Politics Official 2024 Presidential Election Thread (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Who will "Win?"


  • Total voters
    42
You're deranged. "A lady tries to invade someone's house because she doesn't like when he posted on Twitter, and you're defending the person who defended his HOME?!"

We're going to need a national divorce.

Defending his home after making light of rape. But the very first thing even you mentioned was the doxing.

BTW, aren't you the guys that said Democrats tried to shoot Trump because Democrats said he was a fascist and needed to turn down the rhetoric, even though it was a Republican that took a shot at your guy?
 
Defending his home after making light of rape. But the very first thing even you mentioned was the doxing.

BTW, aren't you the guys that said Democrats tried to shoot Trump because Democrats said he was a fascist and needed to turn down the rhetoric, even though it was ANTIFA that took a shot at your guy?
We all know the truth
 
Granola Bars and $8 coffee drinks vs AR-15s and shotguns. Hmm...
Lol. There are likely more guns in the blue areas than the red... as if that even matters. All those red areas are just empty space to explore.

The red area can't support itself, and costs the blue areas a ton of money, but we like to keep it around because it's pretty out there.
 
Lol. There are likely more guns in the blue areas than the red... as if that even matters. All those red areas are just empty space to explore.

The red area can't support itself, and costs the blue areas a ton of money, but we like to keep it around because it's pretty out there.
The red areas grow almost all of the food.
upload_2024-11-11_17-15-22.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2024-11-11_17-15-22.png
    upload_2024-11-11_17-15-22.png
    904.2 KB · Views: 68
Who do you think pays them to grow that food?

You got it, the blue areas.

Guess who actually does all the work in those red areas? Machines and immigrants...
Rural areas tend to support less government control because they're more self sufficient. People that have land, chickens, milking goat a well are far more self sufficient than those in a city.

Grocery stores only have a few days worth of supplies. It's not even comparable. If things got really bad, you'd find that you can eat money.
 
The republicans just sealed the House!

We have the House
We have the Senate
We have the Supreme Court
And of course the presidency.

THIS IS MAGA COUNTRY!
466739030_10226694341051360_3384072747142836903_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lol. There are likely more guns in the blue areas than the red... as if that even matters. All those red areas are just empty space to explore.

The red area can't support itself, and costs the blue areas a ton of money, but we like to keep it around because it's pretty out there.

Guy thinks he's Steven Seagal.

He's one of the big reasons to be concerned about unlimited gun ownership in the country.

All these "good guys with guns" are so eager to feel manly and fire their weapons they'd take each other out with friendly fire before even identifying an actual shooter.
 
The red area can't support itself, and costs the blue areas a ton of money, but we like to keep it around because it's pretty out there.
I’m not sure what leads you to believe rural areas would be unable to support themselves while cities could. All the food and raw materials in a city come from rural areas, not the other way around. It’s a pretty common statistic that most cities have only a few days worth of goods at any given time. When the trucks stop coming you will be eating your neighbors within a week or so, give or take. It’s all a stupid argument anyway because both urban/rural environments are necessary and relevant. Cities are hubs for the exchange of said goods that were obtained elsewhere and also places where the mostly helpless people of the world can live comfortably without having to learn tangible skills. Sort of like an adult daycare situation.
The last part is a joke. Kind of.
 
All these "good guys with guns" are so eager to feel manly and fire their weapons they'd take each other out with friendly fire before even identifying an actual shooter.

Except that’s not what happens and you are just saying random shit. The “shootout at the ok corral” defense got ditched a long time ago because there was simply no data to back it. I forgot about it until i read your comment just now.

Part of the reason i love this place is because it’s like a time machine for bad liberal ideas. You can come here and find the most disproven, debunked and outdated takes still being thrown around commonplace as if they are irrefutable facts. It’s sort of nostalgic.
 
I’m not sure what leads you to believe rural areas would be unable to support themselves while cities could. All the food and raw materials in a city come from rural areas, not the other way around. It’s a pretty common statistic that most cities have only a few days worth of goods at any given time. When the trucks stop coming you will be eating your neighbors within a week or so, give or take. It’s all a stupid argument anyway because both urban/rural environments are necessary and relevant. Cities are hubs for the exchange of said goods that were obtained elsewhere and also places where the mostly helpless people of the world can live comfortably without having to learn tangible skills. Sort of like an adult daycare situation.
The last part is a joke. Kind of.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I wasn't the one trying to split the state up. I said we in the blue areas like the red areas. That's why we support it financially.
 
Rural areas tend to support less government control because they're more self sufficient. People that have land, chickens, milking goat a well are far more self sufficient than those in a city.

Grocery stores only have a few days worth of supplies. It's not even comparable. If things got really bad, you'd find that you can eat money.

No, but Blue can use its money to buy food from other countries.
Not sure how Red is going to get government subsidies from other countries.

barfo
 
I did support the repeal of Roe V Wade. Even liberal hero, Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was critical of it.

Trump didn't "take away women's rights". That was a decision by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not exist to pass legislation.

But you lefties don't really understand our constitution, or how government works, you just regurgitate the BS your pundits spew out you. "Twump takes away women's rights! Ooooh, orange man bad!"
HAPPY VETERAN’S DAY…….oh……
 
Rural areas tend to support less government control because they're more self sufficient. People that have land, chickens, milking goat a well are far more self sufficient than those in a city.

Grocery stores only have a few days worth of supplies. It's not even comparable. If things got really bad, you'd find that you can eat money.

Well, that's another great big wrong.

Rural areas aren't remotely self-sufficient.

Again, this is something you could have Googled in 5 seconds. Red states take a disproportionate amount of federal dollars that are produced by blue states, and it goes for that by red areas of the country in general.

I could see someone maybe 14 years old would think like you, because it's simplistic, but I never thought I'd meet an adult that didn't understand what it takes to be "self-sustaining" or "self-sufficient." It was extremely difficult to live the way you suggest even 150 years ago ... there are reasons cities became cities.
 
I'm of course, partially joking about the food thing (of course, we'll continue to feed you).

But the idea of a national divorce doesn't sound so far fetched does it? Conservative counties within blue wall states have been talking about breaking off for years.

And now that the right is in power, could it spark a similar movement on the left? All that would need to happen, is the coastal cities get so fed up with what is going on with the Federal level, they ask for a divorce. And of course, the west coast of California were to leave, that would mean the Republicans would totally dominate the political landscape at the federal level, so they'd have a strong incentive to let them go.

Of course, dividing up federal resources would be really difficult, particularly the military. But both sides would have a pretty strong political will to split up.
 


See, to me this comes off as an angry white man hating for the sake of hate.

If a state has reason for giving sanctuary to immigrants, be it working low-paying jobs picking crops or providing labor in factories, why the heck would you interfere with that and potentially destroy the economy in that area?

It's letting rhetoric, posturing and ideological vendettas get in the way of good judgment. It doesn't even fit with the oft-cited right-wing stance about giving rights to the states because they better understand their needs, so, clearly, this has more to do with xenophobia than intelligent policy. It's just kneejerk reaction that's going to kill small farms and mid-size businesses for no sound reason.
 
Well, that's another great big wrong.

Rural areas aren't remotely self-sufficient.

Again, this is something you could have Googled in 5 seconds. Red states take a disproportionate amount of federal dollars that are produced by blue states, and it goes for that by red areas of the country in general.

I could see someone maybe 14 years old would think like you, because it's simplistic, but I never thought I'd meet an adult that didn't understand what it takes to be "self-sustaining" or "self-sufficient." It was extremely difficult to live the way you suggest even 150 years ago ... there are reasons cities became cities.

Nobody would win in a scenario where there's a hostile separation, with one side hoarding food and the other hording money etc. It would be a catastrophe. But what might happen is more of a political divorce, which would still be messy, but seem to be headed in that direction.
 
The more and more I read and hear the right talk about how they plan to run things, the more and more I become confident that this is going to be like when your 4-year-old tells you they are running away from home and comes back 30 minutes later sobbing asked you to give them lunch.

These guys wanted change but didn't bother to actually formulate ideas about making changes or thinking about the consequences of those changes.

Just like COVID should already have shown them, Trump, MAGA and the GOP are going to do more serious harm to their own supporters than even the people they're trying to hurt in the name of patriotism.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top