Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
‘White Nationalists’ ????
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fantine" data-source="post: 76490253" data-attributes="member: 114159"><p>As do the epithets flung by the more radical members of both parties.</p><p></p><p>I almost feel as if the voter suppression laws are more "rural nationalism" than "white nationalism." We already know that Republicans in the 50/50 Senate represent 45% of American voters---while the 55% of Democratic voters get short shrift.</p><p></p><p>We already know that because of the way Congressional districts were drawn after the 2010 census (spoiler alert: it gets worse) Republican voters in House elections get way more bang for their ballot than Democratic voters. Take Colorado for example. 50% of House voters were Democrats, but they only won 28% of the Congressional districts. <a href="https://library.cqpress.com/elections/document.php?id=rcookltr-1527-84193-2523552" target="_blank">CQ Voting and Elections Collection</a></p><p></p><p>The state legislatures are even worse. In Michigan, N. Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and other states Democrats win all the state elections but legislative districts are drawn to guarantee that rural Republican areas control the legislatures.</p><p></p><p>And I call all the gerrymandering and the composition of the Senate and the voter suppression laws in Texas and Georgia drawing a target around the cities "rural gerrymandering." Distgrict lines are drawn so that rural voters are "weighted" to give them far more clout than the Constitution intended. You live on an acre? Your vote counts twice as much as the urban apartment dweller, because cities are broken up and their residents are sprinkled into other districts where they will never have a representative who shares their values.</p><p></p><p>This is especially unfair because most rural states get far more federal aid and pay far less in taxes per capita than urban states. Californians and NYC residents have two of the largest economies in the world, and they pull the economic weight of the rural states. What do they get in return?</p><p></p><p>Because they don't have equal representation, they see their priorities pushed aside---Medicare for All, free community college, etc.--for tax cuts for the rich and defense, defense, and more defense.</p><p></p><p>We got out of a war in August. Why did our defense budget go up when there are so many domestic priorities that are unfunded? Rural nationalism. They don't believe in government solutions---even though their citizens need them more.</p><p></p><p>None of that unfairness is based on race. Prejudice against the urban, coastal elites would exist even if the cities were all white. Coincidentally. the cities are more ethnically and racially diverse. More blacks. More immigrants. But the cardinal sin of the urban dwellers is that they are progressive.</p><p></p><p>White nationalism is not the problem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fantine, post: 76490253, member: 114159"] As do the epithets flung by the more radical members of both parties. I almost feel as if the voter suppression laws are more "rural nationalism" than "white nationalism." We already know that Republicans in the 50/50 Senate represent 45% of American voters---while the 55% of Democratic voters get short shrift. We already know that because of the way Congressional districts were drawn after the 2010 census (spoiler alert: it gets worse) Republican voters in House elections get way more bang for their ballot than Democratic voters. Take Colorado for example. 50% of House voters were Democrats, but they only won 28% of the Congressional districts. [URL='https://library.cqpress.com/elections/document.php?id=rcookltr-1527-84193-2523552']CQ Voting and Elections Collection[/URL] The state legislatures are even worse. In Michigan, N. Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and other states Democrats win all the state elections but legislative districts are drawn to guarantee that rural Republican areas control the legislatures. And I call all the gerrymandering and the composition of the Senate and the voter suppression laws in Texas and Georgia drawing a target around the cities "rural gerrymandering." Distgrict lines are drawn so that rural voters are "weighted" to give them far more clout than the Constitution intended. You live on an acre? Your vote counts twice as much as the urban apartment dweller, because cities are broken up and their residents are sprinkled into other districts where they will never have a representative who shares their values. This is especially unfair because most rural states get far more federal aid and pay far less in taxes per capita than urban states. Californians and NYC residents have two of the largest economies in the world, and they pull the economic weight of the rural states. What do they get in return? Because they don't have equal representation, they see their priorities pushed aside---Medicare for All, free community college, etc.--for tax cuts for the rich and defense, defense, and more defense. We got out of a war in August. Why did our defense budget go up when there are so many domestic priorities that are unfunded? Rural nationalism. They don't believe in government solutions---even though their citizens need them more. None of that unfairness is based on race. Prejudice against the urban, coastal elites would exist even if the cities were all white. Coincidentally. the cities are more ethnically and racially diverse. More blacks. More immigrants. But the cardinal sin of the urban dwellers is that they are progressive. White nationalism is not the problem. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
‘White Nationalists’ ????
Top
Bottom