Saik0

They’re my family.

So your sample size is just your family… and you think you’re having a rational conversation that isn’t biased as fuck?
Does this statement now make more sense?

Especially since you didn’t actually engage in the conversation, but just wanted to call a particular group of people stupid.

Outside of your family… Can you legitimately say that you see much difference between rural and metro trains of thought? Or do both groups tend to vote based on the issues that they perceive to be important to them? Eg, does the examples I gave above make sense why the different mindsets would cause reasonable people to vote differently based simply on location?

Congrats. So was I. However I understand that the vast majority of people in general are “absolutely stupid” (after all it’s impossible for any one individual to contain the “majority” of information) … Not just this one specific population. I certainly don’t believe them to be stupid just based on how they vote or politics. You could actually talk to them and ask them why they vote the way they do rather than just call them stupid. Honestly your response reflects a lot about you rather than them. Especially since you didn’t actually engage in the conversation, but just wanted to call a particular group of people stupid.

Man, downvoted for speaking on what is clearly the truth.

I’m not sure why people assume that the “rural” voters must be stupid and that they are supporting people that have tricked them. I doubt the vast majority are tricked at all. They’re playing the same fucking game metro voters do and are voting their interests. Who’s the side that will help them stop people from destroying their farmland or will close the border so there’s less trafficking on their land? They have different priorities than you do as a “metro” voter. It’s clear that the GOP backs a more “rural” mindset with the policies that they claim (I’m not interested in discussing if they will or won’t, the point is that the DNC just isn’t acting at all on many rural issues at all) to want to enact. Most rural people at least feel they’re in the fucking conversation with a GOP candidate.

Things like “banning guns”… A rural person might like to keep a gun in the car to defend themselves against wolves, bears, other hostile critters… This is NORMAL in many places. Or police are literally an hour away… so you can’t rely on them at all. But the “city”-minded folks have no understanding of the amount of actual defensive uses of guns actually happens and how those policies would literally kill (or cause SIGNIFICANT financial burden… Imagine a bear attacking a car and there’s no auto repair shop within 100 miles of you) people who live out in the middle of nowhere farming shit that feeds the “city”-dwellers. Many of those people can’t even fathom that a county can have less than 70,000 people in the population (where I grew up).

Things like “homelessness” doesn’t really happen out in rural areas as much, and when it does happen it’s much more hidden since the homeless person isn’t parading around in the middle of a subway station or some other thing… So less consideration is given to topics like that.

This is just common sense. But instead the answer is to denigrate the “other” people… It’s a good way to lose elections. Based on current polls, it looks like the “Smart Metro” voters are screaming their way to a loss.

But right, it’s all “identity politics”…

I’m just disappointed that both options are pure and utter garbage. But one does at the very least acknowledge that the stuff I care about is okay to care about, where the other outright “hates” me for thinking that I should matter.

or MAIL a check to their offices in another state.

Most bill-pay systems that banks run do this for you. eg, I have my HOA in my bill-pay. My bank sends a physical check every quarter since my HOA doesn’t have an electronic method available.

Indeed. And looking at the deleted post… definitely a power trip.

but your response was overtly aggressive while mine was not.

You took it that way. It was not. You chose to ignore the response and instead took offense instead of actually reading the other paragraph of response. Notice that the rebuttal to the actual claim came before I even bothered to address the fact that one doesn’t need to be a lawyer to understand that this is nothing like a divorce settlement. Notice that you failed to address the response and instead only addressed the fact that you don’t know how to read therefore I must have had my feelings hurt.

You used the “example” as your literal premise. While choosing to ignore that I’ve already addressed the core premise in my original statement. I distinctly said in an unedited post “or other cost”. So either you’re making an argument out of something that was already addressed, or you’re premise was your argument and you were using it as evidence otherwise. Which I’ve shown you is not accurate.

I took no offense, and frankly don’t give a shit about your stance on the matter. You’re arguing something that is already addressed and didn’t bother to actually include anything that argues otherwise to what I’ve already stated. Divorce isn’t a successful analog to the public’s right to vote someone into office, it’s only a successful analog to “civil cases can have more than monetary requirements”… which I never said it couldn’t and already addressed in my original statement.

Clear enough for you princess?

I never said it couldn’t have more than a monetary penalty… (this was the point of the “other cost” I referenced in the previous post by the way… almost like I already accounted for this!)

Divorce is a good example or that for sure. I agree. However divorce cases are not a substitute for a persons right to hold an office. The spouses share the duty of caring for the child. A divorce is an agreement that is filed with the courts on who will take which responsibilities for the child (or if they continue to be shared). The court does not get to unilaterally choose any decision except when both parties are in a disagreement and then can only make a decision based on the “best” outcome for the child. This has NO similarity to taking away the public’s right to vote someone into office.

I am not a lawyer but neither are you.

Thank god you’re not. But you have no idea what I am, nor what my knowledge encompasses. Nor does one have to be a civil lawyer to understand your argument falls flat.

Cool then have him incur a financial or other cost to those he did wrong against. The government should not be able to take forcible action against anyone without a criminal conviction. Once again… If you take this away from someone just because you don’t like them (Since you have no basis for any actual convictions at this point) then you are opening yourself up to the same from the other side. Don’t open this can of worms for them. Let the orange man run (and lose). The left simply has to put up someone who is even mildly competent to win (please god not geriatric Biden).

He’s not been charged with insurrection in any court case brought to him. If you want him to lose the right to run for president, charge him and find him guilty. A random court just declaring things without due process is as anti-American as it gets. Otherwise nothing stops every state from declaring random actions of the other party as an “insurrection” and disqualifying candidates from the other party.

I see this as partially trump’s fault.

I suggest you change your mind. You are attributing GOOD to Trump… TSA finally doing anything other than security theater is a huge step forward for them.

In case you’ve forgotten… https://onemileatatime.com/tsa-fails-tests-95-percent/

While I agree that Trump has a really dumb take here…

Hasn’t basically every other country already violated the agreement by not paying their share into it?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-which-countries-pay-their-share-defence

Out of 30 NATO countries, only a few actually pay what they promised…

I’ve received mail back with “not at this address” written on it.

Your postmaster/carrier likely just sucks.

Ukraine launched a revenge attack as they claimed themselves.

Yep, that’s called “war”.

But like I said… find me a source that actually says anything otherwise and I’m sure we’ll all listen. Otherwise, unless you were there yourself and saw where the missile launched from, your opinion is irrelevant.

Newspapers can publish more than news… There’s also flyers for the local supermarket chain in there as well… Chicken being on sale this weekend isn’t particularly news either. Oh and also comics… Are the comics news too?

So this article about Russia bombing itself is not news worthy because Ukraine bombed them too? I’m not sure I’m following your logic here.

If you have a better news source that disproves this event occurred I’m sure we’re all ears.

if you said “incompetent army” almost everyone would think of the Russian army.

Now… yes. A few years ago? No.

This is actually good… and really really bad at the same time. We now know that Russia really isn’t a military threat… But… that means that they’ll have to fall back to stupid shit like WMDs much faster if something was to actually break out that wasn’t just a “3 day special operation” against what amounts to a relatively weak country (no offense to any Ukranians in the room).

So who’s winning the current 3 day special operation that totally isn’t a war?

Edit: And by win, I mean who’s sustained more losses? Who’s lost more ground? Who’s conscripting more people?

They’re taking 2 months of wages forcibly by holding him!

This is exactly why this is a terrible idea from the get-go. This will just embolden every state to pick and choose who they want on a ballot.

Edit: Just to add onto the point a little bit… Take note of how many red states there are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

Now imagine that 100% of them now push Blue off the ballots all together. And the ones that are light, could force a dark reddening, Blue would NEVER win an election ever again. Just letting a court choose to define what happened on Jan 6 as an insurrection leaves this problem on the table. It’s also against the American motto of Innocent until proven guilty to just let a court decide that without trial and jury. None of the current cases against Trump have the “insurrection” as a charge, so he’s never been guilty of it… including the impeachment. Find him guilty, like the southern office holders, then you have a case. But jumping the gun like this just makes you all look looney tunes and opens the doors to all sorts of abuse that WILL NOT work in your favor.

You mean like the impeachment or any of the trials we’ve had for his criminal behavior?

The insurrection-based charges were dropped from every single one…