MSNBC Anchor: Dems Should Recruit Voters to Move to Rustbelt States

You'd have to move them in herds so they could keep echoing and virtue signaling to each other to keep their Lib topped off. Without that constant stream of batshit crazy to keep them fueled they tend to regress back to normal people or just wither away completely.
 
I dunno about moving, but I'm still waiting to find the sign up sheet for some of that sweet sweet Soros paid protest money I keep hearing all about.
 
It's the natural response to aggressive gerrymandering.

You redraw districts to exclude certain voters then the counter move is to move the voters into the new districts.
 
Lefties all rustled up in this thread.
 
isn't that where all the alleged racists and sexists live?
how will they ever survive amidst such turmoil?
 
It's the natural response to aggressive gerrymandering.

You redraw districts to exclude certain voters then the counter move is to move the voters into the new districts.
They would just re gerrymander

It's funny how people on the right don't want to talk about something that is actually broken
 
Edit: Disregard original post. Thread title is full of shit.
You say there is a big difference between "recruiting" and "paying" voters to move 1000s of miles away, so how do you propose the Party would accomplish this without compensating the voters?
 
Um dude .....she said recruit not pay


But I guess that title wouldn't rile up righties
You say there is a big difference between "recruiting" and "paying" voters to move 1000s of miles away, so how do you propose the Party would accomplish this without compensating the voters?
 
The difference words make
You say there is a big difference between "recruiting" and "paying" voters to move 1000s of miles away, so how do you propose the Party would accomplish this without compensating the voters?
 
You say there is a big difference between "recruiting" and "paying" voters to move 1000s of miles away, so how do you propose the Party would accomplish this without compensating the voters?
When it actually happens and isn't just something one talking head blurted out get back to me
 
When it actually happens and isn't just something one talking head blurted out get back to me

You implied that the thread title was somehow dishonest. Do you really think 10s of thousands would pack up and move from sunny California to freezing Michigan to try to help a Party win? The only way this could happen is with $$$.
 
You say there is a big difference between "recruiting" and "paying" voters to move 1000s of miles away, so how do you propose the Party would accomplish this without compensating the voters?

They wouldn't do it at all. It was empty talk from an empty head. The kind of thing someone might vacantly suppose would be beneficial to their side of the divide. However, there's a wide chasm between having that thought and having an actionable plan.

When I read your initial thread title I related to it as a businessman who spends a great deal on sales and marketing activities every year. My thought was - that CAN'T be a serious proposal as the ROI would be abysmal and light years worse than hundreds of other avenues they could take with their money. The segment was purely idle chit chat to fill air time and, not only will it not happen, liberals will continue to further segregate themselves in coastal enclaves - the other panelists told you as much.
 
Last edited:
You implied that the thread title was somehow dishonest. Do you really think 10s of thousands would pack up and move from sunny California to freezing Michigan to try to help a Party win? The only way this could happen is with $$$.
Implied... no it is dishonest, you made it up .
It's misleading asinine title to a shite thread
 
Implied... no it is dishonest, you made it up .
It's misleading asinine title to a shite thread
Your brain is incapable of making logical inferences. I feel so sorry for you.
 
Back
Top