It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Andrea Mitchell: Iowa Is "Too White, Too Evangelical, Too Rural"

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by LilithWon
 

High I am Ripcontrol



I respectfully disagree with you and those who take no offense at what she said...


The statement is wrong in and of itself in that Iowa does represent the nation... Are we Not all Americans.... With this established that Iowa is full of constituents..

So what ?

Well Iowa is affected by a corrupt DC... They have to play the game like all... you know the one of jockeying to get positions to get more federal tax money at the expense of the other states... while jobs go away and the value of their money goes away

They live and die by decisions they have little control over that are made in "their" interest...

Seems to me they are representing...

as to the second fallacy of her statement... The offense is best put as to what are her reasons behind it...

She comes off as a reverse bigot...

She is pursuing a policy of divide and conquer... "Well little jack is white and his opinion is biased because of his skin color"... neatly meaning white opinion dont matter because they are white...( If I added in a different color I would be accused of racism myself)

I think that sounds about like what is heard... its what she said

It is obvious she is pursuing an agenda.. They need to poison the well so to speak for the upcoming fight between two methodologies....

1) get the power and the money will follow
or
2) the money is the power

If they put in their veiled opinions now they can mark whole sections of the country.... or opposing candidates... after all if the candidate is white he is like Iowans, and hence biased himself...

Yeap divide and conquer .....

I applaud the ATS members who are upset of this infotainment specialist attempts at undue influence... good catch YALL on denying ignorance...







posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Yes, let's everyone get offended, shall we? Let's get together and try to stop this woman from expressing her opinions because we're really uncomfortable when she does!

Get a thicker skin. When the truth offends, it's time to look inside.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Andrea Mitchell , Ann Coulter etc



Shock value.

People eat it up.





edit on 3-1-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Well,

When has Iowa ever represented the rest of the country ?

I thought every State is different.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
this is why it's so dangerous to have states make certain laws for the people of the state.


The state making decisions for the people of the state is dangerous, whereas the U.S. Government making decisions for the state is good?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes, let's everyone get offended, shall we? Let's get together and try to stop this woman from expressing her opinions because we're really uncomfortable when she does!


That's the way we roll here in the USA. You can say something you believe is true, with absolutely no racist intent, but if someone else decides to be offended by it, then you are a racist.

Remember Jimmy the Greek?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
The state making decisions for the people of the state is dangerous, whereas the U.S. Government making decisions for the state is good?


The US government is made up of representatives from all over the country. I feel much more likely to have a comprehensive set of social rules and laws made by a DIVERSE governing body instead of a small segment of that society, whose ideas and opinions my be much more drastic than my own.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I saw the statistics today (thought it was an interesting story), and the numbers say that Iowa is mostly White and over 50% of them are Evangelical Christians. So what appeals to this group (such as the "really big family" reality show personalities coming to talk to folks in Iowa) won't play as well in, say, Florida or New Hampshire. Issues that farmers are concerned about are very different than what steelworkers worry about.

I think there are states that (statistically) are closer to the US "average" demographic than Iowa. We can find other states that are as different as Iowa (I would suspect that Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas would be quite different in that the Hispanic vote is more important there. Possibly California as well.)

I think that if the candidates us the same tactics that are making them successful in Iowa in (say) New Hampshire, they're going to fail. An interesting question is: who's got the right tactics that appeal to a broad spectrum?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by lucid eyes
The state making decisions for the people of the state is dangerous, whereas the U.S. Government making decisions for the state is good?


The US government is made up of representatives from all over the country. I feel much more likely to have a comprehensive set of social rules and laws made by a DIVERSE governing body instead of a small segment of that society, whose ideas and opinions my be much more drastic than my own.


From the way the economic rules and laws have performed, I would say all representatives local and federal have quit "representing" the majority of citizens. It's more like they are "resenting" the citizens.

Political arrogance is guided by the corporations' agendas.

Maybe the old idea of each "neighborhood" governing itself is not as bad as many people think.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I actually LOVE the idea of a neighborhood governing itself. I think that's the way it should be. Here's the catch, though. In 2012 USA, it simply wouldn't work. This country is full of hatred and fear. States rights (rights assigned by the state) would be used to discriminate and control because of the fear that's so prevalent in our society. Minorities would be oppressed and civil rights would be violated in the name of religion and safety.

(I know the federal situation isn't perfect. Far from it. But as I said, I have a better chance of being represented by a diverse group from all over the country than by an enclave of such.)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join