Wyoming is one of the least religious states in the Union.

White supremacy and patriarchy really are religions in this country. There would be a Republican Party without Christianity. There wouldn't be without racism, including xenophobia.

Even these days we (I'm white) are still 76% of the population. Just how the hell did black people get the vote in the first place if white supremacy is the religion of liberals and all conservatives instead of just some? You must really think liberals are dumb as rocks.

This reminds me that white liberal and socially liberal white conservative men gave black men the vote 50 years before they gave it to both white and black women. Would that make them double stupid or half stupid?

Imo, this kind of comment against all members of any group, race, religion, whatever, are completely intellectually indefensible. And the nicest thing I can say about this.

false equivalency notions about liberals and conservatives are putting themselves in grave danger these days, not just others.

Polls show that many on the hard right are so tired of being outvoted by majorities that they are willing to give up democracy for conservative authoritarian government that will, they imagine, institutionalize white supremacy. The threat of authoritarian takeovers, including fascist, to democracies isn't just happening in Europe and elsewhere.

But if blacks at a tiny 13% of the population are among the first to realize what losing the power of the votes would mean to them -- all ability to demand rights would disappear with it -- white people and others really shouldn't be far behind.

There are far too many minorities in this country to get rid of. If we lose the power to vote, not only will minorities be exploited as before, but many tens of millions of "entitled" white people would have to get used to losing jobs to those in smaller groups who are even easier to exploit. Both women and POC have been hired at below-subsistence pay over white men many times and places in this country. Jews at only 2% and Muslims at less than 1% probably wouldn't need not apply at all.

And don't forget, even though planetary and national wealth have quadrupled over the past 30 years and we are an enormously wealthy nation, beyond belief, the day when lawn mowers and trucks will drive themselves, and all the rest that suggests, is almost upon us. Will that wealth be shared or will unneeded workers be allowed to live somehow until they die?

We MUST have liberal controlled government if life is to continue as we were raised to expect. So let those who don't see a huge difference know. It could genuinely turn into a matter of life and death for many. Most who objected would be controlled simply by turning the water and power off and blocking routes out. We're not in the 1860s any more.

The behavior of the party controlling congress is extremely alarming. They're supposed to be a check on the power of the presidency, but virtually all are obeying a man who would be an authoritarian dictator. That huge protection of our democracy is broken and serving its enemies. The vote will save us -- or destroy us.

And I never forget the nations that voted to destroy their democracies. We blame the enthusiastic right-wing Nazis in Germany, but no doubt they couldn't have done it without the aid of others, including those who "lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity" as Yeats put it.

I'm far from Wyoming, but will throw in that each vote there is worth just a bit less than 3 in more populous Georgia, where a third of the populace is black.

especially with land use policy. Like most hard core Libertarians, their lives are fueled on resentment and mistrust towards those from the "big cities" especially on the coasts. Their state houses have, at times, had a remarkably low level of college educated representatives (while some are "self-educated" at a level that would surprise any "Ivy-league" snob--something I fully acknowledge and laud, the gaps in educational level do show up some times in some really bad policy decisions).

Their libertarian tendencies date back to the pioneer days and need for self-sufficiency.

Good point about their libertarianism tracing back to their pioneer history, that makes sense. Of course they benefit from government too but don’t realize it.

Like I said, there are plenty of self-educated people that would impress the hell out of anyone, but there are also a lot of very stubborn "know it all" high school drop-outs that get elected to the State House, at least. The Senate might be a bit more competitive. Not to say there are not a lot of "know it all" college educated members too. At any rate, data-driven arguments often fall flat, even more so than with the usual RW attitudes.

That is why I favor a Federal Transfer Payment Equalization Act.

No state should receive more money from DC than they send to it.

Too many of these red states are getting a free ride of the backs off from the blue ones.

Having a small population helps, but given the mineral and oil revenues, they actually score better than California on that score (though not as good as COLORADO--YEAH, Colorado!)

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

For example it would kill my state NM, a fairly solid Blue State, if we didn’t have the help of richer states.

I get so tired of the insults to my state, but I generally keep my mouth shut, but some of the comments on this thread, IMO, are beyond the pale.

Maybe I'm over sensitive because I'm a native of Wyoming.

We have cities with larger populations than the entire state of Wyoming. Yet they get two senators. Some states aid in the mass population being underrepresented.

They tend to vote Republican in national elections only because they believe Republicans will weaken protections for federal lands and open them up to for profit uses.

Suburbanites and city dwellers don't understand the impact of vast swaths of land locked up in national parks, monuments, forests etc. Not to mention federal control of water and natural resources. I agree with having land set aside for wildlife and I agree with the nations resources being used to help the majority instead of the few, but I also recognize it impacts the locals.

is on the companies who come here and draw more "locals" to come and work, when the resource goes bust, so do all the jobs. Out here it's more of a transient sort of population, even for those who have generations of family here. The Native Americans were nomadic for a reason, to follow the food and shelter availability.

The ecosystems here also are far more fragile than most understand, the soil profile in many places is less than an inch deep and once scarred, can take centuries if it ever revives. The forests have been starving since we built the dams on the Columbia River and so they are dying of various ills from disease to pests, and all the other species suffer from this obstruction of nature. And from we humans, the most destructive force they are assaulted by with regular expansion.

People come here, to the National Parks and forests, and have NO CLUE as to where they are, what they need to know for their own safety and that it's not Disneyland or a petting zoo. It's pathetic how many come here to proudly display their willful ignorance as though we're too stupid to get it.

And then we have those folks from heavily populated states who start complaining about the less populous states having two Senators! WTF? The "big" states get plenty of members of the house to balance out the difference in population... (my state has one also and it's not Wyoming) seems there's a general confusion as to the roles of the two governing bodies of the Congress, but I digress.

People who know nothing about the rural west should really get some edumacation about that before making stupid, vapid comments about our mentality and worth. There are many well educated people here, we just don't like crowds so we pay the price of life in wilder places in order to be lessen our exposure to the masses. And here is a cost, I have to go at least 35 miles to a grocery store, the cheaper ones are 90 miles away, planning is a must, and I don't get high speed internet or more than three bars on my cell phone and fresh produce is expensive as are most food items and many services are something I have to travel to rather than them coming to me, but it's worth it to not hear sirens and planes and screaming street people, street lights and all the other woes of city life, however, I still expect to have the same freedoms of every other citizen with equal representation in the government.

I hope you don’t think I started this thread to insult Wyoming, I was just curious as to its politics.

Btw I’m from rural New Mexico so I get what you’re saying about Western living. It’s tough sometimes, but I like it.

but some of the responses are starting to sound like a broken record re the issues I pointed out.

The tourist industry has gotten out of control to the point that the tourists are trashing everything they came to see and get belligerent about it when you point that out to them when they are being assholes. I had to retire so I wouldn't get violent at them. Now I can just walk away.

I can’t stand people who trash and litter up nature.

the vast majority of tourists do at some point.

I was not able to speak up when in uniform, but now that I'm civilian again, I don't hold back. If someone does something stupid and I'm right there. I let them know that I object and they can just go home if thy have a problem with it. I'll leave it there, it's a big can of worms.

You said it much better than I ever could.

Only religion is GUNS!!!!! total NRA TYPE!!!!

but I wouldn't live anywhere else, I love the beauty of my state, AFAIC, there is no other state as beautiful as Wyoming.

1) Hard to be a Democrat in WYO 2) Really beautiful State!! Gotta love those Bighorn mountains!!!!

famous for the Hole in the Wall Gang, Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch, Black Jack Ketchum.

We also have the Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park, which we share with Idaho, and Montana.

I love visiting there as well as Montana. Nice people too. Keep up the good Democratic fight up there!

They aren't completely monolithic there.

Dave Freudenthal was a damned decent governor.

Working to get Mary Throne D elected as our next Governor, but she's a long shot.

As the most beautiful

But I would say we are both biased, lol.

The Cascades are very beautiful, but, IMO, they can't hold a candle to the 3 sisters mountain range, or the Bighorn mountain range, but, as you said, we are both a bit biased.

Have a great night.

One of the most beautiful places I’ve ever visited. That’s one great thing about the USA; we have so much wonderful and pretty landscapes that it’s almost unreal.

:evigrin:

and they mostly vote democratic.

many racist whites hid behind christianity but with trump they showed they are just bigots.

about Hispanics and blacks being the most religious and voting Democratic. I guess the lesson (for me at least) is that religion isn’t as big an indicator of voting patterns as I thought it was.

opposition to "progress" that historically has meant more industrialization, more urbanization secondary to growing corporate concentration in urban areas, and thus the disempowerment of increasingly depopulated rural areas.

That, and their love of guns.

Gun rights are probably very popular.

I was reading a biography about someone in early 19th century Arizona. The people there were used to having not much government around - being a territory, not a lot of people there, little rules and regulations. As the area became more settled and developed more government, they didn't like it and felt hemmed in. It could be a similar thing in most of the West.

And the beauty of the area resulting in national parks with federal employees - in large swathes of land probably leads to that dislike of the federal government and a feeling that faraway Washington is controlling too much.

I yield to people who actually live there, of course. The above could be so much speculation.

It appears that libertarianism is the dominant force in the West.

but the politics make me crazy. Libertarianism and resentment of federal authority, the myth of rugged individualism, etc. It all overlooks the fact that federal investment BUILT the economy there and continues to subsidize it. The railroads! The Homestead Act. Fucking Custer et al. The General Mining Act of 1872, the gift that keeps on giving. Bureau of Reclamation dams on everything bigger than a garden hose. Building and maintaining logging roads on the public dime. Subsidized grazing on public land. Predator control by F&W, with payments for losses. The list goes on and it continues today. I doubt if those states with wide open spaces would be economically viable without it, even with tourist dollars to help.

Maybe it is the underlying resentment of the dependent for their patrons that turns them against the government and makes them want less of it.