Red States / Blue States

[ElChupacabra]

Posted it, ethnic issues and what a small percentage of the population they thus everyone worrying about individual freedoms and not what is best for the state or the country. Spending money in the name of compassion. What is it that liberalism promotes?

It wasn't clear at all because "indoctrination" is pretty vague as is gay/black/Latino "issues". You seem to be doing a 180 degree shift now because in many other issues you talk about individual freedom as being a core component of this country. As far as "ethnic issues" go, are you saying that representation should only be for some groups and not others?

A Representative democracy is what we have not a true democracy

Sure, and as such the representatives of particular parts of the country where their constituents represent some of these minority groups will advocate for the issues that benefit their community. I think what you're referring to as "true democracy" is what's commonly known as "direct democracy".

You have spent most of your time here defending liberalism and liberal economics so why the question, what does liberal economics promote and why does California have such problems?

Because your point wasn't clear. Saying there is "indoctrination" is pretty broad and doesn't address what kind of indoctrination or qualifies it as good or bad.

 

[Conservative]

It wasn't clear at all because "indoctrination" is pretty vague as is gay/black/Latino "issues". You seem to be doing a 180 degree shift now because in many other issues you talk about individual freedom as being a core component of this country. As far as "ethnic issues" go, are you saying that representation should only be for some groups and not others?


Sure, and as such the representatives of particular parts of the country where their constituents represent some of these minority groups will advocate for the issues that benefit their community. I think what you're referring to as "true democracy" is what's commonly known as "direct democracy".


Because your point wasn't clear. Saying there is "indoctrination" is pretty broad and doesn't address what kind of indoctrination or qualifies it as good or bad.

Then how do you explain the California, NY, and NJ results especially California, the richest state in the nation and the 5th largest economy in the world with such poor social and fiscal results? How can anyone support that ideology around the nation? This is all feel good rhetoric, appealing to the heart and ignoring the results. Indoctrination is exactly that, appealing to the heart

 

[ElChupacabra]

Then how do you explain the California, NY, and NJ results especially California, the richest state in the nation and the 5th largest economy in the world with such poor social and fiscal results? How can anyone support that ideology around the nation? This is all feel good rhetoric, appealing to the heart and ignoring the results. Indoctrination is exactly that, appealing to the heart

So you're abandoning the points from your post that I quoted?

 

[Conservative]

So you're abandoning the points from your post that I quoted?

No, not abandoning the point at all as they are connected, this is all about indoctrination into an ideology that has created the mess we see in California and is being covered up by bogus claims about high taxed states subsidizing lower taxed states.

Ethnic/Gay/Transgender issues are all about indoctrinating and making people believe they are a bigger issue than they are, how can 1% of the population for example be a big issue nationally?

Individual freedoms are being ignored on issues important to the left such as the Covid response and belief that was gov't responsibility instead of individual responsibilities and freedoms. Personal responsibility issues are quite different than social issues from gov't spending of taxpayer dollars.

 

[ElChupacabra]

No, not abandoning the point at all as they are connected, this is all about indoctrination into an ideology that has created the mess we see in California and is being covered up by bogus claims about high taxed states subsidizing lower taxed states.

Interesting. Of course there are all sorts of gradients between ideology and implementations of policies based on ideologies. There are arguments to make about California's policies as it relates to housing and its contribution to the homeless problem which is tied to housing scarcity as well. From a cultural perspective there is also the issue of hypocrisy you see from liberal elites who want certain issues resolved so long as they are not impacted by it (NIMBYism). As I mentioned earlier, it would be easier to have a more focused discussion than one in these very broad terms.

Ethnic/Gay/Transgender issues are all about indoctrinating and making people believe they are a bigger issue than they are, how can 1% of the population for example be a big issue nationally?

That depends on the issue. If we're talking about discrimination issues, you seem to be implying that because they are a small percentage of the population that means their issues should not be addressed. Depending on the issue, its implications may be broader than just a local issue. By your criteria, discrimination against blacks wasn't a big deal because they were about ~11% of the population at the time of the civil rights movement. Or was it a big deal because the idea of segregating people by race was a bad idea? You could also argue that those who were pushing for segregation were trying to indoctrinate segregationists with progressive ideas of all men created equal.

Individual freedoms are being ignored on issues important to the left such as the Covid response and belief that was gov't responsibility instead of individual responsibilities and freedoms. Personal responsibility issues are quite different than social issues from gov't spending of taxpayer dollars.

Well there are areas that are under the purview of the government, and in those areas it can dictate what the policies are (e.g. transportation, Federal buildings, etc.)

 

[Conservative]

Interesting. Of course there are all sorts of gradients between ideology and implementations of policies based on ideologies. There are arguments to make about California's policies as it relates to housing and its contribution to the homeless problem which is tied to housing scarcity as well. From a cultural perspective there is also the issue of hypocrisy you see from liberal elites who want certain issues resolved so long as they are not impacted by it (NIMBYism). As I mentioned earlier, it would be easier to have a more focused discussion than one in these very broad terms.


That depends on the issue. If we're talking about discrimination issues, you seem to be implying that because they are a small percentage of the population that means their issues should not be addressed. Depending on the issue, its implications may be broader than just a local issue. By your criteria, discrimination against blacks wasn't a big deal because they were about ~11% of the population at the time of the civil rights movement. Or was it a big deal because the idea of segregating people by race was a bad idea? You could also argue that those who were pushing for segregation were trying to indoctrinate segregationists with progressive ideas of all men created equal.


Well there are areas that are under the purview of the government, and in those areas it can dictate what the policies are (e.g. transportation, Federal buildings, etc.)

Which gov't, Federal, state, or local? If it isn't in the Constitution it isn't federal. You just posted three paragraphs saying nothing. Why do you want liberal economics and social policies implemented throughout the U.S.? Why do you support your State Democrat Leadership? If California, NY, Illinois, and NJ the four largest blue states in the nation cannot solve their own social problems why should the nation elect those individuals who created those problems to national office?

 

[Antiwar]

We need Green states.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Which gov't, Federal, state, or local? If it isn't in the Constitution it isn't federal.

You just posted three paragraphs saying nothing.

I did and was trying to narrow your over generalized talking points into something to actually discuss. Overly broad things like "there's indoctrination happening" don't really give much to discuss unless you identify an example and form an argument.

Why do you want liberal economics and social policies implemented throughout the U.S.?

So now you're back to asking these same tired, overly broad questions again.

Why do you support your State Democrat Leadership?

I've already answered this in previous posts in other threads where you defaulted to this repetitive question.

If California, NY, Illinois, and NJ the four largest blue states in the nation cannot solve their own social problems why should the nation elect those individuals who created those problems to national office?

I suppose if that's the attitude one takes then we shouldn't vote for either party. Poverty and all sorts of other social ills exist in all of the states in varying degrees, and neither party's elected officials have solved them, so from an ideological and political perspective your logic advocates not voting for those two parties.

 

[Conservative]

I did and was trying to narrow your over generalized talking points into something to actually discuss. Overly broad things like "there's indoctrination happening" don't really give much to discuss unless you identify an example and form an argument.


So now you're back to asking these same tired, overly broad questions again.



I've already answered this in previous posts in other threads where you defaulted to this repetitive question.


I suppose if that's the attitude one takes then we shouldn't vote for either party. Poverty and all sorts of other social ills exist in all of the states in varying degrees, and neither party's elected officials have solved them, so from an ideological and political perspective your logic advocates not voting for those two parties.

Yes but the issue is you cannot micromanage someone else's personal choice and decision making. What I cannot seem to get through to you is the reality that if you vote for the same ideology over and over again expecting different results then Einstein was right, that is insane. Stop complaining if you are happy with your state results and how can you be happy with state results when they are like yours, California, NY? I love living in TX because the results here are what I expect throughout the country, neighbor helping neighbor with that neighbor not being a federal or state bureaucrat. People in low taxed states have more spendable income thus have more choices vs living in your state for example or California/NY and can with that choice support agencies that provide community service, issues that aren't measured and posted like feeding, clothing and housing the poor.

I use California and NY as an example for those who want the nation to be like those states. If you are rich, comfortable, or live in a bubble then that isn't a problem but when you claim you want to help the less fortunate and look at the results in those states they are embarrassments.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Yes but the issue is you cannot micromanage someone else's personal choice and decision making.

Part of living in a society is having parameters that can limit personal choice and the choices one can make. The question always comes down to the scope of government in that context.

What I cannot seem to get through to you is the reality that if you vote for the same ideology over and over again expecting different results then Einstein was right, that is insane.

Conservative ideology has not solved poverty or other social ills, so the very logic you apply to liberalism makes your continual push toward conservatism as a solution pretty flawed.

Stop complaining if you are happy with your state results and how can you be happy with state results when they are like yours, California, NY?

I am not complaining. This very thread is you complaining about another state that you don't live in. I am happy with the state I live in because I too am happy with its results and the quality of life that I enjoy here.

I love living in TX because the results here are what I expect throughout the country, neighbor helping neighbor with that neighbor not being a federal or state bureaucrat. People in low taxed states have more spendable income thus have more choices vs living in your state for example or California/NY and can with that choice support agencies that provide community service, issues that aren't measured and posted like feeding, clothing and housing the poor.

We have neighbors helping neighbors in NJ and other states as well. I'm actually one of the many neighbors who gives their time to community organizations to help the less fortunate. The problem with your premise is it doesn't address why 80% of the population moves to places where the cost of living is higher. Are they all insane, or are there more practical reasons behind their choices?

I use California and NY as an example for those who want the nation to be like those states. If you are rich, comfortable, or live in a bubble then that isn't a problem but when you claim you want to help the less fortunate and look at the results in those states they are embarrassments.

I suppose one could cite Appalachia and some parts of the bayou as "embarrassments" and an example of conservative policies failing the people in those regions, but that would mean being interested in talking about poverty and its causes outside of the binary framing you always choose to frame it.

 

[Doug64]

A Representative democracy is what we have not a true democracy

We aren’t a representative democracy, either—in a democracy, whether direct or representative, what the majority wants the majority gets. What we are is a democratic federal constitutional republic.

 

[Conservative]

Part of living in a society is having parameters that can limit personal choice and the choices one can make. The question always comes down to the scope of government in that context.

Right, which is why you have a choice where to live. Support Red/Blue is personal and something you cannot determine for others

Conservative ideology has not solved poverty or other social ills, so the very logic you apply to liberalism makes your continual push toward conservatism as a solution pretty flawed.

No it hasn't nor has the War on Poverty and all that spending in the name of compassion. what Conservative policies have done is given people more spendable income to make personal choices and to help charities which always happens

I am not complaining. This very thread is you complaining about another state that you don't live in. I am happy with the state I live in because I too am happy with its results and the quality of life that I enjoy here.

You are unique in that millions of people are trying to promote the liberal ideology as utopia and my point remains why would anyone want the economic and social results of California and NY? At least in TX we have more spendable income to make personal choices eaiser

We have neighbors helping neighbors in NJ and other states as well. I'm actually one of the many neighbors who gives their time to community organizations to help the less fortunate. The problem with your premise is it doesn't address why 80% of the population moves to places where the cost of living is higher. Are they all insane, or are there more practical reasons behind their choices?

Great, neighbor helping neighbor then means less need for that so called liberal help being promoted. If you were allowed to keep more of what you earn would that make helping neighbors easier?

I suppose one could cite Appalachia and some parts of the bayou as "embarrassments" and an example of conservative policies failing the people in those regions, but that would mean being interested in talking about poverty and its causes outside of the binary framing you always choose to frame it.

Yes, personal choice often comes for failure so why are you trying to micro manage personal choice as it doesn't work and never will work. throwing money at the problem by the bureaucrats is simply buying votes by making people dependent.

 

[Conservative]

We aren’t a representative democracy, either—in a democracy, whether direct or representative, what the majority wants the majority gets. What we are is a democratic federal constitutional republic.

Sorry but that couldn't further from the truth. States and local governments are democracies but at the federal level it is a representative democracy. The state of California for example doesn't elect the President but could because of population

 

[Doug64]

Sorry but that couldn't further from the truth. States and local governments are democracies but at the federal level it is a representative democracy. The state of California for example doesn't elect the President but could because of population

You demonstrate how under our system of government the majority always gets what it wants, and I’ll agree that we are a democracy. The fact that our system was deliberately set up so that the majority can’t always get what it wants is what makes us a republic.

 

[DarkWizard12]

It will be interesting to see how the laws being pushed in a variety of states will create the scenario in the cartoon you posted. It's not just about that particular issue either, but others that are more focused on "culture war" issues. There's certainly the economic considerations that drive people from on area to another, but if things swing too far right it might make some places less desirable to some than others.

i'm hoping to see democrat voters stop moving into red states, because if they want any chance to turn them red, they'd essentially have to give up their right to an abortion to do so. At least, it would force them to stay in their states a little while longer, until it becomes unlivable.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Right, which is why you have a choice where to live. Support Red/Blue is personal and something you cannot determine for others

Where have I stated it isn't?

No it hasn't nor has the War on Poverty and all that spending in the name of compassion. what Conservative policies have done is given people more spendable income to make personal choices and to help charities which always happens

Except that hasn't solved it either. How have you quantified helping charities "always happens"?

You are unique in that millions of people are trying to promote the liberal ideology as utopia and my point remains why would anyone want the economic and social results of California and NY? At least in TX we have more spendable income to make personal choices eaiser

Some citations would be handy then. I would challenge anyone who promoted the idea that liberal ideology generates a utopia-like environment because that's borderline delusional; and would say the same of any other ideology in that context. The very concept of "Utopia" is flawed in that you can't have a perfect place if it is run by imperfect beings. As for anyone wanting the economic and social results, you should first examine your question in the context of the millions of people who choose to live in these places and why. I have given you a variety of reasons in the past, so that's a starting point.

Great, neighbor helping neighbor then means less need for that so called liberal help being promoted. If you were allowed to keep more of what you earn would that make helping neighbors easier?

Well, you're looking at this from a pretty narrow perspective since the "liberal help" comes in a variety of forms that are more robust than what is handled through charities. The other problem I see in your question, is it assumes everyone is going to make the choice to use those additional earnings for charity; it's a pretty risky assumption when many things can impact that decision. The other problem is depending on voluntary donations when the number of people contributing is declining.

Yes, personal choice often comes for failure so why are you trying to micro manage personal choice as it doesn't work and never will work. throwing money at the problem by the bureaucrats is simply buying votes by making people dependent.

Are you suggesting that the people in these areas are poor by personal choice? The "throwing money" isn't done for the sake of it, but to provide opportunities for people to get out of their conditions. The premise of "buying votes by making people dependent" doesn't hold much water in that you've never actually explained what this means and who is dependent.

 

[ElChupacabra]

i'm hoping to see democrat voters stop moving into red states, because if they want any chance to turn them red, they'd essentially have to give up their right to an abortion to do so. At least, it would force them to stay in their states a little while longer, until it becomes unlivable.

I'll assume you meant "turn them blue".


I wonder how much something like abortion rights factors into the decision people make when they move to another state. I suspect that economic reasons probably outweigh social issues like abortion, but without data I'm only guessing. I can't imagine any state will become unlivable without there being a move to prevent that from happening.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I'll assume you meant "turn them blue".


I wonder how much something like abortion rights factors into the decision people make when they move to another state. I suspect that economic reasons probably outweigh social issues like abortion, but without data I'm only guessing. I can't imagine any state will become unlivable without there being a move to prevent that from happening.

If economic reasons outweighed social issues, they wouldn't have voted democrat in their own states to begin with.

Liberal women make it seem like the only right that matters, so i doubt many of them would be willing to move to texas in that case.

 

[Conservative]

I'll assume you meant "turn them blue".


I wonder how much something like abortion rights factors into the decision people make when they move to another state. I suspect that economic reasons probably outweigh social issues like abortion, but without data I'm only guessing. I can't imagine any state will become unlivable without there being a move to prevent that from happening.

I would have no problem turning Blue if you can provide for me a blue liberal state success story out of all the taxes collected. I don't understand why people want to spend more in taxes to get results like California, NY and your state

 

[highroller]

There is a true culture war raging today between red/blue regarding the true role of the Federal Gov't. It truly is sad to see disconnect between the liberal/conservative ideology.

It’s the same one that always has been confederate vs federalist.

 

[noonereal]

Hey this is pretty neat. Thanks for sharing. This definitely seems like a more holistic way of looking at red/blue states.

I only look at red states from 30,000 feet.
I learned long ago this was the only acceptable way to look at them.

 

[ElChupacabra]

If economic reasons outweighed social issues, they wouldn't have voted democrat in their own states to begin with.

Liberal women make it seem like the only right that matters, so i doubt many of them would be willing to move to texas in that case.

These are all pretty broad assumptions that are hard to debate without any other insights into how people are making these decisions. The reasons people move to other states aren't binary either.

 

[noonereal]

I would have no problem turning Blue if you can provide for me a blue liberal state success story out of all the taxes collected. I don't understand why people want to spend more in taxes to get results like California, NY and your state

Lol

The top 2 states in the country you disparage. Lol

Are you adverse to a robust economy?

 

[ElChupacabra]

I would have no problem turning Blue if you can provide for me a blue liberal state success story out of all the taxes collected. I don't understand why people want to spend more in taxes to get results like California, NY and your state

Clearly those of us who do understand the benefits, as well as the down sides to it. You'd be best served making a poll out of it and see where DP posters stand to at least get a sampling. As I've said before, every place there is to live comes with a series of trade offs individuals have to make when deciding what is in their best interests. The parameters for those decisions vary as well as some will place a higher value on quality of life (as they define it) versus others who may have a more cost of living focus. There's no right or wrong in terms of decisions since it is a personal decision.

 

[Conservative]

Clearly those of us who do understand the benefits, as well as the down sides to it. You'd be best served making a poll out of it and see where DP posters stand to at least get a sampling. As I've said before, every place there is to live comes with a series of trade offs individuals have to make when deciding what is in their best interests. The parameters for those decisions vary as well as some will place a higher value on quality of life (as they define it) versus others who may have a more cost of living focus. There's no right or wrong in terms of decisions since it is a personal decision.

You see, I don't see the benefits that you see. If I make the same money as you I have more spendable income than you thus can take better care of my family or people in my community through things like Interfaith of The Woodlands. So tell me what I am missing that people keeping more of what they earn cannot pay for?