislike of taxes even though their livelihoods are entirely subsidized, or a host of other contradictory positions rural voters hold.

 

That isn't too say that those on the Political Left don't hold dumb positions - they do. But it's not anywhere near as contradictory as Conservative voters in rural America.

[Archy1221]

7 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I did answer your question, you bizarrely claim I didn't when I clearly did. 

 

Generationally poor minorities in the cities vote in ways that help them the best - and that is expending social programs, funding public schools, in favor of SNAP programs, etc. Fixing systemic poverty goes beyond who you vote for in local, state, or national elections because the problems are hard to fix. It's also disingenuous to claim its a result of their voting behavior considering their reduced voting weight in federal elections compared to their rural counterparts because of the extreme rural bias of the Senate (where 60 votes is impossible) and moderate rural bias of the Electoral College. 

 

Compared to rural voters that vote against anti-poverty programs that benefit the poor - even though rural America itself is poor - or complaining about government spending that disproportionately benefits them, clamoring for their dislike of taxes even though their livelihoods are entirely subsidized, or a host of other contradictory positions rural voters hold.

 

That isn't to say that those on the Political Left don't hold dumb positions - they do. But it's not anywhere near as contradictory as Conservative voters in rural America.

If those policies help them the best, why are they generationally poor?   I get that they vote for some freebies that allow them to eke out a living (barely).  what has that gotten them in the long run?  
 

And btw, you actually didn’t answer the question.  It was a yes/no that you could expound on.   
 

On your own earlier, you clearly said rural voters were stupid (for the most part).  My sister, brother in law and two nieces would be considered rural voters.   I don’t know how they vote but they do vote.   Are they stupid?  None of them are “poor” nor do they partake in any anti poverty programs.  Their lives are not subsidized.    
 

Yet my sister and husband have outpaced their previous generation in wealth and standard of living.  The town itself is thriving and probably votes 70% Republican.  Are they stupid? 
 

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

On your own earlier, you clearly said rural voters were stupid (for the most part).  My sister, brother in law and two nieces would be considered rural voters.   I don’t know how they vote but they do vote.   Are they stupid?  None of them are “poor” nor do they partake in any anti poverty programs.  Their lives are not subsidized.    
 

Yet my sister and husband have outpaced their previous generation in wealth and standard of living.  The town itself is thriving and probably votes 70% Republican.  Are they stupid? 
 

 

If the family members you refer to live in a rural community in a rural state, their livelihoods are almost certainly subsidized. Their states economies are probably based on agriculture, which is one of the most heavily subsidized economic sectors in the country. Let alone the roads they drive on, schools they build or many other services provided by taxes paid by the states urban economic center.

 

So if your family members live in a rural area dominated by Republican pick-yerself-up-by-the-bootstraps cuz we don't like big gubmint handouts even though their towns economic well being is entirely dependent on subsidies and they're leeches on the Federal Government because they receive more than they pay in, and they too have a 'Big Gubmint just needs to stay out' mentality, then yes they are stupid. 

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

If those policies help them the best, why are they generationally poor?   I get that they vote for some freebies that allow them to eke out a living (barely).  what has that gotten them in the long run?  
 

And btw, you actually didn’t answer the question.  It was a yes/no that you could expound on.   

If my previous answer was unsatisfactory, I'll try again. 

 

Fixing systemic poverty isn't something a politician can fix easily through policy since the problem is multifaceted and is the result of policy failures at multiple layers of government. From City Councils setting zoning requirements to limit housing supply driving up costs, to state and federal governments cutting spending, all while one political party has most of their political platform targeting welfare as a pillar of politics dating back to Reagan, fixing systemic poverty is impossible given the political mechanisms in our country.

 

But at least those voters vote in ways that help. Rural voters have caved to culture wars in lieu of what's best for their economic interests.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[DevoHusker]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

Today was the first day back after break...

[teachercd]

Without reading a single word...my guess is

 

High school kid, that has used guns all his life, is super safe with guns, totally respects guns.

 

 

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Today was the first day back after break...

My cousins kids go to that school

[DevoHusker]

6 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

My cousins kids go to that school

Yikes! Hope all are okay. 

[Archy1221]

4 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

6 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

If the family members you refer to live in a rural community in a rural state, their livelihoods are almost certainly subsidized

It’s quite obvious from your posts, you don’t understand micro and macro economic data.  
 

Nor do you understand that by your very own standards of the statement above, every person below the top 5-10% of tax payers livelihoods is almost certainly subsidized.  That means 90% of your very smart urban voters are leeching off the rest of society.  
 

 

5 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Their states economies are probably based on agriculture, which is one of the most heavily subsidized economic sectors in the country. Let alone the roads they drive on, schools they build or many other services provided by taxes paid by the states urban economic center

Quite interesting color of the State smack dab in the middle of the country.   Weird how it’s a lighter shade than those Democrat utopian wonderlands you speak of.  
 

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-federal-aid-reliance-2020/#:~:text=The states for which federal,and Minnesota (26.0 percent).

 

5 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

So if your family members live in a rural area dominated by Republican pick-yerself-up-by-the-bootstraps cuz we don't like big gubmint handouts even though their towns economic well being is entirely dependent on subsidies and they're leeches on the Federal Government because they receive more than they pay in, and they too have a 'Big Gubmint just needs to stay out' mentality, then yes they are stupid. 

You have no idea what town, what the towns economy is based on, nor the jobs they hold…..yet you confidently say they are leeches, if they live in a rural area dominated by Republican politicians

 

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION….. if those same areas voted for Democrats instead of Republicans….Would the monies into treasury from the areas  vs monies out of treasury to those areas be very much different than the current situation?  

[BigRedBuster]

59 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

My cousins kids go to that school

I know the community fairly well.  Very nice town.  Sucks.

[Archy1221]

10 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

So if your family members live in a rural area dominated by Republican pick-yerself-up-by-the-bootstraps cuz we don't like big gubmint handouts even though their towns economic well being is entirely dependent on subsidies and they're leeches on the Federal Government because they receive more than they pay in,

Do you mind citing which states receive more than they pay into the federal government.