Joy Reid’s comments about rural America stunning in their arrogance, ignorance

[deepest_background]

Joy Reid of MSNBC is on social media calling rural Americans a "core threat" to our democracy. Note the following tweets below:Notwithstanding that, to have a national "news" host call rural America a "core threat" to our democracy is both striking arrogance and striking ignorance. MSNBC host Joy Reid’s comments about rural America are stunning in their arrogance, ignorance

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Erick Erickson is a bigger threat.

 

[BYH 2: Electric Boogaloo]

Deepest Background is reporting Donald Trump has won the 2016 election.

 

[RickStain]

She's right. Or more specifically, their existential angst at their way of life being progressed to obsolescence and the systemic advantages they get in choosing our leaders.

 

[BYH 2: Electric Boogaloo]

Yup.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Maybe Deepest Background should fetch us all beers before complaining about rural America criticism.

 

[Slacker]

Joy Reid of MSNBC is on social media calling rural Americans a "core threat" to our democracy. Note the following tweets below:Notwithstanding that, to have a national "news" host call rural America a "core threat" to our democracy is both striking arrogance and striking ignorance. MSNBC host Joy Reid’s comments about rural America are stunning in their arrogance, ignorance

Now do Janet Porter.

Roll Tide.

 

[lakefront]

Joy Reid of MSNBC is on social media calling rural Americans a "core threat" to our democracy. Note the following tweets below:Notwithstanding that, to have a national "news" host call rural America a "core threat" to our democracy is both striking arrogance and striking ignorance. MSNBC host Joy Reid’s comments about rural America are stunning in their arrogance, ignorance

Yet they say it's the coastal elites that are the bad guys.

 

[hondo]

Yes, their arguments are stunningly arrogant and elitist. But good luck changing the system. They'd need 2/3 of the House and Senate to send a Constitutional amendment to the states, where they would need 3/4 of the states to pass it. Not happening in any of our lifetimes.
And the alternative to the Electoral College is electing by popular vote, which means whoever wins New York and California will win the presidency. Every time.

 

[RickStain]

Yes, their arguments are stunningly arrogant and elitist. But good luck changing the system. They'd need 2/3 of the House and Senate to send a Constitutional amendment to the states, where they would need 3/4 of the states to pass it. Not happening in any of our lifetimes.
And the alternative to the Electoral College is electing by popular vote, which means whoever wins New York and California will win the presidency. Every time.

Good. Because *that's where the people are*.

Those two states have a population of 47 million. That's more than the combined populations of Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico, Kansas, Nevada, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, Iowa, Oklahoma and Connecticutt.

The electoral college was one of multiple compromise mechanisms put in to protect slave states. If you really want to argue that different regions of the country are sufficiently different so as to need special protection, whatever, but the way that the current state system is set up severely overdoes it. And that's even before we get into the absurdity of the U.S. Senate allocations.

But hell, your statement isn't even true. The winner of the popular vote did not win New York or California in 2004, 1988, 1976.

 

[BYH 2: Electric Boogaloo]

Good. Because *that's where the people are*.

Those two states have a population of 47 million. That's more than the combined populations of Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico, Kansas, Nevada, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, Iowa, Oklahoma and Connecticutt.

The electoral college was one of multiple compromise mechanisms put in to protect slave states. If you really want to argue that different regions of the country are sufficiently different so as to need special protection, whatever, but the way that the current state system is set up severely overdoes it. And that's even before we get into the absurdity of the U.S. Senate allocations.

But hell, your statement isn't even true. The winner of the popular vote did not win New York or California in 2004, 1988, 1976.

LOL, nothing at this place like hondo the barely concealed racist getting owned every time.

 

[hondo]

LOL, nothing at this place like hondo the barely concealed racist getting owned every time.

He cited three elections out of how many?
And while the Electoral College may have been set up to benefit the slave states back then, it protects flyover country now. Otherwise, whatever East or West Coast elitist who wants to be president will will every time.
And you can claim someone else "got owned" all you want. That doesn't make it true. Maybe you just won't accept common sense.

 

[Shropshire Slasher]

 

[Vombatus]

Doesn't Canada have their own form of Jesus?

 

[RickStain]

He cited three elections out of how many?
And while the Electoral College may have been set up to benefit the slave states back then, it protects flyover country now. Otherwise, whatever East or West Coast elitist who wants to be president will will every time.
And you can claim someone else "got owned" all you want. That doesn't make it true. Maybe you just won't accept common sense.

Whwn you say something happens “every time,” and it turns out it didn’t happen several times in recent memory, this is known as you being wrong.

It doesn’t “protect” flyover country. It coronares them. Again: the coasts have the most people.

 

[I Should Coco]

He cited three elections out of how many?
And while the Electoral College may have been set up to benefit the slave states back then, it protects flyover country now. Otherwise, whatever East or West Coast elitist who wants to be president will will every time.

Donald Trump is from what state? And has how much money?
Good thing flyover country protected us from electing an East Coast elitist!

 

[Double Down]

I had forgotten about the BYH/hondo fued but I enjoyed it for the same reasons I enjoy scanning the radio dial and stumbling on the pleasant surprise of some hair metal.

Other musical trends may have my interest now, but few things can replace the raw fun of hearing the opening riff to Posion's "Talk Dirty to Me."

An oldie, but a classic of my youth. I salute you both.

 

[Human_Paraquat]

He cited three elections out of how many?
And while the Electoral College may have been set up to benefit the slave states back then, it protects flyover country now. Otherwise, whatever East or West Coast elitist who wants to be president will will every time.
And you can claim someone else "got owned" all you want. That doesn't make it true. Maybe you just won't accept common sense.

Protects them from what? Being denied an inordinate and undeserved amount of influence on the national political landscape?

Obama was from Hawaii, Kansas and Illinois, mostly. Bill Clinton was from Arkansas. Jimmy Carter was from Georgia.
Donald Trump is a billionaire from New York City.

The EC doesn't prevent a few states from deciding the presidential election. It simply changes which states get that honor.

 

[RickStain]

Obama was from Hawaii, Kansas and Illinois, mostly. Bill Clinton was from Arkansas. Jimmy Carter was from Georgia.
Donald Trump is a billionaire from New York City.

That's the weirdest ****ing thing about this mouthbreathing Up With Flyovers Through Republicanism argument. Donald Trump is *literally* a New York elitist who likes to sit on literal golden thrones and said that he wouldn't want any poor people in his cabinet. Hillary Clinton was actually born and raised middle-class Midwest.

I thought "Yale cheerleader and old-money Connecticut George W. Bush is the real tough guy, not the decorated war hero" was as bad as it could get on that front.

 

[dirtybird]

Yes, their arguments are stunningly arrogant and elitist. But good luck changing the system. They'd need 2/3 of the House and Senate to send a Constitutional amendment to the states, where they would need 3/4 of the states to pass it. Not happening in any of our lifetimes.
And the alternative to the Electoral College is electing by popular vote, which means whoever gets more votes will win the presidency. Every time.

FIFY. And oh, the horror.

It's also fascinating that NY gets included, as it's not even the third biggest state. As if Texas doesn't have a say.