politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Well, yeah, conservative policies are horrible. I don't see why smart people would want to live under them.
The problem is just because you're smart enough to realize this doesn't mean you have the money to move
You're absolutely right, but I also expect that the spillover effects of this will eventually start to hurt people who voted for this shit, if they haven't already. Of course the people who don't vote this way and can't afford to move don't deserve to live through it, but the ones who did vote for it will be the FIRST to complain that they need help, and they can absolutely go fuck themselves.
I imagine a lot of the stupid people who voted for right wing policies, and are then hurt by them, won't connect those dots
Part of being stupid is the inability to look at facts and draw a reasonable conclusion.
Someone might look at "we cut funding for the town, and now the library sucks" and realize there's a connection. An idiot might instead say "it's the black people's fault"
I really want to drive that home. Some people are stupid. They look at the world and draw bad conclusions. I don't know how to fix that.
Fuck em. They reap what they sow, and I'm done caring about their wellbeing.
You say that as if they aren't taking the rest of us down with them.
I'm not entirely convinced the American experiment can be saved at this point, if I'm being perfectly honest. I fully expect them to take us down with the ship.
Well lead did a pretty big number on a certain generation that has been in power for quite some time, and you actually can't fix that.
It already is. For instance, the majority of rural texas's access to natal care, cardiology, and a few other of the major medical practices is in the same rank as places in central america. It's not just texas either.
It's been hurting them a long long time. But they've got that crab mentality. They believe things can't be better. But as long as they can make someone hurt worse than they believe they are. They're happy.
Facts. Never doubt these peoples ability to withstand suffering, as long as it makes it worse for the 'other'.
It's sublime and sad and sadistic at the same time. They'll cut off their own nose to spite your face.
I've been unable to find where in the bible this attitude stems from other than a misattributed 'trials and tribulations' vibe.
It doesn't directly state it, but religion has a system of rules behind it, and rigid rules are themselves attractive to a certain authoritarian mindset. Doesn't matter if they make sense; the rules are an end unto themselves.
That same mindset tends to not apply that to themselves either, being quick to abandon all norms, decorum or decency to attain or retain power.
And then the historical editing comes down heavy handed
He who controls the present controls the past
I need somebody to help me find a blue state where I can afford a 4 bedroom 2400 sf home.
I’m at twice the median income in my city and my house cost 280k built in 2020. Not to mention interest these days really kill the possibility of moving when I got a 2.75% interest rate and no PMI.
stares at you in Australian
hysterical laughter
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/64-Turner-Ave-Torrington-CT-06790/197790219_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/337-S-Windham-Rd-Willimantic-CT-06226/58124097_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/235-Harland-Rd-Norwich-CT-06360/61996278_zpid/
Thanks for the try but I’ve had a 35 year old house the energy consumption difference and upkeep cost is astounding compared to my current new build.
But yea I don’t think I’ve considered NE I’ve been everywhere else. I think that’s also fairly safe climate change wise? Or maybe it was a specific state according to pbs eons.
I am a bit curious where the balance is for how much shit you'll put up with if it means a lower cost of living (or bigger/cheaper home, anyway). I'm personally of the stance I will pay (or give up) a significant amount of money to live in a good, mostly sane place.
It's obviously a balancing act. Nobody will give up all their money to have marginally better emotional safety. But where is the line? How much better do things have to be in a different place (or how much worse in your current place) to accept, say, a small apartment that costs a solid third of your income? Or inversely, would you put up with a Gilead situation if you got a sprawling mansion out of it?
Same boat here.
or, some smart people don't care about politics. sadly most people also don't care about politics
I would argue that not caring about politics disqualifies you from being smart in a general sense. (obviously this depends on how one defines "smart", which is a whole topic)
Cheaper cost of living, and with remote work, that makes it easier to bear.
Easier to bear, maybe, but not great. You're likely making some pretty big trade offs. Like, Wisconsin is probably cheaper but it might be way more hostile to you if you're gay or black or otherwise considered an outgroup by the right.
And even if you're otherwise an in group, what're the music, food, and art, scenes like? If all you want to do is work and then sit at home on your couch then I guess one place is as good as another. Though this might be getting into an urban/not-urban divide more than left/right.
And furthermore, even if your "cost of living" is lower in the extreme short term, if you're in a right wing hellscape then you have to pay one way or another for the state being gutted. There's a non-fiction book titled "A libertarian walks into a bear" that talks a lot about how there were two neighboring towns, but one had gone hard right with its policies. The other had not. Turns out the libertarian one sucked. Like, they didn't have a working fire department.
That town was in New Hampshire, tho I can't recall the name from memory.
They voted out their garbage collection service. Civic overreach or some bullshit. Then the bears came, and got accustomed to being around people. And started breaking into homes. People were attacked. I think there was at least one casualty.
Libertarianism is great for the individual, but anti-thetical to the needs of the group.
I don't know why it's so hard for some people to acknowledge that their own personal choices and beliefs might not make the best policy. Government and law, do not need to mirror your internal dialogue. That is some serious center of the universe shit right there. They'd do well to ponder on the notion of sonder.
Was this oart of their Free State Project?
I believe so, yea
Worth noting that Wisconsin is a blue-voting state, generally, that has a heavily gerrymandered legislature.
Most of Wisconsin is absolutely nothing like the deep south kind of red state.
This is, as you surmise, almost entirely an urban/rural thing.
Ditto. Spent the summer in Madison, WI, earlier this year. Anyone who tried to say that it represents the effects of conservatism is a fool.
I don't know why I picked Wisconsin. Possibly because I vaguely remembered Scott Walker being a huge asshole
The parts of deep south red states where people actually live are absolutely nothing like the deep south kind of red state either.
They're only horrible when you aren't rich and/or care about the safety and well-being of others.
They're also horrible if you care about the long term. A lot of conservative policies are analogous to eating the seed corn. Yeah, you save some money now but in thirty years your infrastructure is collapsing. Or if you're really unlucky and push your luck, the state fails entirely. Most rich selfish people don't really want to die when a bridge collapses