Man what, are you campaigning here? Trying to win an election?

I think we should - as a social experiment - put all the counties that vote lefty together, and all the counties that vote right together. And then we should see which of the two groups has the better economy, the more social tolerance...

"I am the change you need" sounds like campaigning

If I say "listen to me" I'm not educating anybody. I'm entreating them to hear me.

If you say "I am the change you need", you're entreating people to listen to you.

It's campaigning home boy. We're not morons.

Simply that I think it's telling that (this is a vast generalization) the areas that vote lefty tend to be the areas with more people and better economy, while the areas that vote righty tend to be the less densely populated areas with the smaller economies.

Even the most hardened conservative has to admit that the majority of the right wing voter base comes from rural areas.

I wonder what would happen if those rural right wingers came to the big city and actually *saw* homeless people. Or *saw* the paved streets, the streetlights and traffic lights that their taxes pay for. I wonder what would happen if those rural right wing voters were forced to spend time in more densely populated areas.

Just a hunch, but I think the entire country would shift to the left. I don't think that's an unreasonable hypothesis. So I guess the question then becomes..."Why do the urban areas vote left, and what does this say about our society?"

Wall Street is part of New York, which votes overwhelmingly left.

The most gullible in society is the young and the old.

Oh...

Well that explains Obama

> Little Paul wrote:

> Timmyville
There isn't a single "left" and "right" to start with. Some parties also act opposite to what their official agenda sais. So GL with your experiment.

I'm aware. Are you going to argue with my statement that urban areas tend to vote left, and rural areas tend to vote right?

What is the subscription is less than a dollar a week, seems good value to me.

Timmyville,

"Simply that I think it's telling that (this is a vast generalization) the areas that vote lefty tend to be the areas with more people and better economy...."

Hahahaha! Oh my god, thank you. That was hilarious. Most people that vote "left" are poor, live in ghettos, and receive government assistance. Look at the electoral map of literally any state in the USA. It's even more glaring in "swing" states. 90% of support for the "left" is ghettos.

Most of the rest is middle class people with comfortable incomes who don't care about a few grand more in taxes; they just want to feel good about themselves without ever giving a damn or doing anything for their fellow man: They're happy to pay slightly more in taxes if it means they can pretend they've cared for the poor and needy. They can still buy their nice homes and cars; they just desire to pay a little more for their self-righteousness as well.

"Just a hunch, but I think the entire country would shift to the left."

Hahahahahahaaha! Yeah, when I see ghetto with my own eyes, I tend to want to think more like the people living there on government income (handouts)! They're certainly doing things right to live on welfare for generations. They're certainly doing things right to have 80% illegitimacy rates. They're certainly doing things right to have high crime and murder rates. They're certainly doing things right to have high gang activity.

Yeah, just a hunch, but I don't think witnessing ghettos would convince anybody that they're populated primarily by more intelligent, harder-working populations than suburbs and rural areas. I'm just venturing a wild guess here, but I don't think many people find political wisdom and virtues to be more prevalent than ghettos than outside of them.

"Why do the urban areas vote left, and what does this say about our society?"

It means that human nature isn't inherently foolproof, and if you breed dependents and offer them the most handouts, you'll always get their votes. I meant "breed" figuratively via policy decisions to push people into handouts with costs and then keep them receiving by incentivizing negative behavior with financial rewards. Funny enough, one of those policy decisions is to reward mothers both to have illegitimate children and to have many of them in order to receive more money. And they do, in fact, have more children than people not on government assistance (even though they can't afford them). So maybe it's not just figurative breeding after all.

Undeath,

"People talk about the whole, but their chief concern will always be the self."

Not everyone is this stupid and trashy. Some people have values and realize that all individuals in society benefit when they are shared values. Values prohibiting theft and violence are a simple example. Values espousing hard work and honesty are similar, though comprehension of these things is beyond some people.

I'm sure a lot of ghetto trash would agree with you that there's no set of values for everyone. They'd lie and cheat and steal to benefit themselves. But ultimately all individuals are harmed by this naive view of self-interest. It's not actually in their self-interest, they're just too lazy to work for better.

"There is no set of values that is right for everybody, and there never will be."

This is always the mantra of the trashy. Sometimes it's convenient to kill your kids. Sometimes it's convenient to use threat of force to steal. Sometimes it's convenient to kill tens of millions of undesirables. When there's "no set of values" that's more than pragmatic for a particular moment, literally anything can be justified for some claimed goal of a greater good.

You take issue with the US's Bill of Rights? If there's no set of values that's right for everybody, you don't support the USA's first amendment. The position of relativism champions oppression and slavery.

An argument for relativism in political philosophy is just an argument for being sheep, paying the man. Why all this "left" vs "right" nonsense? Both sides support expanding federal power. Both sides support foreign aggression (mass murder) for corporate profits and NWO interests (all recent presidents--from both parties--have directly stated their NWO desires). Both sides support cronyism and rewarding their friends with the taxed wealth of others. Both sides seek to squash economic freedom and control more wealth. Both sides steal via the Federal Reserve and use interest to keep the working working harder for all of their times to accumulate any wealth.

I'm not seeing the major differences people argue about between the "left" and the "right" in the USA. Most of the differences are just matters of which freedoms each side wants to squash the most. By passing power back-and-forth over the decades, both sides steadily erode our freedoms. Neither side repeals anything the other side's done; there're no real disagreements, just a collaborative enslavement of the American people.

Which side wants to end foreign aggression and world-policing? Neither. Which side wants to end the Federal Reserve's (private bankers'+politicians) stealing of wealth from the American people? Neither. Which side wants smaller government and lower taxes? Neither. Which side wants to honor the words and spirit of the Constitution and actually restrain government by those laws (which are currently openly ignored and even literally laughed at)? Neither.

>>There is no set of values that is right for everybody, and there never will be.<<

Doesnt apply to me.

Hahahahahahaha. You put it much better than I could. The notion of relativism as serious political philosophy is just silly.

While it's easy to agree with abstaining from judgement on matters of salad-before-or-after-entree, when the matter is [for example] freedom of speech or economic freedom, abstaining from all judgements is just accepting slavery.

My experience is that your experience is less experiencey than 2000 years of Catholics slogging it out then writing books. So, nyaaahh