sardia wrote: Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Housing is only more expensive in 'blue' areas due to a combination of those areas being nicer and the people having more money; things that only happen when your local government provides education and infrastructure. If the town is a poor shithole, landlords can't charge as much.
Sure, it's mostly a result of urbanization.
But largely, Republicans prioritize problems they have, not problems Democrats have. The same is true in reverse, of course. The principles of each party largely support matters of simple self interest. They put about as much effort into fixing urban problems as Democrats put into fixing dying coal towns.
You're ignoring ideological, economic, and racial anxiety. A substantial portion of the country recognizes that something isn't right* and decided that blacks/minorities/others/globalism were at fault. Abortion/Tax cuts gave Trump the South, economic/racial arguments gave Trump the Midwest. I remember how much poor whites in the South appreciated Jim Crow laws, the Chinese exclusion act, or the "Irish need not apply" signs. You made similar arguments about gun control. "Life sucks, what do we do? Those politicians say we should kick out muslim & mexicans. Good enough".
* Your choice between stagnant pay, high healthcare costs, minorities getting equality, income inequality
Protectionism is a thing, sure.
Racism, ehhh. I'm not sure that has much explanatory value. Trump did just fine on getting black voters compared to Romney, after all. I also have trouble buying that the midwest is racist, but the south isn't. The latter has a lot more confederate flags and what not. Plus, racism probably loses as many voters as it gets. Sure, there are those for whom it appeals, but there's a lot of people who are bothered by it. I don't think it contributes to republican success. Few of the voters to whom they appeal by it would vote for any other party instead. Racism isn't a great strategy.
Is that really a common view, and not something only the most fundamentalist (but vocal) minority believes? Because that's, well, fucked up.
Yes, a fuckton of people believe abortion is intrinsically murder. Additionally, this viewpoint is not changing over time. If you look at Gallup's poll on the issue, there's a remarkable consistency to it*. It's one of the big republican/democrat split issues. Yeah, it's heavily tied to religion, but decreasing religiosity isn't decreasing it.
Do you have a source for that? (In any case, Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement and appointed a climate change denier as head of the EPA, so the point still stands.)
If memory serves, it was at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi82vT5lpXdAhVwrlkKHTl1DlQQFjAAegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fenergy-environment%2Fwp%2F2018%2F06%2F01%2Ftrump-withdrew-from-the-paris-climate-plan-a-year-ago-heres-what-has-changed%2F&usg=AOvVaw1Ma9VFFO-NF9uAfEpVEaak
wapo. It seems that a paywall of some kind has popped up, so I can't actually verify that it's correct based on more than the summary without giving them money, but I'm about 90% sure it's the right link.
It's certainly true that Trump does not prioritize climate change. It's true for many voters as well. Folks in dying coal towns care a lot more about their community's well-being now than they do the global climate a hundred years from now. That said, it's been hard to blame much actual damage on Trump thus far. This may change if asbestos becomes popular for everything again.
I just find it absolutely flabbergasting that people can stay "true to the party" when the party so obviously hasn't even pretended to stay true to itself.
A downside of the two party system is that both main parties are coalitions, not self consistent ideologies. Yeah, there's a general theme to each party, but neither is wholly unified, and expecting either to be "true to itself" is probably futile.
As for diplomatic relations, it's true that I don't see Western countries directly cutting ties with the US, but Trump is playing very dangerous games with his trade wars, haphazard withdrawal from previous agreements, and tsundere flirtation with dictators.
Dangerous, how? If you mean it makes risking Trump appear to be an ass, sure. This appears not to bother Trump, and anyways, it's unclear who he could further offend at this point. It seems very low risk for the US, though. We're unlikely to actually lose much due to these actions.