[Only One Man]

The most conservative countries on earth are in the middle east and Africa. I don't know of too many people that are dying to live there.

[Going strong]

(07-11-2018 09:36 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 06:35 PM)MajorStyles Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 02:23 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

There is a particular type of (profoundly hypocritical) people who annoy me: the so-called Liberals, who choose very Conservative cities to relocate and live in.

That applies to their travel plans as well. I know a young liberal couple that just took their first trip outside the US. So where did they go...Burkina Faso? Bolivia? Hell to the no! They went to Spain and Portugal.

Hypocrisy is the name of their game.

Do conservatives visit Mexico on their vacations, because so many Christians live there? Nah, they're actively trying to build a wall to keep those people out. Talk about hypocrisy.

The Wall ("big, beautiful") has little to do with normal Mexicans, and nothing to do with religion. Have you ever talked with (regular, employed) Mexicans about the Wall, by the way? Because they are against illegal migrations and drug traffickers, and in favor of the Wall.

The Wall is to keep at bay the illegal migrants who have crossed Mexico (on a train) in order to illegally enter the USA, and those are usually not Mexicans; they are from other Central American countries (Guatemala, Honduras, mara land...), or even from further afield (middle east, Africa: Mexico is a new migratory route).

The Wall is also and mostly against drug dealers; are you claiming that good Christians should allow drug dealers to enter our lands?

By the way, many Conservatives do go on holiday to Mexico; how do you think Baja California and Yucatan are making a living? And Mexicans, FYI, are Conservative people, with very harsh Mexican laws on illegal migrations. The Mexican police being famous for its, er, heavy-handed approach to illegal migrants.

Personally, I think that Conservatives are choosing their travel destinations wisely, in general, across the world. Asia, South America (barring Venezuela-Bolivia), EE or Central Europe, Spain (a very Conservative, stern people, except for Barcelona), all are good destinations, making sense.

[marcusdivincenzo]

(07-11-2018 02:25 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

https://hollowverse.com/albert-einstein/

Quote:

Political Views
Einstein was a great advocate of democracy, freedom, and equality. He was often at odds with whatever political malaise he found himself in from opposing the Nazis while in Germany to opposing the creation of the Jewish state as a Jew to advocating for socialism in the U.S.

After looking back in time at those who were considered liberal I can't get on board with your train of thought. A common notion is that liberals are far more creative than conservatives, without them our quality of life would not be what it is today.

Rather than drawing lines in the sand between us and them society needs to figure out how to work together.

There are thousands more examples of "liberals" who have made enormous contributions to humanity. For example, Stephen Hawking, Google founders, film-makers like Spielberg.

Putting people into groups such as "liberals" is actually part of the Leftist ideology which has produced misery countless times in the 20th Century. In reality, people are individuals and groups/labels don't help you determine the value of the person. Someone with bad politics is not worthless. Everybody is flawed in some way.

The right frame for "working together" and flourishing as a civilization is to ruthlessly attack bad ideas like a specific policy, but not condemn the person or group.

[nomadbrah]

Einstein was a big time racist and a staunch zionist in addition to being a communist.

He was a jewish subversive, which is nothing like a real "liberal".

A liberal is not a "progressive", which is also just a made up word. The jewish media made up the words "liberal" and "progressive", because socialist and marxist wouldn't fly in the US, but that's what they are.

A real liberal is someone like a hippy, who goes off to live in a commune, but pays their own way and don't try to force their beliefs on others.

[ChicagoFire]

The wall is to show the rest of the world that America is a nation with STRONG borders. Yeah yeah people can theoretically still smuggle drugs with turtles from Cuba, blah blah that's not the point.

If you hop the border over OUR wall you're ILLEGAL!!!! You broke the law and are not entitled to our welfare system. If you even traffick drugs that's also illegal! If you murder anybody that's also illegal! You're not undocumented or whatever silly word games liberals want to use. Any liberals that believe nations shouldn't have borders should announce to everybody in a 5 mile radius that their door is unlocked. Use hashtag #NoBordersNoDoors to let everybody know that valuables and possessions are also meaningless.

(07-12-2018 01:34 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

Snip

[Redcloud]

(07-12-2018 01:34 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

The Wall is also and mostly against drug dealers; are you claiming that good Christians should allow drug dealers to enter our lands?

Brother I don't know if you're being facetious, but the wall has nothing to do with drug dealers.

You think modern day Escobar is sending fucking Pedro & Juan with balloons of 1g of heroin in their stomachs across the border into Texas? As his main supply line? Give me a break. These guys are substantially more sophisticated, and a wall will never stop them. That is complete delusion.

The only thing that will stop drug dealers coming across the border is if Americans stop buying drugs. Both conservatives and liberals buy a shit ton of drugs, so building a wall is really nothing more than political grandstanding and designed to impress those that are easily swayed.

Drug dealers aren't fucking stupid. But, Americans who think a wall will stop drugs certainly are ignorant to how the world works.

And yes, I have talked with Mexicans about the wall. Like most gringo ideas, they think it's stupid and most of them (rightly) think your boy in the WH is a joke for proposing such a ham fisted idea.

[Disco_Volante]

(07-12-2018 09:27 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

Like most gringo ideas, they think it's stupid

Guess they can give back the automobiles, electrical grid, cell phones, water purification systems, light bulbs, penicillin, toothpaste, and every other innovation "gringos" gave to them. Up until the 1980s most of Mexico didn't even have potable water.

I fear being stuck with their civilization as much as they do. That's why they need to be kept out.

[Redcloud]

(07-12-2018 09:41 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Up until the 1980s most of Mexico didn't even have potable water.

And yet people have lived there just fine for thousands of years. All without the help of the sanctimonious white man. Go figure.

[Contagion]

(07-12-2018 01:34 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

The Wall ("big, beautiful") has little to do with normal Mexicans, and nothing to do with religion. Have you ever talked with (regular, employed) Mexicans about the Wall, by the way? Because they are against illegal migrations and drug traffickers, and in favor of the Wall.

The Wall is to keep at bay the illegal migrants who have crossed Mexico (on a train) in order to illegally enter the USA, and those are usually not Mexicans; they are from other Central American countries (Guatemala, Honduras, mara land...), or even from further afield (middle east, Africa: Mexico is a new migratory route).

The Wall is also and mostly against drug dealers; are you claiming that good Christians should allow drug dealers to enter our lands?

GoingStrong, I agree with your ideas that I've seen you post on here. But this statement is wrong. Most of the people who have come here legally and illegally are Mexicans. Yes, there are many Central Americans that come too and a few South American countries have their fair share of representation, but by and large it's been Mexicans coming to the USA if we are looking at this from a 20 or even 30 year span.

Republicans and democrats, they both opened the floodgates. Democrats for votes and republicans for cheap labor.

In my opinion the wall, in and of itself, isn't there to stem the flow in any meaningful numbers. The wall is more symbolic than anything, basically saying that there will be law and order in this country once again. When the wall is combined with harsh laws that go after employers and welfare, it's a powerful symbol.

Here's some migration history for the United States, and keep in mind this is only legal immigration. When you look at these numbers, it's easy to see why Americans are so pissed about this situation. We are becoming Mexico 2.0.

This presents a big problem because a group of people has entered into our country at a rate that does not allow for proper assimilation.

Here are the historical immigration statistics and keep in mind, this does not take into account the millions and millions of illegals that have come into the country, with the vast majority being Mexicans:

[Barron]

Some well-articulated quotes in this vid

"The rootlessness of the modern liberal is intimately connected to their ideological fence guarding in a positively reinforcing feedback loop:
She leaves home for a strange new locale, loses touch with everyone before her, then finds new friends at work, bar crawls, or expediently through shared housing. Each move in her life brings more severing of social connections and greater stress finding and stringing together replacements. Family connections most often being surrendered for good. There's very little organic or authentic thread tying together the nomadic shitlib with her new sets of friends."

"Into this toxic atomization, the one binding vector strong enough to overcome the disintegration of traditional social and family bonds, is ideology. A fevered, frantic, hysterical attachment to ideology becomes the substitute for natural bonds. And the liberal leans on ideological identification. In herself and in those that would be unwittingly auditioning for inclusion in her social circle, to screen for friends who would meet the lowest standard in friendship - someone who won't irritate her with an opposing viewpoint."

"This is why the shitlib friendship and similarly romantic relationships in the big blue cities are typically superficial, transient and transactional. The only common ground is hatred of X and how one votes. When ideology is the foundation of a friendship, those mystic unspoken bonds of reassuring familiarity get twisted into a grotesque facsimile of affinity. One based on an overweening insistence of ideological compatibility and purity. With nothing else to connect them to each other, the liberals rely on ideology to shoulder the burden of standing in for the missing authenticity."

"But woe to the friend who steps out of line one day and utters a deplorable bit of crime-think through the bottom of a cocktail glass. When ideology is the glue, a trivial difference of opinion on a point of order can feel like a gross betrayal."

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(07-12-2018 09:27 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 01:34 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

The Wall is also and mostly against drug dealers; are you claiming that good Christians should allow drug dealers to enter our lands?

Brother I don't know if you're being facetious, but the wall has nothing to do with drug dealers.

You think modern day Escobar is sending fucking Pedro & Juan with balloons of 1g of heroin in their stomachs across the border into Texas? As his main supply line? Give me a break. These guys are substantially more sophisticated, and a wall will never stop them. That is complete delusion.

The only thing that will stop drug dealers coming across the border is if Americans stop buying drugs. Both conservatives and liberals buy a shit ton of drugs, so building a wall is really nothing more than political grandstanding and designed to impress those that are easily swayed.

Drug dealers aren't fucking stupid. But, Americans who think a wall will stop drugs certainly are ignorant to how the world works.

While it's completely true that the wall won't stop drugs because the expanding degeneracy of the American population fuels its demand for them, the wall still has plenty of other uses. Unlike a bale of cocaine here and there, humans are a lot harder to smuggle through well-protected borders, not to mention even harder to maintain in the country illegally (if that country knows what it's doing).

#buildthewall #MAGA

[Going strong]

(07-13-2018 09:43 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 09:27 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 01:34 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

The Wall is also and mostly against drug dealers; are you claiming that good Christians should allow drug dealers to enter our lands?

Brother I don't know if you're being facetious, but the wall has nothing to do with drug dealers.

You think modern day Escobar is sending fucking Pedro & Juan with balloons of 1g of heroin in their stomachs across the border into Texas? As his main supply line? Give me a break. These guys are substantially more sophisticated, and a wall will never stop them. That is complete delusion.

The only thing that will stop drug dealers coming across the border is if Americans stop buying drugs. Both conservatives and liberals buy a shit ton of drugs, so building a wall is really nothing more than political grandstanding and designed to impress those that are easily swayed.

Drug dealers aren't fucking stupid. But, Americans who think a wall will stop drugs certainly are ignorant to how the world works.

While it's completely true that the wall won't stop drugs because the expanding degeneracy of the American population fuels its demand for them, the wall still has plenty of other uses. Unlike a bale of cocaine here and there, humans are a lot harder to smuggle through well-protected borders, not to mention even harder to maintain in the country illegally (if that country knows what it's doing).

#buildthewall #MAGA

I agree with HCE. Also, No-one said that the Wall would stop all drug trafficking. But the Wall will (be beautiful, and) limit, diminish the amount of drugs flooding in.

Because, I disagree that drug traffickers are high-tech. They still use quite basic, human-based methods. "Modern day Escobars" are still "sending fucking Pedro & Juan with balloons of 1g of heroin in their stomachs across the border into Texas", sadly. (Except those are not balloons of 1g, and it isn't heroin either. A balloon of one gram is not worth swallowing, even Pedro & Juan know that)

For example, they are failing in their attempts at using submarines (and submarines are no big deal in the 21st century). They still use, mostly, human mules, or the plain postal service: nothing high-tech. So, I would say that the Wall will hinder, like, 50 percent of their business activities.

And of course, the Wall will be a most-important symbol, that will resonate throughout the world. A symbol for a people (the American people of course) wanting to take his destiny back in control.

[thoughtgypsy]

Ultimately, I don't think anything concrete will be solved by limiting immigration based on political affiliation. I understand the frustration of having to put up with the hypocrisy of sanctimonious virtue signalers who jump ship as soon as they have to face the consequences of their wishes. But externalization of consequences is not unique to liberals. Have conservatives had to personally experience the political and financial instability that resulted from the bombing of Iraq?

It is easy to blame one side or another, but is this rush to make every scenario one with a good side and bad side helping or hurting? Are we attributing the blame where it lies, or chasing our tails?

What is the fundamental issue?

People desire security in their romantic, financial, and environmental lives. That has been a universal part of human nature throughout history. Have things gotten better or worse in the past century?

We have witnessed the downfall of domestic industries, the evaporation of full time jobs, the growth of hurdles to small business formation, and the increase of cost of living. Western countries have shifted to rentier economies where the top 1% own all the assets, and the rest become debt serfs with no job security. The smart get out or position themselves accordingly, but the common man suffers.

We have witnessed the complete breakdown of good will and cooperation between men and women. The obesity rate has pushed most women outside the realm of attraction, and what women remain are ruthlessly competed among by the masses of single men. False rape accusations are a sword of damocles perpetually hovering above the heads of men, who are living in a state of silent terror in the fear they might one day come across a cluster B psychopath. The rates of psychological depression and invention of movements like MGTOW speak to the state of degeneracy we've reached.

We have witnessed the complete destruction of the nuclear family. The divorce rate in many western countries is hovering around 50%. The rate of people marrying has fallen, and the rate of family formation has collapsed. Strong, intact nuclear families are no longer the norm. Now there are pushes to allow prepubescent children to chop their balls off, and to take them away from their parents if they protest. Is this progress?

Note that this destruction of human needs has taken place at the helm of both liberal and conservative administrations. If there is much difference between Bush Jr. and Obama, I fail to see it. Also note that your average liberal and conservative have far more in common than they do with their favored politicians that rule over them.

If there is a solution to the current political environment, we have to understand the cause. Otherwise-- we will continue chasing the symptoms-- which gets us nowhere.

Does democracy function as it was sold to us?
We are told that democracy is the ideal form of government, because it puts the power in the people. Further, that a free press ensures an educated electorate. Yet a simple assessment of democracy's performance will show us the opposite.

• The people possess no checks and balances on government. People elect "representatives" based on the promises they make. However, once they become elected, politicians can operate with complete impunity. If they violate their promises, they do not face fines or jail time, despite siezing power on false testimony. In reality, voters in a democracy hold effectively zero power.
• Those with money and power continue to control politics through money and power. Lobbyists will pay the right politicians to railroad through bills that serve their own interests. A 2014 Princeton study confirmed that the US operates as a de facto Oligarchy.
• Democracy is crushed by "democratic" nations when it does not align with the desired political goals. Some recent examples are the elections in Crimea and the Donbass, and the democratically elected Assad administration in Syria.
• You rarely get to vote on the issues that actually matter. Brexit will have little impact in the long run, and look at the political shit show it's created. The migrant crisis which has created a wave of crime and terrorism and created permanent demographic and cultural change across an entire continent was done without any consultation from the electorate. Some polls show that it is overwhelmingly unpopular.
  

In a democracy, people can vote, but what are the motivations behind their votes? The idea we are sold, and which soothes our egos, is that we're all open minded, rational, critical thinkers who are educated on a wide range of issues. But given the polarity of differences on such fundamental issues, this cannot be the case as a whole.

In reality, our beliefs and motivations are easily manipulated. They are a result of our social environment, our education, our biological and psychological need to be accepted within a social group, and our fears of social costs. Even before we are born, our social environment has been set, our parents have fully developed political and social views, our school has a specific set of values and agendas. And so does all of our as of yet unborn friends: who we will want to be accepted by, and who will want to be accepted by their parents, teachers, and the rest of society.

How social values control our lives
As I've discussed above, the social values and climate we're exposed to is set for us before we're even born. We are bombarded with the pressures of living up to the expectations of those around us, and adopting the "correct" viewpoints in order to function in a complex, modern society. Sometimes the "correct" viewpoint goes against our beliefs and our best interests, but we must signal loyalty to the "correct" view, otherwise we will face social and likely financial or violent repercussions.

An example which should be easy to recognize for those on this forum is that women will often launch false rape accusations when it benefits them. Even though this is easily proven from thousands of direct examples, this is tantamount to heresy, or crimethink in our era. It garners much the same reaction as would questioning the existence of God in front of the Spanish Inquisition.

Those who hold the view that "women will often launch false rape accusations when it benefits them" thus hold a viewpoint which is antithetical to that which is upheld as correct by society. By holding the wrong view, crimethinkers are subject to social isolation, shame, financial and career limitations, even legal sanctions, violence, or death.

Those who whole the "correct" view, even if it's demonstrably false, garner social status, a sense of moral superiority, greater social security and various awards or legal protections from the rest of society. Thus it's easy to see the system of incentive and decentive for policing "correct" viewpoints, even when they're wrong.

Is it annoying when a smarmy leftist is virtue signalling over an issue they personally don't have to face the fallout over? Absolutely, but ultimately, they are not the root cause of the issue, and blaming them will not solve anything in the long run.

There is an inherent split in mentality among different political affiliations, even between men and women. Different groups have different needs for security, for social cohesion, for the pursuit of truth and ideals over social upheaval, for the pursuit of personal rights over group rights. A collective tribe with millions of individual minds is something incredibly difficult to reconcile and unite. There will always be conflicting priorities.

But I would argue that this spectrum of needs has been weaponized so that those who both share the same inherent desires in life are tricked into a perpetual battle with each other, while their real opponents escape critique, even acknowledgement.

Our strings can be pulled in ways so that we believe we are the ones pulling them, that the strings do not even exist. Values and viewpoints can be pushed on to us without us realizing it.

The field of psychology has shown how easily manipulated we are. We are easily influenced by authority figures. We seek out information which affirms our beliefs rather than questions them (normalcy bias). We will remain in a burning movie theater if we see that everyone else isn't getting up from their seat. Some experiments like the Stanford prison experiment speak to the potential darkness and fragility of the human spirit.

The question is, where do we get our values and viewpoints from?

Who really controls Democracies?
In democracies, people vote for politicians who make policy. But where do the people get their values?

Edward Bernays, the father of the wildly successful advertising and public relations industry explains:

Quote:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

From this admission of Bernays, an insider who rubbed elbows in the true circles of power, we can see that much of our ideas are the result of an intentional manipulation from a few people who control the direction of society. Therefore, we should not blame the lone auto union worker or the middle America farmer who both ultimately want a life of peace and security.

What can we do?
Rather, we must place the blame where it lies. On the controlled press, on the intelligence directors, on the corrupt politicians, on the complicit educators.

We must come together from the ground up with those who are mired in the same fallout that always gets thrown on the backs of the little guys, and shielded from the thugs. Even when it is excruciating to listen to each other, and even when no dialogue seems necessary.

I live in one of the most thin-skinned places on earth, where critique of bad government policy or broken promises is seen as an attack on the people itself. The politicians have successfully hoodwinked most people into having skin in their game, even when the people suffer from them.

I once made a critique about broken promises in government, about rife corruption and policies which will force the suffering of millions. The reactions I garner are usually something along the lines of me being an arrogant motherfucker, or accused of being in bed with the inept and corrupt thieves of a previous administration.

The first instinct is to lash out at them, to point out their stupidity and lack of critical thinking. Or to troll them and bask in the schadenfreude. But this accomplishes nothing. I've found it's much more constructive to to take a deep breath and walk away for a moment, and to return with.

"My brother, why are we sitting here attacking each other, when we are both suffering under this horrible oppression? I know the pain and anger you suffer at the crimes against the people committed by the previous administration, because I suffer them to. I know the hope you have for a brighter future for your loved ones, because I am just a normal guy who wants it to.

We had the same hope of the previous admin, but look where they took us. They want to use our hope as a weapon to attack each other when we point out the error of their ways, and a shield which they can use to escape justice when they attack us. Let's not get caught up in their tricks to turn us against each other time and again, because we know they live in their ivory towers while we struggle to survive.

We must watch vigilantly for their attacks against the people, and do what we can to help band together and help each other. They want to break us apart. Look at where the world is going. At every turn, communities are being dismantled, families are being destroyed, while the state gathers more and more power against us. Time has shown that no matter the government, the politicians escape punishment for their crimes while the people suffer. We share the same fate, So let's work together.

If you need a favor brother, I'll be there. If you need to be heard, or a voice of support, I'll be there. There is no justice, just us. It is easier to tear down than it is to build. But we can do it together. Let's build a better future for all of us."

[HornyRamone]

(07-12-2018 02:49 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Einstein was a big time racist and a staunch zionist in addition to being a communist.

He was a jewish subversive, which is nothing like a real "liberal".

A liberal is not a "progressive", which is also just a made up word. The jewish media made up the words "liberal" and "progressive", because socialist and marxist wouldn't fly in the US, but that's what they are.

A real liberal is someone like a hippy, who goes off to live in a commune, but pays their own way and don't try to force their beliefs on others.

The horrors of the French Revolution, communism and modern social justice say otherwise.

[Capitan Pescanova]

(07-10-2018 09:35 AM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

The USA is lucky in a sense that doesn't expend as much money on subsidies and allowance as in other parts of europe. Where I am from, is almost impossible for a conservative party to win in certain locations since most immigrants live on welfare and a lot of leftist get generous unemployment benefits. Besides, they usually live in rural areas with 99% of white population so they don't care about immigration.

[TigerMandingo]

Politics aside, does anyone honestly wanna live in the conservative areas of the US? You're telling me that Nebraska, Idaho and the Florida panhandle are great places to make money and meet hot bitchez?

[Adonis]

(07-16-2018 09:27 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Politics aside, does anyone honestly wanna live in the conservative areas of the US? You're telling me that Nebraska, Idaho and the Florida panhandle are great places to make money and meet hot bitchez?

Depends on what you're after. Partying and racking up notches, maybe not the best places but if you're looking for a quality girl to wife up and impregnate or to raise a family then absolutely. After all that is what these liberals are doing. They start families and buy houses, then vote for tax increases -for the children!- until it all becomes untenable then they move somewhere less onerous and proceed to do the same thing. My plan to relocate to Idaho in <2 years is on track. I wrote up a North Idaho Data Sheet (thread-57286.html), the big cities down south like Boise will be more mainstream. Politics are of course on a sliding scale, going from CA/NY to NE is excessive but CA/NY to a big city in TX or FL is very common.

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

(07-16-2018 09:27 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Politics aside, does anyone honestly wanna live in the conservative areas of the US? You're telling me that Nebraska, Idaho and the Florida panhandle are great places to make money and meet hot bitchez?

Most of the shitty laws in the US are set at the state level. Consequently, the best spots here for a young, single guy are generally going to be major metro areas in red states. Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, Raleigh, Tampa, Phoenix, etc. (I'll caveat that by saying that I only have direct personal experience in about half of those cities, but they all fit the mold of what I'd look for.) That's even more true if you don't have the "fuck you" money needed to fully take advantage of the advantages of a place like NYC (SF is a great place to visit but wouldn't want to live there long-term, Chicago is by far the best of the blue state cities but still inferior to the red state cities as a long-term home IMO).

Of course once you decide to start raising a family then places like Idaho might start to get more attractive--depends on your priorities. Other areas to consider (if you can make money there) are college towns, specifically places that aren't major metro areas themselves but are host to major flagship state universities in red states--places like Norman (Oklahoma), Athens (Georgia), Bloomington (Indiana), Champaign (Illinois). These places are packed with 18-25 year old women, usually punch well above their weight in terms of cultural offerings and entertainment, and often are located an hour or so from a major city (albeit often a tier 3/4 city).

While most shitty laws are set at a state level, many places also have state pre-emption at least for important things like gun laws and taxes--what this means is that, no matter how much they might like to, the ultra-blue mayor and city council of say Houston can't restrict concealed carry inside the city limits.

There are some leftist agendas the city government does have the power to implement, but these tend to be fairly trivial--stuff like tranny bathrooms (not defending that, just saying it has little impact on our day-to-day lives), passing city council resolutions resisting Drumpf, etc. The big and important thing they can control at the city level is the school system but again that has no real impact on a single guy--just make sure to move outside the city when you have kids of your own, unless you have the coin to send them to a private school (or have your wife home school them).

[for.petes.sake]

(07-10-2018 03:26 AM)Contagion Wrote:  

It's simple. They are fleeing from the shitty environments that they helped to create in the first place by their votes at the ballot box.

You can apply this to any political agenda, in any state.

For example, lets take the issue of taxation in California.

California was once a red republican state. Liberals moved en-masse to California. They then voted in leftists politicians who raised the taxes.

Before long, the left gained power and went further and further to the left on economic taxation policies. This resulted in California having, to this day, a shitty tax environment that nobody who makes decent money wants to be a part of.

As a result, the liberals who moved en masse to California got tired of the high taxation policies that the politicians they voted into office enacted.

So, what did they do? They fled their new shitty tax environment to red conservative states that have lower taxes.

And what did they do when they firmly established residence and became eligible to vote in their new state?

They now vote in leftist politicians who raise the taxes.

As the left gains power and goes further and further to the left on economic policies, the same liberals who voted in the politicians who enacted high taxation policies, will eventually get tired of said taxation policies.

And what will they do?

They will flee their new shitty tax environment to red conservative states that have lower taxes.

And the cycle will repeat itself.

A shithole is a shithole for a reason.

I think this poster had perfectly summed it up.

I would also add how once a place becomes a shithole place it will forever remain a shithole do to leftist politicians. Leftist politicians will first allow huge amounts of immigration (even from countries where people have hardline views that clash with their liberal policies e.g gay marriage ). They do this in order to increasing their voter base. In order to keep this immigrant happy they give out or increase freebies such as welfare or child tax. This also allows their voter base to grow exponentially (have you guys noticed those Somali welfare queens with 8 kids?). This is easy to do for the politicians since they just increase taxes on the taxpayer (since its not coming out of the politicians pocket). They keep bringing in immigrants as it grows their voter base. Once the immigrants have become a significant population (not majority since there is leftist white people who vote for their policies) they sit back and relax as they can stay in power forever. California will never turn back republican but we must be scared for Texas.

Its a sad reality but leftist politicians do not care for anyone except for themselves. They will do anything to stay in power and do not care how it affects the taxpayer

[a beer is enough]

Of all the creatures on this planet, the American Liberal has been quite the enigma for me. Claiming to care for minorities and darker skinned individuals while living in the least diverse parts of town, the hatred towards the right which results in usage of some of the most under-handed tactics imaginable and I always thought to myself about circumstances that would create a being so passionate about his message and the hatred he holds.

After really getting to know these people, I came across a theory for why they are how they are, what fuels them. What these people want to do is schematically ruin the very society they feel wronged them or didn't give them what they deserved. In their very heart, most American liberals are envious people who feel that they deserved more.

When the liberal raises taxes in his state, ruins it economically, welcomes illegal immigrants with an open arm and claims to fight for some righteous cause, it is done with a sense of hatred and envy towards those who have it easy such as the "1%".

In American politics, no creature is as Machiavellian as the liberal.

Pay close attention to how passionately a liberal defends those he sees as being wronged, a practical person would wonder why anyone who is privileged would care so much about people he sees as being wronged. A lot of this is done out of a sense of envy towards the very people the liberal believes had it better than him growing up. The "victim" is simply a tool for the liberal to use as a weapon against people he sees as privileged, because all along that was it, it wasn't anything to do with injustice but the fact that he wants revenge on people he thinks had it easier than him growing up.

Initially this starts as a portrayal that their message is the right message and anyone who disagrees is a racist/sexist/bigot etc. After that it slowly turns into a sense of grandiosity, the inability to admit that they can ever be wrong. Now comes the final step, the need for expansion on that very sense of grandiosity.

Deep down inside, liberals know just how bad their policies can be but they are okay with this, that was their plan all along. Now it isn't just enough that California becomes a third world country, the entire country must become a third world country.

Notice the kinds of people that typically join the liberal coalition: cucks, lesser attractive women and the people who typically wouldn't get good treatment from society based on their appearance and image.

Liberals don't fight for "victims" out of a kind heart, they fight for "victims" out of a sense of hatred towards those they see it as having better than them. The cuck hates the tall handsome slayer with a loving wife and beautiful family, so now masculinity is attacked. The feminist isn't really mad at women being objectified, she is mad that no one ever objectified her.

[godfather dust]

Beer is enough I've had similar thoughts. Leftists are people who got bullied in school, and rather than get over it make it the core of their identity (see pussy boy chinless faggot nerds in Silicon Valley for examples.)

[Shemp]

Older middle class Republican voting and self identifying conservative property owners are ultimately the biggest proponents of immigration and high taxes on everything except property because such policies drive up property prices, while keeping wages moderate. This is true everywhere in the developed world. The "liberals" fleeing California are wage slaves who never had any real power in California and won't have any real power in the red states. Power is always mostly in the hands of wealthy property owners. These property owners would love to have their red states turn into California because California has very high property prices and that's all property owners care about. (Okay, I'm exaggerating a little, though not a lot.)

The solution is to replace taxes with perverse economic incentives (income and sales taxes, taxes on improvements to land) with taxes that are either positively good (tax on land itself, plus other land-like things such as telecom spectrum, trademarks, etc) or neutral (poll taxes). Problem is, everyone hates the good and neutral taxes because everyone really wants passive or near passive income and the good and neutral taxes attack passive income. In particular, a 10% tax on land value would drop California housing prices by 70% to 90%. Welcome turn of events for young and poor people, who usually vote Democratic and identify as liberal, but horrifying for older property owners.

If people were punished instead of rewarded financially every time their real property values (which is mostly land value in California) went up, there would be an immediate stop to immigration and an end to all these cries for economic growth, and property owners would welcome population reduction in crowded places like coastal California, Japan, Netherlands, England, etc.

Where do these ideas fit in your liberal-conservative division of the world? They don't. Propose land and poll taxes and everyone hates you, even though these taxes are ultimately to everyone's advantage. Poll taxes are so hated that the US constitution outlaws them, though they still exist in hidden form because they are so superior to the alternatives (jury duty; military draft; fees for drivers licenses, passports, library cards etc that are not income adjusted; all these are hidden poll taxes).

[BlueMark]

@Shemp I'll also add that California's problems are not mainly due to liberal policies per se, but to poor urban planning. Many liberals there aren't economically literate enough to find the root problem or inquisitive enough to look elsewhere for solutions (Asia for example).

Here's one example of how existing laws make homes less affordable that doesn't fit into the left/right political spectrum:
https://sf.curbed.com/2018/12/3/18123435...e-kim-vote

Quote:

In the 1950s, the Planning Code established minimum parking requirements for new buildings. Beginning in 1973, the City has reduced or streamlined minimum parking requirements in various San Francisco zoning districts as a strategy to reduce traffic ·congestion, encourage the use of sustainable transportation modes (walking, cycling, and transit), and reduce housing and building costs.

[...] Eliminating minimum parking requirements in all zoning districts City-wide will further these goals.

Yet how many California liberals (or conservatives, or moderates) are even aware that such laws exist, much less understand their effect on home prices in California?

[Sp5]

Fortunately, there's an objective measure of how desirable a place is to live and where people want to move to.

It's called "the housing market." People are willing to pay $$$ more to live in a "liberal" city. The demand to live in New York City, Boston, San Francisco is higher than for Oklahoma City, Phoenix, etc. Not that there are many "conservative" cities, "conservatives" tend to live in suburbs or exurbs.

As for "values" and looking for a woman to wife up and have kids with in "red" states, that's a joke to anyone who has prowled the country and western bars of the south and southwest. 10x easier to pick up a ONS in those places than bars in "liberal" cities. Including married women.

The divorce rate is higher in those places, too, so plenty of MILF divorcees doing the line dances.

The exception is Utah / Salt Lake City which is a special case because of Mormonism. It would be a good place to find a wife but you would have to be Mormon.

[redpillage]

(07-16-2018 09:27 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Politics aside, does anyone honestly wanna live in the conservative areas of the US? You're telling me that Nebraska, Idaho and the Florida panhandle are great places to make money and meet hot bitchez?

You may have to revise your priorities, brother. I love money and hot bitches as much as the next guy, but the road we are heading down will lead to decades of pain and suffering for all of us (no matter what color or race by the way).

For what European Whites are concerned in my mind retrenchment into the Pacific North West is the only viable option. Let's hope that the purported Solar Minimum is either bullshit or will end up milder as anticipated or we are royally fucked.