And that piddly amount spent reached 120+ million people, damn good return for the investment.
And that piddly amount spent reached 120+ million people, damn good return for the investment.Was enough to brainfuck you.
I don't even use facebook or twitter.... lolWas enough to brainfuck you.
This reads like some aborted haiku you fucking retard.
And that piddly amount spent reached 120+ million people, damn good return for the investment.
It’s coming, or are you claiming the ads didn’t reach that many people?I don't even use facebook or twitter.... lol
Do any of you people make anything resembling arguments!?
Then we should hire Putin, eh!? Best marketing manager in history!!!!
Do you think if I gave him a half million, he could make me POTUS!?
PS: Where is that evidence btw!?!?
Okay big boy, show me the evidence...
Okay big boy, show me the evidence...
I suggest you visit a thread on two on that topic. Even a compact summary of this evidence is beyond the scope of this thread or any one post. If you want a brief highlight, take a look at Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russian lawyer and the e-mails exchanged prior to that meeting. They establish that the Russian government was working to help Trump win the election and that they were offering dirt on Clinton to the Trump campaign.
You might also want to look at the staggering number of lies that Trump and his people have told about their contacts with Russia, and ask yourself why they have told so many lies. And no, I'm not going to bother cataloging all the lies for you. Any discussion of this issue must presume you have kept up on current events or you shouldn't be stating an opinion on this topic to begin with.
All of that is the tip of the iceberg for anyone who is actually informed on this topic.
The evidence is coming!?It’s coming, or are you claiming the ads didn’t reach that many people?
Edit: no putin couldn’t get you elected unless you’re as famous as trump which I seriously doubt.
So you believe Mueller is a dem/rino stooge?The evidence is coming!?
ROFL!!!
In other words, it doesn't exist, but you vehemently believe it's true anyway...
ROFL!!!
Clinton-led? It's the incredibly powerful banks that wanted this just at the end of his terms. Of course the sage we all looked to back then, Alan Greenspan, played a role. Bill made a calculation between money for the democratic party (and himself) and the damage it could cause. He was dead wrong. The banks under Bush, along with his bank-friendly appointments, finished the job. Lesson for today's leader?with the Clinton-led repeal of Depression-era Glass-Steagall regulations
The evidence is coming!?
ROFL!!!
In other words, it doesn't exist, but you vehemently believe it's true anyway...
ROFL!!!
No, my analogy is fairly accurate. Research, technology, freeways, dams, waterworks, ports and infrastructure...all the things that drive the California economy, were the result of federal investments.
The federal government did not make similar investments in the deep south or rust belt due to basic geography and the impact of globalization.
The stubborn denial of federal funds by red states is a more recent neo conservative stigginit dynamic.
LOL! Bullshit! Double dog bullshit with a side of…bullshit. TVA, ARC, missile plants, space centers, military bases, flood walls, waterways, DOE plants, dams, dams, and a few more dams, the feds poured endless funds into developing the south.No, my analogy is fairly accurate. Research, technology, freeways, dams, waterworks, ports and infrastructure...all the things that drive the California economy, were the result of federal investments.
The federal government did not make similar investments in the deep south or rust belt due to basic geography and the impact of globalization.
The stubborn denial of federal funds by red states is a more recent neo conservative stigginit dynamic.
I don't even use facebook or twitter.... lol
That's fair. Space Coast, Houston and Huntsville were all vibrant economic centers at the height of the Cold War and space race. Also worth noting that the more rural or neglected parts of California, like Bakersfield, Oxnard and Riverside, share more in common with rural Alabama than Los Angeles or San Francisco.LOL! Bullshit! Double dog bullshit with a side of…bullshit. TVA, ARC, missile plants, space centers, military bases, flood walls, waterways, DOE plants, dams, dams, and a few more dams, the feds poured endless funds into developing the south.
They are the beneficiaries of disproprortionate federal investments, so they really have no grounds upon which to complain that the rest of the country expects a return on that investment.
On the issue of "research and technology" your analogy certainly fails because it is based on at least two false premises. First, it assumes that federal dollars magically transformed into scientific discoveries and technological advancements, while the Californians who performed the research and developed the technologies were just passive recipients of monetary handouts who did nothing. Second, it assumes that other states were equally capable of taking advantage of this federal money but were somehow unfairly denied the money. This was not the case.
The real reason that these states were ill equipped to take advantage of these opportunities was because higher education, particularly in hard sciences, isn't culturally valued as much in red states as it is in blue states. Higher levels of religiosity are one very likely reason. California took advantage of the opportunities because the scientists and engineers were already there. No matter how much federal research money you throw at a state like Kentucky or Arkansas, they aren't going to be at the pinnacle of research and technology.
On the issue of infrastructure, you'll need to cite a source that California has historically received federal infrastructure money out of proportion to its physical size and population. You'll need to show a pretty significant disparity there, especially given that 3/4's of all infrastructure money comes from state governments, both now and in the past.
I'm not aware that this was the case, which doesn't mean it wasn't. I just want to see a source.
Are you kidding!? Reddit is a hive mind of Clintonites parroting Russiagate bullshit on a constant basis.None of it seeped over into Reddit. Couldn't be.
His point is the Ca received an assload of money from the US govt to build up it's infrastructure, which in turn allowed it to become one of the biggest economies in the world.They are not. California gives more to the federal coffers than it gets. Where did you hear this nonsense?
The US economy is broadly built on metro areas, most of which are in the northeast or the west coast.
The notion of federal investment is far too abstract and elusive. All that infrastructure just willed itself into existence.Are you kidding!? Reddit is a hive mind of Clintonites parroting Russiagate bullshit on a constant basis.
Maybe you can give me an example of the Russian ads though!?
I mean you don't have any evidence of anything else, but surely you can link me to a single ad, right!?
EDIT: Didn't think so...
His point is the Ca received an assload of money from the US govt to build up it's infrastructure, which in turn allowed it to become one of the biggest economies in the world.
Why are the scientists and engineers in California already? Because of the weather? Doesn't explain the concentration of similar people in the Boston metro area, where the weather is absolute sh!t.On the issue of "research and technology" your analogy certainly fails because it is based on at least two false premises. First, it assumes that federal dollars magically transformed into scientific discoveries and technological advancements, while the Californians who performed the research and developed the technologies were just passive recipients of monetary handouts who did nothing. Second, it assumes that other states were equally capable of taking advantage of this federal money but were somehow unfairly denied the money. This was not the case.
The real reason that these states were ill equipped to take advantage of these opportunities was because higher education, particularly in hard sciences, isn't culturally valued as much in red states as it is in blue states. Higher levels of religiosity are one very likely reason. California took advantage of the opportunities because the scientists and engineers were already there. No matter how much federal research money you throw at a state like Kentucky or Arkansas, they aren't going to be at the pinnacle of research and technology.
On the issue of infrastructure, you'll need to cite a source that California has historically received federal infrastructure money out of proportion to its physical size and population. You'll need to show a pretty significant disparity there, especially given that 3/4's of all infrastructure money comes from state governments, both now and in the past.
I'm not aware that this was the case, which doesn't mean it wasn't. I just want to see a source.
I don't even use facebook or twitter.... lol
Do any of you people make anything resembling arguments!?
Then we should hire Putin, eh!? Best marketing manager in history!!!!
Do you think if I gave him a half million, he could make me POTUS!?
PS: Where is that evidence btw!?!?
Are you kidding!? Reddit is a hive mind of Clintonites parroting Russiagate bullshit on a constant basis.
Maybe you can give me an example of the Russian ads though!?
I mean you don't have any evidence of anything else, but surely you can link me to a single ad, right!?
EDIT: Didn't think so...
Why are the scientists and engineers in California already? Because of the weather? Doesn't explain the concentration of similar people in the Boston metro area, where the weather is absolute sh!t.
Do none of you people play Civ? Cities formed around things that were geographically advantageous at the time they formed. Access to ports, waterways and in some cases spontaneous hubs of economic activity like the gold and oil rushes. Hubs of economic activity and cities tend to go hand in hand, followed by the formation of centers for higher learning.
Most red states were on the wrong side of history relative to the Civil War and also got the shaft during Reconstruction. How is it that the United States was able to transform both Germany and Japan into model democracies yet the underlying frustrations in places like Alabama and Mississippi are beyond comprehension?
The red state religiousness and aversion to higher education is the political exploitation of effect, not cause.
Have you seen the Big Short? The Housing crisis and inflated housing market that persists to this day are complements of federal support to insanity enabled by states like California and NY. California, despite its utter rejection of Trump, still saw it fit to request a $100B piece of the infrastructure pie Trump promised to deliver.
Comparison leads to envy, envy leads to hate.When you have to go all the way back to the civil war, and beyond, to the geological evolution of the planet, to excuse why the southern states are doing so poorly, then you have a problem. I'll grant that you can find a deterministic causal sequence traceable backwards in time to the formation of the universe to explain why any given thing is the way it currently is. But we're getting far afield of the context of this discussion.
The context is this. People on the left bring up the fact that blue states pay the majority of taxes while red states take the majority of services for two related reasons. First, because conservatives incessantly complain bout paying taxes which then get spent by the government to benefit the less fortunate. This is tough for liberals to swallow when it's the blue states paying the majority of the taxes while the red states are getting most of the benefits. Liberals don't mind the idea of this at all. In fact, we support it in concept. But when the primary beneficiaries of it do nothing but complain about the idea of this wealth transference, do not expect liberals to sit quiet and not bother to point out the irony and the hypocrisy.
Second, because of the cultural animus that conservatives have toward blue states, you often hear them saying things like they wish California would secede and leave the country. These idiots appear to have no idea that 15% of the nations food supply, including almost half the fruits, vegetables and dairy is grown here, and that the most rapidly expanding US industry, IT, has its nexus here, and it benefits the entire country. The US is starting to lag technologically behind countries like China precisely because modern conservatives oppose using tax dollars the way the Chinese do to maintain our technological edge. But at least we have Silicon Valley, in spite of conservatives, not because of them. Perhaps conservatives shouldn't be maligning something which is such a tremendous benefit to all of us, including them.
The simple fact is that, no matter the distant historical reasons, red states need blue states a lot more than blue states need red states. Perhaps we wouldn't feel the need to rub their noses in it if they didn't hate us so much.