• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Which Of These Two Realities Would You Want To Leave Your Grandchildren?

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Good graphics before you make your choice.

grandchildren.jpg
 
Holy **** are you for real? Like serious? No kidding? Please be a joke.
 
something of a false dichotomy there. currently, there aren't many republicans that i support, but in a duopoly, it's hard to argue that we could be better off with single party rule long term. the system requires some measure of oscillation.

the republicans have brought deficit / debt problems into the national debate, and for this i give them credit. however, their absolute refusal to consider increasing taxes as part of the solution is entirely unrealistic.
 
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.
 
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.

good observation...

hell the graphic on the left reminds me of where i'm at right now... even with the light rail depot... and i'm in a small burg 40 miles from Austin Texas:lol:
 
Why yes this looks like a fair representation of reality.

edit: How come liberaltopia doesn't have a strip club? This blows, I'm outta here!
 
Last edited:
to be honest? Neither, the democratic one stinks and the republican ones stinks just as bad.

Neither words is realistic, a mix of the 2 might work but as you put it, no way would I want to live in either world.
 
Positing images like this without defending the premises on which they are built (that the Democrat/Republican worlds would actually look like that), doesn't do anything but fuel hack wars because unless you show that that picture is accurate, then you just give people a picture on which to project how they already feel rather than an argument that they can consider.

That said, even if you took the time to write out a compelling argument, it would probably turn into a hack war anyway, so I'm just going to enjoy the nice colors.
 
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.

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 find this picture to be pretty accurate in NC. I mean we store all our strip clubs behind our Evangelical churches, in fact in some cities they're the same building.

In all seriousness, I agree with Hatuey but I think the difference is between State/Local politics and political identification versus national ideologues. This photo is talking about exaggerated national policies regardless of the mechanisms within the local governmental infrastructure that grease the wheels.
 
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.
 
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 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?


Of course. My point is that wind turbines can't provide more than a very tiny fraction of our energy needs, and small-scale organic farming can't feed our population economically if at all.

That was my secondary point. My primary point is that this cartoon is highly biased party-hack BS that is about as unsubtle as a kick in the crotch.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

What does any of this have to do with what I said? You're barking up the wrong tree. Seriously.
 
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.
 
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.

Your false dichotomy is just that. A false dichotomy.

1) I specifically stated that the reason these places look the way they do has nothing to do with politics but because of the kind of people living in them.
2) Poor people can and do have towns which attract good business and shady business regardless of their politics.
3) Liberal bastions (big cities) tend to look far more like the picture on the right while conservative bastions regardless of their wealth look a lot like the ones on the left.

The case I made was that people attract the business they want. It has nothing to do with poverty but the attitude of the people living in them.
 
What does the partisan hackery OP have to do with presidential election?
 
Somewhere in the middle.

Because while I do love having the library... I also do want the Strip 'n' Poke her Club
 
The Republican side has a liquor/cigarette store, a strip/poker club, one of those "Guns Galores" I've always wanted to check out, cars with big ol V8's and apparently spontaneously exploding storks.

The other option is hanging out with Prius driving hippies at the Community Garden or going on hikes? F that! I'm going to go have fun in Right-wingopolis. You can have fun eating arugula at the Organic Cafe, *****.
 
Has anyone ever played Anno 2070? The two main in-game factions are pretty much what is being represented here. I'll see if I get to upload some pics.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom