Why don’t people in “flyover country” just move?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad to say, but it’s obviously never going to get better. Flyover America has been circling the drain since at least the 70s. Why don’t they have motivation to put their families in a better place to succeed; a place with a dynamic economy and competitive peers? Politicians are so obsessed with new immigrants because they see flyover people as hopeless.

You are a fool.

Why? PP makes a good point. Throughout American history, when times got tough, the tough pulled up stakes and moved to a place with better opportunity. Americans have stopped moving around so much. They seem more willing to stay put and gripe about their lot rather than taking action to change it. People in these rural towns seem to have a lost a step and they are bitter about it.

Because middle America has areas that are vibrant and important. It is not all a wasteland. Have you ever been there? Really, I wish my fellow liberals would back off on this notion that the middle of America is nothing but hicks and wasteland. It is really damaging and out of touch. And makes it that much more likely that someone like Trump gets elected. He has been very successful at putting groups against each other in order to benefit personally. I want Orange Turd gone, at least not to be re-elected and this disparaging of middle America makes it less likely.

What makes you think liberals are pushing this notion?

As you said, disparaging middle America makes Trump's ouster less likely. Who's encouraging the disparagement?

PP here. My liberal friends always talk like this. I think that they forget that while I am liberal, I am from flyover country. Or that I agree because I moved to the east coast. I think it is really gross and that they need to cut it out.

I asked this question. I'm a liberal from flyover country. I've lived in DC for close to 30 years, yet almost everyone I know is from "flyover country". A few are from DC, but they're federal employees doing work FOR flyover country.

I swear, the only place I've seen or heard anyone refer to "flyover country" is on this forum. It's about as tasteless as a racist or sexist joke. I know that happens, but could you honestly say it's a regularly seen characteristic of liberals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What's amazing to me is the emphasis on tolerance by educated urban dwellers comfortably (for them) co-exists with this bigotry towards "flyover" people.

Yes, I've pointed that out before. The liberals pride themselves on being tolerant toward illegal immigrants with their anchor babies soaking up benefits and unmarried women who have multiple children they can't afford yet denigrate hard-working taxpayers as morons in flyover country.

They just channel the disdain they have for POC to non rich white people. It’s more PC to crap on other white people.

Yup. And the disdain is woven into every post. Even comments like "the meatloaf for dinner crowd" upthread wouldn't be tolerated if something along those lines were made about POC.

It seems like you're trying to fuel the disdain. Why?

Not fuel it. Pointing out the liberal hypocrisy. But nice attempt to try and put me on the defensive. You need a new playbook.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad to say, but it’s obviously never going to get better. Flyover America has been circling the drain since at least the 70s. Why don’t they have motivation to put their families in a better place to succeed; a place with a dynamic economy and competitive peers? Politicians are so obsessed with new immigrants because they see flyover people as hopeless.

You are a fool.

Why? PP makes a good point. Throughout American history, when times got tough, the tough pulled up stakes and moved to a place with better opportunity. Americans have stopped moving around so much. They seem more willing to stay put and gripe about their lot rather than taking action to change it. People in these rural towns seem to have a lost a step and they are bitter about it.

I’m the opposite. I can’t wait to move out of the DC area and back TO flyover country.

[Anonymous]

If everyone moves out of flyover country, you’re going to get awful damn hungry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If everyone moves out of flyover country, you’re going to get awful damn hungry.

Nope. Plenty of food can be and is imported from other countries around the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If everyone moves out of flyover country, you’re going to get awful damn hungry.

If there is money to be made, people will stay. What doesn’t make sense is for so many people to stay in the economically depressed and dying off small towns. They sit there grumbling and longing fo the good ole days, instead of moving. I’m from one. No way would I ever move back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really, really pays to be a big fish in flyover country. Plus, if my kids want to go to an Ivy, they’ll have an advantage over your kids.

Great cost-benefit analysis. Don't forget to factor in their advantage in picking up an opioid addiction, an out of wedlock birth, and lower SAT/ACT score.

You do know that the Washington Metro area is filled with people addicted to opioids, a minority population that values out of wedlock birth and a high school where kids are admitted to college without attending classes or graduating.

How's the in wedlock working for your syringe loving kids these days ,while we're at it how many marriages in this country end up in divorces ? You don't have much of an argument there buddy

I didn't start the argument. Another poster mentioned "opioid addiction, out of wedlock birth (sic), and lower SAT/ACT score (sic)" in referring to flyover country.

I merely pointed out that the same problems existed in the Washington Metro area.

You merely reinforced what the other poster stated.

I guess that's -- well -- something

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really, really pays to be a big fish in flyover country. Plus, if my kids want to go to an Ivy, they’ll have an advantage over your kids.

Great cost-benefit analysis. Don't forget to factor in their advantage in picking up an opioid addiction, an out of wedlock birth, and lower SAT/ACT score.

You do know that the Washington Metro area is filled with people addicted to opioids, a minority population that values out of wedlock birth and a high school where kids are admitted to college without attending classes or graduating.

How's the in wedlock working for your syringe loving kids these days ,while we're at it how many marriages in this country end up in divorces ? You don't have much of an argument there buddy

I didn't start the argument. Another poster mentioned "opioid addiction, out of wedlock birth (sic), and lower SAT/ACT score (sic)" in referring to flyover country.

I merely pointed out that the same problems existed in the Washington Metro area.

You merely reinforced what the other poster stated.

I guess that's -- well -- something

It is 2017. Is out-of-wedlock still a thing anyone cares about. Between opioid addiction, out of wedlock birth, and low SAT scores I would say low scores and opioid addiction are probably the things to be upset about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really, really pays to be a big fish in flyover country. Plus, if my kids want to go to an Ivy, they’ll have an advantage over your kids.

Great cost-benefit analysis. Don't forget to factor in their advantage in picking up an opioid addiction, an out of wedlock birth, and lower SAT/ACT score.

You do know that the Washington Metro area is filled with people addicted to opioids, a minority population that values out of wedlock birth and a high school where kids are admitted to college without attending classes or graduating.

How's the in wedlock working for your syringe loving kids these days ,while we're at it how many marriages in this country end up in divorces ? You don't have much of an argument there buddy

I didn't start the argument. Another poster mentioned "opioid addiction, out of wedlock birth (sic), and lower SAT/ACT score (sic)" in referring to flyover country.

I merely pointed out that the same problems existed in the Washington Metro area.

You merely reinforced what the other poster stated.

I guess that's -- well -- something

It is 2017. Is out-of-wedlock still a thing anyone cares about. Between opioid addiction, out of wedlock birth, and low SAT scores I would say low scores and opioid addiction are probably the things to be upset about.

Excuse me, but if out-of-wedlock birth rstes aren't "a thing" any more, they should be. There is a direct correlation to poverty and crime, which is definitely correlated to low SAT scores. The opoid epidemic I couldn't say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If everyone moves out of flyover country, you’re going to get awful damn hungry.

If there is money to be made, people will stay. What doesn’t make sense is for so many people to stay in the economically depressed and dying off small towns. They sit there grumbling and longing fo the good ole days, instead of moving. I’m from one. No way would I ever move back.

Not everyone has the same intelligence and potential. Certainly, it's doubtful anyone posting on DCUM would have difficulty acquiring a post-high school education and the resulting employment opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If everyone moves out of flyover country, you’re going to get awful damn hungry.

Nope. Plenty of food can be and is imported from other countries around the world.

Sure. Count on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If everyone moves out of flyover country, you’re going to get awful damn hungry.

If one is gainfully employed running a farm, there is no reason to move. The farming industry has become a lot more efficient with automation, GPS for the tractors improving yield and pesticides/GMO etc.

The people who should move are the ones who don't have employment, don't have prospects for employment etc. Either that, or they need to innovate and create employment where they are.

[Anonymous]

Why would anyone want to move to a Democrat run city? They are always marked by corruption, incompetence, violence and taxes, until the blacks make them 3rd world countries, I.e Balty, Detroit, NO, Birmingham and so on and so on and so on...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to move to a Democrat run city? They are always marked by corruption, incompetence, violence and taxes, until the blacks make them 3rd world countries, I.e Balty, Detroit, NO, Birmingham and so on and so on and so on...

Don't feed this troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to move to a Democrat run city? They are always marked by corruption, incompetence, violence and taxes, until the blacks make them 3rd world countries, I.e Balty, Detroit, NO, Birmingham and so on and so on and so on...

Don't feed this troll.

DP, but why call the above poster a troll. They bring up a valid point - that the Democratic-run cities ARE corrupt and rampant with poverty and crime. The only thing I wouldn't have said was the remark about blacks. Otherwise, the poster spoke the truth.