2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
let's get biden to drop kamala and take on trump as vp, who says no?
Lol, california is a powerhouse becauae its a boss in agriculture, the epicenter of tech and has the weather and every type of landscape that people want.
Haha CovidJoe. Never forget that he got a bunch of elderly people infected pre-vaccine bc he was scared of Bernie and then after the election more people died due to his policies than during Trump.
It's almost like it was a complete hoax.
Well if he stays in after this we can give him the Stick-to-it-iveness Award. No call here.
Get that man a purple heart ASAP
Well there is a version of something like this that could actually happen...
An Electoral College tie and the current map has a potential tie.
The House of Representatives elects the President from the three (3) Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. So with a GOP majority right now you get Trump.
The Senate elects the Vice President from the two (2) Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. So with a Dem majority you get Harris.
Trump / Harris in the white house in 2024.
yeah i mean it's like Karl said. the actual dumpster fire states are mississippi, arkansas, oklahoma, alabama, louisiana... wonder what they all have in common.
I bet if you look at most countries, the inland states/provinces are the worst off economically.
Do you know where I can find an up-to-date map? Every one I find seems to be defective.
You sure were. But at least you got 2/5.
Michelle for VP? Gavin? Gretch? Clooney?
Double female ticket
It's ok if you think those specifically mentioned states are in good geographic locations. Maybe that's subjective.
LOL. Dude, you chose to only cite "inland states" when elaborating on why they were in shitty geographic locations. When it's pointed out to you that 3 of the 5 states are in fact coastal states, it's OK to admit the error, or explain that 2 of them are but the other 3 are shitty because of X. Take the L and move on, no big deal, we all **** up sometimes and have a good laugh about it. But to come back with "It's ok if you think those specifically mentioned states are in good geographic locations", when I've said no such thing, is pretty weak.
LOL. Dude, you chose to only cite "inland states" when elaborating on why they were in shitty geographic locations. When it's pointed out to you that 3 of the 5 states are in fact coastal states, it's OK to admit the error, or explain that 2 of them are but the other 3 are shitty because of X. Take the L and move on, no big deal, we all **** up sometimes and have a good laugh about it. But to come back with "It's ok if you think those speci
make sure the hill you're on isn't too sloped or you might die on it. Gulf Coast FTW.
It's not 1899. California turning red isn't going to turn it into a shithole just like turning Mississippi blue is going to turn it into an economic powerhouse. People migrate where they want to live their life and where they can work. It's a completely different ballpark if Mississippi were to produce the oil of texas or if Silicon Valley was somewhere else, or where the olds would want to live when they retire and can afford to live anywhere under specific stringent climate conditions that they desire that would also help fund that area's economy.
The excuses u always try to provide for the deplorable maga , always try to point the finger at something or someone but themselves , it’s fine .
But at least do it with factual arguments ?
We already have so much bs arguments by some posters , I know you are not one of them but you don’t have to imitate them either.
It’s wild to see Jewish people talking about Israel/Gaza at the RNC like 1. You’re not speaking to the ‘Jews will not replace us’ crew and 2. I’m not really sure what more you think biden could have done considering a majority of Dems literally despise him because of blanket support of Israel
The excuses u always try to provide for the deplorable maga , always try to point the finger at something or someone but themselves , it’s fine .
But at least do it with factual arguments ?
We already have so much bs arguments by some posters , I know you are not one of them but you don’t have to imitate them either.
Google helps. Of course instead of doing it yourself you ask others to do it for you. Waste of time. You're a leech of society. You should try contributing to it.
Are inland cities worse off economically than coastal cities?
Inland cities can indeed face economic disadvantages compared to coastal cities. Here are some reasons why:
Accessibility and transportation: Coastal cities tend to have better connections to global trade routes, making it easier for goods to be transported in and out of these cities. This can lead to a larger share of the global economy and more economic opportunities. In contrast, inland cities may have to rely on more expensive and time-consuming transportation methods, such as trucks or trains, which can increase costs and make it harder to compete with coastal cities.
Trade and commerce: Coastal cities often have a more diverse economy, with a larger number of industries and businesses that are connected to international trade. This can lead to a more stable and robust economy, as well as more job opportunities for residents. Inland cities may have a more limited range of industries, which can make them more vulnerable to economic downturns.
Tourism and recreation: Coastal cities often have a significant tourism industry, which can bring in a large amount of revenue and create jobs. Inland cities, on the other hand, may have fewer natural attractions and be less popular with tourists, which can limit their economic potential in this area.
Climate and natural resources: Coastal cities may have a more favorable climate and access to natural resources, such as fish and ports, which can be important for industries like fishing, shipping, and manufacturing. Inland cities may lack these resources, which can make it harder for them to develop certain industries.
Education and workforce: Coastal cities often have access to more highly educated workers and universities, which can attract businesses and create a skilled workforce. Inland cities may have a more limited pool of educated workers, which can make it harder for them to attract and retain businesses.
Here are some statistics that illustrate the economic differences between coastal and inland cities:
GDP per capita: Coastal cities generally have a higher GDP per capita than inland cities. For example, in the United States, the coastal cities of San Francisco and New York have GDP per capita figures of around $150,000 and $120,000, respectively, while the inland city of Indianapolis has a GDP per capita of around $60,000.
Unemployment rates: Coastal cities tend to have lower unemployment rates than inland cities. In the United States, for example, the coastal cities of San Francisco and Seattle have unemployment rates of around 2-3%, while the inland city of Indianapolis has an unemployment rate of around 4%.
Population growth: Coastal cities tend to experience faster population growth than inland cities. According to the United States Census Bureau, the coastal cities of New York and Los Angeles have seen population growth rates of around 5-7% over the past decade, while the inland city of Indianapolis has seen a population growth rate of around 1%.
Home prices: Coastal cities generally have much higher home prices than inland cities. For example, the median home price in San Francisco is around $1.5 million, while in Indianapolis it's around $200,000.
Job opportunities: Coastal cities tend to have more job opportunities in certain industries, such as technology, finance, and media. According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, the coastal cities of San Francisco and New York account for over 50% of the nation's job growth in the technology sector.
Commuting times: Coastal cities tend to have longer average commuting times than inland cities. According to the United States Census Bureau, the average commuting time in San Francisco is around 33 minutes, while in Indianapolis it's around 23 minutes.
If you're not here for the lols you're missing out greatly
