You used that as an example to attack me. That is why it is a straw man. I am not upset. You constantly lazily paint groups with a single brush stroke because it’s convenient. But that’s not reality.
The left behaves as a monolith. You can't pretend you're the one special liberal who doesn't but it doesn't matter when the people in power all think and behave exactly the same way.
The talking heads are all beside themselves over the townhall. The academics at the schools are in lockstep about mistreating any speakers they disagree with.
The left riots when it the courts rule in a way they don't like.
The reality is you're denying reality.
I think by now it's pretty clear that you're a moronic nutjob Trump sucker with absolutely no life at all.
People have different views. Adults can live amongst this reality.
Then why do you try to silence or cancel any "adults" that don't agree with you?
Today the entire left is freaking out that CNN let a man that 75 million people voted for speak on their network.
No, they're freaking out because it's a bad idea to willingly devote airtime for the cause of letting a convicted sexual assaulter lie through his teeth for two hours straight. If he could actually present his case in a coherent, reasonable manner there'd be a lot less drama but that is clearly impossible for that fat loser.
Unless, of course, you think the election actually was stolen, in which case you're even stupider and gullible than my most hateful assumptions could conjure.
This post was edited 56 seconds after it was posted.
Just because a state is red or blue does not mean everyone in the state is red or blue. Food production is no where near 50/50 between the parties.
Which point are you arguing for? What you just said above supports that the ideological division can not be easily split geographically, but in other posts you are arguing that we are on the verge of another civil war and splitting the US up between red states and blue states.
I agree it would be difficult to split the ideologies up geographically.
It is still a fact that the overwhelming majority of the food producers are on the right.
The whole no food vs no doctors stuff is funny. Ignoring the impossibility of splitting of the country. If it were to happen: 85% of the country just wants to live life. Farmers that live in blue states will still grow food. Farmers that live in red states will still export food to New Jersey. Doctors that live in red states will still see patients. No one is going to be build the Berlin wall. Does any side want that?
Which point are you arguing for? What you just said above supports that the ideological division can not be easily split geographically, but in other posts you are arguing that we are on the verge of another civil war and splitting the US up between red states and blue states.
I agree it would be difficult to split the ideologies up geographically.
It is still a fact that the overwhelming majority of the food producers are on the right.
Will Texas be blue or red in 6 years? Virginia, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania?
Lol. Everyone knows you're a goddamn idiot but why do you have to prove it every time you open your mouth or put fingers to keyboard??
Monolith??? Give me a break. While both sides have become more partisan this could easily describe the right to more than the left. If the far left, the Fringe group that you want to Define the entire Democratic party by, truly controlled and was representative of the entire left do you really think they would have nominated Joe Biden and will again?? Of course not. it would have been Bernie, Warren or AOC for that matter.
I have been considered for many years to be one of the most vocal liberals on this board yet there are many positions on the far left that I disagree with and have said so here.
I've never heard you or some other right-wing kook like yourself criticize the right for being too far right. no it's always that they are not far right or trumpy enough.
You say you didn't support Trump But ultimately you stand by him on everything he does.
It's the right wingers that are so monolithic that anyone who spoke out against Trump they immediately excommunicated them from the party. Look at John McCain. And so many others in recent years immediately lost power by even slightly criticizing that F'n buffoon.
And as far as the CNN Trump Town Hall you are dead wrong because while I have seen some criticism of CNN in the liberal media I am seeing many others state that they thought it was a good thing to do because
A] Trump made a fool of himself
B] he presented many sound bites that could be used against him and
C] if you try to silence him it only helps him
So no despite your nonsense it has not been universally condemned by the left
But ever since Trump took over the party facts mean nothing to you guys and lies are your currency
Will Texas be blue or red in 6 years? Virginia, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania?
Ohio and Florida were supposed to be solid blue already. How's that working out for you?
I think Trump is the only thing keeping the country from voting in Republicans everywhere.
The Democrats have gotten too extreme for most people.
States with a large amount of high tech jobs are leaning more democrat. States with more manufacturing and blue collar jobs are becoming more republican. I'm not surprised about Ohio or even Florida.
The notion that we can carve out two separate countries based on whether states are red or blue is absurd as demographics change. From year to year we still can't predict where these swing states will vote.
Also I don't disagree with you about the democrats or Trump.
You have to try and see from the other person’s perspective. I think in general the left views the right’s position on guns and abortion as crazy.
The main issue is the left has zero exposure to the right's actual positions. The best they get is caricatures of the positions presented by heavily biased left wing media.
The republican position on guns was the Democrat position on guns not too long ago.
Republicans don't believe the answer to gun violence is taking away the rights of people who didn't break the law. You might not agree but it isn't "crazy".
As for abortion the crazy is firmly on the left. Even Europe bans abortion after 12 weeks and American liberals act like not being allowed to abort your baby at 9 months is Taliban style restriction. Both parties are far from the middle on abortion but the Democrats are much further away than than the Republicans.
dude, you really are the dumbest person on this board, and that's saying something. Yet, like your orange leader, you're convinced you're the smartest guy in the room. It makes for entertaining reading sometimes, I'll give you that. Carry on...
Agreed about red and blue states...not so sure I agree about food production.
I'm not presently a farmer, but come from a farming family. I grew up on a dairy farm now owned by my brother. My extended family owns/owned various types of farms. Many of them have sold to corporate farms over the years. We're in a midwestern state that used to be solidly red, but has occasionally gone blue. Like most families, we run the gamut from one extreme to the other. My observation of the other farming families is the same.
I believe that most people choose a political party based on 2-3 big issues. Very few people agree 100% with any given party platform. For some people that's based in religion, for some it is based in their livelihood. If you depend on oil production, you're going to support more drilling. If you are producing opiates, you're not going to favor regulation of the pharmaceutical industry.
In agriculture, we depend on the land. We've been talking about climate change and changing growing seasons since I was a kid. When your whole year depends on very specific weather events, like the last frost, or spring rains, or first frost, you pay very close attention. It's a given amongst farmers, especially multi-generational ones that the climate is changing, and it's changing rapidly. We depend on clean water. When regulations limiting runoff are lifted, or fracking contaminates an aquifer, we notice.
In my experience, most of us don't care who is boinking who, or what bathroom you use. Some do, and they might vote based on that...but many of us have a hard time voting for the party that actively tries to harm our family's livelihood.
I suppose the one point that you do have is that most food is produced by big corporations, and those corporations might benefit financially from republican policies...but it is not sustainable. Those CEOs are out to make a buck, not have a legacy in the land that they can pass to their grand kids.
Red states would be third-world countries if it wasn't for the subsidization of their weak economies by blue states like New York and California.
Nearly every single state in the bottom 15 of literacy, education, health, GDP, human development, and life expectancy is red and somehow it's a debate which half would be better off in a split? What the fck?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Agreed about red and blue states...not so sure I agree about food production.
I'm not presently a farmer, but come from a farming family. I grew up on a dairy farm now owned by my brother. My extended family owns/owned various types of farms. Many of them have sold to corporate farms over the years. We're in a midwestern state that used to be solidly red, but has occasionally gone blue. Like most families, we run the gamut from one extreme to the other. My observation of the other farming families is the same.
I believe that most people choose a political party based on 2-3 big issues. Very few people agree 100% with any given party platform. For some people that's based in religion, for some it is based in their livelihood. If you depend on oil production, you're going to support more drilling. If you are producing opiates, you're not going to favor regulation of the pharmaceutical industry.
In agriculture, we depend on the land. We've been talking about climate change and changing growing seasons since I was a kid. When your whole year depends on very specific weather events, like the last frost, or spring rains, or first frost, you pay very close attention. It's a given amongst farmers, especially multi-generational ones that the climate is changing, and it's changing rapidly. We depend on clean water. When regulations limiting runoff are lifted, or fracking contaminates an aquifer, we notice.
In my experience, most of us don't care who is boinking who, or what bathroom you use. Some do, and they might vote based on that...but many of us have a hard time voting for the party that actively tries to harm our family's livelihood.
I suppose the one point that you do have is that most food is produced by big corporations, and those corporations might benefit financially from republican policies...but it is not sustainable. Those CEOs are out to make a buck, not have a legacy in the land that they can pass to their grand kids.
Red states would be third-world countries if it wasn't for the subsidization of their weak economies by blue states like New York and California.
Nearly every single state in the bottom 15 of literacy, education, health, GDP, human development, and life expectancy is red and somehow it's a debate which half would be better off in a split? What the fck?
Of course, Red states will be better off. No drag shows, no LGBTQ books in libraries, no same sex marriage, no abortion after six weeks, and birth control pills will be "illegal drug." Ten commandments and mandatory prayer in every classroom, where CRT is never taught.
It will be a paradise for rightwing cultural warriors.
Red states would be third-world countries if it wasn't for the subsidization of their weak economies by blue states like New York and California.
Nearly every single state in the bottom 15 of literacy, education, health, GDP, human development, and life expectancy is red and somehow it's a debate which half would be better off in a split? What the fck?
Of course, Red states will be better off. No drag shows, no LGBTQ books in libraries, no same sex marriage, no abortion after six weeks, and birth control pills will be "illegal drug." Ten commandments and mandatory prayer in every classroom, where CRT is never taught.
It will be a paradise for rightwing cultural warriors.
It's hilarious that you morons think 100% of the people in red states or blue states are all either red or blue.
Red states would be third-world countries if it wasn't for the subsidization of their weak economies by blue states like New York and California.
Nearly every single state in the bottom 15 of literacy, education, health, GDP, human development, and life expectancy is red and somehow it's a debate which half would be better off in a split? What the fck?
MAGGOTS think they can claim most of the country because their sparsely populated trailer park towns have large areas and few people. The fair way to split up a red/blue state (every state is red/blue) is by the most recent vote. MA-GA voters, dem voters, non-voters, and not allowed to vote each get a cut of the pie. That effectively leaves MA-GAs in their little isolated trailer parks with a few hundred yards of land around them to farm as they wish.
pass a bill that required GOP economic and social policies be enforced only upon their voters and noone else, and BLUE states will no longer subsidize/bail out RED states like they do every single year. you want a divorce? okay, you're all on your own. Bye.
One way for a modest separation, but still retaining the power of a Country's Unity.
Is to have in a town/city, clear designated areas (whether residential and/or commercial), where social conservative laws apply. And other areas, where socially liberal laws apply. And yet more areas where "moderate" laws apply. The laws would be coded by the respective peoples in their Sector/Canton. All three legal codes would be boundaried, by The High Constitution governing the Federation (UK in my case)
If highly social conservative people in their designated sector/Canton, want to ban all abortions with no exceptions. Then As long as people are free to move, to other less restrictive social conservative areas (if they're moderate social conservatives). Or a liberal area. Then, as long as the abortion banners don't try to enforce their ban in my liberal sector (of course they'll try. But we'll be ready for them).
Then away from me, let them live over there.
Let them live their worldview happily in their sector, and we'll live our worldview happily in ours.
The nation-state empire, since the mid 1800s is generally a tyrannical empire. That demanded One. One language, One Mode of Dress, One "people". With one unbending, highly granular, uniform law code.
Perhaps the uniform law has become too suffocating in its scope. So let's look again at different laws for different cantons, sectors.
Other statehood Empires in history, have existed for long periods, with different laws for different cantons of the same city.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
