Holy **** are you for real? Like serious? No kidding? Please be a joke.
The weirdest part about this image is that liberal enclaves like Chicago are more likely to look like the right part of this image than the left while conservative enclaves look like those on the left far more than they do on the right. It has nothing to do with politics but the people living in them. I've found more credit unions in small town America and far more payday loan places in big cities.
The weirdest part about this image is that liberal enclaves like Chicago are more likely to look like the right part of this image than the left. Meanwhile conservative enclaves look like those on the left far more than they do those on the right. It has nothing to do with politics but the people living in them. I've found more credit unions in small town America and far more payday loan places in big cities. While there is some merit to the argument made by this image - the current reality is far different.
Someone should tell the artist that the best humor always contains a strong element of truth.
This, of course, doesn't. For instance, the wind farm depicted on the left could not remotely support a town on its own, in most areas. Nor could the tiny community garden feed it.
Both parties have extreme wings whose policies, if implemented in full without any moderating influence, could be disasterous for the nation.
You talk about an "element of truth" but are nitpicking details like that? You understand this is a drawing, right? Not a schematic for an actual, planned city?
You really don't realize why that is? It's because of wealth involved not necessarily political affiliation. Take someplace like Aspen Colorado, which is heavily Democratic and wealthy, and you'll see the same kind of businesses and services available as someplace like Carmel, Indiana. That's also why almost all large cities are Democratic, they're poor. If the picture wanted a higher degree of accuracy it would depict "Got Mine Estates" far outside of town. The rich don't live in the urban blight their policies create, they only make their profits off the poor who live there.
I hate to resort to personal experience but here:
When I lived full time in Vermont, I lived near a pretty small town that was not all that conservative but hardly liberal. They weren't rich. As a matter of fact, I was amongst the people considered "well off" in the town. The rest of the town fell somewhere between low middle class and bellow. The laws enacted by the people in that town were conservative but not socially conservative. Their type of conservative beliefs meant they sought to retain the small town charms of the place. They had a small library, a credit union etc. Again, these people socially were not liberal and yet they had managed to create an environment similar to the one depicted on the left side of the image even with their conservative beliefs.
The point of me telling you this is simple. People are partly responsible for the environment that is created around them. If you create a community where people are bothered to have these things, they will have them. However, the biggest responsibility falls on the shoulders of politicians who allow these environments to flourish. A small town concerned with community values will have these things even if money is an issue. A city that cares more about who they're going to tax is going to let televangelists, gun shops and liquor stores take over and pray on the people in poor communities.
You should visit Indiana sometime and tour the medium(and shrinking) towns like Marion, Muncie, and Anderson. Most of them are very conservatively oriented and since the demise of their manufacturing jobs have all the charm of Detroit. More strip clubs than bookstores, at least ones that aren't Christian oriented, and about 25-30% of their housing abandoned or unoccupied for several years. I never knew water was an optional feature of a rental property until I spent several years there. Of course, since things like building codes are symptoms of evil socialism and excessive government interference, there isn't much recourse except to get the hell out of there.
The weirdest part about this image is that liberal enclaves like Chicago are more likely to look like the right part of this image than the left. Meanwhile conservative enclaves look like those on the left far more than they do those on the right. It has nothing to do with politics but the people living in them. I've found more credit unions in small town America and far more payday loan places in big cities. While there is some merit to the argument made by this image - the current reality is far different.
Wow. I completely with you. How odd.
What does any of this have to do with what I said? You're barking up the wrong tree. Seriously.
I guess part of the problem is your initial statement is self contradictory:
"The weirdest part about this image is that liberal enclaves like Chicago are more likely to look like the right part of this image than the left. Meanwhile conservative enclaves look like those on the left far more than they do those on the right. It has nothing to do with politics but the people living in them."
Which is it? Do the slums look like slums because they are liberal enclaves or are there other factors that are more telling? My contention is that wealth is a much better indicator of what a community will offer in the way of goods and services and gave examples from both political viewpoints. You attempted to respond with anecdotal evidence concerning a town in Vermont which sounds like it's policies may have been designed to cater to tourists. I related that I've seen plenty of conservative bastions that closely resemble the right side of the OP's cartoon if wealth wasn't present in any significant amount. At this point I'm not sure what you are claiming is the prime element that causes one community to be quaint while another is sordid. I believe that, just like in everything from schools to pro baseball teams, you will see the most common factor in those residential areas considered to be desirable is they aren't poor.