What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Slap Shot said:
If instead of saying, "rich" he had instead stated, "the greater concentration of total income and state income taxes paid?" would it change the narrative?
Click to expand...

Maybe. I think it still blatantly ignores the indirect value of the roads. Those roads enable billions of dollars in commerce the cities and rural communities benefit from. Well, that and all of our food originates from rural roads, so there’s that.

It’s a stupid argument. It’s a symbiotic relationship. The cities wouldn’t exist without the rural communities. The rural communities wouldn’t exist without the cities. This might not have been true 100-200 years ago but it is now.

Edit: and if it’s a “the rural communities get subsidized so shut up” counter to “the cities get all the benefits” it’s an even dumber argument to make. It’s the equivalent of “neener neener” and ignores reality. A better argument would be to convince the rural communities that we all benefit AND get to live the lifestyle we choose. That’s pretty nice.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Slap Shot said:
If instead of saying, "rich" he had instead stated, "the greater concentration of total income and state income taxes paid?" would it change the narrative?
Click to expand...

You mean would we stop pointing out how wrong he is ? Yes. That actually is closer to what his map was saying. He didnt, because that isnt what he was saying.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

dxmnkd316 said:
The cities wouldn’t exist without the rural communities.
Click to expand...

This is true to a point. If a rural community exists because it is clustered around needs for other communities then yes. But many rural communities are vestigial: they existed for a purpose once but then that dried up (a mine was exhausted, a factory closed, climate change or industrial pollution destroyed the local resource) but people did not move to where the new jobs were. That community is now being subsidized by everybody else. It's retired.

This could happen with cities, too, of course. Less likely, because by definition cities tend to be built on a broader base and so don't become obsolete as easily. Cities also generate non-extractive and non-manufacturing purposes: finance, education, government. But it could still happen that a city is retired and thus subsidized.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Handyman said:
You mean would we stop pointing out how wrong he is ? Yes. That actually is closer to what his map was saying. He didnt, because that isnt what he was saying.
Click to expand...

I know that isn't what he was saying.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Kepler said:
This is true to a point. If a rural community exists because it is clustered around needs for other communities then yes. But many rural communities are vestigial: they existed for a purpose once but then that dried up (a mine was exhausted, a factory closed, climate change or industrial pollution destroyed the local resource) but people did not move to where the new jobs were. That community is now being subsidized by everybody else. It's retired.

This could happen with cities, too, of course. Less likely, because by definition cities tend to be built on a broader base and so don't become obsolete as easily. Cities also generate non-extractive and non-manufacturing purposes: finance, education, government. But it could still happen that a city is retired and thus subsidized.
Click to expand...

You might be right. But I think those communities would die off at time equals infinity. I'm extrapolating to that point. You're picking an semi-arbitrary point in time. Those communities are dying, it just takes time. So yes, they are being subsidized and I have little problem with that. Similar to the way we "subsidize" the elderly with Social Security. Those vestigial communities shouldn't just be cast off on an ice floe.

And again, as t-->∞, those communities revert to a size and purpose that better fits the population distribution and needs.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Mookie would bet long game, it turns rural rather than urban.... the last human will be on a farm :)
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

dxmnkd316 said:
You might be right. But I think those communities would die off at time equals infinity. I'm extrapolating to that point. You're picking an semi-arbitrary point in time. Those communities are dying, it just takes time. So yes, they are being subsidized and I have little problem with that. Similar to the way we "subsidize" the elderly with Social Security. Those vestigial communities shouldn't just be cast off on an ice floe.

And again, as t-->∞, those communities revert to a size and purpose that better fits the population distribution and needs.
Click to expand...

I wasn't advancing a Social Darwinist theory that we should just let obsolete rural communities die off. I'm not a conservative.

Certainly over time conditions cause people to move. That's what caused the great emigration from Europe to the US, and someday it may cause a great emigration from the US to somewhere better. Places with old institutions become inefficient at serving their populations' needs as rich parasites leech more and more wealth away from the community into their personal fortunes. As the US becomes an "Old World" it will no longer be worth living in and the mass population will begin to move on again.

Populations follow opportunity. The marriage of opportunity and people creates wealth. The concentration of wealth stifles opportunity. This is the eternal economic dance.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

The last human will be an AI-cyberhuman holdout.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Opinion: Voters aren’t playing along with the media narrative <a href="https://t.co/elR43NHaaT">https://t.co/elR43NHaaT</a></p>— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) <a href="https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1125848399767642112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

When asked for comment CNN and the NYTimes said "pbbbt...argle bargle Hillary Clinton" :p

The lack of appeal among African American candidates is now a significant problem for Sanders and for other progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg. (The latest Quinnipiac poll found, “Biden had the support of 42 percent of nonwhite respondents, more than 30 points ahead of his nearest rival, Warren. Sanders, who struggled with nonwhite voters during his 2016 campaign, had only 7 percent support.”)
Click to expand...

Don't tell trix that ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

All these candidates are wasting their time in Iowa right now. The nomination runs through the South where there's no candidate from that region except for O'Rourke. Elizabeth Warren needs to be devoting her attention down there. She should already be well known in NH so no need to kill yourself in that state right now. But, she needs to make inroads in SC, FL, GA and grab some local endorsements.

No matter who you're backing (Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, etc) you CANNOT let Uncle Joe run the table on Super Tuesday from VA to TX by riding his connections with Obama. If he does that after picking off one of the 1st 3 states (NH, IA, NV) its going to be real tough to stop that train.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Rover said:
All these candidates are wasting their time in Iowa right now. The nomination runs through the South where there's no candidate from that region except for O'Rourke. Elizabeth Warren needs to be devoting her attention down there. She should already be well known in NH so no need to kill yourself in that state right now. But, she needs to make inroads in SC, FL, GA and grab some local endorsements.

No matter who you're backing (Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, etc) you CANNOT let Uncle Joe run the table on Super Tuesday from VA to TX by riding his connections with Obama. If he does that after picking off one of the 1st 3 states (NH, IA, NV) its going to be real tough to stop that train.
Click to expand...

I remember a Rover who made confident assertions about the election in 2016.

I like you, man, but you don't know a thing about it. Go out and fundraise or canvas or something. Nobody's hiring you as a strategist.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Rover said:
All these candidates are wasting their time in Iowa right now. The nomination runs through the South where there's no candidate from that region except for O'Rourke. Elizabeth Warren needs to be devoting her attention down there. She should already be well known in NH so no need to kill yourself in that state right now. But, she needs to make inroads in SC, FL, GA and grab some local endorsements.

No matter who you're backing (Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, etc) you CANNOT let Uncle Joe run the table on Super Tuesday from VA to TX by riding his connections with Obama. If he does that after picking off one of the 1st 3 states (NH, IA, NV) its going to be real tough to stop that train.
Click to expand...

LOL

You get your *** kicked by Joe in Iowa and it's over before Super Tuesday even happens.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

I will never in my life understand why it was decided that Idiots Out Wandering Around and More Racist Massachusetts get to go first.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Dems should have an easy time winning now. NY Times reporting Trump paid zero taxes from ~1985-~1995 and lost a billion dollars at the same time.

The emperor has never had any clothes.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

ScoobyDoo said:
Dems should have an easy time winning now. NY Times reporting Trump paid zero taxes from ~1985-~1995 and lost a billion dollars at the same time.

The emperor has never had any clothes.
Click to expand...

:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top