NationStates Jolt Archive

...as well as that of the rest of the world.

THIS IS FOR ALL NON-AMERICANS TO READ.

If you are American and you are reading this, do not reply if you are going to flame because you have been warned.

I created this thread as a statement as a third party viewer of the election in the US. I invite all other Non-Americans to present their thoughts.

Have the rest of you NON-AMERICANS noticed that there is this an eerie possibility of "blind leading the blind" in the USA? Bush is blind to the rest of the world; heck he didn't even have a passport until he was elected president. His view of the world was restricted to just that of the USA.

The people who have supported him tend to be very ignorant and don't like hearing about how they're wrong and that maybe they should have voted for a man who won't usher in world war three. These people are oblivious to the rest of the world. They are also the same ones who get their panties in a bunch over the "evil communists" and other so-called "evil" entities, when they are confronted by a third party.

The third party people tend to see through the shades of grey, while the "blind" American voting public tends to see only black and white.

How can so many of them blindly follow Bush?

I am an American Citizen. So I will respond in a way that is not inflammatory, I hope.

If you look at the map that shows what state supported who, you'll see mainly midwestern and southern states supported Bush. Why? Personally, I believe that it is because they feel safer from the reach of terrorism. Now look at the states supporting Kerry. Some in the north-western areas, but mainly on the coastal states such as California, Washington, New York, Massachusetts etc. These are actual terrorist targets areas. No terrorist would target Kansas, or even Texas. What, they're going to blow up a farm or something?

So the people that are afraid, voted Kerry. The people that are not, voted Bush. It's not the blind leading the blind, so much as the con-artist leading the gullible. Not to say all people in the midwest or the south are gullible, just enough of a majority of them to tip the balance in their favor.

Me, I fear for my family.

I think the coastal states voted Kerry because they are more open to the world, more "cosmopolitan" and not as jingoistic as the "christian-fundamental-neo-cons" republican hardcore states in the middle and south. It's just not "modern" to be republican, but those in the middle of the US simply don't care what effects their country has on the rest of the world. They'll maybe see the consequences of their ignorance when they're in nuclear winter.

As an American, and from Mass. I agree, I dont know why my fellow Americans allow them selfs to only see the Bush set Smokescreen of "your not safe without me"...

The states supporting the democrats tend to be high density with large populations in small areas, while the states supporting the Republicans are more rural staes. Rural folk tend to get less from the government because tehy exist farther away from the major urban centers where most government services are provided, while urban dwellers get more out of the government services as they live in the city where government services are provided. Because of this Rural people tend to vote more to the right, as they resent paying taxes that is used almost wholly to benefit urban dwellers and they resent the government interfereing in their financial lives while they get little benefit. THey also tend to be more traditional in their social views as they tend to have land they got from their pa, who got it from his pa, and so on and they are relatively unexposed to other viewpoints as they've lived near the same people their whole lives. While Urban dwellers rarely even know their neighbors and are constantly exposed to new ideas (whether for good or ill) and have very few roots to the community. So there tend to be more open to new social changes. As well, they get the benefits of government interference and are therefore more likely to support it.

Quote from Kryozerkia:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The people who have supported him tend to be very ignorant and don't like hearing about how they're wrong and that maybe they should have voted for a man who won't usher in world war three. These people are oblivious to the rest of the world. They are also the same ones who get their panties in a bunch over the "evil communists" and other so-called "evil" entities, when they are confronted by a third party.

The third party people tend to see through the shades of grey, while the "blind" American voting public tends to see only black and white.

How can so many of them blindly follow Bush?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a very ignorant statement. Nobody likes to hear they are wrong, whether Conservative or Liberal. Those on the left are just as ignorant as those on the right; they just have different interests.

During the recent Canadian election the populace blindly followed Martin, a Liberal, despite over ten years of Liberal waste, scandal, and lies. All because Martin managed to convince the blind liberals that Harper was a scary guy who would sell us to America and eat our babies. (Slight hyperbole here).

Liberals are just as blind and ignorant as conservatives. So please take it from another Canadian and don't post such ignorant statements.

As for the Evil Communists, what else would you call a governmental system that has killed countless millions in one century. Stalin's regime was more murderous than Hitler's and almost as expansionist, Pol Pot killed 3 million, Mao's Communism is still repressing people and is responsible for countless deaths, same with N. Korea, and you don't think communism is evil? Excuse me but that seems ignorant.

You post this tripe and then ask the people that you insult not to respond?

Your post is nothing BUT a flame. How childish.

...as well as that of the rest of the world.

THIS IS FOR ALL NON-AMERICANS TO READ.

If you are American and you are reading this, do not reply if you are going to flame because you have been warned.

I created this thread as a statement as a third party viewer of the election in the US. I invite all other Non-Americans to present their thoughts.

Have the rest of you NON-AMERICANS noticed that there is this an eerie possibility of "blind leading the blind" in the USA? Bush is blind to the rest of the world; heck he didn't even have a passport until he was elected president. His view of the world was restricted to just that of the USA.

The people who have supported him tend to be very ignorant and don't like hearing about how they're wrong and that maybe they should have voted for a man who won't usher in world war three. These people are oblivious to the rest of the world. They are also the same ones who get their panties in a bunch over the "evil communists" and other so-called "evil" entities, when they are confronted by a third party.

The third party people tend to see through the shades of grey, while the "blind" American voting public tends to see only black and white.

How can so many of them blindly follow Bush?

I'm American and I fully agree with you.

Rural folk tend to get less from the government because tehy exist farther away from the major urban centers where most government services are provided, while urban dwellers get more out of the government services as they live in the city where government services are provided. Because of this Rural people tend to vote more to the right, as they resent paying taxes that is used almost wholly to benefit urban dwellers and they resent the government interfereing in their financial lives while they get little benefit.
(<i>snip snip</i>)
As well, they get the benefits of government interference and are therefore more likely to support it.

Fact check: Federal money flows from urban population centers to rural voters, and from "blue states" to "red states" within the United States. Your premises here are therefore incorrect.

Fact check: Federal money flows from urban population centers to rural voters, and from "blue states" to "red states" within the United States. Your premises here are therefore incorrect.

Does it? Wouldn't that be just because most businesses (which pay the majority of tax the government gets) are located in the urban centers, while some services like roads, electricity, and sewage have to go everywhere.

I was mostly refering to welfare, health care, and the like. A rural person pays the same tax of a urbanite, but the urbanite is closer to the places where there is distribution of these services (ie. welfare) so the urbanite is more likely to support welfare because he can more easily attain it when he wants it, while the rural person doesn't want to pay this tax because he can't reach these welfare services all that easily and is also more likely to get help in these situations from the small community he has lived in his whole life.

Does it? Wouldn't that be just because most businesses (which pay the majority of tax the government gets) are located in the urban centers, while some services like roads, electricity, and sewage have to go everywhere.

I was mostly refering to welfare, health care, and the like. A rural person pays the same tax of a urbanite, but the urbanite is closer to the places where there is distribution of these services (ie. welfare) so the urbanite is more likely to support welfare because he can more easily attain it when he wants it, while the rural person doesn't want to pay this tax because he can't reach these welfare services all that easily and is also more likely to get help in these situations from the small community he has lived in his whole life.

Most of the largest corporations are headquartered overseas now. Rural areas, because of their lower population density, do require more infrastructure to receive government benefits, but they get it. Individuals living in a crowded city are actually more likely to fall through the gaps or arrive at a hospital only to find that it is full. Social Security goes straight to the retired, which make up similar proportions of the population in most states (with the notable exception of Florida.) Health care programs for the poor largely provide "insurance-like" financial benefits rather than providing actual health care and health care infrastructure. Actual welfare programs benefitting urban residents make up a surprisingly small fraction of the federal budget. Yes, this does not match the traditional rhetoric of the Republican party.

There are also numerous rural-specific benefit programs targeted at farmers and landowners, ranchers, and mining/logging/drilling/distilling companies operating in rural areas. Programs for ranchers alone well overmatch the entire enviromental budget, last I checked, as a matter for comparison. Furthermore, exemptions to taxes are often specifically targeted at rural audiences. Utility and transportation budgets are funded largely at the state and local levels; many utilities are operated on a state, county, or municipal level.

Urban residents are more likely to fall in middle tax brackets - unable to dodge taxes entirely through the loopholes used by the rich, but earning enough to pay substantial federal income and social security taxes. Rural residents are often either very poor or very rich (and living out in the country to avoid municipal property taxes), while the "professional" classes mostly work (and therefore mostly live) in urban/suburban areas.

Most of the largest corporations are headquartered overseas now. Rural areas, because of their lower population density, do require more infrastructure to receive government benefits, but they get it. Individuals living in a crowded city are actually more likely to fall through the gaps or arrive at a hospital only to find that it is full. Social Security goes straight to the retired, which make up similar proportions of the population in most states (with the notable exception of Florida.) Health care programs for the poor largely provide "insurance-like" financial benefits rather than providing actual health care and health care infrastructure. Actual welfare programs benefitting urban residents make up a surprisingly small fraction of the federal budget. Yes, this does not match the traditional rhetoric of the Republican party.

There are also numerous rural-specific benefit programs targeted at farmers and landowners, ranchers, and mining/logging/drilling/distilling companies operating in rural areas. Programs for ranchers alone well overmatch the entire enviromental budget, last I checked, as a matter for comparison. Furthermore, exemptions to taxes are often specifically targeted at rural audiences. Utility and transportation budgets are funded largely at the state and local levels; many utilities are operated on a state, county, or municipal level.

Urban residents are more likely to fall in middle tax brackets - unable to dodge taxes entirely through the loopholes used by the rich, but earning enough to pay substantial federal income and social security taxes. Rural residents are often either very poor or very rich (and living out in the country to avoid municipal property taxes), while the "professional" classes mostly work (and therefore mostly live) in urban/suburban areas.

Very intersting. Maybe I was wrong.

The people who have supported him tend to be very ignorant and don't like hearing about how they're wrong
Sounds more like Michael Moore Kool-Aid drinkers.

During the recent Canadian election the populace blindly followed Martin, a Liberal, despite over ten years of Liberal waste, scandal, and lies. All because Martin managed to convince the blind liberals that Harper was a scary guy who would sell us to America and eat our babies. (Slight hyperbole here).

Liberals are just as blind and ignorant as conservatives. So please take it from another Canadian and don't post such ignorant statements.


actually, harper was doing alright until he tried to capitalize on holly jonses' death and accused martin of supporting kiddie porn.

i think we canadians respond to muslinging in a different way than the americans do.

As for the Evil Communists, what else would you call a governmental system that has killed countless millions in one century. Stalin's regime was more murderous than Hitler's and almost as expansionist, Pol Pot killed 3 million, Mao's Communism is still repressing people and is responsible for countless deaths, same with N. Korea, and you don't think communism is evil? Excuse me but that seems ignorant.

It's not the ideology that killed them, it's the corrupt despots that did. They fell victim to what communism and, socialism wanted to avoid, greed. Greed for power and, they were willing to keep that power by any means necessary. This in no way says anything about all socialists and, communist and, therefore your comment was just as ignorant

Anyway, back on topic. I'd have to agree with the first post. People in the states don't seem to realize that their decision not only affects them and, the entire world. I fear Bush may end up making America go the way of Rome and, perhaps take the rest of the world with it. Hate only brings more hate and, Bush is a hateful man.

I am an American Citizen. So I will respond in a way that is not inflammatory, I hope.

If you look at the map that shows what state supported who, you'll see mainly midwestern and southern states supported Bush. Why? Personally, I believe that it is because they feel safer from the reach of terrorism. Now look at the states supporting Kerry. Some in the north-western areas, but mainly on the coastal states such as California, Washington, New York, Massachusetts etc. These are actual terrorist targets areas. No terrorist would target Kansas, or even Texas. What, they're going to blow up a farm or something?

So the people that are afraid, voted Kerry. The people that are not, voted Bush. It's not the blind leading the blind, so much as the con-artist leading the gullible. Not to say all people in the midwest or the south are gullible, just enough of a majority of them to tip the balance in their favor.

Me, I fear for my family.


As someone from Texas (and someone who voted for Kerry) I think you should note that Texas has the 2nd highest amount of electoral votes in the States (it has the 2nd highest population). While a sizeable portion of the state is rural, the majority of that population is based in urban areas. Houston is the 4th largest urban area in the US, Dallas the 8th, and San Antonio the 10th. Austin is extremely liberal (and has about 500,000 people). So yes, I'd say there is terrorist targets here, there's just the basic problem of Bush being from this state, and a lot of people voted for him just because of that. You may notice though his spread was only 60% to 38%... this state may become democratic over time due to minorities and the ever expanding urban centers. So keep that in mind when you think we all live on a farm in Crawford, Texas.

I am an American Citizen. So I will respond in a way that is not inflammatory, I hope.

If you look at the map that shows what state supported who, you'll see mainly midwestern and southern states supported Bush. Why? Personally, I believe that it is because they feel safer from the reach of terrorism. Now look at the states supporting Kerry. Some in the north-western areas, but mainly on the coastal states such as California, Washington, New York, Massachusetts etc. These are actual terrorist targets areas. No terrorist would target Kansas, or even Texas. What, they're going to blow up a farm or something?

So the people that are afraid, voted Kerry. The people that are not, voted Bush. It's not the blind leading the blind, so much as the con-artist leading the gullible. Not to say all people in the midwest or the south are gullible, just enough of a majority of them to tip the balance in their favor.

Me, I fear for my family.
I feel that it also has to do with how the coasts view the middle states.
Or rather how the middle states perceive that they are viewed. The middle states often feel that they are treated as "fly over country," and are generally looked down upon by the costal states.
There was a great cartoon once, showing the difference between the Red&Blue "people". A blue person goes to sleep happy that wild animals 1000 miles away are safe from hunting. A Red person goes to sleep pissed off because he/she can't hunt animals 5 miles away.

These aren't all there is too it, but they probably contribute.