Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 113 Next »

swifty

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Thu May 22, 2014, 06:45 PM
Number of posts: 7,623

Journal Archives

Putin and Mohammed bin Salaam's G20 yearbook entries?

You Trumpies did this to Trump. Just remember that.

Those of us who didn't vote for him were doing it for his own good. I know. I know. You thought it was because we thought he was a tool. But no. We just knew he wasn't up to it and would melt down. We felt sorry for him.

Then you guys voted for him. With real votes. Not TV ones. And he ended up in the real Presidency.

So way to go. You did this. The guy never even wanted to be President. He just wanted to lose, maybe start a disgruntlement-based yahoo media empire, cash in on some Putin good will, etc. But you guys had to vote for him.

Now it looks more and more like he's totally screwed. And it's your fault.

Could current metro area folks buy out rural areas thanks to Republicanism?

Why wouldn't the following happen?

1. Republicans keep selling rural folks beanstalk beans and Martian repellant. (And rural folks keep buying same. "Thank God for that nice man and his great deals!")

2. Rural incomes and land values continue to lag metro areas, the gap growing ever wider.

3. Eventually, there's a huge population/wealth gradient between metro and rural areas, similar to that between the U.S. and Mexico. Rural people, impoverished by the results of Republicanism, finally have to give up and move to metro areas. Economic migration.

4. Rich metro area people, on the other hand, can then easily afford to buy rural real estate at Republicanism-depressed prices. They sell their inflated metro area real estate and buy ten times the house/land in the rural areas.

5. The rural people who move to the metro areas and remain followers of Republicanism have no political effect. There are too few of them to turn blue cities red. And, anyway, why be a follower of Republicanism if you live in the metro area?

6. The metro people who move to the rural areas, on the other hand, have a tremendous political effect. They quickly swamp rural politics, turning it blue. Then, they vote for "rural renewal," an initiative that could only occur under Democratic politics.

7. Freed from the effects of Republicanism and awash in money from the new metro people, rural areas begin to prosper again. Under Democratic rural renewal, land values and incomes soar.

8. Metro areas, where the rural economic migrants fled, begin to see a drop-off in advantage. In a process similar to suburbanization, more and more people want to move to rural areas from the metro areas.

9. The ones who can afford it move rural. That's the ones who have lived in the metro areas the longest and are therefore wealthier. They leave behind the "new" metro people (the former rural economic migrants) and move to rural areas.

10. The swaparoo is complete. Metro people have all the money plus the beautiful rural territory and land. Followers of Republicanism are stuck in a future decaying and price-declining metro social desert.

I left out a bunch of steps and other factors that contribute to this argument. You're welcome.

Rural voters are bound to dump Trump in 2020 if trends continue.

Economically, rural voters weren't doing as well as metro voters in recovering from the 2008 Republican Recession during the 2016 election. That would explain some of their frustration and sense of feeling "forgotten." Then they voted in desperation for Mr. Lip Service. But rural voters are still lagging metro voters big time economically under Trump and his Republicans. If you are in a city or close to a city, you're doing a lot better than rural voters. They are still getting their clocks cleaned, unfortunately (and predictably).

Four years is a long time for rural voters to settle for lip service and resentment pandering. Trump is gonna get dumped. Dems are far, far better for rural voters and have learned to pay more attention to them. (In that sense, voting in Dubya II worked.)

What if instead of removing confederate statues...

...they simply moved them a little bit and put statues of slaves or Klan victims next to them? For example, if there were a Robert E. Lee statue in some park, then, right next to it, there could be a statue of a hooded Klansman saluting him, a noose dangling from his hand. Or there could be a fat, rich plantation owner statue taking a bite out of a turkey leg, grease dripping down his chin, lying on a cushioned platform kept aloft on the backs of toiling slaves.

That way there would be a more complete picture of "heritage." Who could argue against a more complete picture? I'm not sure there would be as much of an argument for removing confederate heritage statues if all of the heritage were on display instead of just some of it. Heck, there might be a lot more people visiting the parks.

Is a job provided by government "winner picking" a form of welfare?

If government uses laws and tariffs to punish industry into creating certain kinds of jobs, isn't that really just a form of welfare? Aren't those "handout jobs?"

I'm actually strongly for the concept of job guarantee, by the way. I just don't think the "resentment-based" approach used by followers of Republicanism is effective. It gives job handouts to a few people in sentimentality-bait jobs (coal, steel) while taking the jobs of people in less "tear-jerker" lines of work (retail). There is a ton of good, solid, physical and mental work to do out there. Followers of Republicanism stand in the way.

Saudi Arabia agrees to pay for U.S. weapons and not take delivery.

(Saudi Arabia)

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's spokesperson today announced that the Saudi government would pay for weapons systems purchased from U.S. manufacturers but, in what they termed a "good behavior bonus," would not require delivery of the weapons themselves.

"This shows our tremendous gratitude to the principality of the United States and its people," said a spokesman for the Crown Prince. "You can just have the money as a good behavior bonus. Use it to pay for roads for your subjects. You need roads, right? They are on us."

/s

I object to Trumpies being forced to wear MAGA hats.

Why are Trumpies being forced to wear these hats? It's not right. The hats make them look dumb and unattractive. A person has the right to choose their headwear. I think whoever is forcing Trumpies to wear these hats (surely it's not voluntary) should cease and desist. Trumpies should be allowed to hide their support for Trump, not be forced to wear a scarlet letter (set of scarlet letters, I guess).

How will followers of Republicanism keep up their numbers with so few women?

It won't be long before women are all crossing Trumpies and Dittoheads off of their lists. It's probably already happening. A guy who wears a MAGA hat can pretty much kiss the idea of having descendants goodbye. Dem guys love seeing Republicanism follower guys wearing those hats for that very reason. Less competition.

I foresee a time when American women will demand the legalization of polygamy just so they can swarm Dem men. We're all going to have to get in better shape to handle the demand.

Dracula Accuses Media of Bias

(Transylvania)

Count Dracula's Press Secretary, R. M. Renfield, today accused the press of media bias.

"The press treats this Count with nothing but negativity and disrespect," said Renfield. "Why can't they for once just report something positive? It's all stories about 'neck holes' and 'walking dead' townsfolk. Why can't they report on the fact that the weather has been nice? The media is the enemy of the food!"
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 113 Next »