/linked/2016/11/27/economic-split

Comments

Kerry:
Gruber, like all Whole Foods Democrats, really hates poor people.
10:54 pm — Sunday, 27 November 2016
anonymous:
Didn't Trump win Pennsylvania? ((Gruber's)) own state? That must really bother him.
11:09 pm — Sunday, 27 November 2016
ano:
Wow, what a fucking shitty take.

"They're poor, ignorant, and hurting. Let them die"
11:44 pm — Sunday, 27 November 2016
anonymous:
Except that nominees don't try to win "the economy" so this measure is simply the WaPo feasting on sour grapes.

If anything, the findings show just how poorly the economy has been managed for so few counties to constitute so much of the economy. Why doesn't this income equality bother Grubs? And can he name any policy other than transfer payments that the Left supports that would change this?

The Democrats are now a corporatist party. Voter beware.
11:45 pm — Sunday, 27 November 2016
To Be Fair:
Except this isn't about poverty, it's about productivity. The states that Trump won just don't do as much in terms of useful economic activity.

That doesn't mean they are poor - in fact, there are very wealthy people in places of low economic output, and very poor people in places with high economic output.

This "hates poor people" spin is just disingenuous.
12:04 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
anonymous:
This just in - economic power is concentrated in cities.
3:20 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
anonymous:
> The states that Trump won just don't do as much in terms of useful economic activity.

Not states -- counties.

This study, while I found it kind of interesting, is just another way to say that Democrats win in urban areas. Urban areas generate more economic activity. That's kind of part & parcel with density...
3:47 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
jimothy:
Oh can we shut up about the popular vote already? Sorry children, but that's not how we pick the president in this country, and there are good reasons why we don't (and no, slavery is not a reason; if it ever was, it no longer is, so you're neither clever nor correct when you repeat this).

In fact, all the left wing whining about "Clinton won the popular vote!" is a demonstration of *why* the electoral college exists: It's so political power isn't monopolized by the most populous states. Or, as this piece discusses, by the more economically productive areas.

If the left got their way on this, they'd say, screw you Montana. Screw you, Nebraska. Screw you, farmers. Screw you, small manufacturers. We only care about California and New York, tech and finance. The rest of you can go to hell; you're too insignificant for us to worry about.

How very egalitarian.
4:31 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
Gruber's Sphincter:
Funny, the popular vote totals haven't mattered - ever. Have the Idiocrats just realized this?

Democratic pundits: exemplars of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

I think Gruber can go shove his cock into his brain and skullfuck himself. Then he can take what's left over and shove it into his asshole. But that's just me.
4:36 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
jimothy:
Further, I find it ironic that many leftists are clamoring for California to secede. One, they've seemingly newly discovered that secession is an option for individual states, and a check on federal power.

Second, is if California did, this popular vote margin that they like to crow about would vanish. Poof! Clinton's margin would go from a 2.2 million lead to a 1.1 million deficit.
4:36 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>Further, I find it ironic that many leftists are clamoring for California to secede.

Many? How many?
4:47 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
Where's the love?:
Once the party of Love, the Democrats are now the party of Sore Losers.

People like Gruber are a great example of the failure of our public school system.

No wonder urbanites vote Liberal Democrat: because they're too stupid to realize that the drivel they're being fed is drivel.

Republicans at least know that they're eating shit.
5:01 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
jimothy:
> Many? How many?

14, TBF. 14.

The hell if I know. Enough that it's "trending" on Twitter and making the news.
5:22 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>Once the party of Love, the Democrats are now the party of Sore Losers.

Being a sore loser is one thing. Amazingly, Trump has managed to be a sore winner.
6:59 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>that's not how we pick the president in this country, and there are good reasons why we don't

No, there are no good reasons for making some people's votes worth more than others'. If there are, maybe you can explain them?

>If the left got their way on this, they'd say, screw you Montana. Screw you, Nebraska. Screw you, farmers. Screw you, small manufacturers.

So, what would be the difference between that and being screwed over by the Republicans?

Maybe they would be better off economically if they stopped voting Republican, because they care even less about their interests than Democrats.

It's well known that people in rural and lower-density areas vote against their economic interests because they like the regressive social rhetoric of Republicans.
7:05 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>The hell if I know. Enough that it's "trending" on Twitter and making the news.

So.... you get your news from fucking trending tweets? Yeah, that pretty much lines up with how informed you are about reality.

It explains a lot of the bullshit you write here. You probably read a lot of those fake news stories on Facebook, too...
7:07 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
anonymous:
It's well-known? By whom? Citation?

Trending tweets > MSM.

Dude, it's not really in the interests of voters in 'rural and lower-density areas' to vote against constitutional government and for a sluggish, centralized economy. Transfer payments are not the answer.
9:11 am — Monday, 28 November 2016
jimothy:
No, I get all my fake news from DFwC.
12:46 pm — Monday, 28 November 2016
knowitall:
The electoral college thing throws up a lot of issues. Its good that smaller populated states get a proportionate say on who governs them federally.

However, are you not creating a situation where a small population gets to have a disproportionate say over the lives of a larger set of people?

If income wasn't redistributed via taxation it wouldn't matter so much but right now you have a situation where people in some regions pay more to get less say on how they are governed.

Surely that isn't actually right?


1:13 pm — Monday, 28 November 2016
jimothy:
@knowitall: Yes, you're right; to some degree, this is the way things have turned out.

But the problem is that populations—large or small—get to have say over the lives of other populations—large or small. It's no more legitimate that the people of California control the lives of the people of Wyoming than vice versa.

That's why, despite all the worshipping of democracy, we have (or are supposed to have) a republic, whereby government is limited in its say over people's lives, and not even a majority can overrule that. It hasn't worked out as well in theory as in practice, unfortunately.
1:46 pm — Monday, 28 November 2016
webOS & BB10 forever:
Wow, Gruber. Like all libs, you will always be angry. I predict a reversal of the economy in the aforementioned counties, with more wealth opportunities for the so-called "deplorables"!
2:20 pm — Monday, 28 November 2016
anonymous:
"Trump voters are ignoramuses, bigots, and/or fools."

Has he never talked to anyone in his own damn state? Not one conversation with anyone in the rural areas outside his own home city?
5:58 pm — Monday, 28 November 2016
jimothy:
> Has he never talked to anyone in his own damn state? Not one conversation with anyone in the rural areas outside his own home city?

Why does he need to when he's already certain he knows how they think?
6:15 pm — Monday, 28 November 2016
anonymous:
> "Trump voters are ignoramuses, bigots, and/or fools."

Does he just mean Republicans? In addition to the President they are also the majority of House and Senate, Governors, etc.
6:24 pm — Monday, 28 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>Dude, it's not really in the interests of voters in 'rural and lower-density areas' to vote against constitutional government

Right, so why would they vote Republican if they want "constitutional government"?

> and for a sluggish, centralized economy.

So, now you're just making up stuff. Which party has proposed a "centralized economy"?
9:26 pm — Monday, 28 November 2016
To Be Fair:
> I predict a reversal of the economy in the aforementioned counties, with more wealth opportunities for the so-called "deplorables"!

Wow. You'll be proven incredibly wrong about that within a few years.
9:28 pm — Monday, 28 November 2016
Where's the love?:
The same Democrats that voted for Obama put Trump over the top.

Does that mean they were ignorant bigot racist fools when they voted for the black guy last time?
11:23 pm — Monday, 28 November 2016
Democrats, Schemocrats:
Anyone who doesn't agree with me and my tribe is a bigot, ignorant, stupid, racist, fascist, stupid, retarded, and maybe a fool.

- Gruber the Fair-Minded Friend.

Fuck, imagine what he has to say about Muslims.
11:43 pm — Monday, 28 November 2016
just a european:
>No, there are no good reasons for making some people's votes worth more than others'. If there are, maybe you can explain them?

Not him, but easy to explain.

United States is a Federation of states. The electorate system ensures egalitarianism between *states*, not people.

That's the best way to govern federations fairly.

And if the states are more or less uniform in population and economy, egalitarianism in vote between states ensures egalitarianism in vote between individuals.


If the states are strikingly different in population, by trying to ensure egalitarianism between states, you end up with inequality between people.


Your argument then should actually be, that since states are so different, that egalitarianism between states causes gross inequalities between individuals, and since egalitarianism between states is the only democratic way for a federation to work, US needs to come up with a different type of government.

To which I agree.
12:50 am — Tuesday, 29 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>United States is a Federation of states. The electorate system ensures egalitarianism between states, not people.

Well, that's regressive and stupid.

>That's the best way to govern federations fairly.

Why?

>US needs to come up with a different type of government.

Indeed.

4:47 am — Tuesday, 29 November 2016
John Rodham Gruber:
>I think Gruber can go shove his cock into his brain and skullfuck himself.

He can't do that because he doesn't have a cock, he has a pussy.
8:31 am — Tuesday, 29 November 2016
John Rodham Gruber:
>Well, that's regressive and stupid.

You're regressive and stupid.
8:31 am — Tuesday, 29 November 2016
To Be Fair:
>He can't do that because he doesn't have a cock, he has a pussy.

It's insulting because women are lesser beings than men!
8:04 pm — Tuesday, 29 November 2016
John Rodham Gruber:
>It's insulting because women are lesser beings than men!

Nope. But I wouldn't expect a moron such as yourself to get it.
6:37 am — Thursday, 1 December 2016
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!